Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

[Hollie]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

Yours is the standard, stereotypical “gods of the gaps” pleading. They’re all the same. They’re all so grindingly predictable. Because there is a gap in our understanding of how the universe began, “the gawds did it”. The debunking of ID’iot creationist pseudoscience doesn't require anything beyond holding ID’iot creationers to a standard of demonstration and peer review. There is no mystery why the ID’iot creation ministries don’t publish in and peer reviewed scientific journals; that’s because those journals have better things to do than resolve arguments such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

There is nothing to suggest that any collection of supernatural gods had anything to do with the material realm. Matters of science do not address magic and supernaturalism.hand. The religious motivations underlying appeal to supernatural designer gods is self evident. So the question becomes: Can ID’iot creation appeals to supernaturalism be reformulated in a manner which would make it non-religious and scientifically relevant? The answer is no.

What makes a belief in GOD religious? Religion is man's vain attempts to appease GOD. Christianity is strictly a relationship between GOD and man. If someone has a personal relationship with someone else, there are connections that transcends disbelief that that individual doesn't exist. GOD is a spirit and therefore isn't material. Can you show me the wind, or only point to what the wind does?

It’s naive to claim that Christianity is strictly a relationship between GOD and man. The archaic rituals, beliefs, instilled fears and coercion go much deeper than a relationship.

 

[Hollie]

What's he's saying is that it's unbelievable that everything came about by accident or due to science, therefore a 'god' of some description must have been responsible. In his case it is probably the Christian god, as opposed to the plethora of other gods. However, when you point out the fact that if you take that to its logical conclusion - ie, well, where did the god come from? - that's where the hypocrisy comes in. "Oh, he always was". To which I say, "oh, right. So when it suits you, something can come from nothing, but when it fucks up your narrative, then there had to be some supernatural being involved." No wonder religion is slowly going the way of the Dodo.

What Dr Grump is apparently saying is that something has not necessarily always existed; hence, the cosmos just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness or that science(?!) caused everything to exist.

crickets chirping

By the way, what, precisely, is this science thingy that caused everything else to exist before, mind you, this science thingy existed?

You want to rewrite that mindless gibberish, sport, or are you just going to let it hang out there for God and everybody else to see just how foolish you are?

Beside the ignorant comments you made, I have never read where anyone suggested that ''science'' caused anything to exist. Science is a process of discovery. Science has no powers to magically / supernaturally cause something to exist as you claim your gods have.

While you're thumping your Bible, I would advise that a book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men. Similarly, your claims to a version of polytheistic gods are mere unsubstantiated claims until you can offer something connecting your gods to anything in the natural, rational world.

The Bible is the most influential book to ever exist. If GOD didn't author it, I don't know who could have. JOB Chapter 38
The LORD Challenges Job

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the tornado and said:

2 “Who is this who obscures My counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Now brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall inform Me.

4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.

5 Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its foundations set, or who laid its cornerstone,

7 while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 Who enclosed the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,

9 when I made the clouds its garment and thick darkness its blanket,

10 when I fixed its boundaries and set in place its bars and doors,

11 and I declared: ‘You may come this far, but no farther; here your proud waves must stop’?

12 In your days, have you commanded the morning or assigned the dawn its place,

13 that it might spread to the ends of the earth and shake the wicked out of it?

14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its hills stand out like the folds of a garment.

15 Light is withheld from the wicked, and their upraised arm is broken.

16 Have you journeyed to the vents of the sea or walked in the trenches of the deep?

17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?

18 Have you surveyed the extent of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this.

19 Where is the way to the home of light? Do you know where darkness resides,

20 so you can lead it back to its border? Do you know the paths to its home?

21 Surely you know, for you were already born! And the number of your days is great!

22 Have you entered the storehouses of snow or observed the storehouses of hail,

23 which I hold in reserve for times of trouble, for the day of war and battle?

24 In which direction is the lightning dispersed, or the east wind scattered over the earth?

25 Who cuts a channel for the flood or clears a path for the thunderbolt,

26 to bring rain on a barren land, on a desert where no man lives,

27 to satisfy the parched wasteland and make it sprout with tender grass?

28 Does the rain have a father? Who has begotten the drops of dew?

29 From whose womb does the ice emerge? Who gives birth to the frost from heaven,

30 when the waters become hard as stone and the surface of the deep is frozen?

31 Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loosen the belt of Orion?

32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear and her cubs?

33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set their dominion over the earth?

34 Can you command the clouds so that a flood of water covers you?

35 Can you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?

36 Who has put wisdom in the heart or given understanding to the mind?

37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Or who can tilt the water jars of the heavens

38 when the dust hardens into a mass and the clods of earth stick together?

39 Can you hunt the prey for a lioness or satisfy the hunger of young lions

40 when they crouch in their dens and lie in wait in the thicket?

41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God as they wander about for lack of food?

What makes you think any of the gods authored the Bible? I agree that there are authors unknown who wrote portions but there’s no indication that the gods wrote anything.

The gods didn't author the Bible. GOD authored the Bible. I honestly cannot find any fault with the Bible. It is a perfect book. Only God could write a perfect book.

You have provided no indication that the gods wrote any books. Is there any part of the Bible that magically appeared without human authorship?

 

[LittleNipper]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

I may have neglected to mention that when it comes to the creation of the universe, I'm agnostic. Since I don't know, or at least don't understand, what happened before the BB I can't say there is not a Creator. I really have no evidence either way. Logic is great, solid evidence is much better.

However, when it comes to the God of the OT/NT, I'm an atheist. I see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No supernatural intercessions required. If there was a Creator, he built the clock and set it in motion but has not intervened since.

You're still not grasping the reality of things.

You do not see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No one does! By solid evidence, you apparently mean empirical (or scientific) evidence. All of the evidence—logical, mathematical and empirical—point to an absolute beginning of the physical world at large, which includes vacuum energy. Vacuum energy, which necessarily preceded any cosmological structure and the astronomical constituents thereof, is subject to the very same dynamics of entropy! The BB and the prevailing cosmological structure, whether it be a universe or a multiverse, is utterly irrelevant to that reality. In other words, the unsettled science only pertains to the chronological order of cosmological structure. Nothing else!

Everybody who understands the science and the ramifications thereof, knows that the physical world at large, which, once again, includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past. The likes of Carroll, despite his attempt to rhetorically obscure this reality relative to the unsettled science, knows this as well. Guth, whom Carroll implicitly misrepresented knows this. Guth was merely alluding to the commonsensical observation that while in all likelihood our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, that contention cannot be scientifically ascertained and that he personally believes that others have existed in the past (in terms of a series of universes) or do exist now (in terms of multiverse). Carroll was just trying to imply that Craig did not understand that in the debate you cited. Despicable! Craig understands the possibility of that just fine. Craig, though he believes it's improbable, does not deny that possibility at all. No one who understand the science does.

Now, what do you think the prevailing scientific opinion holds regarding that which immediately preceded the physical world at large? Hint: it's immaterial in substance, and scientifically informed atheists, agnostics and theists all agree that it necessarily preceded vacuum energy.

Evidence usually means, you know, real evidence, testable evidence, material evidence as opposed to the “... because I say so”, claims of religioners.

"Because I say so", claims the Evolutionists and the Uniformitarianists, and the Abiorgenisists. "Where's the band?" asks Mayor Shinn

To suggest that the biological sciences are some grand conspiracy is a bit over the top. Biological evolution is perhaps the best supported and demonstrated theory in science.

What I know is that no Creationist, no matter how intelligent, nor what University he or she may have attended, nor what grades and or awards garnered ----- an evolutionist will deem him or her unfit to even teach science, let alone head a science department. Which would seem entirely unjust, given the reality that no one can change the past no matter how it originated. Believing that man evolved from a worm, by way of an ape proves NOTHING --- if there is no experiment to replicate the process. HOWEVER, if the Creationist Christian would not stoop to steal the institution's property nor waste the institution's money playing games on the internet, nor drink while on the job, he might well develop something which would benefit society today and tomorrow.

 

[LittleNipper]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

Yours is the standard, stereotypical “gods of the gaps” pleading. They’re all the same. They’re all so grindingly predictable. Because there is a gap in our understanding of how the universe began, “the gawds did it”. The debunking of ID’iot creationist pseudoscience doesn't require anything beyond holding ID’iot creationers to a standard of demonstration and peer review. There is no mystery why the ID’iot creation ministries don’t publish in and peer reviewed scientific journals; that’s because those journals have better things to do than resolve arguments such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

There is nothing to suggest that any collection of supernatural gods had anything to do with the material realm. Matters of science do not address magic and supernaturalism.hand. The religious motivations underlying appeal to supernatural designer gods is self evident. So the question becomes: Can ID’iot creation appeals to supernaturalism be reformulated in a manner which would make it non-religious and scientifically relevant? The answer is no.

What makes a belief in GOD religious? Religion is man's vain attempts to appease GOD. Christianity is strictly a relationship between GOD and man. If someone has a personal relationship with someone else, there are connections that transcends disbelief that that individual doesn't exist. GOD is a spirit and therefore isn't material. Can you show me the wind, or only point to what the wind does?

It’s naive to claim that Christianity is strictly a relationship between GOD and man. The archaic rituals, beliefs, instilled fears and coercion go much deeper than a relationship.

It isn't naive at all. All the ritualism does nothing to gain salvation or a seat next to GOD. Atheist, agnostics, and pagans instill fear that the best this world has to offer is all there is ----- ever. So, what do we have to look forward to? Old age? An end to this pandemic? How about a year without an earthquake, or a tornado/hurricane, or a lightning strike, or a hail storm, or an epic blizzard, or a flood, or a volcanic eruption, or an asteroid headed our way?

 

[Hollie]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

I may have neglected to mention that when it comes to the creation of the universe, I'm agnostic. Since I don't know, or at least don't understand, what happened before the BB I can't say there is not a Creator. I really have no evidence either way. Logic is great, solid evidence is much better.

However, when it comes to the God of the OT/NT, I'm an atheist. I see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No supernatural intercessions required. If there was a Creator, he built the clock and set it in motion but has not intervened since.

You're still not grasping the reality of things.

You do not see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No one does! By solid evidence, you apparently mean empirical (or scientific) evidence. All of the evidence—logical, mathematical and empirical—point to an absolute beginning of the physical world at large, which includes vacuum energy. Vacuum energy, which necessarily preceded any cosmological structure and the astronomical constituents thereof, is subject to the very same dynamics of entropy! The BB and the prevailing cosmological structure, whether it be a universe or a multiverse, is utterly irrelevant to that reality. In other words, the unsettled science only pertains to the chronological order of cosmological structure. Nothing else!

Everybody who understands the science and the ramifications thereof, knows that the physical world at large, which, once again, includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past. The likes of Carroll, despite his attempt to rhetorically obscure this reality relative to the unsettled science, knows this as well. Guth, whom Carroll implicitly misrepresented knows this. Guth was merely alluding to the commonsensical observation that while in all likelihood our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, that contention cannot be scientifically ascertained and that he personally believes that others have existed in the past (in terms of a series of universes) or do exist now (in terms of multiverse). Carroll was just trying to imply that Craig did not understand that in the debate you cited. Despicable! Craig understands the possibility of that just fine. Craig, though he believes it's improbable, does not deny that possibility at all. No one who understand the science does.

Now, what do you think the prevailing scientific opinion holds regarding that which immediately preceded the physical world at large? Hint: it's immaterial in substance, and scientifically informed atheists, agnostics and theists all agree that it necessarily preceded vacuum energy.

Evidence usually means, you know, real evidence, testable evidence, material evidence as opposed to the “... because I say so”, claims of religioners.

"Because I say so", claims the Evolutionists and the Uniformitarianists, and the Abiorgenisists. "Where's the band?" asks Mayor Shinn

To suggest that the biological sciences are some grand conspiracy is a bit over the top. Biological evolution is perhaps the best supported and demonstrated theory in science.

What I know is that no Creationist, no matter how intelligent, nor what University he or she may have attended, nor what grades and or awards garnered ----- an evolutionist will deem him or her unfit to even teach science, let alone head a science department. Which would seem entirely unjust, given the reality that no one can change the past no matter how it originated. Believing that man evolved from a worm, by way of an ape proves NOTHING --- if there is no experiment to replicate the process. HOWEVER, if the Creationist Christian would not stoop to steal the institution's property nor waste the institution's money playing games on the internet, nor drink while on the job, he might well develop something which would benefit society today and tomorrow.

I’m afraid that Christianity, under the burqa of labels including, creation science, scientific creationism, biblical creationism, etc., have had their day in the courts and have been deemed to violate the constitution.

When creationists insist that man evolved from an ape, that should be your first clue why fundamentalist Christians have no place teaching in a science curriculum.

What would a Christian creationist develop? None of the Christian creationist ministries do research. They all have a “ statement of faith” that requires any teaching to conform to biblical principles.

 

[Hollie]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

Yours is the standard, stereotypical “gods of the gaps” pleading. They’re all the same. They’re all so grindingly predictable. Because there is a gap in our understanding of how the universe began, “the gawds did it”. The debunking of ID’iot creationist pseudoscience doesn't require anything beyond holding ID’iot creationers to a standard of demonstration and peer review. There is no mystery why the ID’iot creation ministries don’t publish in and peer reviewed scientific journals; that’s because those journals have better things to do than resolve arguments such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

There is nothing to suggest that any collection of supernatural gods had anything to do with the material realm. Matters of science do not address magic and supernaturalism.hand. The religious motivations underlying appeal to supernatural designer gods is self evident. So the question becomes: Can ID’iot creation appeals to supernaturalism be reformulated in a manner which would make it non-religious and scientifically relevant? The answer is no.

What makes a belief in GOD religious? Religion is man's vain attempts to appease GOD. Christianity is strictly a relationship between GOD and man. If someone has a personal relationship with someone else, there are connections that transcends disbelief that that individual doesn't exist. GOD is a spirit and therefore isn't material. Can you show me the wind, or only point to what the wind does?

It’s naive to claim that Christianity is strictly a relationship between GOD and man. The archaic rituals, beliefs, instilled fears and coercion go much deeper than a relationship.

It isn't naive at all. All the ritualism does nothing to gain salvation or a seat next to GOD. Atheist, agnostics, and pagans instill fear that the best this world has to offer is all there is ----- ever. So, what do we have to look forward to? Old age? An end to this pandemic? How about a year without an earthquake, or a tornado/hurricane, or a lightning strike, or a hail storm, or an epic blizzard, or a flood, or a volcanic eruption, or an asteroid headed our way?

I’m afraid that the floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc., that you describe are a part of nature and a reality that we all must face, religious or not. I would pose the question to you, though, why did the gods design the planet in such a way as to make those natural disasters a reality?

I’m not clear on why you believe that “atheist, agnostics, and pagans instill fear that the best this world has to offer is all there is”? Is there a reason why you believe you deserve more than your corporeal life? You appear to be equating belief in the supernatural as somehow providing a "meaning" for your life. The happenstance of your geographic place of birth, thus dictating the gods you were given, may provide a seeming “safe place” for your insecurities about the fragility of life. It may assuage your fear of dying. It’s true that most people are not content with being corporeal. A universe that doesn’t provide accommodation for our fears and frailties offers little comfort and security for those who have a compelling need to have their wishes granted that death is not the end of life. Equally unfortunate is that most people do not think beyond the paternal image of their gods, and they certainly do not think to examine the accepted claims of what defines most gods. They simply accept what they were given and proceed with the rituals, customs and beliefs associated with those gods.

 

[alang1216]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

I may have neglected to mention that when it comes to the creation of the universe, I'm agnostic. Since I don't know, or at least don't understand, what happened before the BB I can't say there is not a Creator. I really have no evidence either way. Logic is great, solid evidence is much better.

However, when it comes to the God of the OT/NT, I'm an atheist. I see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No supernatural intercessions required. If there was a Creator, he built the clock and set it in motion but has not intervened since.

You're still not grasping the reality of things.

You do not see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No one does! By solid evidence, you apparently mean empirical (or scientific) evidence. All of the evidence—logical, mathematical and empirical—point to an absolute beginning of the physical world at large, which includes vacuum energy. Vacuum energy, which necessarily preceded any cosmological structure and the astronomical constituents thereof, is subject to the very same dynamics of entropy! The BB and the prevailing cosmological structure, whether it be a universe or a multiverse, is utterly irrelevant to that reality. In other words, the unsettled science only pertains to the chronological order of cosmological structure. Nothing else!

Everybody who understands the science and the ramifications thereof, knows that the physical world at large, which, once again, includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past. The likes of Carroll, despite his attempt to rhetorically obscure this reality relative to the unsettled science, knows this as well. Guth, whom Carroll implicitly misrepresented knows this. Guth was merely alluding to the commonsensical observation that while in all likelihood our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, that contention cannot be scientifically ascertained and that he personally believes that others have existed in the past (in terms of a series of universes) or do exist now (in terms of multiverse). Carroll was just trying to imply that Craig did not understand that in the debate you cited. Despicable! Craig understands the possibility of that just fine. Craig, though he believes it's improbable, does not deny that possibility at all. No one who understand the science does.

Now, what do you think the prevailing scientific opinion holds regarding that which immediately preceded the physical world at large? Hint: it's immaterial in substance, and scientifically informed atheists, agnostics and theists all agree that it necessarily preceded vacuum energy.

"You're still not grasping the reality of things."

I'm sure that is true and I appreciate your trying to explain but at least I'm in good company.

Stephen Hawking: Before the Big Bang, he said, events are unmeasurable, and thus undefined. Hawking called this the no-boundary proposal: Time and space, he said, are finite, but they don’t have any boundaries or starting or ending points, the same way that the planet Earth is finite but has no edge.

If the pre-BB universe (or whatever) was undefined by Hawking don't expect me to understand it. I don't really care if there was a creator or not, I don't see that has having any effect on me one way or the other.

 

[BreezeWood]

What's he's saying is that it's unbelievable that everything came about by accident or due to science, therefore a 'god' of some description must have been responsible. In his case it is probably the Christian god, as opposed to the plethora of other gods. However, when you point out the fact that if you take that to its logical conclusion - ie, well, where did the god come from? - that's where the hypocrisy comes in. "Oh, he always was". To which I say, "oh, right. So when it suits you, something can come from nothing, but when it fucks up your narrative, then there had to be some supernatural being involved." No wonder religion is slowly going the way of the Dodo.

What Dr Grump is apparently saying is that something has not necessarily always existed; hence, the cosmos just popped into existence from an ontological nothingness or that science(?!) caused everything to exist.

crickets chirping

By the way, what, precisely, is this science thingy that caused everything else to exist before, mind you, this science thingy existed?

You want to rewrite that mindless gibberish, sport, or are you just going to let it hang out there for God and everybody else to see just how foolish you are?

Beside the ignorant comments you made, I have never read where anyone suggested that ''science'' caused anything to exist. Science is a process of discovery. Science has no powers to magically / supernaturally cause something to exist as you claim your gods have.

While you're thumping your Bible, I would advise that a book is simply that, a book. Until there is a way to connect a supernatural being with the authorship of a book, it's safe to assume that the book is, in fact, merely written by men. Similarly, your claims to a version of polytheistic gods are mere unsubstantiated claims until you can offer something connecting your gods to anything in the natural, rational world.

The Bible is the most influential book to ever exist. If GOD didn't author it, I don't know who could have. JOB Chapter 38
The LORD Challenges Job

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the tornado and said:

2 “Who is this who obscures My counsel by words without knowledge?

3 Now brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall inform Me.

4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.

5 Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its foundations set, or who laid its cornerstone,

7 while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

8 Who enclosed the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb,

9 when I made the clouds its garment and thick darkness its blanket,

10 when I fixed its boundaries and set in place its bars and doors,

11 and I declared: ‘You may come this far, but no farther; here your proud waves must stop’?

12 In your days, have you commanded the morning or assigned the dawn its place,

13 that it might spread to the ends of the earth and shake the wicked out of it?

14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its hills stand out like the folds of a garment.

15 Light is withheld from the wicked, and their upraised arm is broken.

16 Have you journeyed to the vents of the sea or walked in the trenches of the deep?

17 Have the gates of death been revealed to you? Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?

18 Have you surveyed the extent of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this.

19 Where is the way to the home of light? Do you know where darkness resides,

20 so you can lead it back to its border? Do you know the paths to its home?

21 Surely you know, for you were already born! And the number of your days is great!

22 Have you entered the storehouses of snow or observed the storehouses of hail,

23 which I hold in reserve for times of trouble, for the day of war and battle?

24 In which direction is the lightning dispersed, or the east wind scattered over the earth?

25 Who cuts a channel for the flood or clears a path for the thunderbolt,

26 to bring rain on a barren land, on a desert where no man lives,

27 to satisfy the parched wasteland and make it sprout with tender grass?

28 Does the rain have a father? Who has begotten the drops of dew?

29 From whose womb does the ice emerge? Who gives birth to the frost from heaven,

30 when the waters become hard as stone and the surface of the deep is frozen?

31 Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades or loosen the belt of Orion?

32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear and her cubs?

33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set their dominion over the earth?

34 Can you command the clouds so that a flood of water covers you?

35 Can you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’?

36 Who has put wisdom in the heart or given understanding to the mind?

37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? Or who can tilt the water jars of the heavens

38 when the dust hardens into a mass and the clods of earth stick together?

39 Can you hunt the prey for a lioness or satisfy the hunger of young lions

40 when they crouch in their dens and lie in wait in the thicket?

41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God as they wander about for lack of food?

What makes you think any of the gods authored the Bible? I agree that there are authors unknown who wrote portions but there’s no indication that the gods wrote anything.

The gods didn't author the Bible. GOD authored the Bible. I honestly cannot find any fault with the Bible. It is a perfect book. Only God could write a perfect book.

.

The gods didn't author the Bible. GOD authored the Bible. I honestly cannot find any fault with the Bible. It is a perfect book. Only God could write a perfect book.

.
triumph is purity and the single commandment from antiquity - there is nothing that exists that is perfect.

the only item claimed to be etched by the desert religion's god - are the tablets containing the "10 commandments".

where are those nipper - to compare with your 4th century christian bible - for authenticity. as for those in that book they can only be forgeries whether in fact or not as the originals as with all written passages of that book are without their original copies.

as to why they spent an entire century writing your book is proof alone of its invalidity and copious existence.

 

[LittleNipper]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

I may have neglected to mention that when it comes to the creation of the universe, I'm agnostic. Since I don't know, or at least don't understand, what happened before the BB I can't say there is not a Creator. I really have no evidence either way. Logic is great, solid evidence is much better.

However, when it comes to the God of the OT/NT, I'm an atheist. I see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No supernatural intercessions required. If there was a Creator, he built the clock and set it in motion but has not intervened since.

You're still not grasping the reality of things.

You do not see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No one does! By solid evidence, you apparently mean empirical (or scientific) evidence. All of the evidence—logical, mathematical and empirical—point to an absolute beginning of the physical world at large, which includes vacuum energy. Vacuum energy, which necessarily preceded any cosmological structure and the astronomical constituents thereof, is subject to the very same dynamics of entropy! The BB and the prevailing cosmological structure, whether it be a universe or a multiverse, is utterly irrelevant to that reality. In other words, the unsettled science only pertains to the chronological order of cosmological structure. Nothing else!

Everybody who understands the science and the ramifications thereof, knows that the physical world at large, which, once again, includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past. The likes of Carroll, despite his attempt to rhetorically obscure this reality relative to the unsettled science, knows this as well. Guth, whom Carroll implicitly misrepresented knows this. Guth was merely alluding to the commonsensical observation that while in all likelihood our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, that contention cannot be scientifically ascertained and that he personally believes that others have existed in the past (in terms of a series of universes) or do exist now (in terms of multiverse). Carroll was just trying to imply that Craig did not understand that in the debate you cited. Despicable! Craig understands the possibility of that just fine. Craig, though he believes it's improbable, does not deny that possibility at all. No one who understand the science does.

Now, what do you think the prevailing scientific opinion holds regarding that which immediately preceded the physical world at large? Hint: it's immaterial in substance, and scientifically informed atheists, agnostics and theists all agree that it necessarily preceded vacuum energy.

Evidence usually means, you know, real evidence, testable evidence, material evidence as opposed to the “... because I say so”, claims of religioners.

"Because I say so", claims the Evolutionists and the Uniformitarianists, and the Abiorgenisists. "Where's the band?" asks Mayor Shinn

To suggest that the biological sciences are some grand conspiracy is a bit over the top. Biological evolution is perhaps the best supported and demonstrated theory in science.

What I know is that no Creationist, no matter how intelligent, nor what University he or she may have attended, nor what grades and or awards garnered ----- an evolutionist will deem him or her unfit to even teach science, let alone head a science department. Which would seem entirely unjust, given the reality that no one can change the past no matter how it originated. Believing that man evolved from a worm, by way of an ape proves NOTHING --- if there is no experiment to replicate the process. HOWEVER, if the Creationist Christian would not stoop to steal the institution's property nor waste the institution's money playing games on the internet, nor drink while on the job, he might well develop something which would benefit society today and tomorrow.

I’m afraid that Christianity, under the burqa of labels including, creation science, scientific creationism, biblical creationism, etc., have had their day in the courts and have been deemed to violate the constitution.

When creationists insist that man evolved from an ape, that should be your first clue why fundamentalist Christians have no place teaching in a science curriculum.

What would a Christian creationist develop? None of the Christian creationist ministries do research. They all have a “ statement of faith” that requires any teaching to conform to biblical principles.

None of this means that Creationists or Creationism are wrong. It simply means that Christians have to apply faith and not rest on their laurels. Of course Creationists do research. For instance, how would they know for a fact that rock spewed out of a volcano say 50 years ago is just as likely to be analyzed and tested to by someone unacquainted with where the said rock was found to say it was 100's of thousands of years old ----- when in fact it is only 50. Misleading you say? Well, how is anyone absolutely sure of when something happened, if in fact they were not there. If someone cannot verify and establish a known fact without complete revelation, how can one then establish an unknown "fact" with any assurance... Creationists, certainly do not believe that man evolved from anything. He has always been humanoid and nothing else. It is evolutionists who insist man evolved from some lower life form --- call it what you will (it's just somatics ). I will tell you that I believed man and animals once had the capacity to live hundreds of years. How that may have affected their physiology is not known to me; however, I see no reason why it would not. The reason is that oxygen levels were higher, the temperature was more consistently warmer, and ultraviolet rays were likely weaker ---- then came THE FLOOD. And we have fossils to prove it. They were all formed in varying degrees of mud and water. And no matter want secular scientists are willing to divulge, there does appear to be a FLOOD layer that pretty much surrounds the entire earth. And frankly, the statement of faith is mainly to keep atheists from taking over as they have other institutions and then deny Creationists any access unless they capitulate to macro specie evolution.

 

[Hollie]

See "Genetically Modified Simpleton (GMS) Bumps His Head and Makes Baby Talk about the Fine-Tuned Argument" for my survey of the various, potential cosmologies.

You made my head hurt. I have to admit most of it went over my head but they all seemed like well reasoned, logical points. Unfortunately I don't recall any evidence to support the logic. Yes we're here but...

I still don't know how any of this logic solves the equation creator = God = Yahweh?

Sorry about that. I meant to tell you that you could skip past the first five sections to get at the survey of the potential cosmologies. The takeaway is that just as logic and mathematics tell us that a past eternal cosmos is impossible, so does science. Hence, the physical world (the material realm of being) began to exist in the finite past and, thus, has a cause of its existence.

So what is the nature of this cause? It cannot be of a material substance! It would have to be of a timeless, spaceless, immaterial, immutable and indivisible substance. Absorb that.

I may have neglected to mention that when it comes to the creation of the universe, I'm agnostic. Since I don't know, or at least don't understand, what happened before the BB I can't say there is not a Creator. I really have no evidence either way. Logic is great, solid evidence is much better.

However, when it comes to the God of the OT/NT, I'm an atheist. I see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No supernatural intercessions required. If there was a Creator, he built the clock and set it in motion but has not intervened since.

You're still not grasping the reality of things.

You do not see all the evidence pointing to a purely natural past. No one does! By solid evidence, you apparently mean empirical (or scientific) evidence. All of the evidence—logical, mathematical and empirical—point to an absolute beginning of the physical world at large, which includes vacuum energy. Vacuum energy, which necessarily preceded any cosmological structure and the astronomical constituents thereof, is subject to the very same dynamics of entropy! The BB and the prevailing cosmological structure, whether it be a universe or a multiverse, is utterly irrelevant to that reality. In other words, the unsettled science only pertains to the chronological order of cosmological structure. Nothing else!

Everybody who understands the science and the ramifications thereof, knows that the physical world at large, which, once again, includes vacuum energy, began to exist in the finite past. The likes of Carroll, despite his attempt to rhetorically obscure this reality relative to the unsettled science, knows this as well. Guth, whom Carroll implicitly misrepresented knows this. Guth was merely alluding to the commonsensical observation that while in all likelihood our universe is the one and only to have ever existed, that contention cannot be scientifically ascertained and that he personally believes that others have existed in the past (in terms of a series of universes) or do exist now (in terms of multiverse). Carroll was just trying to imply that Craig did not understand that in the debate you cited. Despicable! Craig understands the possibility of that just fine. Craig, though he believes it's improbable, does not deny that possibility at all. No one who understand the science does.

Now, what do you think the prevailing scientific opinion holds regarding that which immediately preceded the physical world at large? Hint: it's immaterial in substance, and scientifically informed atheists, agnostics and theists all agree that it necessarily preceded vacuum energy.

Evidence usually means, you know, real evidence, testable evidence, material evidence as opposed to the “... because I say so”, claims of religioners.

"Because I say so", claims the Evolutionists and the Uniformitarianists, and the Abiorgenisists. "Where's the band?" asks Mayor Shinn

To suggest that the biological sciences are some grand conspiracy is a bit over the top. Biological evolution is perhaps the best supported and demonstrated theory in science.

What I know is that no Creationist, no matter how intelligent, nor what University he or she may have attended, nor what grades and or awards garnered ----- an evolutionist will deem him or her unfit to even teach science, let alone head a science department. Which would seem entirely unjust, given the reality that no one can change the past no matter how it originated. Believing that man evolved from a worm, by way of an ape proves NOTHING --- if there is no experiment to replicate the process. HOWEVER, if the Creationist Christian would not stoop to steal the institution's property nor waste the institution's money playing games on the internet, nor drink while on the job, he might well develop something which would benefit society today and tomorrow.

I’m afraid that Christianity, under the burqa of labels including, creation science, scientific creationism, biblical creationism, etc., have had their day in the courts and have been deemed to violate the constitution.

When creationists insist that man evolved from an ape, that should be your first clue why fundamentalist Christians have no place teaching in a science curriculum.

What would a Christian creationist develop? None of the Christian creationist ministries do research. They all have a “ statement of faith” that requires any teaching to conform to biblical principles.

None of this means that Creationists or Creationism are wrong. It simply means that Christians have to apply faith and not rest on their laurels. Of course Creationists do research. For instance, how would they know for a fact that rock spewed out of a volcano say 50 years ago is just as likely to be analyzed and tested to by someone unacquainted with where the said rock was found to say it was 100's of thousands of years old ----- when in fact it is only 50. Misleading you say? Well, how is anyone absolutely sure of when something happened, if in fact they were not there. If someone cannot verify and establish a known fact without complete revelation, how can one then establish an unknown "fact" with any assurance... Creationists, certainly do not believe that man evolved from anything. He has always been humanoid and nothing else. It is evolutionists who insist man evolved from some lower life form --- call it what you will (it's just somatics ). I will tell you that I believed man and animals once had the capacity to live hundreds of years. How that may have affected their physiology is not known to me; however, I see no reason why it would not. The reason is that oxygen levels were higher, the temperature was more consistently warmer, and ultraviolet rays were likely weaker ---- then came THE FLOOD. And we have fossils to prove it. They were all formed in varying degrees of mud and water. And no matter want secular scientists are willing to divulge, there does appear to be a FLOOD layer that pretty much surrounds the entire earth. And frankly, the statement of faith is mainly to keep atheists from taking over as they have other institutions and then deny Creationists any access unless they capitulate to macro specie evolution.

When Christians and creationists insist on a young earth; literal accounts of events in the Bible, they are wrong. There is no question about that.

If, as you claim, creationists do research, identify the research labs and peer reviewed documents they have published. I think you need to be honest with yourself and others and understand that “research” being performed under a “statement of faith”, is simply a dishonest tactic that presumes and predefines conclusions.

Your comment about mis-dating rocks from volcanoes included no examples and nothing to indicate why a 50 year old sample would be mis-dated to hundreds of thousands of years old.

I think you may need to more deeply to consider your comment: “is anyone absolutely sure of when something happened, if in fact they were not there. If someone cannot verify and establish a known fact without complete revelation, how can one then establish an unknown "fact" with any assurance.”

While it may be your intention to apply the above exclusively to science, I see no reason to give religionists an exemption from the standards they insist must apply to science, only. Why does religionism get a pass?

My response to the above is that religionists have unquestioningly accepted the faulty claims of creationists without adequate investigation. The complete lack of any verifiable data that typically accompanies claims by creationers allows believers to accept those ludicrous ideas without even questioning them. Also, faith in a literal intrepretation of the Bible is so strong that you perceive real science as an attack on your belief. Religionists are looking for "scientific" reassurance that their beliefs are still valid. Your beliefs (especially of the eternal afterlife) are so important to you, and you are so terrified of losing them, that you are willing to accept the nonsense that creationists spout without checking that any of it is factual.

To suggest that humans could live for 900 years because the climate was different is not a convincing argument. Religionists claiming that ultraviolet rays were somehow screened out before the flood, allowing the fantastically long life-spans is not supported by any studies. Can you link to a creationer website that can provide some detail? I would suggest that incestuous / familial relations after the alleged flood would tend to shorten lifespans. Interestingly, the reported lifespans shorten from 900 years to 100 years in the several generations after the flood. Could the writers of the Bible have known about the affects of ultraviolet radiation and inbreeding would shorten lifespans and damage the species?

There is no evidence outside of accounts in the Bible that suggest people once lived as long as 900 years. There are no historical (or hysterical) records from the period in Egypt, the Maya civilization, China, or elsewhere that tell us of people having multiple century lifespans. I would suggest that some errors in transcription may have happened (though I don't know for sure), and the terms for "year" and "month" may have been garbled. Perhaps it’s more likely that 900 years was actually confused with 900 months, which would suggest a 75-year lifetime. That is still an exceptionally long lifetime by the standards of the period. The average lifespan of people during the time of Jesus is more like 50 years vs. today being 75 years. Oddly, evilutionist atheist modern medical science is credited with increasing lifespans.

What flood layer pretty much surrounds the entire earth?

There is an identifiable layer of material from the Chicxulub meteor impact of 65 million years ago but that presents a timeframe problem for religionists.