Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

[Ringtone]

Did you know i was agreeing with you? That there must be intelligent design, because babies are not just a bunch of cells that randomly come together.....

That post wasn't intended for you. I was trying to isolate alang's post. Disregard.

 

[Mac1958]

Science admits there's much it doesn't know. That's one of its neatest features -- it knows there's much to learn and discover.

Since no one can know the answer to this question, science will continue to ask questions.

Speak for yourself. I know God exists.

If you say so.

 

[alang1216]

The ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics tell us that God must be.

No they don't. Not even close.

Science affirms that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are reliable.

So man is never wrong? Every religion is true?

The physical world began to exist in the finite past.

Again, you don't know this. You already believe God is eternal.

 

[Briss]

The whole argument boils down to the question: Does matter spring forth from consciousness, or does consciousness spring forth from matter? Which seems more likely?

 

[Ringtone]

Science admits there's much it doesn't know. That's one of its neatest features -- it knows there's much to learn and discover.

Since no one can know the answer to this question, science will continue to ask questions.

Speak for yourself. I know God exists.

If you say so.

So you don't believe the imperatives of logic, physics and cosmology are true?

 

[Mac1958]

Science admits there's much it doesn't know. That's one of its neatest features -- it knows there's much to learn and discover.

Since no one can know the answer to this question, science will continue to ask questions.

Speak for yourself. I know God exists.

If you say so.

So you don't believe the imperatives of logic, physics and cosmology are true?

I don't claim to know where we came from.

I doubt that I will during my lifetime, and I can live with that.

 

[Ringtone]

The whole argument boils down to the question: Does matter spring forth from consciousness, or does consciousness spring forth from matter? Which seems more likely?

Logic and physics tells us that the physical world began to exist in the finite past. An actual infinite is an absurdity.

 

[Ringtone]

Science admits there's much it doesn't know. That's one of its neatest features -- it knows there's much to learn and discover.

Since no one can know the answer to this question, science will continue to ask questions.

Speak for yourself. I know God exists.

If you say so.

So you don't believe the imperatives of logic, physics and cosmology are true?

I don't claim to know where we came from.

I doubt that I will during my lifetime, and I can live with that.

No! This nonsense about you not knowing comes down to you not believing that these imperatives are true. An actual infinite is an absurdity. More to the point, the ramifications of the logical and mathematical imperatives of both metaphysics and physics are self-evident. The principles of eternalism and sufficient causation are self-evident. The physical world (nature) did not cause itself to exist before it existed. That's patently absurd on the very face of it. I don't believe in magic. You apparently do.

 

[alang1216]

An actual infinite is an absurdity.

Why so? Does space have a boundary of is it infinite? Didn't the laws of nature exist before our universe and our universe created within the existing laws of nature? Was there ever a time or place where 1 + 1 did not equal 2?

 

[PoliticalChic]

NO!

Yes!

Dennis Prager writes:

“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

 

[Hollie]

NO!

Yes!

Dennis Prager writes:

“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

There are obvious nonsensical claims in that “quote”.

Firstly, there was no “Big Bang”. The expansion of the universe was not a “Big Bang”. Secondly, the Bibles don’t describe anything about the beginning of the universe and certainly the notion of a 6,000 year old planet does not agree with science. Thirdly, nothing in the Bibles about humans as a last supernatural creation has any meaningful definition in science.

 

[Ringtone]

The ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics tell us that God must be.

No they don't. Not even close.

So you believe in magic?

____________

Science affirms that the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are reliable.

So man is never wrong? Every religion is true?

LOL! The ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics ultimately go to the universally objective principles of eternalism and sufficient causation, not to mere opinion.

They are always affirmed. They are never falsified.

When men disregard those imperatives and start mindlessly spouting slogans, rather than humbly following them to their incontrovertible conclusions . . . you know, thinking themselves to be wiser than the logic God put into their heads, they become fools in their vain, irrational imaginings.

So, no, the hackneyed notions of the polytheistic or pantheistic religions of the pagan world entailing created beings/forces of an eternally existing material substance are not true, and that has been readily self-evident to mankind via the imperatives of logic from the jump. Regarding the origin of the physical world, only the imperative of creatio ex nihilo of classical theism is affirmed by the logical and mathematical imperatives of metaphysics and physics!

___________

The physical world began to exist in the finite past.

Again, you don't know this.

Yes, I do, because the imperatives of logic and mathematics tell me it's true. An actual infinity is an absurdity. Hello! Knock Knock Anybody home?

You already believe God is eternal.

Behold the unwitting circularity of the atheist's mindset or that of the so-called agnostic who doesn't grasp the ultimate ramifications of logic and mathematics regarding origins. No, alang! Because you've been spouting slogans all of your unexamined life, rather than thinking things through, You have the order of rational apprehension backwards! The necessary principles of eternalism and sufficient causation precede the conclusion that God—i.e., an eternally self-subsistent, immaterial, immutable being of incomparable greatness—must be.

When you imply that God, who by definition, mind you, is necessarily an eternal being, is not necessarily an eternal being: are you saying that existence came into existence sans a sufficient cause, i.e., that it caused itself to exist before it existed?

Answer: Yes, indeed, you unwittingly are.

Magic.

LOL!

 

[Hollie]

It seems there is agreement that when one understands the ramifications of the first principles of fear and superstition, there is no reason to believe in any of the currently configured gods.

 

[Ringtone]

An actual infinite is an absurdity.

Why so? Does space have a boundary of is it infinite?

You need to rewrite the second question. I'm not sure what you're asking, but it doesn't seem that you understand what an actual infinite would be. Only potential infinities exist. God is not the concept of an actual infinite either, by the way.

What is the numeric value of infinity, precisely, in terms of mathematics and magnitude?

crickets chirping

If you really want to understand these things, read my refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's nonsense: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion . You must have a Youtube account and sign in before clicking on the link.

Didn't the laws of nature exist before our universe and our universe created within the existing laws of nature?

The laws of logic and mathematics are incontrovertibly true, but you don't believe that . . . except when you unwittingly do, when you assert anything intelligible, that is, anything discernibly true or false. The laws of logic and mathematics tell us that the laws of physics existed prior to the existence of nature. The physical world was created in accordance to and is bound by the preexistent laws of physics. Created within may be interpreted to mean something nonsensical or absurd.

Was there ever a time or place where 1 + 1 did not equal 2?

No.

 

[Ringtone]

NO!

Yes!

Dennis Prager writes:

“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

There are obvious nonsensical claims in that “quote”.

Firstly, there was no “Big Bang”. The expansion of the universe was not a “Big Bang”. Secondly, the Bibles don’t describe anything about the beginning of the universe and certainly the notion of a 6,000 year old planet does not agree with science. Thirdly, nothing in the Bibles about humans as a last supernatural creation has any meaningful definition in science.

Hollie, you pedantic nitwit, Prager knows that the term commonly used by laymen and scientists alike, by the way, regarding inflationary theory is not literally descriptive. LOL! And the Bible most certainly does assert creatio ex nihilo. You're such a ditz. Are you a blond?

Hollie

 

[Hollie]

NO!

Yes!

Dennis Prager writes:

“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

There are obvious nonsensical claims in that “quote”.

Firstly, there was no “Big Bang”. The expansion of the universe was not a “Big Bang”. Secondly, the Bibles don’t describe anything about the beginning of the universe and certainly the notion of a 6,000 year old planet does not agree with science. Thirdly, nothing in the Bibles about humans as a last supernatural creation has any meaningful definition in science.

Hollie, you pedantic nitwit, Prager knows that the term commonly used by laymen and scientists alike, by the way, regarding inflationary theory is not literally descriptive. LOL! And the Bible most certainly does assert creatio ex nihilo. You're such a ditz. Are you a blond?

Hollie
View attachment 441318

Oh, dear. It seems your feelings are hurt. If Prager knew the terms he was using, he would know enough to use the correct term. You and he both are quite unschooled in the sciences so it’s not surprising that you defended his ignorance. You both share a lack of education in the sciences. That’s not unusual for the angry, self-hating Bible thumpers.

 

[Ringtone]

NO!

Yes!

Dennis Prager writes:

“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

There are obvious nonsensical claims in that “quote”.

Firstly, there was no “Big Bang”. The expansion of the universe was not a “Big Bang”. Secondly, the Bibles don’t describe anything about the beginning of the universe and certainly the notion of a 6,000 year old planet does not agree with science. Thirdly, nothing in the Bibles about humans as a last supernatural creation has any meaningful definition in science.

Hollie, you pedantic nitwit, Prager knows that the term commonly used by laymen and scientists alike, by the way, regarding inflationary theory is not literally descriptive. LOL! And the Bible most certainly does assert creatio ex nihilo. You're such a ditz. Are you a blond?

Hollie
View attachment 441318

Oh, dear. It seems your feelings are hurt. If Prager knew the terms he was using, he would know enough to use the correct term. You and he both are quite unschooled in the sciences so it’s not surprising that you defended his ignorance. You both share a lack of education in the sciences. That’s not unusual for the angry, self-hating Bible thumpers.

I'm sorry, Hollie, but I just can't be seen talking to you anymore. You're just too obliviously unhinged and stupid. It's embarrassing.

 

[BlindBoo]

IMO no it does not suggest the existence or lack of existence of any of the Gods humans have believed in.

But I did ask mother nature that very question. She said nothing and just looked at me with those devine/evil eyes and half-smiled.

 

[Hollie]

NO!

Yes!

Dennis Prager writes:

“In my lifetime alone, science went from positing a universe that always existed to positing a universe that had a beginning (the Big Bang). So, in jut one generation [the Bible], in describing a beginning to the universe, went from conflicting with science to agreeing with science….[The Bible] should not violate essential truths (for example, it accurately depicts human beings as the last creation).”

There are obvious nonsensical claims in that “quote”.

Firstly, there was no “Big Bang”. The expansion of the universe was not a “Big Bang”. Secondly, the Bibles don’t describe anything about the beginning of the universe and certainly the notion of a 6,000 year old planet does not agree with science. Thirdly, nothing in the Bibles about humans as a last supernatural creation has any meaningful definition in science.

Hollie, you pedantic nitwit, Prager knows that the term commonly used by laymen and scientists alike, by the way, regarding inflationary theory is not literally descriptive. LOL! And the Bible most certainly does assert creatio ex nihilo. You're such a ditz. Are you a blond?

Hollie
View attachment 441318

Oh, dear. It seems your feelings are hurt. If Prager knew the terms he was using, he would know enough to use the correct term. You and he both are quite unschooled in the sciences so it’s not surprising that you defended his ignorance. You both share a lack of education in the sciences. That’s not unusual for the angry, self-hating Bible thumpers.

I'm sorry, Hollie, but I just can't be seen talking to you anymore. You're just too obliviously unhinged and stupid. It's embarrassing.

View attachment 441338

Yes, do run along. Your schoolboy antics prevent you from participating in any meaningful way.

 

[alang1216]

An actual infinite is an absurdity.

Why so? Does space have a boundary of is it infinite?

You need to rewrite the second question. I'm not sure what you're asking, but it doesn't seem that you understand what an actual infinite would be. Only potential infinities exist. God is not the concept of an actual infinite either, by the way.

What is the numeric value of infinity, precisely, in terms of mathematics and magnitude?

crickets chirping

If you really want to understand these things, read my refutation of Cosmic Skeptic's nonsense: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr5aMlaeI6J7FOrDc0kctDg/discussion . You must have a Youtube account and sign in before clicking on the link.

Didn't the laws of nature exist before our universe and our universe created within the existing laws of nature?

The laws of logic and mathematics are incontrovertibly true, but you don't believe that . . . except when you unwittingly do, when you assert anything intelligible, that is, anything discernibly true or false. The laws of logic and mathematics tell us that the laws of physics existed prior to the existence of nature. The physical world was created in accordance to and is bound by the preexistent laws of physics. Created within may be interpreted to mean something nonsensical or absurd.

Was there ever a time or place where 1 + 1 did not equal 2?

No.

Does space have a boundary or is it infinite?

Infinity is a concept, it has no actual or numeric value.

Instead of trying to insult me why don't you explain how the laws of logic and mathematics point to God. Please use small words and show your work. Thanks.