Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

[BlindBoo]

How did the big bang, happen

After they realized the universe was expanded at an exponential rate in different directions, somebody voiced the concept "Hey where the fuck is it all coming from?" and poof a theory was born.

How did a bunch of cells suddenly evolve into sapient creatures of though

Which theory says it was sudden?

 

[Ringtone]

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

Correct. More precisely, infinity, in this sense, goes to quantity, not quality. It goes to the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.

Does space have a boundary or is it infinite?

Assuming I know what you mean by space, it's not actually infinite, and we know from observation and the prevailing dynamics of physics that it's currently expanding, indeed, currently, at an exponentially accelerating rate toward a state of absolute entropy, or "heat death." So, yes, it has a boundary, currently, of growing proportions.

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.

I'm not insulting you. On the contrary, I assume you can understand the matter, and I gave you a link to my own work. Do you have a Youtube account?

By the way, from what source does Ehrman get this notion that only three people (human beings) witnessed the resurrected Christ? See link: The Stuff of scientism - SCIENCE vs God: The OBJECTION that is getting old...

 

[Ringtone]

. . .

Oh, by the way, I get into the details regarding the distinction between potential and actual infinities beginning at Part XI of the refutation.

 

[alang1216]

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

Correct. More precisely, infinity, in this sense, goes to quantity, not quality. It goes to the concept of a boundlessly large, indeterminable number of things or a boundlessly large, indeterminable amount of something.

Does space have a boundary or is it infinite?

Assuming I know what you mean by space, it's not actually infinite, and we know from observation and the prevailing dynamics of physics that it's currently expanding, indeed, currently, at an exponentially accelerating rate toward a state of absolute entropy, or "heat death." So, yes, it has a boundary, currently, of growing proportions.

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.

I'm not insulting you. On the contrary, I assume you can understand the matter, and I gave you a link to my own work. Do you have a Youtube account?

By the way, from what source does Ehrman get this notion that only three people (human beings) witnessed the resurrected Christ? See link: The Stuff of scientism - SCIENCE vs God: The OBJECTION that is getting old...

If you rode on a light beam, would you ever reach the end of space? If not it sounds like the definition of infinite to me.

I appreciate the link, I really do, but I'm way too paranoid to subscribe to your channel. You seem fine and normal but hey, this is the internet.

Ehrman is a scholar who has written many books, some of which I've read and highly recommend. The evidence he cites is way too deep for me to attempt to summarize, you'll need an understanding of textual criticism to find your answers.

 

[Ringtone]

If you rode on a light beam, would you ever reach the end of space? If not it sounds like the definition of infinite to me.

I appreciate the link, I really do, but I'm way too paranoid to subscribe to your channel. You seem fine and normal but hey, this is the internet.

Ehrman is a scholar who has written many books, some of which I've read and highly recommend. The evidence he cites is way too deep for me to attempt to summarize, you'll need an understanding of textual criticism to find your answers.

An actual infinity cannot exist.

I've studied textual criticism. You still haven't told me why you believe Ehrman's count of three is true. What is his source? It cannot be the Bible, as it specifically names 17 witnesses, including Paul, of the resurrected Christ and 500+ unnamed followers who witnessed the resurrected Christ at a gathering, which probably included all of the original 16, prior to his ascension.

 

[Briss]

What is the universe expanding into?

 

[alang1216]

If you rode on a light beam, would you ever reach the end of space? If not it sounds like the definition of infinite to me.

I appreciate the link, I really do, but I'm way too paranoid to subscribe to your channel. You seem fine and normal but hey, this is the internet.

Ehrman is a scholar who has written many books, some of which I've read and highly recommend. The evidence he cites is way too deep for me to attempt to summarize, you'll need an understanding of textual criticism to find your answers.

An actual infinity cannot exist.

I've studied textual criticism. You still haven't told me why you believe Ehrman's count of three is true. What is his source? It cannot be the Bible, as it specifically names 17 witnesses, including Paul, of the resurrected Christ and 500+ unnamed followers who witnessed the resurrected Christ at a gathering, which probably included all of the original 16, prior to his ascension.

Hmm, I thought I replied but I don't see it. Curious...

The only source is the Bible of course but, unless you are a Biblical literalist, the Bible is a compendium of oral histories passed down for decades. Like the game telephone, the story gets changed with every telling. Ehrman has dissected the stories to parse what is original and what was added later. You may or may not agree with him but his interpretation rings true to me.

 

[toobfreak]

Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

ABSOLUTELY. Contrary to athiest argument, God and science are not mutually exclusive. They don't want to admit it, but science both predicts, confirms and demands that there be a God.

 

[Ringtone]

Hmm, I thought I replied but I don't see it. Curious...

The only source is the Bible of course but, unless you are a Biblical literalist, the Bible is a compendium of oral histories passed down for decades. Like the game telephone, the story gets changed with every telling. Ehrman has dissected the stories to parse what is original and what was added later. You may or may not agree with him but his interpretation rings true to me.

So says the worldview of historical naturalism, which, by the way, is the minority view of biblical scholarship and circularly begs the question. The only aspect of the Bible that's strictly that of oral tradition is Genesis. And the written tradition of the New Testament is demonstrably concurrent to the historical events described. Actually, I'm familiar with Ehrman and his reasoning. He proceeds from naturalism; i.e., he holds that miracles are not possible. For example, water cannot be turned into wine, people cannot walk on water, persons cannot be raised from the dead and so on. . . .

Why?

Because, of course, God does not exist in the first place, so it was all made up or imagined, including the mass hallucination of the 500+.

I was just wondering if you were aware of the underlying presupposition of the "scholarship" of historical naturalism. I see that you're not.

Now what are these supposed contradictions in the New Testament regarding the Christ? Can we have and examine them one at a time, please?

 

[Ringtone]

Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

ABSOLUTELY. Contrary to athiest argument, God and science are not mutually inclusive. They don't want to admit it, but science both predicts, confirms and demands that there be a God.

Indeed, per the first principles of logic, mathematics and ontology, science necessarily proceeds from the imperatives of eternalism and sufficient causation. Further, sans God, there is no reliable ontological foundation for science, let alone for the first principles of logic and mathematics proper.

Atheistism is hilariously stupid.

 

[alang1216]

Hmm, I thought I replied but I don't see it. Curious...

The only source is the Bible of course but, unless you are a Biblical literalist, the Bible is a compendium of oral histories passed down for decades. Like the game telephone, the story gets changed with every telling. Ehrman has dissected the stories to parse what is original and what was added later. You may or may not agree with him but his interpretation rings true to me.

So says the worldview of historical naturalism, which, by the way, is the minority view of biblical scholarship and circularly begs the question. The only aspect of the Bible that's strictly that of oral tradition is Genesis. And the written tradition of the New Testament is demonstrably concurrent to the historical events described. Actually, I'm familiar with Ehrman and his reasoning. He proceeds from naturalism; i.e., he holds that miracles are not possible. For example, water cannot be turned into wine, people cannot walk on water, persons cannot be raised from the dead and so on. . . .

Why?

Because, of course, God does not exist in the first place, so it was all made up or imagined, including the mass hallucination of the 500+.

I was just wondering if you were aware of the underlying presupposition of the "scholarship" of historical naturalism. I see that you're not.

Now what are these supposed contradictions in the New Testament regarding the Christ? Can we have and examine them one at a time, please?

Ehrman's take on miracles is a bit more subtle. He says that as a historian he can't say if something was miraculous or not, he can only comment on if there is historical evidence for it.

I gave you an accounting of Jesus' resurrection and asked you why the different authors have different stories. How many people directly experienced the risen Jesus was a tangent. Who first went to Jesus' tomb and was the rock in place?

 

[alang1216]

Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

ABSOLUTELY. Contrary to athiest argument, God and science are not mutually inclusive. They don't want to admit it, but science both predicts, confirms and demands that there be a God.

Indeed, per the first principles of logic, mathematics and ontology, science necessarily proceeds from the imperatives of eternalism and sufficient causation. Further, sans God, there is no reliable ontological foundation for science, let alone for the first principles of logic and mathematics proper.

Atheistism is hilariously stupid.

Fine words but just that. Science does NOT point to God unless you mean God is the forces of nature. Not exactly biblical.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

If God exists then God must certainly be bound to the physical laws of the universe

The best way I can explain this to you, ARE YOU SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF YOUR VIDEO GAME?

God GREATED the universe. He exists OUTSIDE of the universe HE CREATED.

It is ridiculous to think He is bound by the rules that govern His creation

 

[Hollie]

Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

ABSOLUTELY. Contrary to athiest argument, God and science are not mutually inclusive. They don't want to admit it, but science both predicts, confirms and demands that there be a God.

Indeed, per the first principles of logic, mathematics and ontology, science necessarily proceeds from the imperatives of eternalism and sufficient causation. Further, sans God, there is no reliable ontological foundation for science, let alone for the first principles of logic and mathematics proper.

Atheistism is hilariously stupid.

Indeed, that is so silly. Indeed, you make unsubstantiated assertions here, sans reasoning, sans evidence presented to support them.

Indeed, there are no first principles of logic, mathematics and ontology which support supernaturalism. Indeed, nothing in any of the sciences addresses supernaturalism.

"Every effect has a cause." This is an empirical fact of the universe. From this we are forced to conclude that the causal chain is infinite, since any "beginning" would violate this axiom.

The attempt by supernaturalists ie: “the gods did it’ists”, to get around their appeals to supernaturalism is the qualification that, no, the proper formulation should be that “everything that has a beginning has a cause.” Thus they hope to exempt their respective eternal gods from requiring a cause by asserting that they always existed and had no beginning… because they say so.

But this is merely an assertion. We certainly have no evidence for it, and the agendum behind the alteration is driven by circular reasoning, i.e. it is an attempt to force the argument to conform to the desired outcome rather than allowing the outcome to flow naturally from the premises.

We can empirically state that “every effect has a cause.” But we have the same level of empirical evidence that “everything that exists has a beginning.” We have no such evidence for anything that is eternal.

An infinite causal chain satisfies all these conditions, requiring no assumption of an entity for which we have no evidence (i.e. an eternal entity). The chain is itself eternal, but it is not an entity per se. It is the sum of an infinite number of discrete ephemeral entities, all of which have a beginning, and all of which have a preceding cause.

This is why the question “so what created the gods” is not a glib one. It is the only question about one or more “creators of the universe gods” than can be justified by reason and evidence. To deny that the gods had a beginning is fine apologetics. But it is not good logic.

We have vast amounts of observational evidence that both the above axioms are true, while we have zero observational evidence of any violations of or exceptions to them.

Looking as far back in time as we are capable of observing (i.e. billions of light years across space which is also billions of years into the past) we see that this is true as far back as we are able to observe. So the chain of causality is at the least as old as the observable universe.

Hyper-religion'ism is endless appeals to magical, supernatural gods absent any evidence.

 

[Hollie]

If God exists then God must certainly be bound to the physical laws of the universe

The best way I can explain this to you, ARE YOU SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF YOUR VIDEO GAME?

God GREATED the universe. He exists OUTSIDE of the universe HE CREATED.

It is ridiculous to think He is bound by the rules that govern His creation

The best way I can explain this to you, ARE YOU SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF YOUR VIDEO GAME?

God The Easter Bunny GREATED the universe. He The Easter Bunny exists OUTSIDE of the universe HE CREATED.

It is ridiculous to think He The Easter Bunny is bound by the rules that govern His creation

 

[Ringtone]

What is the universe expanding into?

If the Universe Is Expanding, What Is It Expanding Into?

There's a short answer and a long answer to this mysterious question.

www.discovery.com

 

[Hollie]

What is the universe expanding into?

If the Universe Is Expanding, What Is It Expanding Into?

There's a short answer and a long answer to this mysterious question.

www.discovery.com

Pffft. Who can believe anything those evilutionist, atheist scientists claim.

Atheistism is hilariously stupid.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

If God exists then God must certainly be bound to the physical laws of the universe

The best way I can explain this to you, ARE YOU SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF YOUR VIDEO GAME?

God GREATED the universe. He exists OUTSIDE of the universe HE CREATED.

It is ridiculous to think He is bound by the rules that govern His creation

The best way I can explain this to you, ARE YOU SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF YOUR VIDEO GAME?

God The Easter Bunny GREATED the universe. He The Easter Bunny exists OUTSIDE of the universe HE CREATED.

It is ridiculous to think He The Easter Bunny is bound by the rules that govern His creation

Deeply thought out contribution.

 

[toobfreak]

Atheistism is hilariously stupid.

Indeed, nothing in any of the sciences addresses supernaturalism. The attempt by supernaturalists ie: “the gods did it’ists”, to get around their appeals to supernaturalism is the qualification that, no, the proper formulation should be that “everything that has a beginning has a cause.” Hyper-religion'ism is endless appeals to magical, supernatural gods absent any evidence.

Your claim that inclusion of the god principle as an adjunct to the sciences must be part of supernaturalism, thus magical and discounted is fallacious. There does not have to be anything supernatural or magic about the existence of God. What is "magic" is the atheistic suggestion that it makes more sense that our complex phenomenal universe and its many laws came all out of NOTHING rather than some original cause.

The failing of atheism is that because they cannot explain the place of God in the order of things, they prefer to rest their own belief system in nothingness thus absolving themselves of the problem.

 

[Hollie]

If God exists then God must certainly be bound to the physical laws of the universe

The best way I can explain this to you, ARE YOU SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF YOUR VIDEO GAME?

God GREATED the universe. He exists OUTSIDE of the universe HE CREATED.

It is ridiculous to think He is bound by the rules that govern His creation

The best way I can explain this to you, ARE YOU SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF YOUR VIDEO GAME?

God The Easter Bunny GREATED the universe. He The Easter Bunny exists OUTSIDE of the universe HE CREATED.

It is ridiculous to think He The Easter Bunny is bound by the rules that govern His creation

Deeply thought out contribution.

Appropriate in view of the comment.