Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

[there4eyeM]

Human perception is based upon contrast and opposites. White exists in contrast to black; no black, no white and vice versa. Up, down, life, death, etc., etc.
So, if there is a creator of everything, there would be no contrast to that, no 'non-created' parts to indicate what parts were 'created'. "God", being all and everything, would be impossible to perceive. Of course, on the other hand, if there were no "God", it would be impossible to perceive "God".
This is the dilemma for humans. Knowing "God" can only be through some kind of personal revelation. If one has that, the question is answered affirmatively. Without that, everything about "God" is mere hearsay.

 

[Hollie]

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.

I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god as opposed to other, competing versions.

The human assigned attributes to the Christian gods include such descriptions as eternal, Infinite, without origin, immutable and a host of omni’s. The gods also possess a host of human emotions that would seem odd for the gods described above.

I agree that atheism cannot explain the place of your Gods, or any other Gods, in the order of things. I note that another of the attributes that Christians apply to their Gods is that of being “unknowable”. So, with that in mind, how would you explain your Gods in the order of things?

I’m not familiar with the belief system of atheism. Can you describe this belief system. How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Knowing "God" can only be through some kind of personal revelation. If one has that, the question is answered affirmatively. Without that, everything about "God" is mere hearsay

Absolutely agree with this

 

[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.

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

Well, of course, I can't possibly mean that God = "the forces of nature." That's not only unbiblical, but nonsensical, and, in any event, what does the existence of the forces of nature have to do with their origin?

The substance of the origin of the physical world is simply beyond the purview of science. To say that science doesn't point to God is undefined and, essentially, nonsensical. But assuming that what you mean by, in this instance, pointing to God goes to God's existence. . . .

It is the ramifications of the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics that directly point to the necessity of God's existence. Science is necessarily predicated on eternalism and sufficient causation. Astrophysics and cosmology concur with the ramifications of the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics that the physical world began to exist in the finite past.

There's only one ontologically possible foundation/sufficient cause for an entity of physical magnitude that has come into existence, namely, God.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

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.

I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god as opposed to other, competing versions.

The human assigned attributes to the Christian gods include such descriptions as eternal, Infinite, without origin, immutable and a host of omni’s. The gods also possess a host of human emotions that would seem odd for the gods described above.

I agree that atheism cannot explain the place of your Gods, or any other Gods, in the order of things. I note that another of the attributes that Christians apply to their Gods is that of being “unknowable”. So, with that in mind, how would you explain your Gods in the order of things?

I’m not familiar with the belief system of atheism. Can you describe this belief system. How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?

Clean up your grammar.

It's "gods" unless you're speaking of the One True "God,"

 

[Hollie]

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.

I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god as opposed to other, competing versions.

The human assigned attributes to the Christian gods include such descriptions as eternal, Infinite, without origin, immutable and a host of omni’s. The gods also possess a host of human emotions that would seem odd for the gods described above.

I agree that atheism cannot explain the place of your Gods, or any other Gods, in the order of things. I note that another of the attributes that Christians apply to their Gods is that of being “unknowable”. So, with that in mind, how would you explain your Gods in the order of things?

I’m not familiar with the belief system of atheism. Can you describe this belief system. How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?

Clean up your grammar.

It's "gods" unless you're speaking of the One True "God,"

The Christian version of the gods is a trifecta, no?

 

[toobfreak]

I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god

You'd be wrong to assume that.

How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?

The problem of explaining God, factoring him into the cosmic equation. If you deny he's even real then you don't have to account for him.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

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.

I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god as opposed to other, competing versions.

The human assigned attributes to the Christian gods include such descriptions as eternal, Infinite, without origin, immutable and a host of omni’s. The gods also possess a host of human emotions that would seem odd for the gods described above.

I agree that atheism cannot explain the place of your Gods, or any other Gods, in the order of things. I note that another of the attributes that Christians apply to their Gods is that of being “unknowable”. So, with that in mind, how would you explain your Gods in the order of things?

I’m not familiar with the belief system of atheism. Can you describe this belief system. How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?

Clean up your grammar.

It's "gods" unless you're speaking of the One True "God,"

The Christian version of the gods is a trifecta, no?

Not in my Christianity. I dont believe in the Trinity. That comes from Catholicism.

MY VIEW of the DUAL NATURE OF GOD
My last name is Brown.
My FAMILY is "Brown"

"God" is the FAMILY NAME we refer to these Beings.

There are CURRENTLY 2 members of the God Family.

At the Resurrection of the Dead AT CHRIST'S RETURN, there will be MANY MORE members of the God Family

 

[Hollie]

I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god

You'd be wrong to assume that.

How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?

The problem of explaining God, factoring him into the cosmic equation. If you deny he's even real then you don't have to account for him.

I concede that I cannot explain any of the gods. Can you do that in such a way as to make a convincing case for your gods as opposed to the Christian gods?

 

[Hollie]

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.

I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god as opposed to other, competing versions.

The human assigned attributes to the Christian gods include such descriptions as eternal, Infinite, without origin, immutable and a host of omni’s. The gods also possess a host of human emotions that would seem odd for the gods described above.

I agree that atheism cannot explain the place of your Gods, or any other Gods, in the order of things. I note that another of the attributes that Christians apply to their Gods is that of being “unknowable”. So, with that in mind, how would you explain your Gods in the order of things?

I’m not familiar with the belief system of atheism. Can you describe this belief system. How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?

Clean up your grammar.

It's "gods" unless you're speaking of the One True "God,"

The Christian version of the gods is a trifecta, no?

Not in my Christianity. I dont believe in the Trinity. That comes from Catholicism.

MY VIEW of the DUAL NATURE OF GOD
My last name is Brown.
My FAMILY is "Brown"

"God" is the FAMILY NAME we refer to these Beings.

There are CURRENTLY 2 members of the God Family.

At the Resurrection of the Dead AT CHRIST'S RETURN, there will be MANY MORE members of the God Family

It seems your arguments about Christianity are with other, competing versions of Christianity.

 

[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.

Well, of course, I can't possibly mean that God = "the forces of nature." That's not only unbiblical, but nonsensical, and, in any event, what does the existence of the forces of nature have to do with their origin?

The substance of the origin of the physical world is simply beyond the purview of science. To say that science doesn't point to God is undefined and, essentially, nonsensical. But assuming that what you mean by, in this instance, pointing to God goes to God's existence. . . .

It is the ramifications of the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics that directly point to the necessity of God's existence. Science is necessarily predicated on eternalism and sufficient causation. Astrophysics and cosmology concur with the ramifications of the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics that the physical world began to exist in the finite past.

There's only one ontologically possible foundation/sufficient cause for an entity of physical magnitude that has come into existence, namely, God.

So this "God" is the same being that did what? Create Adam and Eve? Make it rain for 40 days? Talk to Moses? Etc., etc. Do the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics directly point to that God or just some non-human creator?

 

[toobfreak]

I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god

You'd be wrong to assume that.

How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?

The problem of explaining God, factoring him into the cosmic equation. If you deny he's even real then you don't have to account for him.

I concede that I cannot explain any of the gods. Can you do that in such a way as to make a convincing case for your gods as opposed to the Christian gods?

What's with this sudden pluralism? We are not talking about Greek mythology here (ie. Primordials, Titans and Olympians). We are talking about GOD. God has an infinite number of faces and various people call him by various names as each saw him, but there is still only one God, one original Cause. God is God.

 

[Hollie]

I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god

You'd be wrong to assume that.

How does this belief system absolve them of the problem? What problem would that be?

The problem of explaining God, factoring him into the cosmic equation. If you deny he's even real then you don't have to account for him.

I concede that I cannot explain any of the gods. Can you do that in such a way as to make a convincing case for your gods as opposed to the Christian gods?

What's with this sudden pluralism? We are not talking about Greek mythology here (ie. Primordials, Titans and Olympians). We are talking about GOD. God has an infinite number of faces and various people call him by various names as each saw him, but there is still only one God, one original Cause. God is God.

Am I under some obligation to unthinkingly accept your version of “God is God” vs. other, competing versions of gods?

 

[Ringtone]

I take it that your reference to god is to the Christian version of god as opposed to other, competing versions.

No, Hollie, you obtuse, dissembling knucklehead, as it has been explained to you over and over again, the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics immediately go to the ontological necessity of eternalism and sufficient causation, the foundational apprehension for both science and the divinity of classical theism, as opposed to those of polytheistic and pantheistic paganism, all of which entail an absurdity, namely, an infinite regress of causation. The latter are all created, material and, therefore, contingent beings. The atheist's account of origins, such as it is, is essentially that of the pagans. LOL!

They are not competitors. They're not even in the same ballpark.

The question as to which of the traditions of classical theism, if any, are true is an entirely different matter.

Christians apply to their Gods is that of being “unknowable”.

False! Christianity asserts no such stupid thing. Accordingly, God is both apprehendable and knowable. He simply cannot be entirely comprehendible by finite minds. How could a finite mind possibly transcend a mind of omniscience?

The human assigned attributes to the Christian gods include such descriptions as eternal, Infinite, without origin, immutable and a host of omni’s.

Once again, you goof, humans do not assign these attributes to God. The ramifications of logic, namely, in this instance, the necessities of eternalism and sufficient causation, tell us that God necessarily has these attributes. We don't even need any special form of revelation beyond the inculcation of God's logic to know this is true.

Further, saying that God is infinite and that his attributes entail "a host of omni's" is redundant. God is not an actual infinite. Actual infinities cannot and do not exist. In theology, when we say that God is infinite, we are talking about his incomparable excellence. We mean that he is absolutely perfect in terms of quality, not quantity. God is perfectly good, indeed, God is goodness itself. He is also omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; that is to say, he is perfect in all ways. He knows all things that are possible, he can do all things that are possible, and interdimensionally encompasses all things that exist.

 

[Ringtone]

What's with this sudden pluralism? We are not talking about Greek mythology here (ie. Primordials, Titans and Olympians). We are talking about GOD. God has an infinite number of faces and various people call him by various names as each saw him, but there is still only one God, one original Cause. God is God.

Am I under some obligation to unthinkingly accept your version of “God is God” vs. other, competing versions of gods?

Dissembling again, Hollie? You're academically obligated to grasp the categorical distinction between contingent concepts of divinity and the noncontingent concept of classical theism, as well as to address the concept of divinity being asserted, not the concepts of your theological illiteracy and misrepresentations. Otherwise you're just spouting mindless slogans and arguing with straw men.

Arguing against concept A, when the issue pertains to concept B is problematic, Hollie.

But, then, your ignorance and lack of understanding has been pointed out to you by me and others again and again. Are you a pathological liar or pathologically stupid?

 

[Ringtone]

The Christian version of the gods is a trifecta, no?

No, Hollie, it's that of a triune being.

 

[Ringtone]

Human perception is based upon contrast and opposites. White exists in contrast to black; no black, no white and vice versa. Up, down, life, death, etc., etc.
So, if there is a creator of everything, there would be no contrast to that, no 'non-created' parts to indicate what parts were 'created'. "God", being all and everything, would be impossible to perceive. Of course, on the other hand, if there were no "God", it would be impossible to perceive "God".
This is the dilemma for humans. Knowing "God" can only be through some kind of personal revelation. If one has that, the question is answered affirmatively. Without that, everything about "God" is mere hearsay.

Just to be clear, are you implying that the ramifications of the first principles of logic tell us nothing at all about God's existence and nature?

 

[Hollie]

No, Hollie, you obtuse, dissembling knucklehead, as it has been explained to you over and over again, the first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics immediately go to the ontological necessity of eternalism and sufficient causation, the foundational apprehension for both science and the divinity of classical theism, as opposed to those of polytheistic and pantheistic paganism, all of which entail an absurdity, namely, an infinite regress of causation. The latter are all created, material and, therefore, contingent beings. The atheist's account of origins, such as it is, is essentially that of the pagans. LOL!

They are not competitors. They're not even in the same ballpark.

The question as to which of the traditions of classical theism, if any, are true is an entirely different matter.

Actually, there are indeed, no first principles of logic, mathematics and metaphysics which support magic and supernaturalism. Indeed, nothing in any of the sciences addresses supernaturalism. My apprehension in addressing your appeals to magic and supernaturalism is that you have a rather stunted ability to separate reason and rationality from your worldview of fear, paranoia and superstition. Although your "faith" in magic and supernaturalism is certainly not a child's tale, since it is held by many adults, has been fabricated by adults, and is utilized by adults to justify adult behavior of the most serious consequence.

I also only label it as "magical" when you actually do appeal to magic as the answer to otherwise reasonable questions.

So... rather than considering your faith a magical child's tale, I consider it a very adult rank. The hyper-religious are profoundly superstitious people. But we (for some inexplicable reasons) call your preferred superstitions "religions" and assign them a certain deference that it is not clear they deserve.

False! Christianity asserts no such stupid thing. Accordingly, God is both apprehendable and knowable. He simply cannot be entirely comprehendible by finite minds. How could a finite mind possibly transcend a mind of omniscience?

Well now, that is interesting. You are claiming that the gods not being comprehendible by finite minds would imply that infinite minds can comprehend the gods. As we are told that the only the gods possess the infinite attribute, we are left to presume then that only the infinite minds of the gods can comprehend the infinite minds of the gods. As is the case with most religionists, you have taken that typical slippery slope and assigned a list of attributes to your gods and then stumble over your own attempts to make such a ridiculous argument.

What’s mysterious is the propensity of religionists to assign human attributes to an entity they claim is ultimately incomprehensible. Theists are the ones assigning human attributes to these god(s). It's a limit on his nature. Think about it. He exists as a god of love and mercy because you shove him into a human timeline and a human paradigm. You’re making him angry and emotive. Who's basing their conception of god on his/her own philosophical presuppositions? The non-theist? Are you sure?

Once again, you goof, humans do not assign these attributes to God. The ramifications of logic, namely, in this instance, the necessities of eternalism and sufficient causation, tell us that God necessarily has these attributes. We don't even need any special form of revelation beyond the inculcation of God's logic to know this is true.

Further, saying that God is infinite and that his attributes entail "a host of omni's" is redundant. God is not an actual infinite. Actual infinities cannot and do not exist. In theology, when we say that God is infinite, we are talking about his incomparable excellence. We mean that he is absolutely perfect in terms of quality, not quantity. God is perfectly good, indeed, God is goodness itself. He is also omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent; that is to say, he is perfect in all ways. He knows all things that are possible, he can do all things that are possible, and interdimensionally encompasses all things that exist.

It's curious that you claim humans do not assign attributes to your Gods. Who has? Where do the attributes come from? If the gods have assigned attributes to themselves, can you identify how that happened? As it is quite clear from any objective reading of the Bibles, , they are at many times conflicting, self-refuting, internally inconsistent and contradictory. Those are hardly attributes associated with omni-everything gods.. If one takes the time to understand their Bible'ology, one will quickly realize that the gods are a convenience, usually for politically motivated reasons. In ancient times to the present, it is quite simple to whip up a populace into agreeing with a specific idea if you can convince that populace that there is an unseen being that is resolutely on their side. This is an extension of our tribal instincts, wherein we place the mantle of superiority upon a person or persons, providing they can deliver the things we have convinced ourselves we want.

Yes, the all-knowing, all-seeing gods span time, space, and dimensions.... because you say so, Super.

So, let's look at this from another perspective. When you say you believe in gods that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that have attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who live in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and are uncreated themselves and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain they exist.

Super.

 

[Hollie]

The Christian version of the gods is a trifecta, no?

No, Hollie, it's that of a triune being.

Well, yeah.

They're the gods, so yeah, they can be singular, plural, triune, whatever you want them to be... because you say so.

 

[Asclepias]

Beyond the ramifications of the first principles of logic and metaphysics which absolutely tells us that God must be. . . .

Absolutely.