Does Science Suggest the Existence of God?

[Asclepias]

Look around you. BTW I didnt say god. I said creator.

I know God the Creator exists, but earlier you went on about a long-winded something or another as if the line of logic regarding God's existence were irrelevant. That line of logic specifically nails down the "look around you" as it were.

I was saying the OPs long winded explanation had nothing to do with my reasons for agreeing with the title. If you look at the representation of everything on the planet its in fractals. That has to or had to be a conscious choice.

Yes, I know what fractals are, and like you I too appreciate the theological implications. But that's doesn't explain why you're characterizing the direct line of logic regarding the principles of eternalism and sufficient causation as long-winded. That's ridiculous.

I say its long winded because the explanation complicates something that isnt complicated. Einstein always said....

Nonsense! The OP in a nutshell is this:

The Universe began to exist. That which begins to exist must have a cause. The only sufficient cause of its existence is God.​

​

Explaining to the average adult, let alone to the average child, what fractals are in the first place and then explaining how they evince God's existence is an immensely more complex endeavor. As for the average child, it's inevitably futile, and to sensible adults it's, indubitably, a long-winded way around—over the mountains and into the woods—to the obvious as compared to the above, which, as I have shown, can be summarized in three sentences.

I know what fractals are and grasp their theological implications. Now explain these things to the others. Be sure to grammatically render the paragraphs of your delineation carefully so as not to overcomplicate what is in fact a relatively complex matter for many.

LOL!

Apologies are in order. I don't know whos post I read but it wasnt the OP you wrote.

 

[Hollie]

Look around you. BTW I didnt say god. I said creator.

I know God the Creator exists, but earlier you went on about a long-winded something or another as if the line of logic regarding God's existence were irrelevant. That line of logic specifically nails down the "look around you" as it were.

I was saying the OPs long winded explanation had nothing to do with my reasons for agreeing with the title. If you look at the representation of everything on the planet its in fractals. That has to or had to be a conscious choice.

Yes, I know what fractals are, and like you I too appreciate the theological implications. But that's doesn't explain why you're characterizing the direct line of logic regarding the principles of eternalism and sufficient causation as long-winded. That's ridiculous.

I say its long winded because the explanation complicates something that isnt complicated. Einstein always said....

Nonsense! The OP in a nutshell is this:

The Universe began to exist. That which begins to exist must have a cause. The only sufficient cause of its existence is God.​

​

Explaining to the average adult, let alone to the average child, what fractals are in the first place and then explaining how they evince God's existence is an immensely more complex endeavor. As for the average child, it's inevitably futile, and to sensible adults it's, indubitably, a long-winded way around—over the mountains and into the woods—to the obvious as compared to the above, which, as I have shown, can be summarized in three sentences.

I know what fractals are and grasp their theological implications. Now explain these things to the others. Be sure to grammatically render the paragraphs of your delineation carefully so as not to overcomplicate what is in fact a relatively complex matter for many.

LOL!

Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gods" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's partisan religious position, and in the armory of Christian apologetics it doesn’t qualify as a pop gun.

 

[Ringtone]

So Matthew and Mark didn't mention any others but you inject your understanding that they knew there were others.

No, alang, I don't inject anything into the accounts as such. As others, I reasonably surmise from all the accounts collectively that Matthew and Mark derived their narratives of the events, those that occured before the resurrected Christ showed himself to anyone, from the women they mention by name. These five women in total, two and three respectively, are obviously their direct sources. The other women were no doubt meatined to Matthew and Mark by the five, but the other women were not among the five with whom they spoke directly and, in any event, are not pertinent to the perspective of their narratives. The focus of Matthew and Mark's accounts is the empty tomb. This is precisely why it's important to carefully mark the witnesses to the resurrection of Christ (God and his angels), the witnesses of the empty tomb (the women, John and Peter), and the order in which the resurrected Christ revealed himself to his followers.

So the universe can't be eternal so must have a cause but God can be eternal so doesn't have a cause.

You're not thinking clearly, alang. Presumably. you agree with me that something does in fact exist, namely, in this case, the Universe and its contents. The imperatives of logic, mathematics physics . . . tell us that the Universe began to exist in the finite past. The notion that it caused itself to exist (contradiction) before it existed (redundantly contradictory) is absurd. Something or another is eternal. Entities of contingently mutable and dividable substance cannot be past eternal; i.e., an infinite regress of causation cannot be traversed to the present. The only sufficient cause for the Universe's existence would be that of an immaterial substance.

As I summarized in the above:

The Universe began to exist. That which begins to exist must have a cause. The only sufficient cause of its existence is God.​

You are defining your reality without evidence.

False. See above.

All of what you believe about God comes from the OT & NT so, theologically speaking, directly from God himself.

False. I don't need to appeal to any text whatsoever to know that the Universe began to exist and to know that the only sufficient cause of its existence is an eternally self-subsistent being. See above.

Even if God is the Creator why is he a trustworthy source?[/quote

God and the Creator are the same being, alang. LOL! God = Creator. Creator = God.

Because he says so? Maybe he is mistaken and a Creator made him?

No, alang. Logic tells us that a being of eternal self-subsistence exists. I don't know precisely who you think this created being you go on about is, but he ain't God. God by definition did not begin to exist and is, therefore, not a creature.

We can only assume they were written then since our oldest Biblical text fragments date to the 2nd century. These fragments we have don't match exactly with other fragments leading scholars, not just Ehrman, to believe the texts have been changed over time. It is likely that Mark 16:9-20, coincidently covering the resurrection, is such an addition.

Actually, via the forensics of textual criticism regarding the most textually documented work of ancient history, namely, the New Testament, scholars can confidently affirm the reliability of the oldest surviving codices back to the first century. Understanding why that's so requires knowledge beyond the scope of this discussion. But the following gets you on your way, though there is so much more to know: Were the New Testament Manuscripts Copied Accurately?

From the oldest surviving fragments and codices of the New Testament in Greek, Latin and other languages, literally thousands of manuscripts, and also from the oldest surviving codices of the writings of the early Church Fathers, from which virtually the entire New Testament can be reconstructed, scholars can and have detected the approximately 400,000 transcription errors that have crept into the textual body over the years. That sounds like a lot, but we're actually talking about what are formally referred to as variants given that well-over 90% of these "errors" are actually misspellings, changes in word order (or syntax) word substitutions, omissions and the like, which do not change or distort the original meaning of the texts. These are unintended variants for the most part, and the intended word substitutions merely go to the prevailing verbiage of the transcriber's native language relative to the language of the text being transcribed.

The other variants are intentional additions, typically of an explanatory nature. But that's not the end of the story as the overwhelming number of these were never intended to be transcribed as part of the original texts. Rather, they're explanatory notations or commentaries proffered by the transcriber regarding the historical contents of the original texts and this understanding simply got lost in subsequent transcriptions. Again, these are of no doctrinal or theological significance, but go to things like relative weights, measures, values of currency and the like.

Finally, there are the intended variants such as the apparent addition, in all probability, as that raised by you: Mark 16:9-20. Christians have been aware of this potentially gross variant for centuries as it is discussed by the early Church Fathers. Most of the earliest codices end at Mark 16:8, and the Fathers' consensus was that 9-20 were not part of the original text, despite the fact that it was included in many of the oldest surviving codices. Given that it has no significant doctrinal or theological impact, the historical solution of the Church since the latter part of the 20th Century especially has been to include it and a few others in Matthew and John with a caveat in translations: Was Mark 16:9–20 Originally Part of Mark’s Gospel?

The takeaway here is that we know where these variants are in the textual body. Also we know their nature and how they got there.

 

[Ringtone]

Look around you. BTW I didnt say god. I said creator.

I know God the Creator exists, but earlier you went on about a long-winded something or another as if the line of logic regarding God's existence were irrelevant. That line of logic specifically nails down the "look around you" as it were.

I was saying the OPs long winded explanation had nothing to do with my reasons for agreeing with the title. If you look at the representation of everything on the planet its in fractals. That has to or had to be a conscious choice.

Yes, I know what fractals are, and like you I too appreciate the theological implications. But that's doesn't explain why you're characterizing the direct line of logic regarding the principles of eternalism and sufficient causation as long-winded. That's ridiculous.

I say its long winded because the explanation complicates something that isnt complicated. Einstein always said....

Nonsense! The OP in a nutshell is this:

The Universe began to exist. That which begins to exist must have a cause. The only sufficient cause of its existence is God.​

​

Explaining to the average adult, let alone to the average child, what fractals are in the first place and then explaining how they evince God's existence is an immensely more complex endeavor. As for the average child, it's inevitably futile, and to sensible adults it's, indubitably, a long-winded way around—over the mountains and into the woods—to the obvious as compared to the above, which, as I have shown, can be summarized in three sentences.

I know what fractals are and grasp their theological implications. Now explain these things to the others. Be sure to grammatically render the paragraphs of your delineation carefully so as not to overcomplicate what is in fact a relatively complex matter for many.

LOL!

Apologies are in order. I don't know whos post I read but it wasnt the OP you wrote.

No need for apologies. I took no offense. I suspected that some kind of misunderstanding was causing us to talk past one another. No big deal.

 

[Quasar44]

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

No !!!

 

[Quasar44]

The notion of any god is utterly preposterous in modern science

 

[LittleNipper]

The notion of any god is utterly preposterous in modern science

Science isn't modern anymore. We are now in the post modern period. And the notion of GOD isn't preposterous. GOD is placed on a shelf because HE cannot be explained in material terms.

 

[Hollie]

The notion of any god is utterly preposterous in modern science

Science isn't modern anymore. We are now in the post modern period. And the notion of GOD isn't preposterous. GOD is placed on a shelf because HE cannot be explained in material terms.

How is anything explained in immaterial terms?

 

[LittleNipper]

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

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

An ID'iot creationer agreeing with the notions of gods. Who woulda' thought?

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Eric Metaxas is a fundie apologist, pseudo-philosopher, author, radio host (The Eric Metaxas Show) and a regular on various TV shows, such as Glenn Beck’s, Mike Huckabee’s and Laura Ingraham’s shows. He has also received various honorary doctorates from places like Liberty University.

Creationist
Metaxas is a creationist. According to Metaxas, the discovery of really old stromatolites that suggest that the origin of life occurred some 3.7 billion years ago, suggests to Metaxas that “evolution just got harder to defend” since it leaves only a few hundred million years for life to have first occurred after Earth got sufficiently habitable for it to exist. Nevermind that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution (indeed, Metaxas’s article is an illustrative example of creationist confusion over this basic distinction) or that the discovery doesn’t even pose any actual problem for an explanation of abiogenesis without appealing to goddidit. Metaxas has no time for details like the absence of a genuine problem in his objections; neither do David Klinghoffer and Stephen Meyer, who seem to be Metaxas’s primary sources for this particular creationist take on the discovery. Apparently evolution is just full of assumptions.

Indeed, Metaxas often claims that science is “increasingly” giving us evidence for God – and therefore, apparently, for creationism – and systematically does so in a manner that is willfully ignorant of the scientific findings he is interpreting. A good example is discussed here (more details here and here). Of course, being utterly ignorant of science, Metaxas relies on third- or fourth-hand sources for his claims, and tend to choose systematically unrealiable ones (like Meyer). So, for instance, arguing that the octopus genome is evidence against evolution and for design, Metaxas writes that the researchers who sequenced the genome found that “Compared with other invertebrates, the DNA of the octopus was ‘alien’: nothing like the genetic codes of what they thought were similar animals, like clams and sea snails,” which is directly contradicted by … the paper in which the results were published. Yup: Metaxas didn’t read the paper, didn’t understand the science, and then made things up from whole cloth to conclude that all scientists are wrong and evolution is bunk. Another example of the same is here. It’s a useful reminder if you ever end up reading anything else he’s written.

Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. And so, it is in fact tied to evolution as a place one must begin the transformation process. So, if indeed there was absolute proof that man arose from the dust say 6-10 thousand years ago. There would be plenty of time for change within kinds; however, not enough time for new kinds to develop.

 

[LittleNipper]

The notion of any god is utterly preposterous in modern science

Science isn't modern anymore. We are now in the post modern period. And the notion of GOD isn't preposterous. GOD is placed on a shelf because HE cannot be explained in material terms.

How is anything explained in immaterial terms?

Well, GOD reveals HIMSELF to be SPIRIT. A spirit is not explainable in terms of minerals, elements, etc...

 

[Quasar44]

The notion of any god is utterly preposterous in modern science

Science isn't modern anymore. We are now in the post modern period. And the notion of GOD isn't preposterous. GOD is placed on a shelf because HE cannot be explained in material terms.

How is anything explained in immaterial terms?

Well, GOD reveals HIMSELF to be SPIRIT. A spirit is not explainable in terms of minerals, elements, etc...

He did not do a damn thing for the Jews !!

 

[Ringtone]

The notion of any god is utterly preposterous in modern science

What in the world does that statement even mean?

 

[Ringtone]

The notion of any god is utterly preposterous in modern science

Science isn't modern anymore. We are now in the post modern period. And the notion of GOD isn't preposterous. GOD is placed on a shelf because HE cannot be explained in material terms.

Not sure what the highlighted sentence means.

 

[alang1216]

So Matthew and Mark didn't mention any others but you inject your understanding that they knew there were others.

No, alang, I don't inject anything into the accounts as such. As others, I reasonably surmise from all the accounts collectively that Matthew and Mark derived their narratives of the events, those that occured before the resurrected Christ showed himself to anyone, from the women they mention by name. These five women in total, two and three respectively, are obviously their direct sources. The other women were no doubt meatined to Matthew and Mark by the five, but the other women were not among the five with whom they spoke directly and, in any event, are not pertinent to the perspective of their narratives. The focus of Matthew and Mark's accounts is the empty tomb. This is precisely why it's important to carefully mark the witnesses to the resurrection of Christ (God and his angels), the witnesses of the empty tomb (the women, John and Peter), and the order in which the resurrected Christ revealed himself to his followers.

We can debate forever and not agree and that is fine and good but I seems to me we are arguing over the placement of the deck chairs on the Titanic. The resurrection stories are pure theology and not history, IMHO. The Romans left their crucified dead to rot on the cross as a lesson to other potential rebels. As word of the 'resurrection' of Jesus spread, stories were invented to 'prove' it really happened and how we know it happened.

 

[alang1216]

As I summarized in the above:

The Universe began to exist. That which begins to exist must have a cause. The only sufficient cause of its existence is God.​

Our universe does appear to have begun at the BB and there must have been a cause. I agree. What I don't find any evidence for is what came before that BB. There is a gap in our knowledge and you fill it with a god. There is a long history of science filling the gaps without a god. Maybe our universe is like a bubble bursting out from an lake of matter/energy. The lake may be eternal while each bubble is finite but there is always another bubble. No evidence but no more fantastical than a supernatural being.

 

[Hollie]

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

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

An ID'iot creationer agreeing with the notions of gods. Who woulda' thought?

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Eric Metaxas is a fundie apologist, pseudo-philosopher, author, radio host (The Eric Metaxas Show) and a regular on various TV shows, such as Glenn Beck’s, Mike Huckabee’s and Laura Ingraham’s shows. He has also received various honorary doctorates from places like Liberty University.

Creationist
Metaxas is a creationist. According to Metaxas, the discovery of really old stromatolites that suggest that the origin of life occurred some 3.7 billion years ago, suggests to Metaxas that “evolution just got harder to defend” since it leaves only a few hundred million years for life to have first occurred after Earth got sufficiently habitable for it to exist. Nevermind that abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution (indeed, Metaxas’s article is an illustrative example of creationist confusion over this basic distinction) or that the discovery doesn’t even pose any actual problem for an explanation of abiogenesis without appealing to goddidit. Metaxas has no time for details like the absence of a genuine problem in his objections; neither do David Klinghoffer and Stephen Meyer, who seem to be Metaxas’s primary sources for this particular creationist take on the discovery. Apparently evolution is just full of assumptions.

Indeed, Metaxas often claims that science is “increasingly” giving us evidence for God – and therefore, apparently, for creationism – and systematically does so in a manner that is willfully ignorant of the scientific findings he is interpreting. A good example is discussed here (more details here and here). Of course, being utterly ignorant of science, Metaxas relies on third- or fourth-hand sources for his claims, and tend to choose systematically unrealiable ones (like Meyer). So, for instance, arguing that the octopus genome is evidence against evolution and for design, Metaxas writes that the researchers who sequenced the genome found that “Compared with other invertebrates, the DNA of the octopus was ‘alien’: nothing like the genetic codes of what they thought were similar animals, like clams and sea snails,” which is directly contradicted by … the paper in which the results were published. Yup: Metaxas didn’t read the paper, didn’t understand the science, and then made things up from whole cloth to conclude that all scientists are wrong and evolution is bunk. Another example of the same is here. It’s a useful reminder if you ever end up reading anything else he’s written.

Abiogenesis is the process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. And so, it is in fact tied to evolution as a place one must begin the transformation process. So, if indeed there was absolute proof that man arose from the dust say 6-10 thousand years ago. There would be plenty of time for change within kinds; however, not enough time for new kinds to develop.

Abiogenesis is in fact not tied to evolution. A working definition of evolution would be the process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. Biological evolution acts on existing biological life. No methods in science can confirm the supernatural / metaphysical notion of supernatural gods being the foundation of the natural world which is the world studied by science. No definitions of scientific theories like biological evolution include supernatural riders like the one you present.

Indeed, there is no proof that supernatural gods made man out of dust 6,000 years ago. On the contrary, there actually is overwhelmingly evidence that humans are far older than 6,000 years, that the planet is billions of years old and that the universe is older still.

Change within ''kinds'' is a creationist dilemma. You need evidence of supernatural gods, you need evidence of Arks, global floods and evidence to support a young earth, all created by supernatural gods in order to support your claims.

Let's start "in the beginning'' of the creationist claims. Offer some testable support for your version if gods.

 

[Hollie]

The notion of any god is utterly preposterous in modern science

Science isn't modern anymore. We are now in the post modern period. And the notion of GOD isn't preposterous. GOD is placed on a shelf because HE cannot be explained in material terms.

How is anything explained in immaterial terms?

Well, GOD reveals HIMSELF to be SPIRIT. A spirit is not explainable in terms of minerals, elements, etc...

Do the gods express themselves in terms of ''feelings''? Is that what you mean by ''spirit''?

Why do gods represent themselves as entirely different ''spirits'' depending upon the geographic location of the spirit worshippers?

 

[alang1216]

God and the Creator are the same being, alang. LOL! God = Creator. Creator = God.

Does God = Yahweh?

 

[Hollie]

God and the Creator are the same being, alang. LOL! God = Creator. Creator = God.

Does God = Yahweh?

Good question. Further, does God, Jesus and a third party, the “Holy Spirit” in combination=God?

 

[Hollie]

So Matthew and Mark didn't mention any others but you inject your understanding that they knew there were others.

No, alang, I don't inject anything into the accounts as such. As others, I reasonably surmise from all the accounts collectively that Matthew and Mark derived their narratives of the events, those that occured before the resurrected Christ showed himself to anyone, from the women they mention by name. These five women in total, two and three respectively, are obviously their direct sources. The other women were no doubt meatined to Matthew and Mark by the five, but the other women were not among the five with whom they spoke directly and, in any event, are not pertinent to the perspective of their narratives. The focus of Matthew and Mark's accounts is the empty tomb. This is precisely why it's important to carefully mark the witnesses to the resurrection of Christ (God and his angels), the witnesses of the empty tomb (the women, John and Peter), and the order in which the resurrected Christ revealed himself to his followers.

So the universe can't be eternal so must have a cause but God can be eternal so doesn't have a cause.

You're not thinking clearly, alang. Presumably. you agree with me that something does in fact exist, namely, in this case, the Universe and its contents. The imperatives of logic, mathematics physics . . . tell us that the Universe began to exist in the finite past. The notion that it caused itself to exist (contradiction) before it existed (redundantly contradictory) is absurd. Something or another is eternal. Entities of contingently mutable and dividable substance cannot be past eternal; i.e., an infinite regress of causation cannot be traversed to the present. The only sufficient cause for the Universe's existence would be that of an immaterial substance.

As I summarized in the above:

The Universe began to exist. That which begins to exist must have a cause. The only sufficient cause of its existence is God.​

You are defining your reality without evidence.

False. See above.

All of what you believe about God comes from the OT & NT so, theologically speaking, directly from God himself.

False. I don't need to appeal to any text whatsoever to know that the Universe began to exist and to know that the only sufficient cause of its existence is an eternally self-subsistent being. See above.

Even if God is the Creator why is he a trustworthy source?[/quote

God and the Creator are the same being, alang. LOL! God = Creator. Creator = God.

Because he says so? Maybe he is mistaken and a Creator made him?

No, alang. Logic tells us that a being of eternal self-subsistence exists. I don't know precisely who you think this created being you go on about is, but he ain't God. God by definition did not begin to exist and is, therefore, not a creature.

We can only assume they were written then since our oldest Biblical text fragments date to the 2nd century. These fragments we have don't match exactly with other fragments leading scholars, not just Ehrman, to believe the texts have been changed over time. It is likely that Mark 16:9-20, coincidently covering the resurrection, is such an addition.

Actually, via the forensics of textual criticism regarding the most textually documented work of ancient history, namely, the New Testament, scholars can confidently affirm the reliability of the oldest surviving codices back to the first century. Understanding why that's so requires knowledge beyond the scope of this discussion. But the following gets you on your way, though there is so much more to know: Were the New Testament Manuscripts Copied Accurately?

From the oldest surviving fragments and codices of the New Testament in Greek, Latin and other languages, literally thousands of manuscripts, and also from the oldest surviving codices of the writings of the early Church Fathers, from which virtually the entire New Testament can be reconstructed, scholars can and have detected the approximately 400,000 transcription errors that have crept into the textual body over the years. That sounds like a lot, but we're actually talking about what are formally referred to as variants given that well-over 90% of these "errors" are actually misspellings, changes in word order (or syntax) word substitutions, omissions and the like, which do not change or distort the original meaning of the texts. These are unintended variants for the most part, and the intended word substitutions merely go to the prevailing verbiage of the transcriber's native language relative to the language of the text being transcribed.

The other variants are intentional additions, typically of an explanatory nature. But that's not the end of the story as the overwhelming number of these were never intended to be transcribed as part of the original texts. Rather, they're explanatory notations or commentaries proffered by the transcriber regarding the historical contents of the original texts and this understanding simply got lost in subsequent transcriptions. Again, these are of no doctrinal or theological significance, but go to things like relative weights, measures, values of currency and the like.

Finally, there are the intended variants such as the apparent addition, in all probability, as that raised by you: Mark 16:9-20. Christians have been aware of this potentially gross variant for centuries as it is discussed by the early Church Fathers. Most of the earliest codices end at Mark 16:8, and the Fathers' consensus was that 9-20 were not part of the original text, despite the fact that it was included in many of the oldest surviving codices. Given that it has no significant doctrinal or theological impact, the historical solution of the Church since the latter part of the 20th Century especially has been to include it and a few others in Matthew and John with a caveat in translations: Was Mark 16:9–20 Originally Part of Mark’s Gospel?

The takeaway here is that we know where these variants are in the textual body. Also we know their nature and how they got there.

I’ll summarize the summarization:

“The Universe began to exist. That which begins to exist must have a cause. The only sufficient cause of its existence is God... [ed. because I say so”]