Evidence for God from Science

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

math didnt need people to think of it. It was there all along.

Chess rules, yes. math, no.

So god can also swallow himself?

Again your asking God to do the intrinsically impossible.

But again, if he exists, and he's God, nothing is impossible for him. Just disproved God AGAIN!!!

Oh go make me a sammich and cut it into square circles please

That will keep him busy....

actually ya know a square circle does exist..

a boxing ring.

Audie wrote:That was Story, who apparently was saying that god could make 1x3 =8.

My take is that math exists entirely apart from anyone or anything.

I didnt think things through

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Audie wrote:

Storyteller wrote:

math didnt need people to think of it. It was there all along.

Chess rules, yes. math, no.

So god can also swallow himself?

Again your asking God to do the intrinsically impossible.

But again, if he exists, and he's God, nothing is impossible for him. Just disproved God AGAIN!!!

Oh go make me a sammich and cut it into square circles please

That was quite clever Nessa. Your medication must be working!

Storyteller wrote:

Audie wrote:That was Story, who apparently was saying that god could make 1x3 =8.

My take is that math exists entirely apart from anyone or anything.

I didnt think things through

Maybe you should get some of Nessa's meds. They seem to be helping her.

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

RickD wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Audie wrote:

math didnt need people to think of it. It was there all along.

Chess rules, yes. math, no.

So god can also swallow himself?

Again your asking God to do the intrinsically impossible.

But again, if he exists, and he's God, nothing is impossible for him. Just disproved God AGAIN!!!

Oh go make me a sammich and cut it into square circles please

That was quite clever Nessa. Your medication must be working!

No, thats just being around funny people, I become funny too

Audie wrote:That was Story, who apparently was saying that god could make 1x3 =8.

My take is that math exists entirely apart from anyone or anything.

So, math is eternal, preexisting everything, and exists on its own?

Math is an applied science, developed by man, to measure and quantify things that already exist. Which came first, the things requiring measurement and quantification or the technical application of a developed science designed to measure those things? The science and disciplines of applied mathematics should not be confused with things they can be used to measure and quantify. Show me even simple calculus techniques that are much older than 2,000 years old. FAR more sophistication came later. And does the techniques of a non-existing applied science even matter before there were people having need to measure things already existing?

BTW, today, my son actually passed (sqeaked by) his Algebra III final - NO more math in high school. He's like me, he believes Algebra is mostly an application of metaphysics.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:That was Story, who apparently was saying that god could make 1x3 =8.

My take is that math exists entirely apart from anyone or anything.

So, math is eternal, preexisting everything, and exists on its own?

I dont know what time is, nor do you.

I alresdy said what I meant.

Philip wrote:Math is an applied science, developed by man, to measure and quantify things that already exist. Which came first, the things requiring measurement and quantification or the technical application of a developed science designed to measure those things? The science and disciplines of applied mathematics should not be confused with things they can be used to measure and quantify. Show me even simple calculus techniques that are much older than 2,000 years old. FAR more sophistication came later. And does the techniques of a non-existing applied science even matter before there were people having need to measure things already existing?

Nonsense.

Storyteller wrote:

Don't worry A.

Here is a rule CS Lewis pointed out in The Problem of Pain:

• "His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.
  
  If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prifex to them the two other words, 'God can.'
  
  It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

Nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists.
John C. Lennox

Philip wrote:My argument for SOME God-like force has NOTHING to do with my particular view of precisely WHO I believe that force to be, but merely to show the hard parameters of what ALL possible options which ANY source must lie within. And that is something either eternally existing or that was originated and thus caused by some force that was eternal, all powerful, and unfathomably intelligent, and of specific purposes.

And how do you know this? Are these the only options you can think of so you proclaim these are the only options that exist? I don’t think you know enough to go listing hard parameters of possible options when it comes to possibilities of the Universe. If you wanna believe you do; fine but I ain’t buyin it.

Ken: But if you are trying to understand things from Audie’s POV; a non believer who does not operate from the same presuppositions you guys do, your argument will not work. The claims you made may work for normal matter, but how do you know it will work for dark matter or dark energy?

Philip wrote:So, Ken, was dark matter always eternally self-existing, non-physical, and supremely powerful and intelligent, and purposeful? As either dark matter, it's source, or WHATEVER source, HAS to be eternal, stand outside of time, space, matter and dimension, or it was created by something outside of those - as there are NO other possibilities!?

How do you know there are no other possibilities? Nobody knows enough about dark matter or dark energy to say what is possible.

Ken: Science doesn’t even make such a claim;

Philip wrote:You mean, as to what preceded the physical universe? Of COURSE not, because science doesn't have a clue. And THEORIES are not science, but at BEST, educated yet wildly mathematically improbable speculation.

Are you serious? Are you under the impression scientific theories are not science and is nothing more than speculation? Or am I misunderstanding you.

Philip wrote:Because science itself has absolutely NO ability to measure or assess the non-physical or invisible, unknown things, especially as science asserts that before the big bang there was NOTHING physical in existence.

Science does not address prior to the singularity that expanded to become what is called the big bang; they do not claim a time in history when nothing existed. Science starts with the singularity, and that is as far back as they currently go,

Ken

Math is an applied science, developed by man, to measure and quantify things that already exist. Which came first, the things requiring measurement and quantification or the technical application of a developed science designed to measure those things? The science and disciplines of applied mathematics should not be confused with things they can be used to measure and quantify. Show me even simple calculus techniques that are much older than 2,000 years old. FAR more sophistication came later. And does the techniques of a non-existing applied science even matter before there were people having need to measure things already existing?

These users liked the post of Philip :
Audie

Later:

Philip wrote:
Math is an applied science, developed by man, to measure and quantify things that already exist. Which came first, the things requiring measurement and quantification or the technical application of a developed science designed to measure those things? The science and disciplines of applied mathematics should not be confused with things they can be used to measure and quantify. Show me even simple calculus techniques that are much older than 2,000 years old. FAR more sophistication came later. And does the techniques of a non-existing applied science even matter before there were people having need to measure things already existing?

Audie: Nonsense.

Oh, yeah, Binary thinking would be BOTH - you like it AND you find it nonsense!