Evidence for God from Science

They don't want reasons, there are plenty to look if someone wanted to ...most just don't like the idea of a God. That's at the heart of the matter. Refusal to accept. It is a futile rebellion, as my brother Danny, once, so adequately put.

That is an incredibly shallow way to look at this debate.

so is this,

I really dislike philosophical arguments. It just seems a little silly to me, too open to interpretation and personal emotion.

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:Marcus' 4:31 pm post
-
-
-

FYI, users in different time zones see different posting times. I see his post at 11:31 a.m. for example.

Cheers John, rookie error

MarcusOfLycia wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Proinsias wrote:

Byblos wrote:It makes not a lick of difference whatsoever how many universes are postulated beyond ours. You end up with either infinite regress, which is utterly absurd and the death knell of science, indeed of reason itself, or you end up with a purposeful creation ex nihilo. Those are the only two option, there is no third. And guess which one science backs up?

Why is an infinite regress absurd and an infinite creator reasonable?

Because reason demands an intent to create (a first cause). Only an infinite, intelligent creator can form such intent (be the first cause).

Another point:

Why is an infinite creator absurd and infinite regress reasonable? (to atheists/agnostics)

Byblos: I need to read into this a little more but it simply seems like passing the buck, one is still regressing to infinity wether theism is shoehorned in or not.

Marcus: I don't see one as more absurd or reasonable than the other, my questions are to those who view one appeal to infinity as reasonable and another as absurd.

Proinsias wrote:Byblos: I need to read into this a little more but it simply seems like passing the buck, one is still regressing to infinity wether theism is shoehorned in or not.

'regressing' to infinity is not the term I would use but essentially I agree. However, the difference is that infinite regress without the intent to create (as in an intelligent mind with a purpose) is untenable for the same reason an infinite time span is untenable. It would simply be impossible to traverse an infinite time span to arrive at the present.

Why is an infinite creator absurd and infinite regress reasonable? (to atheists/agnostics)

Infinite regress is absurd, and there is plenty of study to show why. Infinite regress requires infinite time. That is, this moment of 'now' is preceeded by an infinite number of moments prior, and on and on. The problem this presents is how can we arrive at now. If infinity preceeds, then how can one ever arrive at a point in time? If I told you that something was going to happen, but it would only happen after an infinite amount of time, you'd quickly realize that it would never happen, and that i was speaking of an impossibility of nature. So, you are right to ask why an infinite creator is reasonable. We use the term infinite to define something that really isn't definable. Infinity, by its conception is not defined, but limitless. Time however is not understood that way. Time is a product of the universe. Space, time, matter. All of which had a beginning. That is why nearly all of science dates our universe. The universe is umpteen billion years old. In other words, go back to that alpha point. Step one more moment back and guess what? No time. So God is not infinite, but timeless or eternal. He is the essence of existence. A being that is not bound by space, time, or matter. And really the only tenable explanation for being.