Evidence for God from Science

BryanH wrote:

Er, no it's not. One side has a rational argument for creation (of anything) that does not violate the law of non-contradiction, and the other one ... well, doesn't.

No offense Byblos, but at present times I don't think that anyone can offer a rational argument for creation. We only have assumptions.

I hope you don't take offense either when I say you are completely wrong. Classical philosophy has had this answer for centuries but it largely goes unmentioned because there is no modern answer for it.

Is there only 2 sides? What if I were to say I don't "believe" God exists... I know it. Wouldn't this be a third option?

Byblos wrote:

BryanH wrote:

Er, no it's not. One side has a rational argument for creation (of anything) that does not violate the law of non-contradiction, and the other one ... well, doesn't.

No offense Byblos, but at present times I don't think that anyone can offer a rational argument for creation. We only have assumptions.

I hope you don't take offense either when I say you are completely wrong. Classical philosophy has had this answer for centuries but it largely goes unmentioned because there is no modern answer for it.

I'd have to agree with BryanH. No one has an answer yet. Just out of curiosity, could you point me to this philosophical argument?

Pierson5 wrote:

Byblos wrote:

BryanH wrote:

Er, no it's not. One side has a rational argument for creation (of anything) that does not violate the law of non-contradiction, and the other one ... well, doesn't.

No offense Byblos, but at present times I don't think that anyone can offer a rational argument for creation. We only have assumptions.

I hope you don't take offense either when I say you are completely wrong. Classical philosophy has had this answer for centuries but it largely goes unmentioned because there is no modern answer for it.

I'd have to agree with BryanH. No one has an answer yet. Just out of curiosity, could you point me to this philosophical argument?

You'd have to do a ton of reading but start with Aquinas' Summa Theologica. Next I would suggest Divine Simplicity.

You'd have to do a ton of reading but start with Aquinas' Summa Theologica. Next I would suggest Divine Simplicity.

I've read a little about that one of the problems of this theory is that the theory assumes that the "first mover" is God. Again, it is an assumption that can't be verified.

it is an assumption that can't be verified.

God is not an assumption, he has revealed himself through the living word.

Dan

God is not an assumption, he has revealed himself through the living word.

Dan, I really don't want to start this discussion all over again: first of all you can't verify that Jesus is actually the son of God.

So God is an assumption at this moment in time.

BryanH wrote:

God is not an assumption, he has revealed himself through the living word.

Dan, I really don't want to start this discussion all over again: first of all you can't verify that Jesus is actually the son of God.

So God is an assumption at this moment in time.

That is your opinion, which I do not share.

Edit. God is only an assumption to you, what you are saying is only an assertion. God to me is not an assumption, this quote sums it up quite well.

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S.Lewis

God is so real to me that I do not have a choice but to believe, everyday I see the work of his hand and experience his grace and love.

Dan

That is your opinion, which I do not share.

Edit. God is only an assumption to you, what you are saying is only an assertion. God to me is not an assumption, this quote sums it up quite well.

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S.Lewis

God is so real to me that I do not have a choice but to believe, everyday I see the work of his hand and experience his grace and love.

Of course Dan.
Sorry. I didn't mean to offend your beliefs in any way.

I was strictly speaking from a factual point of view.

BryanH wrote:

That is your opinion, which I do not share.

Edit. God is only an assumption to you, what you are saying is only an assertion. God to me is not an assumption, this quote sums it up quite well.

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” - C.S.Lewis

God is so real to me that I do not have a choice but to believe, everyday I see the work of his hand and experience his grace and love.

Of course Dan.
Sorry. I didn't mean to offend your beliefs in any way.

I was strictly speaking from a factual point of view.

No you weren't, you were merely expressing an unsubstantiated opinion. You can't even coherently explain why there is existence.

No you weren't, you were merely expressing an unsubstantiated opinion. You can't even coherently explain why there is existence.

Byblos no offense again, but nobody can explain why... a lot of people try to explain MAYBE why, but that's all...

Byblos wrote:

Pierson5 wrote:

Byblos wrote: I hope you don't take offense either when I say you are completely wrong. Classical philosophy has had this answer for centuries but it largely goes unmentioned because there is no modern answer for it.

I'd have to agree with BryanH. No one has an answer yet. Just out of curiosity, could you point me to this philosophical argument?

You'd have to do a ton of reading but start with Aquinas' Summa Theologica. Next I would suggest Divine Simplicity.

BryanH wrote: I've read a little about that one of the problems of this theory is that the theory assumes that the "first mover" is God. Again, it is an assumption that can't be verified.

Ah, the "unmoved mover." I have read about this before, but will take a look at the links, thanks Byblos.

BryanH wrote:

No you weren't, you were merely expressing an unsubstantiated opinion. You can't even coherently explain why there is existence.

Byblos no offense again, but nobody can explain why... a lot of people try to explain MAYBE why, but that's all...

Precisely. Just because the human race or science, etc.. doesn't have an answer (yet, if ever), doesn't make the other view correct by default.

BryanH wrote:

No you weren't, you were merely expressing an unsubstantiated opinion. You can't even coherently explain why there is existence.

Byblos no offense again, but nobody can explain why... a lot of people try to explain MAYBE why, but that's all...

Wrong, the Bible explains the why and has a little detail on the how, it's just that you don't accept that.

We don't say maybe this or maybe that, we say we know this we know that according to God's word.

No maybe's here.


Dan

Precisely. Just because the human race or science, etc.. doesn't have an answer (yet, if ever), doesn't make the other view correct by default.

What answer are we talking about, if you are talking about God, how exactly would science test for something outside of the scope of it ability?

With your limited time on this planet you may never have the answer before it is too late, maybe you should stop worrying about the whole human race finding an answer and concentrate on your own finite exitence before the candles burns out.


Dan

Wrong, the Bible explains the why and has a little detail on the how, it's just that you don't accept that.

We don't say maybe this or maybe that, we say we know this we know that according to God's word.

No maybe's here.

Again, Dan, this was more like a factual statement. I know that the Bible says a lot of things about Creation, but actually saying that there are no maybes in the bible comes to using a certain degree of faith and personal beliefs.