Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
''the unequivocal fact is that as science progresses, it is actually moving closer to agreeing with and vindicating the existence of God.''That is your conjecture, not fact.
You would be drawing a bad conclusion there. And I don't have any scriptures. You assume badly again.
Look, I came within an inch of being an astronomer so don't lecture me on stars or stellar creation. It does not sound like you have a very firm grasp on the physics of the early universe as far back as we can explain with science, but the unequivocal fact is that as science progresses, it is actually moving closer to agreeing with and vindicating the existence of God. You see, it is naive to think God is about magic and that science is about fact, or that God exists merely as a tool to explain those things we otherwise have no explanation for.
No. You do not understand. Not all religion is flawed, I was speaking of ancient religions of early man. I remember as a child seeing an early concept of the universe being the Earth as a flat disc supported on the backs of four elephants. Then there were the superstitions about the stars such as the planets being God, etc.
Just because some religions/superstitions were flawed does not invalidate all religion/spirituality.
There really isn't anything natural about appeals to supernatural agents.
What reason can you present to claim that god (define which god(s), is / are the creator of all natural forces. Wouldn't supernatural gods supernaturally create supernatural forces?
That's not at all an 'unequivocal fact'. There is nothing in science that progresses toward supernaturalism as an answer to or vindicating any gods.
''true Scotsman'', eh?
Like those who claim there is no God or that the universe was not created by God.lmao
More completely ignorant assertions about God.
So foolish as to be entirely laughable.
Anyone who thinks they understand God is dumb as a stump.
The universe exists therefore God exists - simple logic.How nice that you claim to know your Gods created everything. You obviously don't know that so let's not pretend you're doing that anything but bloviating.
It's something of a paradox to claim to know your gods created everything when you obviously can't provide any evidence that your gods exist or have ever existed.
The presence of the universe is evidence for God, once again what else could it possibly be evidence of? you've offered no answer to my question (and atheists rarely do).There is a paradox in that without any evidence for the existence of your gods its laughable to represent you can know your gods are everything creators.
Madrassah is just the Arabic term for educational institution, nothing to do with "prayer".Have you ever presented that paradox to the prayer leader at your madrassah?
Theories cannot be proven, you're thinking of theorem a different concept.TWO THINGS:
- Science (evolution) and God (religion) are NOT mutually exclusive. You can have both; both can be true.
- While Darwin was a rich academician, a scholar, a theorist, his theories behind evolution were indeed PROVEN by the field work of Alfred Wallace.
Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The Malay Archipelago - Wikipedia
Wallace Line - Wikipedia
Can you give me a reason why the universe is not evidence for God? what is the argument, the logic or is this just another deeply cherished atheist belief you cling to?"The presence of the universe is evidence of God, what else could it possibly be evidence of?"
Another of the nonsensical "because I say'' admonitions of the religious extremist. You mindlessly store a variation of the 'watchmaker' analogy. Did you steal that from your Harun Yahya madrassah?
So why do we employ humans to design and write software if a "random walk" can achieve the same outcome? Answer: It cannot.Random walks coupled with combinatorial explosion are some of the most powerful forces in the universe.
Either by itself is not very impressive, but when combined the power is formidable.
Few people know, that it is basically impossible for a digital computer to create a random number. There is no "algorithm" for randomness. For that you need a physical device. More specifically, a quantum device. Ultimately all randomness boils down to quantum behavior. Thus the randomness is part and parcel of the universe. Our universe wouldn't function "at all" without it.
I get a special kick out of the people who deny the power of randomness. Some claim to understand physics but can't wrap their minds around the Feynman integral, which requires ALL possible paths. The randomness of the universe is comprehensive.
A real mind blower is the Poincare recurrence theorem. Which states that dynamic systems eventually return to any arbitrary state. The thing is, the second recurrence is not necessarily a multiple of the first. You can have a "recurrence series" where each term is different. And yet, all such series contain no more information than the unit interval, a fact proven by Georg Cantor.
The entire mystery of the universe is in the interval [0,1]. Repeat it, and you get the real number line combinatorially, without the need for any special math.
"God is not subject to laws, God created laws laws did not create anything nor can they."
I needed to append "...because I say so" to your nonsense claim.
If there was proof out there how would you recognize it? You never would because you revert too the atheist crutch known as "Science of the gaps" aka scientism.As you can't offer even the most basic elements of proofs for your gods, it's pointless for you to assign them tasks such as "laws laws'' building.
Yes we do, we have written revealed knowledge for example we can read "by the power of his will" this tells us that God has "will" intent, and by that will he created everything, we too have will and everything man creates also begins with the will to do so. Have you ever made or designed or constructed anything without the will to do it?Except that we have no idea what God is or how God created everything.
Yes, that's my position (I am a creationist). The existence of laws cannot be explained by recourse to laws, we must look deeper, elsewhere for the origin of laws, science (which relies in laws) can never explain the existence of laws.Isn't that exactly what creationists believe? The only difference is they believe the cause of the magic was a theoretical 'God' not natural forces.
If you see a paradox in my reasoning please elaborate.One might say the same of you.
No. Conjecture would be saying we have a good idea what God is through God himself but having no actual evidence.That is your conjecture, not fact.
Really? You say you have a good idea what God is through God himself. How is that possible, did God talk to you directly?You would be drawing a bad conclusion there. And I don't have any scriptures. You assume badly again.
Magic is about the supernatural and, by definition, God is supernatural. Science is limited to nature.Look, I came within an inch of being an astronomer so don't lecture me on stars or stellar creation. It does not sound like you have a very firm grasp on the physics of the early universe as far back as we can explain with science, but the unequivocal fact is that as science progresses, it is actually moving closer to agreeing with and vindicating the existence of God. You see, it is naive to think God is about magic and that science is about fact, or that God exists merely as a tool to explain those things we otherwise have no explanation for.
So only your religion is the true one? What religion is it that has no scripture?No. You do not understand. Not all religion is flawed, I was speaking of ancient religions of early man. I remember as a child seeing an early concept of the universe being the Earth as a flat disc supported on the backs of four elephants. Then there were the superstitions about the stars such as the planets being Gods, etc.
Just because some religions/superstitions were flawed does not invalidate all religion/spirituality.
Spoken like a person of faith, not one of science. Science would ask HOW does He create "by the power of his will"?Yes we do, we have written revealed knowledge for example we can read "by the power of his will" this tells us that God has "will" intent, and by that will he created everything, we too have will and everything man creates also begins with the will to do so. Have you ever made or designed or constructed anything without the will to do it?
There is much we don't know, always has been, but resorting to the God-of-the-gaps has failed every time.Yes, that's my position (I am a creationist). The existence of laws cannot be explained by recourse to laws, we must look deeper, elsewhere for the origin of laws, science (which relies in laws) can never explain the existence of laws.
As you told Hollie:If you see a paradox in my reasoning please elaborate.
I disagree. Science rests upon faith, upon belief. For example the belief that nature can be understood, the belief that effects are the result of causes. Science - as you know - never proves any hypothesis so these beliefs are unproven and indeed unprovable - i.e. they are assumed, taken on faith.Spoken like a person of faith, not one of science. Science would ask HOW does He create "by the power of his will"?
I could say the same of "science of the gaps" which is simply a belief and that's not science strictly speaking it's scientism.There is much we don't know, always has been, but resorting to the God-of-the-gaps has failed every time.
We can rightfully ask "how" when speaking of the material realm which is governed by laws and cause and effect. The goal of science is to discern and understand those laws, we say we understand some phenomenon when we can reliably predict outcomes. If we throw a ball and can reliably predict where it will land no matter how hard we throw and no matter what angle we throw it, then we say we understand ballistics, if we can't predict the landing point then we do not understand the phenomenon.As you told Hollie:
You have no idea how the universe came to exist, none, not a clue. You must believe in magic, the magical ability for laws to just "pop" into existence uncaused, that's how deluded atheists are. Science is based on cause and effect so what caused the first cause?
Well that's true but the reason is profound and most people gloss over it. The fact is that epistemologically science cannot explain why laws exist, how laws came to exist. Now I don't mean that we don't yet know, I mean that it is logically impossible, paradoxical to seek a scientific explanation because until laws exist there's no way for scientific phenomena to take place at all.Yet you claim that God has the ability for laws to just "pop" into existence. You don't have any evidence as to how this takes place. You also offer God as the first cause, again with zero evidence.
Yet you are and must always be, silent when asked to explain the origin of physical laws, because they only way to scientifically explain anything is to assume laws - the very thing we are seeking to explain.When it comes to science, I prefer to remain with the concrete.
For instance - here is one of the results of evolution research, published this week:
Scientists steer the development of stem cells to regenerate and repair organs
Investigators from Cedars-Sinai and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) have identified a new way to deliver instructions that tell stem cells to grow into specific bodily structures, a critical step in eventually regenerating and repairing tissues and organs.phys.org
So proof is your standard? Do you apply that to God or do you have proof of His existence?I disagree. Science rests upon faith, upon belief. For example the belief that nature can be understood, the belief that effects are the result of causes. Science - as you know - never proves any hypothesis so these beliefs are unproven and indeed unprovable - i.e. they are assumed, taken on faith.
Science has theories, not proofs. Ideas with so much evidence they are accepted as truths. Gravity is such an example.Ask any physicist and they'll tell you, we cannot prove that if I throw a ball over and over and over that at some point the ball won't disappear or turn into a frog, we doubt it will, I doubt it will but science does not enable us to prove that.
Many things we used to attribute to God are now shown to have natural causes. His gaps are shrinking fast as science offers answers to 'how', God does not.I could say the same of "science of the gaps" which is simply a belief and that's not science strictly speaking it's scientism.
Sounds like a classic 'God of the gaps' argument. You can't know what questions science will eventually answer since we've been wrong so many times in the past.Well that's true but the reason is profound and most people gloss over it. The fact is that epistemologically science cannot explain why laws exist, how laws came to exist. Now I don't mean that we don't yet know, I mean that it is logically impossible, paradoxical to seek a scientific explanation because until laws exist there's no way for scientific phenomena to take place at all.
If there were no laws then no interactions can ever take place because interactions require laws. So we know that the laws that do exist cannot be the results of any kind of scientific process, that is we cannot hope to mechanistically explain the presence of these laws.
The honest seeker after truth when faced with this must acknowledge that the cause of laws existing can never be "explained" scientifically and that means there is no prospect of describing "how" other than "God created" which is an explanation but not a mechanistic explanation. You have no basis to insist that all explanations must be mechanistic that too is just a belief.
The one thing science cannot explain is how or why a scientifically understandable world came to exist, we have to look outside of science, outside of material explanations otherwise we face a paradox and paradoxes are always the result of flawed premises.
Spoken like a person of faith, not one of science. Science would ask HOW does He create "by the power of his will"?
There is much we don't know, always has been, but resorting to the God-of-the-gaps has failed every time.
As you told Hollie:
You have no idea how the universe came to exist, none, not a clue. You must believe in magic, the magical ability for laws to just "pop" into existence uncaused, that's how deluded atheists are. Science is based on cause and effect so what caused the first cause?
Yet you claim that God has the ability for laws to just "pop" into existence. You don't have any evidence as to how this takes place. You also offer God as the first cause, again with zero evidence.
A'splain us how your gods created anything,Like those who claim there is no God or that the universe was not created by God.
Proof means there is no scope for doubt, no basis for doubt. Not quite proof of God, but I regard it as proven that the existence of the universe can not have a scientific explanation, we can prove that something other than laws was involved (because until laws exist nothing can happen yet we know something happened).So proof is your standard? Do you apply that to God or do you have proof of His existence?
By all means accept theories as truths if you want but that's simply belief, that's what a belief is. You speak of gravitation and that's a superb example that underlines what I'm saying. For several hundred years people accepted Newton's theory of universal gravitation as being a truth, there was no doubt, it was never questioned, it was regarded as a perfect theory fully supported by experimental tests.Science has theories, not proofs. Ideas with so much evidence they are accepted as truths. Gravity is such an example.
What was attributed to God? can you give some examples of these "many things"?Many things we used to attribute to God are now shown to have natural causes. His gaps are shrinking fast as science offers answers to 'how', God does not.
You miss the point (many do) in that we cannot rely on "eventually" here. Look at the number π do you think we might one day eventually find two integers that allows us to show that π is rational? Do you think you could try hard and for long enough and find a rational representation of π ?Sounds like a classic 'God of the gaps' argument. You can't know what questions science will eventually answer since we've been wrong so many times in the past.
