Scientific argument for God's existence

[lelinator]

The contradiction is obvious unless you change the meaning of necessary in the context of what it means to have existence, which is what you have resorted to.

I assert that existence isn’t possible without change, and therefore it’s change itself that’s necessarily real.

You assert that it’s some “thing” that’s necessary, and I maintain that it’s simply change that’s necessary.

I would also assert that these two things are inseparable, change, and that which changes.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Similarly, if something exists then it will change.

That does not follow, and you are essentially asserting that no possible thing can exist unless it is changing. And my argument refutes that.

You are putting words into my mouth again. I haven’t said that nothing can exist unless it is changing. I have said that if something exists then it must change. Those are two entirely different statements.

And something exists. In a cyclical universe it always has. And is, and has been constantly changing. Should I put in another QED here?

 

[IWantGod]

I haven’t said that nothing can exist unless it is changing. I have said that if something exists then it must change.

…

 

[EndTimes]

We could start by attempting to define “science”…

Is ‘science’ a by-product of the Human Mind?

 

[IWantGod]

Is ‘science’ a by-product of the Human Mind?

Science is a tool, a method of knowing, that was created to aid in our understanding of physical reality, the measurable objects we perceive with our senses. It is a product of our will to understand.

 

[buffalo]

It’s not limited. There was no first cause. Apart from the previous ‘aeon’. There is no regression to an infinite past. Each eaon is caused by the previous and causes the next. There was no ‘first aeon’.

That is “blind faith” at its best. I am surprised by your comment.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

It’s not limited. There was no first cause. Apart from the previous ‘aeon’. There is no regression to an infinite past. Each eaon is caused by the previous and causes the next. There was no ‘first aeon’.

That is “blind faith” at its best. I am surprised by your comment.

I’m not in any way stating that that is way it happened. I’m describing that which has been proposed.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not in any way stating that that is way it happened. I’m describing that which has been proposed.

Seemed like you were pretty adamant.

Ahhh - glad you clarified. All this to avoid theism.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

I’m not in any way stating that that is way it happened. I’m describing that which has been proposed.

All this to avoid theism.

Why do you think it does that?