Do you have any empirical, scientific evidence that proves your belief, april?
I think you will find the same thing of faith, that is why the Catholic Church is responsible for so much of what scientists and the culture at large just take for granted. Allow me to name a few examples:
So it’s fine to say something = nothing, as long as it’s Real Science. That’s OK, I knew when I posted the links that you wouldn’t understand, or even try to understand. So, knowing what I was up against beforehand, I’m not disappointed.
You are still not examining the situation carefully enough. The Law of Causation (which you have accepted as proving a first mover) and the Law of the Conservation of Energy, taken together, prove that there must have been a non-contingent first being who set the universe in motion.
You say I’m “causing confusion” but actually it makes perfect sense. For the phenomena that created the universe to do so, it would make perfect sense for it to be a supernatural being, because what natural being is capable of creating energy out of nothing?
Again, you are evaluating it from the wrong perspective. I am not saying that I am naming the being that “kickstarted” the universe “God,” I am saying that the DEFINITION of said being IS God. As I said before, you can call it something else, but it still fills the definition of said being.
Why are you against Science? It is the best tool we have to advance knowledge.
Nobody here is against science
As stated, no one is against science. Certainly not the Catholic Church. Again I invite you to start learning about your own faith of your birth.
Can you be more explicit on how you make the leap to 'prove that there must have been a non-contingent first being who set the universe in motion The best you could say here is that you don’t know.
I understand what you are trying to achieve, but it does not ‘make perfect sense for it to be a supernatural being’ I think your attempt needs more work, explicitly on the leap to there being a supernatural being. Why do you assume it would be a ‘being’. Why do you assume that it is necessary.?
Your positions strikes me as the ‘god of the gaps argument’ because we have not yet discovered or solved the problem of how the universe started, you ‘insert God’. That is the same argument no doubt, sun worshippers used, until man discovered how the sun actually works.
With all due respect it is not a logical conclusion, it’s wishful thinking.
You have faith in scientist and their peer reviews, but not in eye witness accounts of Christ from 12 apostles. Why is it different?
Plus one very significant outsider. edit ok yeah also plus Roman (Jewish) historian Josephus.
I see what you did there. Framing a baseless charge in the form of a question, to pretend that it has already been established. Sophomoric debating trick.
But some may rightfully be against “Science”.
The god of the gaps is simply the perspective of where we have gaps in knowledge - these gaps are taken as evidence of the proof of God’s existence.
Any CapitalS you see in my posts are simply poor typing.
Indeed.
I hear what you are saying, but I still prefer old fashioned evidence. I don’t have faith in ‘scientists and their peer reviews’ per se, The beauty of science is that it can be tested. If something no longer holds true, then our knowledge advances and so on and so on. All of our knowledge is science. Nothing can be ‘outside science’.
I would be very careful in saying that nothing can be outside science. That simply is not true, at least not with our current abilities.
I think you will find science is trying to find answers and not making faith-based assertions, - that is the province of religions.