CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I believe God exists, and that He created all things. I believe God is self-evident in His creation, and also that His existence is scientific. I believe that with no pre-conceived ideas, we can, by using non-biased logic and reason, you can come to the conclusion that He exists and is necessary.
All I ask is a working and open mind. Use simple logic and reason to discuss the existence or non-existence of God. In the instance that a point cannot be proven, the conclusion of that point must be rounded off to the most reasonable and scientific argument. I allow the first argument to be posted by a challenger. Good luck!
You are positing an assertion that God is self-evident (empirically untrue at the point where anyone disagrees) and that the existence of God can be proven through science, logic, and reason (for which you provide none). Since you are making the initial claim, the burden of evidence and analysis falls to you and not your opponent. Otherwise, all one need do is point out that you have not substantiated your claim and you have then lost the debate.
At that point all I was doing was stating what I believe. The debate starts when you question me on what I believe.
God is self-evident in many specific ways, but the most general example I can give is simple: creation.
Everything that exists inside of time must, by definition, have a cause. Everything that is inside of time has a beginning and an end. The effect, the very evidence of time, is a decrease of energy, therefore change, and eventual non-existence of any given thing.
Take a single particle of energy.
The entire Universe itself is made up of energy at its core. When atoms, the makeup of all empirical things, are split down to the deepest possible level, there still exists an active energy. This energy is at the core of every single empirical object in the entire universe. This includes gas, rocks, cells, clouds, water, molecules, etc.
Now that I have established energy as the basis for the study, let's talk about energy at it's rawest. Energy, (abbreviate "E" for the purpose of this discussion) cannot be made from no pre-existing material, or without an outside source. When we scientifically study E we know that E cannot increase without an outside source. E by definition can only decrease with time , and without external supply, will eventually cease. (let's call this the Law of Energy Decrease for now) The only way for E* to increase is to draw from an external energy supply.
By these scientific laws, logically without an external energy source, the Universe and everything in it inside of time would have already ceased due to lack of continued energy supply. Also these laws show that, at that the beginning of time, if the Universe expanded, it would be logical and scientific to reason that the expansion (the sudden increase of energy) would have been powered by an external, self-sustaining, energy source that is outside of time and therefore not subject to the Law of Energy Decrease.
The fact that the Universe, (in essence the energy that makes up the Universe) has, and continues to, increase, logically demands that there must be an external energy source outside of time (God) that has and continues to, sustain it. God is self-evident.
Creationism is not self-evident; I think you misunderstand the term (or you would not be trying to prove the existence of God). Regardless, your argument remains riddled with fallacious presumptions.
1. The Laws of Thermodynamics, in their entirety, find not only that energy cannot be created but that it cannot be destroyed. Accordingly, your premise is false; the energy of the universe is neither increasing nor decreasing and is thus not being influenced by any outside source.
2. You presume that time is both linear and finite. Einstein's theories of relativity are counter-indicative of this.
3. You presume that the universe exists within a finite timeline, thus prematurely concluding that the universe must have a beginning.
4. You presume that if the universe does in fact exist within finite time and does also have a beginning, that that origin must be of godly origin rather than natural origin.
If you disagree that the Universe had a beginning, you are conflicting with The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that disorder always increases with time. This law indicates that there must have been a beginning. If there was not a beginning, by application of the Second Law, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything that exists would be at the same temperature. The very fact that galaxies are moving away from each other means that at one point they were close together, thus coinciding with the scientific theory of the "big bang." The "big bang" theory goes hand-in-hand with the Genesis account of the Creation of the Universe.
"...and God said "Let there be light!..." The "big bang" being the result of God's command. Science and the Bible are perfectly linked.
Edit: Posted this before I was done accidentally- laptop trackpad likes to click if the ball of my hand touches it while typing.
Really? How many years exactly does it take to have complete disorder? (Here is your pre conceived notion)
I don't intend to butt into this debate completely, but I just thought I'd chime in.
The number of years is largely irrelevant. If there was no actual beginning to the universe, and everything in the universe has always existed, then there has been an infinite amount of time for the progression of entropy. I do have to concur with the stance that a universe with no beginning and the law of entropy would seem to be incompatible, so long as entropy is looked at as progressing linearly.
It should be noted, though, that the law of entropy is not necessarily a fact of the universe- it is simply an extremely solid theory that has held true for every case that we have tested it against. These only represent an infinitesimal proportion of the universe in its entirety. I am not asserting that the law of entropy is wrong- just that we do not have 100% certainty that it is 100% correct for the entirety of the universe. There really isn't much that we have anything approaching 100% certainty on at a universal scale; we never really have 100% certainty, and only really approach 100% in specific, localized cases.
Furthermore, who says it occurs linearly? If instead entropy occurs at a rate proportional to the overall distribution of energy in the universe, we may in fact be observing a universe in an extremely advanced state of entropy, though still with localized areas of order. What little of interstellar space that we are able to measure with information from our probes seems to have a relatively uniform (and low!) distribution of matter and energy, with local areas around the stars themselves serving as exceptions. There appears to be far more 'empty' (not actually empty, so much as matter dispersed so widely as to be practically empty) space than occupied space.
Looking at entropy that way, as being proportional to the overall distribution, the process would be expected to slow as the distribution becomes more and more even- just as the rate of diffusion between two gases slows as they become more uniform. In this case, even with infinity to work in, complete entropy may never be reached.
That's not his stance. He said that the universe is constantly gaining energy from God. His evidence is that there isn't complete disorder. What you said doesn't support that. My comment doesn't require a linear entropy. Knowing how long it would take to lose all entropy could still be possible if it was a proportion. A beginning to the universe fits a Godless model, so him using that doesn't help. I hope that clears it up.
I'm aware. I wasn't supporting his stance, just chiming in from the peanut gallery, as it were. My post was more about dissecting the premises that he drew the god conclusion from than it was about the god conclusion itself. I think my wording was misleading- I shouldn't have used the word 'concur-' I thought that noting the caveat in the same line would make that evident, and if not the rest of the post would- but I've often been wrong about my assumptions re: how my words will be taken. Sorry for if I was misleading- it was not intended.
As I noted- the very premises of his argument would only be valid if 1) We knew with certainty that the law of entropy was in fact a universal law and 2) We knew with certainty that the progression of entropy was always linear.
Even then, it doesn't imply that there is a god injecting energy into the system.
We are both making the claim that the universe had a beginning. You threw me off by starting off with the infinite universe thing. I wasn't sure what you were getting at all. I see what you are saying now. His premise is pretty complicated.
I really need to work on brevity. I always feel like I'm not communicating what I mean properly when I speak briefly, but in trying to explain myself I always seem to take a meandering path through wtf-is-this-guy-talking-about valley.
You seem to be missing a "thesis" a lot. Like just a small sentence to explain the core of your argument or why you felt like posting. Something like "here is another reason why entropy is not useful".
You know, you're right. I could have dispelled the confusion by starting my post with something to the effect of "The premise of his argument make assumptions about entropy that aren't necessarily true."
I'll try and remember to sum up my position at the beginning in the future.
Your post is a textbook definition of both misrepresentation and non-responsiveness.
1. You did not refute this point, thus it is conceded. Energy is not being destroyed, and therefor the full premise of your initial point falls. You lose this debate.
2 & 3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics pertains to mathematical proofs of energy, and does not offer any proofs of the linear time system it presumes. You still have not proven linear time exists, let alone that the universe exists within it. You lose this debate.
4. You did not refute this point. Even if Genesis and the Big Bang Theory were compatible (your convenient cherry-picking aside, they are not), compatibility itself is not proof of actuality. You have no proof that God is the source of energy in the universe nor its origin, and thus you lose this debate.
Given your persistent assumptions, misrepresentations, and non-responsiveness coupled with the fact that I have soundly defeated your initial argument I have no intention of persisting in this particular exchange. Expect no further reply.
That was done (empirically) in 1919 by Arthur Eddington.
"...let alone that the universe exists within it."
To clarify: When I say "time," I mean the fact that things happen in a certain order that we can measure. There is this sentence, this string of words put together in bold font.You read that sentence, but now you are reading this sentence in italics font. Right now you are reading this sentence, and you are no longer reading that last sentence. This sentence is now, and that last sentence was before. In a moment you will be reading a different sentence, and not at the same moment as this one. You cannot go back and be in that same moment that you were reading the first sentence, because even if you go back and re-read that sentence, it will be happening after you read this one. These things happened in an order. There is a moment, and then another moment. We just give a name to these "moments" and call them "time."
The Universe, (to demonstrate my point) exists at this moment, and now exists at this moment. In an order, or what we call "time," a sequence of events happening in succession (E.g., A, B, C). Everything exists at this time, and now exists also at this time. This is an example of Linear Time. You cannot go back and re-experience any moment; only move forward to a new moment. You can look back on your wedding day (A), and that was a specific time in your life. You might get divorced and married again, maybe even to the same person, but that is still (B) and is not happening at (A). We are always moving forward, and can only look back. Thus, Linear Time.
"Even if Genesis and the Big Bang Theory were compatible (your convenient cherry-picking aside, they are not), compatibility itself is not proof of actuality."
First of all, they are compatible in my view, but that is beside the point and not the object of this debate. Second I am not stating that compatibility is proof of actuality. I am stating my observation that they are compatible, but I agree with you -- that in no way makes it a fact.
"You have no proof that God is the source of energy in the universe nor its origin, and thus you lose this debate."
It all depends on what you define as "god." If you define "God" as a material, finite, and self-contained being, then no, there is no proof for God. If you define "God" as simply the First Cause, whatever that may be, and therefore being Timeless, Immaterial, and Space-less, Intelligent, and Moral (as I do) there is still no proof (At least empirically). You know why? Because, first of all, something that is Immaterial cannot be measured physically. It can only be measured by the effect it has. We cannot see or measure by empiricism Time, but we know it exists because of the effect it has. When Eddington was doing his tests on the eclipse in 1919, he saw the effect of time and therefore knew it existed. We know that it exists because we have minds to observe, reason, and then conclude. You will believe in Time, but not in God, because it has become too common for man to define God instead of letting the evidence that is already out there define him. I believe that the evidence we have combined with our ability to reason is sufficient to define him as Morally Perfect, Intelligent, Timeless, Space-less, and Immaterial, and that is the God I believe in (which coincides with the God of the Bible).
All in all, the argument about the existence or non-existence of God is a bit like this.
Suppose you wake up in the morning, walk into the kitchen, and on the table is a box of Alphabet breakfast cereal. With the letters from the cereal, on the table next to the box is spelled the words:
You wonder how these letters came into existence. Suddenly, I walk into the room and sees the same thing you do. I wonder how the letters came into existence too. We both start debating. I say that someone with intelligence must have put those letters there and organized them in that fashion. You say that there is no evidence for that, and you would be right, but I say that the chances of that happening by accident are very slim, almost infinitely so. I might not be able to prove that someone arranged the letters on the table, and you would be right in saying that it is possible that scientifically, the box fell, the letters spilled out and became arranged in that order just as you see them. That is definitely a possible cause but very, very, very slim. And you would be right in saying that it is possible no matter how slim the chances, because it is possible. Even though reason tells me that Someone intelligent must have arranged the letters in order, I cannot prove it. Except with the Universe, we are talking about billions upon billions upon billions of letters, covering that table and the house and the entire front yard and neighborhood. All arranged in order, spelling out one message, the story of the Universe. And if one letter out of the countless were moved even a fraction of a degree, the entire message wouldn't make sense. So I cannot prove God to where you will agree, because there is always that infinitesimal chance that all those gazillions of letters fell and blew all over the place and happened to spell that message, but reason tells me that those letters did not just happen by accident. They had an Intelligent Designer. And so I try my best to explain why I think that, and I go into reason and the dynamics and the conceptual and the evidence to explain why I believe that there is a 99.99999999999999% chance that the Universe was created by an intelligent Designer. You can choose to either accept the 99.999999999999999 of science, or stay and defend the 0.0000000000000001%. That is why each of us choose to believe what we believe based on the reason that we all have. You might not respond, but the facts and the Science remains.
E by definition can only decrease with time , and without external supply, will eventually cease.
Or, stay the same.
By these scientific laws, logically without an external energy source, the Universe and everything in it inside of time would have already ceased due to lack of continued energy supply. Also these laws show that, at that the beginning of time, if the Universe expanded, it would be logical and scientific to reason that the expansion (the sudden increase of energy) would have been powered by an external, self-sustaining, energy source that is outside of time and therefore not subject to the Law of Energy Decrease.
Our lack of knowledge of the beginning of the universe does not allow for these statements to be accepted or refuted.
The fact that the Universe, (in essence the energy that makes up the Universe)
The universe spreading out does not mean it is getting more energy. Here is your pre conceived notion.
I haven't seen anything where pre conceived ideas weren't present at least indirectly. That is a big cause of the flaws. If I see one here I can explain.
I am saying that it is possible to come to the conclusion that God exists without having pre-conceived ideas. If you start from the beginning and examine the evidence using logic and reason, and do not insert biased thought or pre-conceived ideas into the subject you will come to the conclusion that God makes sense.
i see your point now. there are obviously two sides to a coin.
i believe God does exist. and i think, God gives everybody hope whether they believe in Him or not.
many people find inner peace spiritually. they come to reason that God does exist which may or may not be a specific form.
of course this doesn't confirm anything, but that doesn't mean He does not exist. there are lots of things we haven't figured out the answers to yet. it doesn't mean things we don't know about do not exist.
There are more than two sides to the issue (to most issues, really).
You may hold whatever beliefs you hold, but frankly I find the notion that anything I have worked for and secured for myself being attributed to some abstract and unproven "God" offensive. That said, I do not actually consider hope a positive; I think it is more limiting than helpful.
Many people do find the idea of God more comfortable than confronting actual reality. They do not conclude that God exists by any process of reason however.
There are indeed many things we do not fully understand yet; this does not mean we should presume to have the answer (which is precisely what belief in God does).
God is the one that created everything that you have ever experienced. he is the only one that can truly create and destroy things while man only imitates and shatters. However, people still say that science is the only true reason behind things but how come there is so much they can't explain while they claim they know so much. I'm not saying that science is useless because it has improved many things like medicine but like Icarus, scientist are flying too close to the sun. Also, the point of our faith is to trust in god that he is there and to continue to believe without proof. This is how he knows who his true followers are. Believe what you want, but how you have the right to believe in science, I have the right to believe in God. I don't say how cells aren't the building blocks of life or how the sun isn't a star. the more the try to understand, the more unanswered questions they find. No matter how much we try, God will always be the creator of all things in existence.
While I might agree with the belief that God created all things, and yes, we do have the right to believe whatever we choose, but the purpose of this debate is to discover if the existence of God is scientific or necessary. We are using science to debate the existence of God Personally I believe that the existence of God is scientific, and therefore when you put "God" and "Science" on two different opposing sides, you are doing nothing to contribute to the debate. As I said before, I don't disagree with you, but that is not the purpose of the debate.
There is no scientific evidence proving even the probable existence of God. There is also no reason to conclude that God is in any way necessary.
There is however significant cause to believe that God is a byproduct of the human evolutionary process. This casts the odds away from neutral and in favor of the probable non-existence of God.
It is interesting that there could be an evolutionary component to God. We have invented a lot of things for survival, and a concept like God could just be another thing on the list. Good point.
While I hesitate to say with certainty that a god or gods do not exist...
No available evidence suggests or even implies that a god or gods do exist. Every suggestion I've seen otherwise is rooted in either:
-misinterpretation of 'evidence'
-inductive reasoning based on shaky premises
-portraying something as evidence that is not- such as writings in a book.
-some combination of the above
That said- I don't support those who assert with conviction that there are no gods at all, and I dislike that this debate is presented in a binary format- a perspectives debate would have been preferable. That said, the 'No' side is more correct in terms of all available evidence at this point in time.
I don't think these are the reasons that most who believe in God do- I don't think those beliefs can be rationally explained, and are heavily tied up with emotion, upbringing, and simple inertia.
Rather, when individuals believe that their beliefs can be proved rationally to a nonbeliever, these are the errors made.
I Dont believe in any God of any religion. I dont the existence of God is required for our own existence.
In the end both theists and atheists believe everything came from nothing, because an atheist can always ask the theist who or what created God - if nothing created God, then he came from nothing.
If God can come from nothing, so can the Universe.
I believe that a superior being is possible, and i believe i can be turn out to be wrong, thats why I like to call myself an agnostic, simply because I generally think people who identify themselves as atheists are often very arrogant and closedminded when discussing this topic.
The difference between Theists and Atheists in that respect is that Atheists believe that out of nothing came matter, and then matter evolved into everything we see here. This theory, however, does not explain how concepts such as time or gravity came into existence.
To understand how Theists think, first you must understand how important the concept of time in relation to belief in God is. I believe in an eternal God. This means a God outside of time. If he is outside of time, then he does not to have a creator because the laws of time do not apply to him. Therefore saying that God exists, and that He created the concept of time; the very idea of something changing and having a beginning and an end. Those things only apply to something inside the realm of time. He created the idea of time. Before time existed, He existed. Before time, nothing had ever been created. He just... existed. At some point, he created time and everything inside it, including matter, laws such as gravity, and energy. We find this hard to understand because everything we do and think are based on the law of time. "At some point... Before... After... When..." This is how our mind works. God does not work on that level, the level of time, because He created it. He was the First Cause, the Uncaused Causer, the Unmoved Mover. This is the only logical way to explain existence of the Universe.
It doesnt have anything to do with time - the question isnt ''when'', its ''what''. What created God?
Religion is a theory solely based on belief, while f.ex the Big bang is a theory created by scientists, who studied the subject for years, and based their theory on their observations
God doesn't have a beginning. Only things that are inside of time need a beginning. God created time, God is outside of time, God doesn't have a beginning, and He doesn't have a Creator because he doesn't have a beginning. If he did have a beginning, then you could ask the question of what created him. But since God does not have a beginning, the "what" is not necessary.
Yes there is evidence that God doesn't need a beginning. You see we have a law that applies today and it's true in all places at all times and it's called the Law of Causality which states that all things require a creator in order for something to be created in our modern day life on earth.
However, the Law of Causality doesn't say anything about an eternal being that needs to be created. So thus it is logical to conclude that God doesn't need a beginning because He is an eternal being.
If the law doesnt say anything about an eternal being, then according to that law an eternal being does like all others need a creator. your argument is logically flawed, because it is not evidence when you assume that an eternal being doesnt need a creator just because a law didnt mention it.
There is also a law that says it is illegal to kill, but the law doesnt say anything about it being illegal for women to kill, thus must it mean that I do not apply to this law, right?
No, the law probably says nobody is allowed to kill, and that includes me. If there is a law that says all things require a creator, then that counts for eternal beings too
If God needs a creator then that must mean that we can become like God and which we can't. An eternal being doesn't need to be created because He has always existed. We can't fathom why God has always existed and doesn't need a Creation.
Why are you using a law that says everything needs a creator to prove that your God doesn't? That's ridiculous.
I was using that because I saw it in a book that I own. And it makes sense to me. And the law i'm talking about is the one that God made for the universe. Such as the law of gravity. Not the laws that you were talking about when you mentioned killing.
So I ask you now - Do you have proof to support your theory, other than the bible?
I can use the Bible if I want to, to support theory. If I cannot then I cannot debate with you because the Bible is valuable when it comes to debating about God. If I cannot use it then I cannot debate you. I'm sorry. If I can use it then I will continue the debate. And since you don't want me to use the Bible then I cannot debate any longer with you on this subject.
You can respond to me but if you say I can use the Bible then I will continue debating.
Gravity is a result of the earth spinning in a circle around the sun.
I can use the Bible if I want to
Of course you can, but do you realize this is a vague argument for those who don't believe in what it contains?
If I cannot then I cannot debate with you because the Bible is valuable when it comes to debating about God.
If you cannot debate without it, then you are a terible debater.
A person who really believes in something can support it with rational arguments. The bible is not a rational argument, since it is over 2000 years old, and has no reliable sources.
You can respond to me but if you say I can use the Bible then I will continue debating.
For you to use the bible as proof for your belief, is like me using the movie Titanic as proof that Titanic sank. You see, the story behind the movie is true, but only having this movie to support your belief that the boat really sank is really not a rational or believable thing to use as ''proof''
Gravity is a result of the earth spinning in a circle around the sun.
Yes that is a law that God ordained on this earth. It's the same with the Law of Causality.
Of course you can, but do you realize this is a vague argument for those who don't believe in what it contains?
It's not vague at all. It's pretty clear on what it's talking about.
If you cannot debate without it, then you are a terible debater.
The Bible is a very important part of Christianity. Without it we wouldn't really know about Christ or the stories that happened in the past.
A person who really believes in something can support it with rational arguments. The bible is not a rational argument, since it is over 2000 years old, and has no reliable sources.
The Bible is a rational argument. It does have a lot of reliable sources because it has multiple sources and authors to support it's validity. Not only that but we also have outside proof of reliable sources such as archaeology, science, and accuracy that is reliable.
For you to use the bible as proof for your belief, is like me using the movie Titanic as proof that Titanic sank. You see, the story behind the movie is true, but only having this movie to support your belief that the boat really sank is really not a rational or believable thing to use as ''proof''
I don't only just have the Bible as proof that it's true but also other sources as well to back it up.
Yes that is a law that God ordained on this earth. It's the same with the Law of Causality.
Do you have proof that these are laws God made?
The Bible is a very important part of Christianity. Without it we wouldn't really know about Christ or the stories that happened in the past.
If you want to consider the christian belief as fact you must come up with some reliable sources.
It does have a lot of reliable sources because it has multiple sources and authors to support it's validity.
Do you have proof that it has multiple sources and authors to support it's Validity?
Not only that but we also have outside proof of reliable sources such as archaeology, science, and accuracy that is reliable.
Again - some proof would be nice?
Your word means nothing to me Srom, you have to give me some hard evidence and sources for what you are telling me.
I don't only just have the Bible as proof that it's true but also other sources as well to back it up.
I've been asking you for proof and the only thing I got from you is that you couldn't debate without including the bible. Why didn't you give me these evidence when I asked for it?
Your word means nothing to me Srom, you have to give me some hard evidence and sources for what you are telling me.
Here is evidence about science. Here is archaeology that supports also it's accuracy.
Here down below is Luke accurately records 84 correct things in the book of Acts.
This isn't my work for all who see this note. This is from a book called I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist by Frank Turek and Norman L. Geisler.
Suppose someone wrote a book in 1980 describing your hometown as it was that year. In the book, the author correctly describes: your town’s politicians, its unique laws and penal codes, the local industry, local weather patterns, local slang, the town’s roads and geography, its unusual topography, local house of worship, area hotels, town statutes, and sculptures, the depth of the water in the town harbor, and numerous other unique details about your town that year. Question: If the author claimed he had visited your town that year or said he gotten good information from people who had been there – would you think he was telling the truth? Of course, because he provides details that only an eyewitness could provide. That’s the type of testimony we have throughout much of the New Testament.
Here is a list that Luke accurately records in the book of Acts.
The natural crossing between correctly named ports (Acts 13:4-5)
The proper port (Perga) along the direct destination of a ship crossing from Cyprus. (13:13)
The proper location of Lycaonia(14:6)
The unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra(14:6)
The correct language spoke in Lystra-Lycaonian(14:11)
Two gods know to be associated- Zeus and Hermes(14:12)
The proper port, Attalia, which returning travelers would use(14:25)
The correct order to Derbe and then Lystra from the Cilican Gates(16:1; cf. 15:41)
The proper form of the name Troas(16:8)
10. The place of a conspicuous sailors’ landmark, Samothrace(16:11)
11. The proper description of Philippi as a Roman colony (16:12)
12. The right location for the river(Gangites) near Philippi(16:13)
13. The proper association of Thyatira as a center of dyeing(16:4)
14. Correct designations for the magistrate of the colony (16:22)
15. The proper locations (Amphipolis and Apollonia) where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey (17:1)
16. The presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica(17:1)
17. The proper term (“politarchs”) used of the magistrates there (17:6)
18. The correct implications that sea travel is the most convenient way of reaching Athens, with favoring east winds of summer sailing (17:14-15)
19. The abundant presence of images in Athens (17:16)
20. The reference to synagogue in Athens (17:17)
21. The depiction of the Athenian lie of philosophical debate in Agora (17:17)
22. The use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul (spermologos, 17:18) as well as the court ( Areio pagos, 17:19)
23. The proper characterization of the Athenian character (17:21)
24. An altar to an “unknown god” (17:23)
25. The proper reaction of Greek philosophers, who denied the bodily resurrection (17:32)
26. Areopagites as the correct title for a member of the court. (17:34)
27. A Corinthian synagogue (18:4)
28. The correct designation of Gallio as proconsul, the resident in Corinth. (18:12)
29. The bema (judgement seat), which overlook Corinth’s forum (18:16ff)
30. The name Tyrannus as attested from Ephesus in first-century inscriptions(19:9)
31. Well known shrines and images of Artemis(19:24)
32. The well-attested “great goddess Artemis” (19:27)
33. That the Ephesian theater was the meeting place of the city (19:35)
34. The correct title grammateus for the chief executive magistrate in Ephesus (19:35)
35. The proper title of honor neokoros, authorized by the Romans (19:35)
36. The proper name to designate the goddess. (19:37)
37. The proper term for those holding court (19:38)
38. Use of plural anthupatoi, perhaps a remarkable reference to the fact that two men were conjointly exercising the functions of proconsul at the time. (19:38)
39. The “regular” assembly, as the precise phrase is attested elsewhere (19:39
40. Use of precise ethnic designation, beroiaios (20:4)
41. Employment of the ethnic term Asianos (20:4)
42. The implied recognition of the strategic importance assigned to the city of Troas (20:7)
43. The danger of the coastal trip in this location (20:13)
44. The correct sequence of places (20:14-15)
45. The correct name of the city as neuter plural (Patara)(21:1)
46. The appropriate route passing across the open sea south of Cyprus favored by persistent northwest winds (21:3)
47. The suitable distance between these cities (21:8)
48. A characteristically Jewish act of piety (21:24)
49. The Jewish law regarding Gentile use of the temple area (21:28) (Archaeological discoveries and quotations from Josephus confirms that the Gentiles could be executed for entering the temple area. One inscription reads: “Let no Gentile enter within the balustrade and enclosure surrounding the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will be personally responsible for his consequent death.)
50. The permanent stationing of a Roman cohort (chiliarch) at Antonia to suppress any disturbance at festival times (21:31)
51. The flight of steps used by the guards ( 21:31, 35)
52. The common way to obtain Roman citizenship at this time (22:29)
53. The tribune being impressed with Roman rather than Tarsian citizenship (22:29)
54. Ananias being high priest at this time (23:2)
55. Felix being governor at this time (23:34)
56. The natural stopping point on the way to Caesarea (23:31)
57. Whose jurisdiction Cilicia was in at the time to Caesarea (23:34)
58. The provincial penal procedure of the time (24:1-9)
59. The name Porcius Festus, which agrees precisely with that given by Josephus (24:27)
60. The right of appeal for Roman citizens (25:11)
61. The correct legal formula (25:18)
62. The characteristic form of reference to the emperor at the time (25:26)
63. The best shipping lanes at that time (27:5)
64. The common bonding of Cilicia and Pamphylia (27:4)
65. The principal port to find a ship sailing to Italy (27:5-6)
66. The slow passage to Cnidus, in the face of the typical northwest wind (27:7)
67. The right route to sail, in view of the winds (27:7)
68. The locations of Fair Havens and the neighboring sites of Lasea (27:8)
69. Fair Haven as a poorly sheltered roadsted (27:12)
70. A noted tendency of a south wind in theses climes to back suddenly to a violent northeaster, the well-known gregale (27:13)
71. The nature of a square rigged ancient ship, having no option but to be driven before a gale (27:15)
72. The precise place and name of this island (27:16)
73. The appropriate maneuvers for the safety of the ship in its particular plight (27:16)
74. The fourteenth night a remarkable calculation, based inevitable on a compounding of estimates and probabilities, confirmed in the judgment of experience Mediterranean navigators (27:27)
75. The proper term of the time for the Adriatic ( 27:27)
76. The precise term (Bolisantes) for taking soundings, and the correct depth of the water near Malta (27:28)
77. A position that suits the probable line of approach of a ship released to run before an easterly wind (27:28)
78. The severe liability on guards who permitted a prisoner to escape (27:42)
79. The local people and he superstitions of the day (28:4-6)
80. The proper title protos tes nesou (28:7)
81. Rhegium as a refuge to await a southerly wind to carry them through the straight (28:13)
82. Appi Forum and Tres Tabernae as correctly placed stopping places on the Appian Way (28:15)
83. Appropriate means of custody with Roman soldiers (28:16)
84. The conditions of imprisonment, living “at his own expense: (28:30-31)
Yes because He is the Creator and created the earth. Of course he made those laws
Do you have proof he is the creator and created earth?
Yes I do because each book of the Bible was written by different people.
Here is a list of authors who wrote the Bible.
Do you have proof that that list is legit? I mean, isn't it possible someone just put a bunch of names on a paper and said these people wrote the bible? Do you have proof that list is legit?
Here is evidence about science. Here is archaeology that supports also it's accuracy.
Here down below is Luke accurately records 84 correct things in the book of Acts.
This isn't my work for all who see this note. This is from a book called I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist by Frank Turek and Norman L. Geisler.
The author of your book, and the author of those links you gave me are both preasts - not scientists. An argument saying '' a preast said so '' is not a legit argument.
Suppose someone wrote a book in 1980 describing your hometown as it was that year. In the book, the author correctly describes: your town’s politicians, its unique laws and penal codes, the local industry, local weather patterns, local slang, the town’s roads and geography, its unusual topography, local house of worship, area hotels, town statutes, and sculptures, the depth of the water in the town harbor, and numerous other unique details about your town that year. Question: If the author claimed he had visited your town that year or said he gotten good information from people who had been there – would you think he was telling the truth? Of course, because he provides details that only an eyewitness could provide. That’s the type of testimony we have throughout much of the New Testament.
Once upon a time there was a boy called Srom, who lived in Seattle, America.
One thing about Srom that was different from everybody else was, that he could fly. He was given this gift from an angel he once met. The angel said thus; "Srom, you have been a good boy, therefore I will give you this extraordinary gift. You will be able to fly, but tell this to no one. When you fly, you need to fly so high, no one will see you" So Srom would fly and fly, he flew so high once, he almost choked by the lack of oxygen in the air. Once he almost froze to death. After these two experiences Srom started to fly a little lower, but guess what - he flew into an airplane and almost killed himself. But now Srom has learned how to fly without choking, freezing or flying into airplanes.
Everyday before Srom went to school, he stopped by a Starbucks and got a Caramel Macchiato - Srom loved his morning Caramel Macchiato. Every so often, he would treat himself with a cinnamon apple pie, or a delicious donut, but not everyday - see, Srom liked to stay fit. In order to stay fit he liked to run, do squats, push ups, and Srom had even finished two marathons in his lifetime. That was pretty impressive for a 16 year old high school student. After finishing his Macchiato, Srom went to school. His classes this day was math, religion, english and german. Srom hated german, he wasn't so good at speaking german, but he was very good at english.
When Srom was done with his classes, he went to the local Mcdonald's, where he worked after school. It didn't give much, but a little is always better than nothing, right? Srom always wanted Mitt Romney to be president, but unfortunately Obama was reelected in 2012. Srom also thought Sarah Palin was so pretty, even though she was a bit older than him, he liked her looks.
On Srom's way home walked all the way from Macdonald's, to his home at Boyer Avenue E. It was a 50 minute walk. He walked past Cal Anderson Park Fountain, past the thomas station and then just straight ahead north, then he'd be home. He also walked past a church, called Churche On The Hill. He went there once, but he never came back. I guess he didn't like going alone, and nobody else wanted to come. But everytime he walked past, he stopped and looked for a second, and if he was lucky, they were just in the middle of a meeting, and he would here them sing. But he had to pee so bad. He almost peed himself, and he had almost a mile left to walk. So he decided to pee outside. He found a bush, and peed. Before he knew there were a couple of policemen behind him, and put handcuffs on him. He was taken to the police station, and they told him someone needed to bail him out. Since he was under 18, they couldn't have him spend the night in jail. He called his mother, who posted bail for him, and he went home. Srom was so embarrassed.
When he got home, he turned on the news, and he was shocked! There was a massive hurricane on it's way, straight to the states. And if the weather man was right, it would not be a pleasant experience, especially not for those who lived in Seattle. Srom and his father went outside right away to clean up in their garden, to prevent preventable damages.
When they were done, Srom's cell started ringing. It was Srom's good friend, Mors. Mors said; Hey dude, yo whazzaap? Have you heard about that gigantic hurricane?
Mors currently lived in a Hotel, Hotel Seattle. It was an 11 minute walk from the Mcdonald's Srom worked at. Mors lived in Hotel Seattle with his mom, because she recently left his abusive dad, and they haven't found an aparament yet.
The End
Srom, now I have given you a story describing the modern society of America. We have Starbucks, Macchiatos, Mcdonald's, High School, different subjects, Airplanes, the knowledge of how our atmosphere is built, teenagers working, apple pie, donuts, the pressure from our society to stay fit and different work out techniques.
I have given you some of America's politicans of our time, one of your unique law and it's penalty code. You also mention the local industry, but this doesnt' make sense to me, since the industrial period didn't start before the 19th century, the weather, correct topography, geography and everything in there is correct. Local slang, hotels and you name it.
Since my story contains a lot of correct detail, does that automatically make the flying boy story true? If you believe what the bible tells you, simply because some details are true, then you are ignorant.
One truth doesn't make everything true.
Here is a list that Luke accurately records in the book of Acts.
Do you have proof that this list is legit? Can you show me how these verses are accurate?
To clarify, the Law of Causality doesn't state that everything needs a creator. The Law of Causality simply states that if there is an effect, there is a cause. God is the Cause of time. Time is an effect; God is the Cause. A theistic God is not an effect, he is a cause; in fact, the First Cause, or the "Unmoved Mover" according to Aristotle.
Your problem, which is also Srom's problem, is your lack of sources. You say things, without having anything backing you up except your own words, which are worth nothing.
You say God is the cause - what makes you say that other than belief? Do you have evidence? Sources please!
Let me paraphrase my post. The Law of Causality states that if there is an effect with a beginning, there is a cause outside the restrictions of that effect. For example, if there is a ripple in a pool of water, according to the Law of Causality there must be something that moved the water to start that ripple. If you consider Time, Matter, and Space, since all three are observable and are proven to have a beginning, they are subject to this Law. Therefore applying the scientific Law of Causality, since Time, Space and Matter had a beginning, they must have a Cause that is not subject to Time, Space or Matter (that would be called Time-less, Space-less, and Immaterial). This Cause that is Timeless, Spaceless, and immaterial is what I mean when I refer to God. If God is Timeless (in other words, eternal), by definition He doesn't have a beginning, and if he doesn't have a beginning He is not subject to the Law of Causality. Because of this, God is not an effect, He is a cause, and because he is eternal, he is un-caused, (deemed by Aristotle the "Uncaused Causer.")
My source is the tested Law of Causality and the proven beginnings of the Universe, Time, Space, and Matter.
Now if you equate the "Uncaused Causer" with the God of the Bible, that is a different story and debate altogether. I believe in the Bible (the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic manuscripts, not the faulty, limited English translations that most read from) because it accurately stated many advanced scientific concepts before they were discovered, and because of it's lack of error and the fact that the people who wrote it over a span of 1600 years never once contradicted each other in the writings and theme, but again that is a completely different debate, and that is not what we are here to debate about. We are here to debate whether or not there is an Uncaused Causer that exists outside of Space, Time and Matter that is Intelligent, and to me, according to the Law of Causality, that seems pretty much scientific fact.
I mean, if you can prove that Time, Space, Matter, and the Universe did not have a beginning, then it would be pointless and unscientific for me to believe this. But since it has been proven that these things had a beginning, and considering myself a man of science, it would be unscientific and pointless for me to argue that there is not a Cause outside of Time, Space, and Matter.
I don't believe the universe doesn't have a beginning - although I don't see how that is the other alternative for not believing in God.
Why is God the only being or object or whatever that is timeless, spaceless, and has no matter? Couldn't it just as easily have been a thing that wasn't alive, or didn't have a soul, couldn't think, couldn't see, couldn't hear?
If there were a God, why does there exist logic? Why did God spend so much nontime creating logic? It doesn't make sense to me. If there really is a God behind it all, there wouldn't be anything called logic.
Why is God the only being or object or whatever that is timeless, spaceless, and has no matter? Couldn't it just as easily have been a thing that wasn't alive, or didn't have a soul, couldn't think, couldn't see, couldn't hear?
Great question, and one that definitely needs to be answered. The answer is simple: The precision with which the Universe came into existence. Now I know this is the subject of much criticism, but bear with me here.
We have established that the Universe, Time, Space, and Matter all have a beginning, and I believe we agree that they must have had a cause outside of those elements that is:
Timeless, because it created Time;
Spaceless, because it created Space;
and Immaterial, because it created Matter.
Now, at this point, it is logical and reasonable to question why the Cause created the Universe, Time, Space, and Matter must be Intelligent and Personal, as I believe. Why couldn't it be a non-living, non-perceiving cause? Why does it have to be an intelligent, living, thinking ...someone? Well, let me explain why.
Facts we know about the uncaused cause:
1. The Cause is Timeless.
2. The Cause is Spaceless.
3. The Cause is Immaterial.
4. The Cause created the Universe, Time, Space, and Matter.
Facts we know about the creation of The Universe, Time, Space, and Matter:
1. All four was created at the same time, in the exact same instant.
2. The instant (or explosion, if you like) that they were created was perfectly and precisely the right conditions for the universe and everything in it to happen.
3. If one thing out of the billions of things that happened during the explosion was altered, it would have been impossible for life to exist and for the Universe to exist. E.g., imagine the explosion like millions of dials, all set to a specific point. If even one out of the millions of dials were altered even an infinitesimal amount, it would render all the other dials useless and the universe would have collapsed back in on itself. The temperature, the speed of expansion etc. were just perfect.
Now, with these facts from both the Cause and the Creation, let's evaluate reasonably.
Let's talk about Intelligence. Why does the Cause have to be Intelligent? Because of the fine-tuned creation event. The fact that all the conditions were just right for life and the universe to exist shows that it was fine-tuned, or guided by the Cause. The Cause created the Universe, Time, Space, and Matter, meaning the Cause guided the process of creation from beginning to end. So in the explosion, (or creation event, whichever you prefer,) the elements were created in such a specific way so as to ensure the existence of the Universe and the Three dimensions. That is why they all four exist today, because the process was so perfectly precise, (or fine-tuned). Something (especially something as complicated as the creation event) can not be fine-tuned without a Fine-Tuner (the Cause), and for the Cause to fine-tune the creation event, the Cause must have been capable of Intelligence.
So we can add "Intelligent" to the list of things we know about the Cause. Because the creation event was fine-tuned, the Cause that fine-tuned it had to be Intelligent.
Now since the Cause is intelligent, it is capable of Thought. The Cause is also Personal. How do we know? This is explained very simply: Existence instead of Non-Existence. The Timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial Cause existed before Time and before matter existed. Which means at some point there was no matter that existed, only the Cause. The fact that matter rather than non-matter exists shows that the Cause is able to Reason, to Think, to Evaluate, and has a Will, because the Cause made a decision to create rather than not to create. This shows that the Cause has an intelligent mind capable of making decisions, capable of free will, capable of evaluating options, and capable of thinking.
So now, things we know about the uncaused Cause:
1. The Cause is Timeless.
2. The Cause is Spaceless.
3. The Cause is Immaterial.
4. The Cause created the Universe, Time, Space, and Matter.
5. The Cause has an Intelligent Mind
6. The Cause is capable of Thinking;
7. Reasoning;
8. Evaluating Options;
9. Making Decisions;
10. Free Will to decide on an option and to make a choice.
11. The Cause is Personal, because an impersonal force cannot make decisions.
Now based on these things, I believe that we have a clear scientific view of the First Cause, and I hope that this answers your first questions.
If there were a God, why does there exist logic? Why did God spend so much nontime creating logic? It doesn't make sense to me. If there really is a God behind it all, there wouldn't be anything called logic.
Again, great question and a logical one (pardon the pun).
God is the standard for logic. If God exists, it only makes sense that he would make himself known, and he would make himself known in a way that we can understand/comprehend. Therefore he created the Universe based on a set of operating rules, called the Rules of Physics, and gave us the ability to discern these rules based on something that all human minds are capable of: Logic. He created us with Logic so that we could know his existence by applying logic to nature and the universe and everything else. Logic is our system of understanding, and it's what we base science off of. We understand and recognize that there is a basic set of rules and regulations that the Universe and everything in it follows and operate by. By using the tool of Logic, we are able to build a system called "Science" and study using this system that is based off of a set of constants (physics laws) and figure out God's existence through that study.
I hope that I have helped answer you understandably... Thanks for the clearly stated questions that you presented to me.
You are right on the second point, but on the first, let me clarify. Generally most, if not all, Theists believe an Uncaused Causer (see my other posts) created matter. God was not created. He does not have a beginning because, being the creator of time, he is outside of time and therefore does not have a beginning or a creator.
And Theists believe the Uncaused Causer was able to generate matter from nothing. So, everyone is guilty of believing that something came from nothing.
While I would never assert that there is no god and thus make a positive claim that I have to support (which I cannot) I do not believe a god exists. A god is in no way necessary because of one was then we would have some evidence pointing to a gap in our knowledge where he is needed. No such gap exists and everything we know about the universe is perfectly consistent in not requiring any supernatural element or guiding agent.
When you say "No such gap exists" you are mistaken. The "gap in our knowledge" that you speak about is how everything came into existence. Many make arguments one way or the other, but logic and reason show that the simplest, most reasonable, most scientific conclusion is of a Uncreated Creator, an Uncaused Causer. Meaning logically something intelligent, self-sustainable, and eternal that exists outside of time caused the Universe and everything in it, including the Laws of Motion, Gravity and concepts such as Time. Like it or not, admit it or not, there are strict, uncompromising rules that govern the Universe. These rules are our basis for what we call "science". When we study something "scientifically", we are using these rules as a basis for the study. If there are Laws, there must be a Lawmaker. Plain, simple, and scientific.
How so? All science is doing when "closing this gap" is discovering more and more evidence of God's existence. Science continuously finds evidence supporting an enormous explosion that happened at the beginning of the universe, (even as precise as the original ripple that was caused by this explosion.) That is exactly what would have happened if God had said the words "Let there be light!" The Bible has stated this all along and science is just now starting to prove it. And this isn't the first time the Bible has stated something that science did not know until recently. There are multiple concepts that were introduced in the Bible thousands of years ago that science has just, in this century, discovered are true. The sanitizing of hands before eating food or touching a wound, the fact that the Earth is round and not flat, the importance of circumcision to health, atoms, the "big bang" at the beginning of time and the universe - these are all just a few examples of things that the Bible and, by extension, God, knew before we did. The Old Testament-era prophets were ridiculed because they said that God had told them that it is safe to wash hands before touching an open wound, and were ridiculed when they said the Earth is flat. Only after thousands of years do we discover that they, after all this time, were actually right! It is the same when it pertains to the creation of the universe. Science will ridicule this idea until the day it is proven, and it will become just another fact that God knew and we didn't.
How so? All science is doing when "closing this gap" is discovering more and more evidence of God's existence.
According to you it is more and more evidence there is no God.
Science continuously finds evidence supporting an enormous explosion that happened at the beginning of the universe, (even as precise as the original ripple that was caused by this explosion.)
Not God.
That is exactly what would have happened if God had said the words "Let there be light!"
True, or what would happen if an explosion happened on its own. You have revealed your pre conceived notion.
The Bible has stated this all along and science is just now starting to prove it.
The Bible is incredibly vague and could be twisted to fit almost any explanation.
And this isn't the first time the Bible has stated something that science did not know until recently. There are multiple concepts that were introduced in the Bible thousands of years ago that science has just, in this century, discovered are true.
This doesn't validate the Bible though.
the fact that the Earth is round and not flat,
Some people disagree that the Bible says this.
the importance of circumcision to health
There are tons of uncircumcised men who have no problems.
atoms
The Bible doesn't actually describe atoms. Don't bother trying to show where it does, I have heard it before.
The Old Testament-era prophets were ridiculed because they said that God had told them that it is safe to wash hands before touching an open wound, and were ridiculed when they said the Earth is flat.
Where were they ridiculed?
Science will ridicule
No it will not. If you feel it is ridiculing you, you are mistaken.
"Not God...........True, or what would happen if an explosion happened on its own. You have revealed your pre conceived notion."
The explosion could not have happened on it's own, or at least according to Science. (see my post down below)
1) Science proves (and continues to prove) the Big Bang really did happen.
2) Science proves Einstein's theory of general relativity which, when applied, shows that Time, Space, and Matter (by extension the Universe) could not have caused itself because they had a beginning, and if it had a beginning then scientifically it had a creator.
If Time, Space, and Matter had a beginning (and by definition and application of Einstein's theory) there was something that existed before Time, Matter and Space in order for them to be caused. Therefore called Timeless and immaterial.
OK. You haven't revealed what your pre conceived notion is here, you are just interpreting Einstein incorrectly. Your interpretation of relatively is incorrect. It can't apply to a time before the universe existed because we can't know that laws apply outside the universe.
simplest, most reasonable, most scientific conclusion
You want simple, reasonable, and scientific? I can observe nature (Scientific). Everything is part of nature (Reasonable). Therefore, nature caused the universe to be created (Simple). BOOM.
In 1929 Hubble discovered that the Universe is expanding; that everything came from a single point of origin, a point of infinite density, the singularity of which is actually "nothing."
This, scientifically proves that the Universe had a beginning.
2. Radiation Afterglow was discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965. This is literally the "smoking gun" of the Big Bang, the "remnant heat" leftover from the explosion.
Further proof that the Universe had a beginning.
3. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, (which he formulated in 1916, then was backed by observable evidence in 1919 when Edison did his tests on the eclipse) proves that time, space and matter all originated at the same time, that they are co-relative. This is scientific, because Edison examined and tested observable evidence of this, so it has been scientifically proven that time, space and matter had a beginning.
If the Universe (and by extension, Nature) had a beginning, it is finite and has a cause. Scientific determination. Saying that something finite caused itself contradicts science.
The First Cause cannot be matter or time because those things are finite, as shown by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Aristotle, Plato and Einstein knew this.
So, Nature causing itself? Not scientific, simple, or reasonable.
Something independent of nature causing nature? Scientific, simple, and reasonable.
You keep repeating this chant: universe must have a cause. You have drawn a lot of false conclusions from that line of thinking. You have no evidence that whatever started the universe is not natural.
The start of the universe doesn't have to be the start of nature.
The start of the universe doesn't have to be the start of nature.
Well, that depends on your definition of the words "Universe" and "Nature" and how you differentiate them.
When I say "the Universe must have a cause," I am saying that all existing matter and space have a cause.
You have no evidence that whatever started the universe is not natural.
I don't understand your line of thinking here. If "natural" means the same thing to you as it does to me, "Nature" would be included in "all existing matter and space." The Universe, all existing matter and space, (including Nature) must have a beginning based on the Law of Causality. We know scientifically that all matter and space had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it had a cause - the Law of Causality.
Im not saying there is no gap in our knowledge, im saying there is no gap where a god is NECESSARY. Where the only way to bridge it is through a supernatural force.
but logic and reason show that the simplest, most reasonable, most scientific conclusion is of a Uncreated Creator, an Uncaused Causer
a silent protector. a dark night. sorry I couldn't help myself. uh, no. It is simple only in the sense that it explains everything away really easily without requiring much thought, however it is insanely complicated for the same reason. it makes it easy to understand everything by saying a god did it and whiping our hands of the matter but then we have to contend with the massive contradictions and problems it causes in the rest of our scientific understanding because the supernatural would mean that we have to scrap almost everything we know about pretty much anything. Occams razor tells us to begin with the answer that makes the least assumptions and contradicts the least. god literally assumes everything and contradicts everything.
As for logical reasonable and most scientific: wtf? then explain why the vast majority of scientists are atheists and why intelligent design is not even close to a valid theory considered by even a fraction of scientists? it has literally zero empirical evidence supporting it. none. zip.
Meaning logically something intelligent, self-sustainable, and eternal that exists outside of time caused the Universe and everything in it, including the Laws of Motion, Gravity and concepts such as Time.
logically
you keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Like it or not, admit it or not, there are strict, uncompromising rules that govern the Universe. These rules are our basis for what we call "science"
But they aren't transcendent rules from a master creator that nature has to abide by, they are the naturally laws that we use to describe what nature does abide by. theres a difference. nothing is saying "apple you MUST fall downwards so sayeth the lord". its just we understand this force called gravity, quantified it, measured it, understand it, and can apply it to make predictions which have shown to be so consistent with every trial that it is a law that all things appear to be subject to.
When we study something "scientifically", we are using these rules as a basis for the study. If there are Laws, there must be a Lawmaker. Plain, simple, and scientific
wrong see above. There doesn't have to be a lawmaker until we have ample evidence of the lawmaker. They aren't created laws theyre observations of consistent anomalies.
"Im not saying there is no gap in our knowledge, im saying there is no gap where a god is NECESSARY. Where the only way to bridge it is through a supernatural force. "
What does the word "supernatural" mean here? It means "outside of nature." That's it. Saying something is supernatural is not an excuse to disregard evidence, it is simply stating that the evidence that we have available points to a cause outside of nature, therefore supernatural.
We both agree and scientifically understand that there has to be an Uncaused First Cause. Plato and Aristotle both knew this. They understood that this first cause has to be both timeless and immaterial.
Now, we have two choices in this matter. Either the Universe and Nature was the First Cause, or something beyond the Universe was the First Cause. The question is ,which one? Your view seems to be that the Universe and Nature was this First Cause, and mine is that something beyond the Universe was.
So let's objectively examine the evidence that we have found.
1. In 1929 Hubble discovered that the Universe is expanding. This shows that everything came from a single point; a point of infinite density, the singularity of which is actually "nothing."
This, scientifically proves that the Universe had a beginning.
2. Radiation Afterglow was discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson in 1965. This is literally the "smoking gun" of the Big Bang, the "remnant heat" leftover from the explosion.
Further proof that the Universe had a beginning.
3. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, (which he formulated in 1916, then was backed by observable evidence in 1919 when Edison did his tests on the eclipse) proves that time, space and matter all originated at the same time, that they are co-relative. This is scientific, because Edison examined and tested observable evidence of this, so it has been scientifically proven that time, space and matter had a beginning.
So from these facts that have been backed by evidence and proven by scientific methods, we have learned; 1) that the Universe has a beginning, and 2) that Time, Space, and Matter had a beginning. Now, examining these facts objectively and scientifically, and with the understanding that that there must be an immaterial, timeless First Cause (which you say is Nature and I say is God) bring yourself to a scientific conclusion. Since the Universe (and by extension, Nature) had a beginning, it cannot be timeless (outside of, or not confined to, Time). Something that is timeless does not have a beginning. Since the dimensions of Time, Space, and Matter have a beginning, the First Cause must exist independent, or outside of, these dimensions.
So now, we both can understand that the Universe cannot be the First Cause, which eliminates the first theory.
We are left now with only one option. Since the Universe is not the First Cause, the First Cause must be something outside the Universe. Again, something that is timeless and immaterial, something that exists on another dimension. This something is what we call "God."
God exists:
1) outside the dimension of time, in other words "Eternal, Infinite, Uncaused, Uncreated, etc."
2) independent of matter, or "Immaterial."
3) not confined to Space.
Therefore the Universe is not timeless or immaterial, both of which are required of a First Cause. This scientifically must mean that the Cause had to be outside of the Universe, or "supernatural."
"...explain why the vast majority of scientists are Atheists..."
Are you saying that because the consensus believes a theory, that it is right?
"...and why intelligent design is not even close to a valid theory considered by even a fraction of scientists?"
First of all, you are wrong.
Second of all, some of the greatest and most revered scientists in all of history understood and believed that the Universe did not cause itself, and agreed that Intelligent Design was more scientific and a better explanation for the Universe than a self-caused Universe, which (proof given above) is not possible.
Things that are as consistent as these Laws (such as the law of gravity) do not just spring into existence from nothing, neither do they just happen randomly. If there was no intelligent cause behind the Universe, there would be no reliable patterns or "laws" consistent enough to use in scientific determinism!
I did demonstrate this. If Time and Matter had a beginning (as demonstrated by Einstein's theory of General Relativity) then scientifically there must be a Cause outside of these dimensions. Therefore deemed Immaterial and Timeless.
Science will not make any claims outside of observable dimensions.
Read the definition of the Law of Causality, and then study Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Scientifically according to the Law of Causality, since Time, Space and Matter had a beginning, they must have a cause outside Time, Space and Matter, which we call "time-less, space-less, and immaterial." To deny this is to deny the scientific Law of Causality itself, at which point you would have to refute both Einstein and Arthur Eddington.
My mistake. I didn't quite understand what you were getting at. You have so many pre conceived notions it is hard to catch which one you are using. Sorry.
Your pre conceived notion was
"This scientifically must mean that the Cause had to be outside of the Universe, or "supernatural.""
The universe is part of nature, nature can encompass the cause of the universe as well. The universe could have started with a natural singularity according to the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems. You equate universe with nature, but we only know that everything in the Universe is natural, we don't know that everything inside nature is in the universe.
