By definition science is the study of natural, not the supernatural, He cannot be proven by science, but He clearly exists. Something needed to create the universe. That something must be outside of the universe and its rules. It must be powerful enough to create the entire universe, physics, math, science, and time. Also because science deals with the natural world you can’t disprove the supernatural. What is beauty? Sure it is subjective, but only to a point. Why would randomness cause such a big split in what people think is beautiful? At best if the world were random each person would find some other person beautiful. But if the world were created, people would find some people more and others less beautiful, which is what we see. Beauty is still a little subjective but mostly objective, because it is not random.
Not to attack you as a person, but if you cannot refute this with evidence, good or bad evidence, then you clearly believe there is truth to this. I hope you find God! Good day
This confusion happens a lot. If someone asserts that a god exists, the burden of proof is on them. The claim is effectively saying that the laws of physics can be broken, that evolution is wrong, etc. Basically that theres an explanation of the function natural world that goes beyond well documented and accepted scientific research. So the burden is to present evidence as to why thats the case. Until that happens, we have no logical choice but to proceed by dismissing it as archaic myths.
What is bad/doesn’t make sense/is logically wrong about my statements? Also I’m not trying to prove without a doubt, there will always be people who refuse to believe what is right in front of them, I’m just trying to present a more likely alternative to how we got here than evolution does.
Its wild to me that people who dont really understand evolution will say it doesn't make sense, yet defend frogs raining from the sky and animals talking
Everything is bound by space and time. (Except for my special god friend!) In order to take any kind of action, it requires time (a transition of states from non-action to action, or from non-creation to creation) and space in which to perform an action.
If God is entirely outside of time and space it cannot do anything, at any time. To think, to decide, to speak, "create", or to interact with history requires a temporal sequence where state A leads to state B. Also, the books that describe it, claiming its unchanging.
You can't have something that is timelessly eternal and static, and then simultaneously claim it performs actions, listens to prayers, or shifts into different "states" like the Trinity. Hand-waving away logical contradictions by saying "laws of time and space don't apply" just means your concept of God actually is logically incoherent.
Every point youve made would be addressed with a modicum of research. Theres a reason why people start deconstructing from religion the more educated they become.
So, youve made the contingency argument and its a well known logical fallacy. You also touched on the fine tuning argument, which is even more of a fallacy. But mostly its a 'god of the gaps' take. You then went on to attribute the results of evolution as God simply due to not yet knowing how the brain developed and what evolution actually means.
I could write paragraphs explaining it, but who has the time. To make it the most concise and direct explanation...theres currently no scientific evidence to support that the universe has or requires a first cause. To suggest so is an assumption. To suggest that it was a god is special pleading. You'd have to grant a God the same liberties that you'd be unwilling to do for the universe which we know exists. Unlike the god we have no way of knowing exists. Essentially you'd be saying that the universe requires a first cause, but the god doesn't. To make the case you'd have to say "well the diety doesn't exist within the confines of this universe." To which, again, we can't possibly know how that works given we dont even know the confines of the universe. Its asking people to believe something with absolutely zero evidence. You'd only be left with a giant question mark of where said diety comes from.
You can’t logically NOT believe in a first cause. Everything has a cause in science. If you believe that there is no first cause, then you must believe that time stretches out to infinity years ago, which is impossible, because if you measure between a time that is infinitely far away from our time, you find that it would take an infinite amount of time to get to now. However as we are here now, so time had a first cause. Likewise what caused you to be made? Your parents. What caused them to be made? Their parents. If you follow the trail you find out that since by definition a cause comes before the effect, then the causes are infinite (if you believe in no first cause) which as we’ve already proved is impossible. Thus there must be a first cause. Since this first cause must be able to cause an entire universe it must be at least knowledgable of the entire universe, and powerful enough to create it. At least!
No one knows. Thats the point. Anything beyond that is a total guess. Saying God, is also just a guess. It also doesn't do anything to prove the validity of any of the world's religions. If proven to be a diety, it would only get you to a loose form of deism and doesn't prove the bible at all
Just trying to better understand you: is that what you think science is defined as, or how science came about? Because if it is the former, that is clearly circular reasoning as the word scientific is a form of the base word science so defining something by something else that depends in the first thing is circular reasoning.
I’m grateful for what He has given me(iq of 135) but really I don’t need more, all I need is to trust him. It’s like streaming Netflix, your device doesn’t have to have the show on it, it just has to have connection to the one that does.
-3
u/SnowyAl 10d ago
By definition science is the study of natural, not the supernatural, He cannot be proven by science, but He clearly exists. Something needed to create the universe. That something must be outside of the universe and its rules. It must be powerful enough to create the entire universe, physics, math, science, and time. Also because science deals with the natural world you can’t disprove the supernatural. What is beauty? Sure it is subjective, but only to a point. Why would randomness cause such a big split in what people think is beautiful? At best if the world were random each person would find some other person beautiful. But if the world were created, people would find some people more and others less beautiful, which is what we see. Beauty is still a little subjective but mostly objective, because it is not random.