Posted on 04/28/2014 8:50:26 AM PDT by Kartographer
But much more important than these conundrums is the persistent question of the fine-tuning of the parameters of the Universe: Why is our Universe so precisely tailor-made for the emergence of life? This question has never been answered satisfactorily, and I believe that it will never find a scientific solution. For the deeper we delve into the mysteries of physics and cosmology, the more the Universe appears to be intricate and incredibly complex. To explain the quantum-mechanical behavior of even one tiny particle requires pages and pages of extremely advanced mathematics. Why are even the tiniest particles of matter so unbelievably complicated? It appears that there is a vast, hidden “wisdom,” or structure, or a knotty blueprint for even the most simple-looking element of nature. And the situation becomes much more daunting as we expand our view to the entire cosmos.
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
We know based on our experience of the world that a painting isn’t a natural phenomena so therefore it was created by someone or something.
Exactly!!! How does the watch exist without the Watchmaker?
Ah, so your truth authority is “experience”...
That and overwhelming evidence that paintings don’t occur in nature. At least not in the manner we know that people create them. That said, evidence to the contrary can surface at any time.
Interesting how the original scientists explored and investigated the world to better understand God and His creation.
Modern day scientists do so with the mindset that they want to disprove God exists.
They have been educated beyond their intelligence, because only a fool will say God does not exist.
Science and God are 100% compatible.
Science is How - God is Why.
Atheists make the claim “There is no God.” Accordingly they bear the burden of proof. The only honest claim they can make within the extremely limited knowledge of mankind is that they do not know nor do they have the necessary knowledge to support any claim of an absolute negative.
So until the Atheist makes a Prima-Facia case to meet their very high burden of proof to support their claim of an absolute negative, they have no legit, honest argument on this issue. And as it stands all they can honestly say is they do not know. Nothing more.
And yes, the one making the claim-supposedly from an objective, rational, science (sic) basis always carries the initial burden of proof to support their claim on that basis.
Can’t prove a negative. And until you can grasp that you are incapable of logical discussion and all your strawman crap is worthless. Bye.
Since you admit you can’t meet your initial burden you lose. Bye.
I cite mathematics as evidence for God, in that the universe (at least as we perceive it) requires sequencing of fields and particles, that even here, billions of years later, has us looking back at that sequencing through the concept of number with remarkable understanding and derivative predictive power.
“Sh’ma Yisrael: Adonai Elohenu. Adonai echad.”
“Ancient Aliens” is their out. For now...
“...but many scientists have tried to disproved God.”
Which one?
“how can there be a design without a Designer??? “
Who designed the Designer?
what design?
“We can deduce that he must exist outside and apart from our Universe. “
Where in the bible do you get that. Genesis only says he created the heaven and earth.
Richard dawkins
Consciousness is what it always comes back to for me.
Countering from another Great Mind....
When the solution is simple, God is answering.
There are two ways to live:
you can live as if nothing is a miracle;
you can live as if everything is a miracle.
That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
We should take care not to make the intellect our god;
it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
Science without religion is lame,
religion without science is blind.
The most incomprehensible thing about the world
is that it is comprehensible.
and...
The man of science is a poor philosopher.
Albert Einstein
That`s why they call them theories not theorems
RD, a scientist, does not try to disprove God using scientific methods.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.