The scientific rationale for the existence of God is derived from an empirical limitation if God did not create our universe, thus, if he does not exist, then God cannot create our universe, however, as our universe is here, then God must exist, otherwise he would be limited, and our Universe would not exist. Therefore, the conclusion is that God must exist in order to create our universe in the first place.
I'm not sure any scientist would appreciate your adjectives. If God did not exist, he could not have created the universe is sound enough. Goes a bit pair-shaped right after that. Clearly God not existing is no barrier to the universe existing, so long as the latter doesn't depend on the former which, thankfully, it doesn't.
P.S. Hello, welcome, etc. I used to work in Newcastle. Lived in Durham. Probably the worst three years of my life. I went back to Newcastle recently, it seems much improved.
disprove the very nature of existence, and such point to a conclusion that a being just is
Or, instead of disproving it and say "a being just is" they could rely on the linguistic-turn of wittgenstein and start wondering if certain words generated in certain contexts are legitimate to be used to make certain statements that become a linguistic aporia.
Then scientist will start digging further and exploring the nature of the universe and our reality, our brain as well... using the scientific method and mathematics and formulas, etc... that better articulate the foundations of our existence like space, time and matter.... and, as it uses to happen, will dissolve the aporia.
These scientists realized that actually our language and concepts are valid for our daily life but hard to be used in scientific contexts like the very small (quantum) or the very big (astronomy)...
I would say it should not be replaced by logic but by science and its method. Science proofs to be above any logic, some times it reshapes what we think was logic.
Example: the copernican revolution. Logic would have told you the planet Earth has a beginning and an end because it was assumed to be flat. Once we realize it is rounded, no sense and illogic to make that question. Same to the different models of the universe that have been created across history. those models look naif today...
How ironic, that the only ‘choices’ we do not have are the ones that matter to us the most, and the ones we have no knowledge of.
Those questions or choices emerge from your culture it is your culture that give or not sense to the questions. with my conception of life and death I don't think the questions are trascendental at all unless you come with a definition of "being alive", "dying" that makes me change my mind. Actually many Gods have been invented to give answer to those questions, all fitting the relative and contingent cultural needs.
God is derived before time, and present before time, thus, being after time, there exists a correlation within a being before time, from the onset where time actually exists in the first place.
This means I cannot logically ask you "who created God?" because before God nothing existed? ... I'm still within the aporia... doesn't work for me.
Wouldn't it make more sense to leave this to physicians and mathematics that is where we actually can simulate universes without time? I find it very difficult to imagine a God creating time. I think it makes more sense to give an opportunity to physicians to give us better articulated questions as your statements above are impregnated of "everyday-life" intuitions but we know already the foundations of the universe are not intuitive at all...
Let me put you a direct questions:
Isn't it true that the very fact that "there is scientific progress" implies that we do have access to the secrets of the universe? Isn't this idea stronger than God?
This makes me think Einstein's ... “The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible”
counterpunchJanuary 31, 2021 at 06:32#4949680 likes
Oh, at last! I was hoping someone would prove the existence of God!!
5000 years of philosophical head scratching - and this guy's cracked it. Nice one mate!
Comments (4)
I'm not sure any scientist would appreciate your adjectives. If God did not exist, he could not have created the universe is sound enough. Goes a bit pair-shaped right after that. Clearly God not existing is no barrier to the universe existing, so long as the latter doesn't depend on the former which, thankfully, it doesn't.
P.S. Hello, welcome, etc. I used to work in Newcastle. Lived in Durham. Probably the worst three years of my life. I went back to Newcastle recently, it seems much improved.
Quoting EesahDhanyaalAhmed
Ok, and who created God? or how got God created?... we're still within the aporia.
Quoting EesahDhanyaalAhmed
Or, instead of disproving it and say "a being just is" they could rely on the linguistic-turn of wittgenstein and start wondering if certain words generated in certain contexts are legitimate to be used to make certain statements that become a linguistic aporia.
Then scientist will start digging further and exploring the nature of the universe and our reality, our brain as well... using the scientific method and mathematics and formulas, etc... that better articulate the foundations of our existence like space, time and matter.... and, as it uses to happen, will dissolve the aporia.
These scientists realized that actually our language and concepts are valid for our daily life but hard to be used in scientific contexts like the very small (quantum) or the very big (astronomy)...
Quoting EesahDhanyaalAhmed
I would say it should not be replaced by logic but by science and its method. Science proofs to be above any logic, some times it reshapes what we think was logic.
Example: the copernican revolution. Logic would have told you the planet Earth has a beginning and an end because it was assumed to be flat. Once we realize it is rounded, no sense and illogic to make that question. Same to the different models of the universe that have been created across history. those models look naif today...
Quoting EesahDhanyaalAhmed
Those questions or choices emerge from your culture it is your culture that give or not sense to the questions. with my conception of life and death I don't think the questions are trascendental at all unless you come with a definition of "being alive", "dying" that makes me change my mind. Actually many Gods have been invented to give answer to those questions, all fitting the relative and contingent cultural needs.
Quoting EesahDhanyaalAhmed
This means I cannot logically ask you "who created God?" because before God nothing existed? ... I'm still within the aporia... doesn't work for me.
Wouldn't it make more sense to leave this to physicians and mathematics that is where we actually can simulate universes without time? I find it very difficult to imagine a God creating time. I think it makes more sense to give an opportunity to physicians to give us better articulated questions as your statements above are impregnated of "everyday-life" intuitions but we know already the foundations of the universe are not intuitive at all...
Let me put you a direct questions:
Isn't it true that the very fact that "there is scientific progress" implies that we do have access to the secrets of the universe? Isn't this idea stronger than God?
This makes me think Einstein's ... “The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible”
5000 years of philosophical head scratching - and this guy's cracked it. Nice one mate!
So...erm, where is He then?
Was He hiding behind the moon?