vaxx:
Am very interested in this topic .......but since you wish to deviate a little to the God of the gap argument.... Let have a discussion.....


You are cominting argumentun ad furious fallacy...in English it means argument of the future fallacy....Therefore I will coined a new word for any atheists who accuse believer on God of the gap fallacy....the word shall be known as ignorance of the Gap....

The arguments for the existence of God such as Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, etc. are all DEDUCTIVE arguments. This means that the premises are established by what we do know, rather than what we don’t know. If the premises were all based off of what we don’t know, then the deductive argument would be invalid because all of the premises would be controversial.

For example with cosmological Argument, we use what we do know to develop the following premises:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a cause




Unlike the atheists who are hypocritical in their accusations. When confronted with the evidence of the existence of God using deductive arguments the atheists will say “I don’t know is a valid answer!” though it is, but it is not sound for any rational atheist that has conclude believe of God is illogical....


Let me give you example, my culture teaches life begin on water. Science later find evidence... My culture teaches that there is energy force on every nature... The thunder, the flower ,and the rock...this is another evidence that has been claimed by scientists...



Let me ask you a question.... Do you rely on science as evidence to disprove or proof the existence of God?

Science has stopped looking for the origin of life. No God in science is more important than finding the origin of life. They assume then make the assumptions law any other option is a taboo. That's how they become complacent

Horlufemi:


Science has stopped looking for the origin of life. No God in science is more important than finding the origin of life. They assume then make the assumptions law any other option is a taboo. That's how they become complacent

wow! how do you know science has "stopped looking"?

hopefulLandlord:


Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a cause

can you elucidate on the second premise?

according to science explanation, the universe was sparked by a process called borno production from the explanation of the big bang....


Science is studying the smoke trigger by the gun shoot and not the shooter itself.....



Am interested in a theory above science.....the shooters itself

hopefulLandlord:


Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe had a cause

can you elucidate on the second premise?

pls answer the question..... I posted to you just like I did to yours......

Horlufemi:


Science has stopped looking for the origin of life. No God in science is more important than finding the origin of life. They assume then make the assumptions law any other option is a taboo. That's how they become complacent

like my friend sciencewatch says .....science is good when apply to material things but it has serious limitations when when apply to moral, ethics or any thing consider supernatural by human

vaxx:
according to science explanation, the universe was sparked by a process called borno production from the explanation of the big bang....


Science is studying the smoke trigger by the gun shoot and not the shooter itself.....



Am interested in a theory above science.....the shooters itself

Nope, I'm asking what it means by "Universe began to exist" does it mean universe was produced by the big bang or what?

hopefulLandlord:


Nope, I'm asking what it means by "Universe began to exist" does it mean universe was produced by the big bang or what?

I gave you the evidence of its origin base on science explanation....the universe is extimated to be around 4 billion years....so to my question.... Do you rely on science for evidence of God?

vaxx:
I gave you the evidence of its origin base on science explanation....the universe is extimated to be around 4 billion years....so to my question.... Do you rely on science for evidence of God?

No "science" never says the universe began to exist the way theists use it in the cosmological argument, its a massive misrepresentation

to your question, what do you mean by "god"

hopefulLandlord:


Nope, I'm asking what it means by "Universe began to exist" does it mean universe was produced by the big bang or what?

What these people have failed to understand is that the OBSERVABLE universe of matter and antimatter is that which is said to have begun to exist! That doesn't imply that THE STATE OF EXISTENCE that preceded the Big Bang was NOTHING or NONEXISTENCE.

Existence is ETERNAL. It has no beginning, and couldn't have had any beginning, because nothingness or nonexistence is IMPOSSIBLE.

ZandhaZaraZ:
What these people have failed to understand is that the OBSERVABLE universe of matter and antimatter is that which is said to have begun to exist! That doesn't imply that THE STATE OF EXISTENCE that preceded the Big Bang was NOTHING or NONEXISTENCE.

Existence is ETERNAL. It has no beginning, and couldn't have had any beginning, because nothingness or nonexistence is IMPOSSIBLE.

exactly! but theists simply misrepresent Vilenkin and pull conclusions from that misrepresentation

hopefulLandlord:

No "science" never says the universe began to exist the way theists use it in the cosmological argument, its a massive misrepresentation

to your question, what do you mean by "god"

show Me the massive misinterpretation?

Pls do not counter my question with question..... It is called loaded question fallacy. In logic ......let treat the topic at hand .....do you rely on science for the existence of God? Pls give me sometimes to get back to...

A little busy now....

vaxx:
show Me the massive misinterpretation?

actually "The universe began to exist" as used in the cosmological argument is a misrepresentation cuz its NEVER been scientifically backed

Pls do not counter my question with question..... It is called loaded question fallacy. In logic ......let treat the topic at hand .....do you rely on science for the existence of God? Pls give me sometimes to get back to...

my question isn't loaded, I asked you what "god" means, its part of your question so its not out of place to ask

A little busy now....

k

DNA code and its replication proves the existence of DNA code and replication. Nothing else! It's quite ludicrous how people use DNA as an argument for god. This is an argument from perceived gap - we don't know therefore god. If anything, the DNA supports evolution than it does creationism.

The complexity of the replication is extreme and this points to years of the molecules self-replicating. Not 100 years; not thousand; not million but billions.

hopefulLandlord:


wow! how do you know science has "stopped looking"?

THEY'VE STOPPED BECAUSE THEY FOUND IT IN EVOLUTION. LIFE CAME BY CHANCE AND THAT'S IT.

ISN'T THERE A BIBLE OF EVOLUTION? ORIGIN OF SPECIES?

jimmyjenseng:
DNA code and its replication proves the existence of DNA code and replication. Nothing else! It's quite ludicrous how people use DNA as an argument for god. This is an argument from perceived gap - we don't know therefore god. If anything, the DNA supports evolution than it does creationism.

The complexity of the replication is extreme and this points to years of the molecules self-replicating. Not 100 years; not thousand; not million but billions.

You are missing something the "information in the DNA".

You haven't put an argument. It's like you're saying. Software code and it's copying proves the existence of software code and it's copying. Nothing else!

Can't believe even smart scientific atheists like you don't understand this simple concept. A concept a child would understand.

Code cannot write itself. This is basis of information theory.

Next!

ZandhaZaraZ:
What these people have failed to understand is that the OBSERVABLE universe of matter and antimatter is that which is said to have begun to exist! That doesn't imply that THE STATE OF EXISTENCE that preceded the Big Bang was NOTHING or NONEXISTENCE.

Existence is ETERNAL. It has no beginning, and couldn't have had any beginning, because nothingness or nonexistence is IMPOSSIBLE.

Lolz. You all are forgetting something. i.e. information

The universe is made up of energy, matter/antimatter and information.

(Information) it cannot create itself.

Ranchhoddas:
I've been searching for a PDF file of this book to no avail. Do you have it?

PDF
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1o7KBRizsMTZ1A5M2VVTmp2UFU/view?usp=drivesdk

eBook
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1o7KBRizsMTQXIxQnlfdFFlcXc/view?usp=drivesdk

Once you download lemme know. So I can remove it.

Horlufemi:


Lolz. You all are forgetting something. i.e. information

The universe is made up of energy, matter/antimatter and information.

(Information) it cannot create itself.

You're also forgetting something. Whichever God is responsible for creating the universe must also be made of "information", so he couldn't have created himself. So, who created him? Who created his creator? Who created whoever created his creator? Ad infinitum. It never ends.

The universe MUST be eternal and couldn't possibly have had a beginning because SOMETHING must ALWAYS EXIST, and NOTHINGNESS is impossible, and anything that exists NOW has existed FOREVER. There's nothing new coming into existence, and there's nothing going out of existence. There's only TRANSFORMATION of eternal, pre-existing states.

So, a creator God who draws an entire universe out of the hat of nothingness, like a cosmic magician is IMPOSSIBLE, as well. That's a FACT.

vaxx:
like my friend sciencewatch says .....science is good when apply to material things but it has serious limitations when when apply to moral, ethics or any thing consider supernatural by human

I agree Vaxx, the higher things of creation are outside the scope of science. Before they proceed further into this scientific dead-end, it is essential to rid the term reason of the widespread ambiguity and confusion with which it is frequently
associated.

REASON is the mental faculty which apprehends and judges logic and truth, distinguishing it from falsehood, opinion, imagination or illusion.

And here it will be good to introduce the sages' definition of the term "truth". It has been demonstrated that without such a
definition men wander in a dry wilderness of hollow fancies, unfounded opinions, worthless theories and hypothesized words.
This definition may sound quite simple, but its implications are most profound. It should be graven deeply on the heart.

Here it is :
TRUTH is that which is beyond all contradiction and free from all doubt; which is indeed beyond the very possibility of both contradiction and doubt; beyond the changes and alternation of time and vicissitude ; for ever one and the same, unalterable and unaltering; universal and therefore independent of all human idealization.

TRUTH IS HIGH ABOVE ALL THEORIES. Men have come to worship scientific theories.

Horlufemi:


THEY'VE STOPPED BECAUSE THEY FOUND IT IN EVOLUTION. LIFE CAME BY CHANCE AND THAT'S IT.

ISN'T THERE A BIBLE OF EVOLUTION? ORIGIN OF SPECIES?

It seems that Atheists dont know their bible on evolution ?

hopefulLandlord:

actually "The universe began to exist" as used in the cosmological argument is a misrepresentation cuz its NEVER been scientifically backed



my question isn't loaded, I asked you what "god" means, its part of your question so its not out of place to ask



k

this is a brief explanations on the beginning of the universe....According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born during a period of inflation that began about 13.7 billion years ago. Like a rapidly expanding balloon, it swelled from a size smaller than an electron to nearly its current size within a tiny fraction of a second.

Initially, the universe was permeated only by energy. Some of this energy congealed into particles, which assembled into light atoms like hydrogen and helium. These atoms clumped first into galaxies, then stars, inside whose fiery furnaces all the other elements were forged. WWW.Google. com

The universe has a starting time.....so what is cosmological argument missing?


OK for the sake of argument..... In cosmological arguments , the processs that cause the process of the big bang is God(olodumare).


So back to my question .....since science is ignorant of the process that caused the process.....are you also assuming there is no process because science can't find it?

Horlufemi:


These people are avoiding this thread like the plague.

I'm waiting for them

It's too easy to see where DNA codes are from. You really think a Spirit would be interested in DNA codes ? DNA codes could only be assembled by an incredibly intelligent being who have over time mastered how the Universe works

I can see you are facinated with the way the mathematics and order of the Universe is. I say yes you are right to say intelligent designer.... But I say intelligent "designers" a bunch of top notch scientists as many ancient books claimed, including your Bible. We also can reach that height if we do not destroy the planet already. The intelligent designers involved to that point of perfection. Who were they ? Obviously other life forms that exist before ours ever came to be. We are just one of billions of life forms of which we are one of the least evolved. Mentally, emotionally, physically we are still very premature, that's why many of us worship the very evolved life forms or call the Gods.

Don't bother asking science questions about the universe, they have got on 5% of the Universe visible to them, while religion worship and misinterpret the real science books. I'm just an irreligious fellow observing from a neutral point.

vaxx:
like my friend sciencewatch says .....science is good when apply to material things but it has serious limitations when when apply to moral, ethics or any thing consider supernatural by human

All of mankind seek to connect with God, hence religion. If there is doubt they resort to using the lowest mental faculty - Logic.

Logic is the art which seeks to ensure correct sequential thinking, but unfortunately it does not seek to ensure that it starts with correct data ; it may and often does start with assumptions that may be mere fancies or wrong data.

Reason is the faculty of correct thinking, which seeks truth and which ensures that its activity shall start with all the observed facts of actual experience. The logic guy whose premises are faulty may nevertheless think correctly and yet arrive at wrong conclusions. Reason avoids this mistake.

ScienceWatch:
All of mankind seek to connect with God, hence religion. If there is doubt they resort to using the lowest mental faculty - Logic.

Logic is the art which seeks to ensure correct sequential thinking, but unfortunately it does not seek to ensure that it starts with correct data ; it may and often does start with assumptions that may be mere fancies or wrong data.

Reason is the faculty of correct thinking, which seeks truth and which ensures that its activity shall start with all the observed facts of actual experience. The logic guy whose premises are faulty may nevertheless think correctly and yet arrive at wrong conclusions. Reason avoids this mistake.

here is my salute sir........any book I can read on the subject ......logic , reason and intuition.....

vaxx:
here is my salute sir........any book I can read on the subject ......logic , reason and intuition.....

My dad gave me a book many years ago, but it got lost while moving house. It was based on the limitations of logic. I dont remember the exact title of that book.

vaxx:
here is my salute sir........any book I can read on the subject ......logic , reason and intuition.....

Now I am enjoying the Holy Gospels, it is loaded with higher reason and highest Intuition.

vaxx:
here is my salute sir........any book I can read on the subject ......logic , reason and intuition.....

My dad and I use to discuss the subject of logic and the Philosophy of verification of truth,etc. I have a few notes that I entered in my diary many years ago. He told me he got the book from his dad, it must be very old.

vaxx:
this is a brief explanations on the beginning of the universe....According to the standard Big Bang model, the universe was born during a period of inflation that began about 13.7 billion years ago. Like a rapidly expanding balloon, it swelled from a size smaller than an electron to nearly its current size within a tiny fraction of a second.

Initially, the universe was permeated only by energy. Some of this energy congealed into particles, which assembled into light atoms like hydrogen and helium. These atoms clumped first into galaxies, then stars, inside whose fiery furnaces all the other elements were forged. WWW.Google. com

The universe has a starting time.....so what is cosmological argument missing?


OK for the sake of argument..... In cosmological arguments , the processs that cause the process of the big bang is God(olodumare).

you read this post of yours and tell me if it relates to "began to exist" do I still need to spell out what it means to "begin to exist" before you realise this? even your post here admits something did exist before "the universe began to exist"

So back to my question .....since science is ignorant of the process that caused the process.....are you also assuming there is no process because science can't find it?

we don't know the process, we don't know= we don't know NOT we don't know = God is responsible, you're proving my point for me

vaxx:
according to science explanation, the universe was sparked by a process called borno production from the explanation of the big bang....


Science is studying the smoke trigger by the gun shoot and not the shooter itself....



Am interested in a theory above science.....the shooters itself

The bolded is what is wrong with Hopefullandlord's Arguments. Scientist knows nothing until they discover it, but after they duscover what has been already there, they observe how it works. They forget to look for what triggered or caused what they discovered and focuse on their discovery.

HumanistMe, come over here biko. And come along with that other person, what's his moniker again? Spongeisback. You smart people, come and tell us how life began.

701ecilana:

The bolded is what is wrong with Hopefullandlord's Arguments. Scientist knows nothing until they discover it, but after they duscover what has been already there, they observe how it works. They forget to look for what triggered or caused what they discovered and focuse on their discovery.

HumanistMe, come over here biko. And come along with that other person, what's his moniker again? Spongeisback. You smart people, come and tell us how life began.

Yo madam I know you like arguments please I beg you win.ok? You descendant of Adam...leave me alone I beg.

hopefulLandlord:

actually "The universe began to exist" as used in the cosmological argument is a misrepresentation cuz its NEVER been scientifically backed



my question isn't loaded, I asked you what "god" means, its part of your question so its not out of place to ask



k

You mean science has never been able to back the beginning of the Universe or you do not know how the earth began?

spongeisback:

Yo madam I know you like arguments please I beg you win.ok? You descendant of Adam...leave me alone I beg.

Why did you call me dumb if you know nothing?