Evidence for God from Science

A few posts back you said " scientific proofs" Yes, I said the words 'scientific proofs' but not in the context of proofs for God's existance. I will quote myself: If you don't think phylosophical proofs are possible then you've just singlehandedly dismantled every rational argument ever ...

1over137 wrote:[]

Byblos said: "From reason alone we can prove the existance of a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent first mover."

yes, I did see the assertion, but I kind of dont think I will get any satisfactory explanation.

Philosophy is dead the moment people don't care about the "WHY". Oh, you know, its not and wont be "dead". For sure people wont stop wondering "why", tho the q. may get framed around different assumptions and understandings. I took one philosophy course, and found it i...

A few posts back you said " scientific proofs" Yes, I said the words 'scientific proofs' but not in the context of proofs for God's existance. I will quote myself: If you don't think phylosophical proofs are possible then you've just singlehandedly dismantled every rational argument ever ...

Its my understanding that there was no death, no suffering, or any sort in Eden, prior to the incident with the serpent, according to the Bible. Their actions resulted in the introduction of all manner of ill to the world. If I got that wrong, then by all means tell me so.

So, why did you even ask?

To me proof can be done in math only. Ok, here is a try: 0 != something :mrgreen: Sheesh, at least let me know if you went over my head with that! I had to look that idiom up go over somebody's head 1. to talk to or deal with someone's boss without talking to them first I really don't want to go ov...

My last q. has much to do with who might benefit from baby sreps! On what basis do you say phil.is essential to science? Audie, philosophy is the study of logic. What does science mean without logic? You tell me. Hmm, does logic need philosophy, or does philosophy need logic same as math and scienc...

1over137 wrote:

Audie wrote:To me proof can be done in math only.

Ok, here is a try:

0 != something

Sheesh, at least let me know if you went over my head
with that!

First to get souls, that is unarguable. The sole two ancestors of all humankind is unsupportable. What role do you see for them? I don't understand your question... What roles do I see for Adam and Eve? Role in what way? Like, ancestor to all mankind, the cause of all suffering,those biblical thing...

My last q. has much to do with who might benefit from baby sreps! On what basis do you say phil.is essential to science? Science is interpreted based on philosophical Points of view. Without philosophy, there is no reason because there is no method to INTERPRET results. Maybe this is just about wha...

My last q. has much to do with who might benefit from baby sreps! On what basis do you say phil.is essential to science? Audie, philosophy is the study of logic. What does science mean without logic? You tell me. Hmm, does logic need philosophy, or does philosophy need logic same as math and scienc...

First to get souls, that is unarguable. The sole two ancestors of all humankind is unsupportable. What role do you see for them? I don't understand your question... What roles do I see for Adam and Eve? Role in what way? Like, ancestor to all mankind, the cause of all suffering,those biblical things.

Hard to disagree with that. Do you see the bible as divinely inspired? If so, why? How does one reconcile something like the flood account with the obvious fact that it didnt happen? I know its not a science book but does that not go to credibility of the whole? Yes, the bible is divinely inspired....

My last q. has much to do with who might benefit from baby
sreps!

On what basis do you say phil.is essential to science?