What Does Science Really Say About the Existence of God?
My latest for Word on Fire.
An article of mine was just published at Word on Fire: What Does Science Really Say About the Existence of God.
Discussion about this post
No posts
An article of mine was just published at Word on Fire: What Does Science Really Say About the Existence of God.
No posts
A few things:
1) there can be no infinite in terms of time and space. Once someone introduces infinite in either time or space, the game is up. Why?
Because infinite/eternal means anything that can physically happen, has to have happened. This leads to absurdities such as there must exist some entity with unlimited knowledge and power. Not only just one but an unlimited number of them.
If you disagree, then give reasons why there should be a limit on power and knowledge in such a scenario. I have never seen any such reasoning.
This implies that the traditional creator of the universe must live in an existence that does not include time snd space dimensions. If this entity did live in such an existence, time and place imply change. And such an entity could not change. Is it constantly getting better? It cannot be getting worse with the power and knowledge characteristics.
This is all logic. Science has little to do with it. So logic eliminates “popping into existence” and infinity. Science has no answer to this.
2) evil is a straw-man argument. Evil just means unwanted states for intelligent entities. Usually by shoeing there is pain and suffering amongst humans. But how does this eliminate an eternal creator described above? It doesn’t. It just implies that the creator is not omnibenevolent according to some points of view.
It’s interesting that the author brought up evolution. Wouldn’t evolution, if it was operating, eliminate pain and suffering? Wouldn’t those less likely to be inhibited by pain/suffering live longer to reproduce more offspring? And thus, offspring more likely to be subject such pain.
Also, wouldn’t evolution lead to offspring that would live longer and reproduce more? And why death? That seems unlikely to be an evolutionary advantage.
Speaking of death, isn’t this a far, far worse outcome than pain and suffering. Surely, the argument against a creator would be why create entities that would be in existence for just an extremely small sliver of the creation?
We all know why this is never an issue. Because the argument is against the Christian God and we all know He has plans for all those die. They do not go out of existence. So why do we not think it is possible He has plans for pain and suffering in this world? Maybe as death which defies the principles of evolution and is necessary for continuous creation, so is unwanted circumstances necessary for a meaningful existence.
No fallen angels, no limitations on God’s power and knowledge, no lack of benevolence. Did He create the “Best of All Worlds” for His objectives?
My answer is that there must be doubt to produce this “Best of All Worlds?” We certainly have it. But what we do not have is a logical world supported by science to support this doubt. But the world actually believes that science does support an existence without God.
God has provided all the necessary information to logically reason to His existence. But we live in a world of doubt. So has God done a magnificent job?