Science and religion

[fr0d0]

Stop preaching.

It's not preaching

Preaching is unsolicited information. Stroodle is answering a direct question with relevant information.

[The Reality Salesman01]

@jstrodel
The amount of scientists believing in God is a bit irrelevant. This is an apeal to a majority/authority argument, but i'm sure you've realized that. If 65% of americans didn't believe you existed, would that make it more likely? Of course not! Secondly, the "central tenents" of Christianity that cannot be disproven are no different than the central tenents of any other religion that are unfalsifiable. Christianity is no more true than mormanism. If I told you I have an invisisble leprechaun in my pocket that only I can see. In what way would you begin to apply the scientific method to my claim? There is no reproducible data with this claim. It is simply a claim. There are thousands of claims around the world that are no different. They are all unfalsifiable hypotheses. It doesn't make them plausible, probable and it especially doesn't make them true. They are claims not grounded in any sort of evidence or reproducible data. There is no reason to welcome science into the challenge of disproving your "central tenents" as they are ever changing and adapting to what feels right to the believer. No matter how much you may think it makes sense, without data or measurable results, all you have as an opinion.

What you are saying is true in some sense that many parts of Christianity are not falsifiable. There are many good arguments for God's existence, however, as well as evidence from prophecies and history.

As a practicing Christian, you have a great deal of evidence that God is real. What you call an "opinion" is a very controversial scientism that is extremely political. There is no reason to accept this epistemology, which basically give all the power in societies to universities using scientific models of knowledge.

Alvin Plantinga, a well known epistemologist wrote several large books defending an epistemology in which Christianity is said to have warrant. There are many people that disagree with you and you have no provided evidence for accepting your scientism.

Referring to your metaphysical position as opinion was not intended to be degrading to your position. It was just the most accurate word to describe it. I know you have said there is good evidence and good arguments for God, but I have yet to see any, and honestly, faith requires no evidence and is kind of the cornerstone of your beliefs. Key word "belief". By using this word you are actually admitting a level of agnostism. You are admitting a possibility of being wrong. You may have strong reasons for your own personal conviction and to you it may very well seem as though those are enough for others to hold your same position. However, if you are to enter this conversation with the intent to logically debate the subject, your own personal feelings cannot be used as arguments or evidence to strengthen your argument. Until you provide good argument or factual data of some kind in support your your beliefs, they will remain only an opinion held by you. I would be happy to engage in a logical debate with you, and because I do not think it neccessary to explain to you what it means to switch the burden of proof, I will assume that your request of evidence from me was satisfied by this reply and not a request to provide any evidence that your claim is false but more a request to understand how it is that I could not be swayed by your standard of knowledge and can see now why it is necessary for epistemology of the sort I have described to be based on actual data. Here is an example of what is going on here:

One example of the error that lies in the justification you have provided for your claim that God is a fact Vs. Opinion:

Bob: I need a loan to purchase this house. It's a 5 million dollar house.

Bank: I need to see your credit score and evidence of your worth.

Bob: I am rich. Don't worry about that.

Bank: Show me your credit and proof of your wealth.

Bob: I have a job and a nice car. I feel rich, and I am comfortable in life.

Bank: That's nice sir, but if you do not provide me with evidence of this, I will not be able to give you the loan you require as I have not yet been convinced that your claims are true. Can you produce any of the required data I have requested to confirm your claims?

Bob: I do not need to show you that stuff. I FEEL rich. I know it in my heart that I am. What more evidence do you need?

Bank: I am sorry sir, but we are going to be unable to process your loan at this time. Have a nice day sir.

...I hope this illustrates where we are right now. Between you and I that is. So, if you have any sort of good argument or evidence. Please share it.

[Mister Agenda]

Here is one. It does not prove that the Christian God exists, but it raises the question of what does. It goes along with big bang cosmology.

Well, it's a good example of my claim that there are no arguments for the existence of God that have both reasonable premises and are non-fallacious.

1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;

We only have two examples of things beginning to exist, the rest are all transformations of previously existing matter and energy. The two examples are the universe and virtual particles. Virtual particles come into existence because of indeterminancy. A similar mathematical model works for the universe.

2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;

In its current form, at least. Time is funny, when you get back before Planck time, it becomes another spatial dimension.

3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

Which doesn't imply anything supernatural at all. QM says the least that can possibly exist is 'quantum foam' with the inherent potential to spontaneously form a universe of space, time, matter, and energy.

1. A human experience of morality is observed.

Now that's a sound premise.

2. God is seen to be the best or only explanation for this moral experience.

And this is sneaking in what you want to prove as a premise AND it's mere assertion AND science explains it better. Fail.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Non sequitur.

"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?"
—Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34

Argument from incredulity, fallacy of composition.

1 Who has believed our message ? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed ? 2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground ; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. 3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief ; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried ; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities ; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way ; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth ; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due? 9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. 10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief ; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
Isa 53:1-10, written 700 years before Christ

Jews say the 'Man of Sorrows' represents the nation of Israel itself in Babylonian captivity, but what would they know about the Old Testament? Christians cherry-picked the OT for verses they could claim prophesied Jesus, this is one of the best examples of it, taking a song of hope for freedom and saying 'they were talking about Jesus, totally dude'.

The arguments work when you study all of them together. God has the power to explain many serious problems that are not explained by science, and is a valid hypothesis for explanation. When you seek God further, God reveals Gods nature to you confirming the hypothesis with miracles.

You can't get to success by adding your failures together. Magic is just as good an explanation for things not yet explained by science. And if all that were true, it would be easy to prove it.

[The Reality Salesman01]

"1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
3. The universe has a cause of its existence."


Certain particles and a number of other things in the quantum world come in and out of existance uncaused all the time. I would do some research on that one. This has been true for a long time now.

You are also making an assumption that because everything inside the universe that comes into being has a cause, the entire UNIVERSE whcih came into being (but not in the sense you are implying) must have had a cause. This is the fallacy of compostition. Not to mention your conclusion doesn't follow given that certain things do not have causes.

---

Care to actually cite some?

Here is one. It does not prove that the Christian God exists, but it raises the question of what does. It goes along with big bang cosmology.


1. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
2. The universe has a beginning of its existence;
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

1. A human experience of morality is observed.
2. God is seen to be the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
3. Therefore, God exists.


"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?"
—Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34

1 Who has believed our message ? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed ? 2 For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot, And like a root out of parched ground ; He has no stately form or majesty That we should look upon Him, Nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. 3 He was despised and forsaken of men, A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief ; And like one from whom men hide their face He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried ; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities ; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way ; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth ; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth. 8 By oppression and judgment He was taken away; And as for His generation, who considered That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due? 9 His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth. 10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief ; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
Isa 53:1-10, written 700 years before Christ

The arguments work when you study all of them together. God has the power to explain many serious problems that are not explained by science, and is a valid hypothesis for explanation. When you seek God further, God reveals Gods nature to you confirming the hypothesis with miracles.

---

It would be more compelling if you could show their work - how they reached that conclusion, as what a scientist (or a million scientists) believes or feels about a religion is inconsequential as to whether or not science is compatible with any given faith.

No, no, Strodel, prove me wrong......

Go read one of the many books written. It is not like I am making this up. Go on amazon and buy a book if you want to know all that.

"When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?"

The constant that water clocks and or sundials share with the universe is complexity, Things may share similar characteristics, it cannot however be inferred that they are the same in all or even ANY other form, origin included.

Here's a syllogism to clarify...
Electricity comes from The Power Company
Lightning is comprised of electricity
Therefore lightning comes from The Power Company

See?

[The Reality Salesman01]

@jatrodel

"1. A human experience of morality is observed.
2. God is seen to be the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
3. Therefore, God exists."


This is not a logical argument. You understand that right? Your argument is intended to show that God actually exists. Your second premise cannot assume the conclusion and certainly can't be an opinion!. Watch how this example also begs the question:

A human experience of Christmas exists.

Santa Claus is seen to be the best or only explanation for this experience.

Santa Claus exists.

This is a failed syllogism fraught with logical errors.

[Ryantology]

1. G is the creator/initiator of the Universe
2. G is unique
3. G has actions (p)
4. G is outside time, G must be one unit as if there are more than one entity time can be related to each other, but as time did not exist, then G is one UN-separated self-dependent unit
(The Eternal, The one, The self sufficient)
5. G is outside and separate from the Universe
6. G has a will; as if he didn’t then creating/starting the universe must be initiated from an external source which contradicts with the (proved) non-existence of time.
7. As G is unique and not similar to matter in the universe, he doesn’t have an image (an image is a reflection of light from objects; objects are constructed from molecules and atoms)
Any religion that claims an image for God is a false religion by default

The only religion that gives a matching model for God is ISLAM

I don't know which of these proofs is real! halp

[Aractus]

I'm in the process of finding out what I believe. I still go to a Christian church even though I don't believe in the bible anymore. So today the pastor was saying how science and the bible go hand in hand, but science hasn't yet caught up with the bible. When I heard him say this I could hardly wait to get home and find out what you guys had to say.

Well what did he say specifically? The Bible isn't a book of science, however it does go hand-in-hand with history. External historical evidence continually comes out in support of the Bible - this is true and undeniable.

For instance there used to be the claim that there are so few references to crucifixion being used by Rome outside of the Bible that we have to consider that Rome in fact never used the punishment. Nails were never used in crucifixion - nor even mentioned - outside of the Bible. Sounds like a fair sceptical argument, right? It was put to bed in 1968 when archaeologists discovered the remains of a Jewish man, in Jerusalem - dated to the first century AD - which contained a heel bone with a crucifixion nail still embedded in it, and even part of the wood was still attached to the tip of the nail.

I don't know anything about science, so I would love to get suggestions on videos, articles, blogs, or books about how religion and science go together OR how they DON'T go together. I just want to do my research. Do science and other religions (besides Christianity) match up? Science and the Quran?

Well the prominent astrophysicist (he's the best in Australia) that I know doesn't letter science interfere with his faith...

[KichigaiNeko]

But on could say that

The only religion that gives a matching model for God is {insert preferred deity here}

And the statement will still be "true" for a given value of true.

I just LOVE the way that the abrahamic religions NEVER talk about how The Dagda, Morrigu, Tuatha De; Tiamut, El, Ahura Mazda, Ishtar and Shekina (and the some 8,000 other gods we have invented over the millennia) are not mentioned...ALL immortal, ALL omnipotent, ALL eternal. Really this abrahamic cult is but a new comer to the religious scene and islam barely an infant.

Quite pathetic really when you think about it

[jstrodel]

Referring to your metaphysical position as opinion was not intended to be degrading to your position. It was just the most accurate word to describe it. I know you have said there is good evidence and good arguments for God, but I have yet to see any, and honestly, faith requires no evidence and is kind of the cornerstone of your beliefs. Key word "belief".

No, the key word is not "belief" it is "experience". Christians can have certain knowledge of the world around them through experiencing the Holy Spirit. Some things are not experienced directly, but are based on faith in the supernatural working of God.

By using this word you are actually admitting a level of agnostism. You are admitting a possibility of being wrong.

You are putting words in my mouth. A mature Christian has faith in God, and belief in God, but the belief is based on their daily experience of the reality of God. Immature Christians do not have this. The knowledge of God is not the same as a philosophical belief people may have about a certain state of affairs in the world, it is absolutely true and real.

You may have strong reasons for your own personal conviction and to you it may very well seem as though those are enough for others to hold your same position. However, if you are to enter this conversation with the intent to logically debate the subject, your own personal feelings cannot be used as arguments or evidence to strengthen your argument. Until you provide good argument or factual data of some kind in support your your beliefs, they will remain only an opinion held by you.

I do not accept that the only way to justify knowledge is through science. Can you provide evidence that science is the only way to justify knowledge? Christianity is not an irrational belief system, but it predates science and has its own ways of dealing with the justification of truth claims. Do you even understand how these mechanism work? Evidently not, if you think that Christian belief reduces to a kind of fideism. You have probably never read a serious book on theology in your whole life.

I would be happy to engage in a logical debate with you, and because I do not think it neccessary to explain to you what it means to switch the burden of proof, I will assume that your request of evidence from me was satisfied by this reply

It is not satisfied. Why should atheist beliefs and elements of the atheist worldview not require evidence? If atheism is only non-belief, the only thing that atheists can say is "I do not accept the claim that God exists". Why not restrict all other discussions that depart from this?

...I hope this illustrates where we are right now. Between you and I that is. So, if you have any sort of good argument or evidence. Please share it.

I posted arguments and evidence, but I think a greater form of evidence lies in the church's own mechanisms for dealing with truth claims. There is external evidence for the existence of God, just as physics may reveal some useful things about history, but I think that basically trying to impose upon theological methods an external standard greatly compromises the integrity and clarity that comes from the experience of God on Gods own terms.

But people do not want to seek God, and they do not want someone to tell them what to do. So theology is asked to submit to science and philosophy, which it does, and offers arguments. Perhaps they will be convincing to you, there are good arguments for the existence of God. But this is a tiny portion of the brilliance and order and holiness of God, who is very ready to reveal God's nature to people, if they will first seek God and listen to God on God's own terms.

That is different from trying to win a debate.

You have not demonstrated that theology relies on fideism and you have ignored the evidence that I have posted, as well as others I have linked to.

---

But on could say that

The only religion that gives a matching model for God is {insert preferred deity here}

And the statement will still be "true" for a given value of true.

I just LOVE the way that the abrahamic religions NEVER talk about how The Dagda, Morrigu, Tuatha De; Tiamut, El, Ahura Mazda, Ishtar and Shekina (and the some 8,000 other gods we have invented over the millennia) are not mentioned...ALL immortal, ALL omnipotent, ALL eternal. Really this abrahamic cult is but a new comer to the religious scene and islam barely an infant.

Quite pathetic really when you think about it

Many of the religions are quite similar to Judaism and Christianity. You might argue the existence of many different religions implies that there is no God, another might argue it is evidence of the existence of the supernatural and that it brings to question to the front: what concept of God is the best?

You have not listed the missing argument that ties the existence of many Gods to atheism. What is it?

---

@jatrodel

"1. A human experience of morality is observed.
2. God is seen to be the best or only explanation for this moral experience.
3. Therefore, God exists."


This is not a logical argument. You understand that right? Your argument is intended to show that God actually exists. Your second premise cannot assume the conclusion and certainly can't be an opinion!. Watch how this example also begs the question:

A human experience of Christmas exists.

Santa Claus is seen to be the best or only explanation for this experience.

Santa Claus exists.

This is a failed syllogism fraught with logical errors.

That is not a serious objection because no one thinks that the existence of Santa Clause is necessary to explain Christmas. It is a dirty trick designed to demean religious belief and the subject matter seems intended towards playing on peoples sense of maturity.

What is wrong with seeing the existence of morality as being evidence for God's existence? What do you propose to replace it with? Morality is probably the most important question that exists in any society, and anyone who attempts to reduce morality to a mere reasoned opinion, in virtually every society, is quickly marginalized and ridiculed. What is your explanation for morality? Not an explanation of how people can have opinions about what morality is, you explanation of the most dominant factors in human societies that it is required for people to be good people, that it is not an option, that all people must be good people. How do you explain this. I don't think you want to understand the answer, because you posted about Santa Clause which is obviously irrelevant.

It is not fraught with logical errors. It is formally valid. The question is whether statement two is true. You have not provided any evidence that it is not true.

1. a
2. if a then b
3. b (MP 2,1)

It is not a syllogism. A syllogism looks like:
All S is P
All P is Q
All S is Q

---

Which doesn't imply anything supernatural at all. QM says the least that can possibly exist is 'quantum foam' with the inherent potential to spontaneously form a universe of space, time, matter, and energy.

It is not necessary for the cosmological argument to demonstrate that a supernatural being exists, only that a universe requires some sort of first cause. Aristotle, maybe the greatest philosopher in history took a similar form of this argument seriously.

1. A human experience of morality is observed.

Now that's a sound premise.

2. God is seen to be the best or only explanation for this moral experience.

And this is sneaking in what you want to prove as a premise AND it's mere assertion AND science explains it better. Fail.

Obviously the argument hinges on the truth of proposition two. You have not provided any evidence that "science explains it better". I have never seen anywhere where science remotely treated the issues surrounding morality seriously. The times when I have seen science or academic philosophy look seriously at the moral argument, usually they come out denying proposition 1, or at least denying that it has any objective value. Some scientists like Francis Collins, who sequenced the genome, have considered this argument (maybe in another form) to be the reason that he became a Christian.

Non sequitur.

In two words. That is all? Non sequitur? You have not proven why it is always required to have uncontroversial premises. If you disagree with premise 2, what is your rational for that?

Argument from incredulity, fallacy of composition.

What does that mean? Richard Rorty left analytic philosophy partially because of what he called "the appearance of rigor". How do these words refute the argument?

You can't get to success by adding your failures together. Magic is just as good an explanation for things not yet explained by science. And if all that were true, it would be easy to prove it.

You don't have anything right now. You are totally lost in a world without meaning, preoccupied with your cultural understanding of philosophical rigor that has value only to train people in philosophical thinking and helping industries and the military grow.

You have not really refuted my arguments so much as shared your presuppositions about what you consider valid epistemological approaches. You havn't provided any evidence for these.

Because an argument does not meet a certain standard of proof, does not meant it fails and should be discarded. This is your presupposition about the way that truth claims relate to one another. You haven't given evidence for it, so your claim is unacceptable.

---

Certain particles and a number of other things in the quantum world come in and out of existance uncaused all the time. I would do some research on that one. This has been true for a long time now.

That totally ignores the primary issue of the origin of the universe, which is explained by God.

You are also making an assumption that because everything inside the universe that comes into being has a cause, the entire UNIVERSE whcih came into being (but not in the sense you are implying) must have had a cause. This is the fallacy of compostition. Not to mention your conclusion doesn't follow given that certain things do not have causes.

Are you arguing that the universe does not need to have a cause or that the problem of the origin of the cosmos is not explained by the God hypothesis?

[The Reality Salesman01]

That is not a serious objection because no one thinks that the existence of Santa Clause is necessary to explain Christmas. It is a dirty trick designed to demean religious belief and the subject matter seems intended towards playing on peoples sense of maturity.

What is wrong with seeing the existence of morality as being evidence for God's existence? What do you propose to replace it with? Morality is probably the most important question that exists in any society, and anyone who attempts to reduce morality to a mere reasoned opinion, in virtually every society, is quickly marginalized and ridiculed. What is your explanation for morality? Not an explanation of how people can have opinions about what morality is, you explanation of the most dominant factors in human societies that it is required for people to be good people, that it is not an option, that all people must be good people. How do you explain this. I don't think you want to understand the answer, because you posted about Santa Clause which is obviously irrelevant.

It is not fraught with logical errors. It is formally valid. The question is whether statement two is true. You have not provided any evidence that it is not true.

1. a
2. if a then b
3. b (MP 2,1)

It is not a syllogism. A syllogism looks like:
All S is P
All P is Q
All S is Q[/

Even your justification of why my example was not applicable was filled with fallacies...lol, "That is not a serious objection because no one thinks that the existence of Santa Clause is necessary to explain Christmas"?
Do you know how easy it is for anybody on this forum to apply that same logic to your arguments in support of God?!! But, we don't because it's illogical! Your second premise assumes its conclusion.

Pay attention:

There are many different forms of a syllogism. The one you chose to butcher failed miserably.

They should be structured like this:

1.Minor Premise
2.Major Premise
3.Conclusion (must be inferred and supported by the first two premises)

1.(minor premise)A valid and supported by evidence
2.(major premise)Its valid,accepted,supported and can be inferred that all A is also B
3.(Conclusion) If A and B then I am forced to accept C.

What you did was this.

C is true because...

1.A
2.A is C (it's still necessary to prove C, this premise is immediately rejected and cannot be used to support itself as the conclusion)
3.C

As soon as you present C as C...I am forced to ask you how you know C is true, then you start your same illogical argument from the beginning...and so on and so on...Reasoning in a Circle!

We saw a scary movie at my house.

Freddy Kruger was in it and I had a nightmare about him.

Freddy Kruger exists.


Its not even an argument! You're just stringing opinions and personal experiences together that you say are true and think we should agree!

Surely you can see how there is zero logic in your argument. I'd go back and look at it again. It wasn't cuel to point it out, it was necessary as it was used as an argument against something I have bad reasons to believe, and you offered another one. I was just illustrating why it was bad.

---

Certain particles and a number of other things in the quantum world come in and out of existance uncaused all the time. I would do some research on that one. This has been true for a long time now.

That totally ignores the primary issue of the origin of the universe, which is explained by God

No, it addresses your premise that a cause is required (God) which is what you were hoping to suggest if I accepted that the universe must have had a cause. If you expect me to accept that there is a need for your God, you must first establish your argument for the universe being caused.

No cause-No Causer!

You seemed to think that by saying that everything in the universe that comes into being had a cause, therefore the universe which came into being had a cause and you wanted to insert God as that cause.

I just used my statement to show you that it wasn't necessary for it to have a cause as quantum particles come into being uncaused. The alternative suggestion for your issue you have with the origin of the universe is that the origin is quantum.

So, my suggestion is that you pick up A Universe from Nothng by Stephen Hawking and read how the universe literally came into being uncaused. No need for a God, you are searching for one, I am waiting for you to report your results to Quantum Physicists around the world that you've got evidence that shows God did it by clapping and it wasn't the result of the complex science that is behaving the same way today it would have needed to in the beginning to create the same samples of results we would expect it to in order for such a universe to come into being out of literally...Nothng.

Are you arguing that the universe does not need to have a cause or that the problem of the origin of the cosmos is not explained by the God hypothesis?

I'm saying there is no evidence for your God or a reason to insert him as a hypothesis for anything at all. Secondly, I wasn't aware of any problem of the origin of the cosmos except for those that attempt to use God as the explanation when science has a lot of the evidence for how it happened a long time ago. The problem is that in order for God to have created the cosmos, he would need to create space. In order to create space he would need to exist out side of it. The order of events leading to the beginning of space is also when time as we know it, which is relative to space began, but you are suggesting that God existed outside space and time as if time were absolute. Which its been proven not to be. You are operating under a newtonian principle of time which has been proven wrong a long time ago. Your cell phone working is a prime example of relativity. The very properties you are assigning to God are impossible contradictions that make no sense whatsoever. You can claim whatever you want, but don't suggest its anymore true than me saying your same arguments justify the belief in Santa. Unfalsifiable Hypotheses are exactly that and nothing more. It just doesn't make sense for you to have to try so hard to show something that is actually TRUE to be TRUE. Don't you think? You don't seem to have a clue that the very principles your arguments hinge on are only an issue to you because you have God Blinders on. A lot of the things you think necessary to attribute to God have been explained in the last 30 years. I would really suggest that you pick up a book. You sound so lost and misguided, it's actually kinda sad.