Peace.....
I will give it a Whirl
The strongest and most empirically confirmed evidence indicates an early universe with conditions which align best with the predictions of Big Bang Cosmological models.
Big Bang Theory is the most reasonable explanation for the beginning of the known universe provided by the community of science.
If there was a Big bang, the entire event would have occured in accordance to pre-existant physical laws since without the existence of such laws there would have not existed the mechanics for such an occurance. i.e, there would have been no known reason for instability of the singularity.
All material originated at the Appearance of the singularity and the subsequent Big bang. The existence of physical laws absent physical material (material in the most strict sense) is supernatural by definition (Unless we include an intelligent and creative agent as being part of nature) The idea of the purposeless[/i] pre-existence of Electromagnetism without the existence of energy or particles, or gravity independent of mass, or the strong nuclear and weak forces independent of nuclear particles is completely untenable on the face.
Whatever gave rise to the laws of science could not be a product of the scientific process.
The only known phenomenon which gives rise to codes and laws and then enacts such laws thus creating original forms and systems is "thinking". an example would be governments and games, computer programs, and music. All of the aforementioned are typically first designed subjectively and subsequently created in the phenomenal world.
Outside of thinking there can be no possible explanation for the origin of "scientific process". Scientific processes cannot explain its own origin-
Yet thinking has in many instances created processes from nothing but the imagination.
Therefore I propose that the Universe evinces the existence of a prime thinker which created the process by which all else came into existence and further I assert that such entity must exist by logical necessity.
The Saracen Knight[i]
(September 19, 2010 at 9:43 pm)theVOID Wrote: I'm interested to see if any theist here has a sound and valid argument (An argument where the premises are true and the conclusion follows logically) for the existence of God, that is to say: An argument based on either 1) Evidence in indication of the proposition OR 2) Logical necessity for the truth of the proposition.
This does not induce standards like "personal experience", "emotions" or "intuition" as they can all lead to innumerable contradictory conclusion with no way to logically discern the truth of the resulting conclusions.
Also, an argument for a God is not an argument against a competing proposition, unless there is a true dichotomy.
Anyone want to have a shot at meeting these standards?
I will give it a Whirl
The strongest and most empirically confirmed evidence indicates an early universe with conditions which align best with the predictions of Big Bang Cosmological models.
Big Bang Theory is the most reasonable explanation for the beginning of the known universe provided by the community of science.
If there was a Big bang, the entire event would have occured in accordance to pre-existant physical laws since without the existence of such laws there would have not existed the mechanics for such an occurance. i.e, there would have been no known reason for instability of the singularity.
All material originated at the Appearance of the singularity and the subsequent Big bang. The existence of physical laws absent physical material (material in the most strict sense) is supernatural by definition (Unless we include an intelligent and creative agent as being part of nature) The idea of the purposeless[/i] pre-existence of Electromagnetism without the existence of energy or particles, or gravity independent of mass, or the strong nuclear and weak forces independent of nuclear particles is completely untenable on the face.
Whatever gave rise to the laws of science could not be a product of the scientific process.
The only known phenomenon which gives rise to codes and laws and then enacts such laws thus creating original forms and systems is "thinking". an example would be governments and games, computer programs, and music. All of the aforementioned are typically first designed subjectively and subsequently created in the phenomenal world.
Outside of thinking there can be no possible explanation for the origin of "scientific process". Scientific processes cannot explain its own origin-
Yet thinking has in many instances created processes from nothing but the imagination.
Therefore I propose that the Universe evinces the existence of a prime thinker which created the process by which all else came into existence and further I assert that such entity must exist by logical necessity.
The Saracen Knight[i]
