My my, aren’t you being bossy. Time for a nap perhaps? 75 words you say? I do humbly submit to you sir that the first sentence and only the first sentence of my post was specifically directed toward you and was just about as complimentary as I normally provide. Anything more is feather stroking and I rarely do that. There, 44 words. Now, to the rest of my post, there is nothing, including science that will make manifest the workings, identity nor a true definition of God and eternity. He told Moses, “[tell them] I am That I Am [sent you]” which can be translated from the Hebrew into “I will be what I will be, or I create what I create, or even I am who I am. There is nothing to define who is doing the speaking other than He spoke. In truth, I really believe that in a secular sense, the only science that can come even miles away from coming to grips with the existence of God is the language and science of math which I happen to love but to that end, I and many others have our own personal type of science.....The science of faith.
Still no one thing wrong with my exposition. If you have one, make it very concrete and specific, like that I am into circular reasoning, or whatever you figure to be wrong in terms of scientific reasoning, okay?
I was indeed hoping you would have taken my last post to mean something but alas, you asked for a critique so here it is. As I wrote, if your methodology helps to strengthen your own position as to the existence of God, so be it. As to convincing others whilst you use that same methodology we can find fault on a couple of levels. There are only two ways to reach a logical conclusion and that is through linear and non-linear reasoning and whereas you might think that circular thinking is an acceptable thought process it is considered a sort of an ouroboros (snake eating its tail) at best. In science, we start with a premise and then go for an ideal and proven conclusion to the question or premise. In circular reasoning the premise is the conclusion and visa versa so you wind up with the premise trying to prove the conclusion which, as @Frank Sanoica briefly wrote, is flawed reasoning.
Dear Bobby, please just cite the one particular number of my steps in my scientific exposition on the proof for the existence of God, and point out what is wrong with it, okay? Or in just five concise but pithy steps expound why there is no God, if that is your scientific contention.
Dunno what you are looking for guy other than to debate with me which you are not really, REALLY prepared to do because from what I have witnessed thus far is that you really aren’t that good at it. That said............... First and foremost, I have never in any post EVER written that there is no God. I am a Christian teacher / preacher specializing in the homeless ministry and I have 2 post grad theological degrees behind my name and an ordination designation in front of my name. In so saying, it’s obvious that you haven’t read one word that I have posted thus far or you would already know that I am a believer. Here is what I propose you do. Research your premise more thoroughly and come to a conclusion using linear logic. By doing so you may end up with the same answer for yourself as when you use circular reason but you will not have to prove both the premise and the conclusion but merely the conclusion..
The first step that is wrong is that you wrote it to begin with. The second step is that you aren’t reading what you wrote or what I wrote. I really hate going around in circles with people because nothing ever gets accomplished. NOW, read that last sentence and maybe, just maybe you will get the point and go on to bigger and better things. Bye.
Jess, I'm impressed with your argument, but you see now that science, evidence, or logic is not the issue of contention since no one has clearly countered your facts. You have raised both a philosophical and scientific justification for a supernatural being outside of the materialistic universe. The infinite regression of events you reference is something philosophers have postulated for thousands of years as an impossibility. I think mathematics has shown this to be the case, though I wouldn't want to present myself as smart enough to defend the argument. It's logical though, and the evolutionist would have a much harder time proving its possibility than the creationist proving its impossibility. The causation effect you reference though is a well established, undisputed scientific law. And even though leading atheist Richard Dawkins has proposed that the universe's origin violates this law by popping into existence from nothing, the entire scientific community knows that, in all cases, everything coming into existence aways has a cause. The fact that science has never observed a single exception to this concept is the reason why its called a law of science. Thus, the Law of Causality is in fact powerful evidence for supernatural creation - and you'll find no one, here or anywhere, able to present a sound argument against it. They can only deflect to other issues or simply ignore the evidence. By the way, the undisputed, well established First Law of Thermodynamics also prevents the universe from being created without a supernatural cause. The evolutionists (including both atheists and misguided Christians by the way) have no viable counter to this either. They can't, because the science supports creationism, not evolution. Rather than dancing around your 2 points with no valid counter arguments, the others would do better to pick at your first and last points where you define your cause as God. Here, one could argue whether the supernatural being that seems necessary for creation of the natural universe is in fact the God as we know it in the Bible. There's an answer for that of course, but it moves beyond the science that this thread covers. For here, your science is right, but I encourage you to be careful with your claims of proof. Right now, we have several laws of science that specifically support creationism over evolution. Thus, it's rational to believe in a supernatural being of some sort, be it the God of the Bible or not. Those who reject this though won't be persuaded by evidence or logic. Their world view won't allow it, no matter how certain the evidence reveals the truth. Thus, further arguing is pointless.