In ‘The Three Body Problem’, we see a prominent scholar and professor being publicly beaten by the communist party for not denying God’s existence. He goes on to say that ‘Science hasn’t provided any definitive answer’. So I’m curious, <title>.
In ‘The Three Body Problem’, we see a prominent scholar and professor being publicly beaten by the communist party for not denying God’s existence. He goes on to say that ‘Science hasn’t provided any definitive answer’. So I’m curious, <title>.
Okay, but the question I am being asked is what are the most convincing arguments for their being a god?
And my response is, is that science has redone a thing that God was claimed to have done, and it created matter.
If you are not a biblical literalist, if you can accept the idea that the Bible is correct, but not flawless in its data communication, then it has at least the tiniest little spider’s web strand of reason that says that the hermit Moses, seven-odd-thousand years ago, received some sort of divine revelation that contained information that was later proven to be scientifically true, which lends at the very least a mote of dust worth of credence to the existence of God.
I’m an atheist, but my argument for a god of some sort is that we probably don’t exist out of nothingness
Yes but that generally just shifts the questions one layer lower. Where would God come from then? I know the typical answer is God has always existed but if God doesn’t need a reason to exist then really the universe doesn’t either.
God is omnipotent, so he exists on a completely different level than the universe apples to oranges
Special pleading.
That is just assigning God special properties and then claiming done.
He is omnipotent and he created the universe. it would be pretty illogical to think the creator must conform to creation?
Presupposing the result is not an argument