Ed1wolf said:
↑
What a priori assumptions?
cv: Your a priori assumption that God exists, and also that the ambiguous passages of the Bible, spoke about the future characteristics of what we humans now label 'big bang cosmology.' And to shoe horn in attributes and characteristics in which you can make fit into your a priori beliefs.
I didn't assume God exists when I explained my argument. I stated that your study the effect, ie the universe, and its characteristics, and then determine the cause based on those characteristics of the effect. This is done everyday in science. The passages are not that ambiguous when you study them in the original Hebrew and greek.
Ed1wolf said:
↑
The steady state theory lasted longer than the BB theory has so far. Only recently has the Bible been confirmed by science on this subject. Think of all the Christians that had to believe that the universe was not eternal on pure faith for all those years without any science to provide evidence for it.
cv: The Bible has not been 'confirmed' by science. If this were so, peer reviewed 'science' papers would mention as such. You are merely drawing your own a prior assumptions out of wishful thinking.
Maybe not confirmed, but the biblical evidence points in that direction. See above about my assumptions.
cv: Again, the Bible is fairly ambiguous, and interpretation can be read into many of it's passages. Yes, some are straight forward. And even those passages get jockeyed around; as evidence by the many many many denominations.
No, see above about the greek and Hebrew. The number of denominations that believe in the infallible authority of the bible are not that many and mostly agree on the essentials.
Ed1wolf said:
↑
Not just that it began to exist but its characteristics strongly point to what type of Cause it was.
cv: Again, the 'BB' is merely a place holder term. Scientists do not know prior to measurable time. (i.e.) 'began to exist' (vs) eternal (vs) a continuation from a prior immeasurable state (vs) other....
You are again trying to play 'god of the gaps'.
We dont know for certain but all you have to do is make a rational assumption one step back from the BB. My point is just that belief in God is rational, not necessarily proven.
Ed1wolf said:
↑
No, but its writers obviously know of the law. Its description of God fits the definiton of a transcendent being.
cv: Oh, they 'obviously know of the law?' What law is that exactly? And how would (you) know if they did know of this 'law'?
The law of causality and the laws of logic though they didn't know to call them that. But we know that they wrote without violating the laws of logic because what they wrote makes sense and doesn't contradict itself. All humans intuitively know the laws of logic, otherwise they would not be able to communicate verbally.
Ed1wolf said:
↑
God does not inhabit space because He is non-phyiscal.
cv: How would you know? Furthermore, if He does not inhabit 'space', how would He ever
intervene and interact with humans? Does He have the ability to inhabit space?
The bible teaches that He is not physical but can still interact with physical space. We dont know exactly how He interacts with humans but we know that the non-physical laws of nature interact with physical things and cause them to behave certain ways.
Ed1wolf said:
↑
We dont know exactly what is "outside" space.
cv: GREAT ANSWER. Now you are starting to finally sound like a skeptic
Now let science do their thing, and stop trying to 'show horn' God into some of the findings thus far.
There are many things we dont know about God, which is evidence that He is not man made, because man made religions have answers for everything. Christianity does not because it is not manmade.
Ed1wolf said:
↑
You have yet to demonstrate that I have equivocated, made a priori assumptions, and used fallacious reasoning.
cv: I most certainly did. Look above even in this post reply. Furthermore, you demonstrated as such the second you began posting on the side of the one whom presented this post thread
No, see above, I only assumed that the universe exists and reasoned from that to God.
Ed1wolf said:
↑
Sure until I get tired of the same old superficial athestic literalisms.
cv: Nice job in poisoning the well
I'll take this response as a NO
No, my answer is not no. I would be happy to deal with any problems you think the Bible has, I just dont want to spend days talking about so-called problems with the bible that were resolved over 100 years ago. If you something a little more recent, I would be glad to talk about it.
cv: And again, as I stated in a prior post. EVEN IF the universe turns out finite, you still have to rule out every other positive claim for competing theistic propositions. You don't think the believers, opposed to the Christian faith based doctrines can also 'shoe horn' interpretation into their ancient writings and make 'science' fit?
All other major religions can be eliminated using logical reasoning including if they try to make their religious books look like they fit science facts.
Ed1wolf said:
↑
A cosmological observation just came out this month confirming it.
A Star Orbiting in the Extreme Gravity of a Black Hole Validates General Relativity | Science | Smithsonian
cv: Please tell me exactly what this article means, in relation to
proving the existence of a 'transcendent causal agent'? Or, that the Bible is even speaking about such scientific propositions?
As I stated above, I never said I could prove His existence. It is just one more scientific observation that confirms that the universe is finite and had a beginning which points to a transcendent causal agent.