Monday’s Biggest Issue: Are These The Five Best Natural Arguments for God?

Talk to enough people over many years and you begin to get a sense of what are the most persuasive arguments for the majority of people who are either just doubtful about whether God exists or who are outright skeptics.

Over at Reasons to Believe, Hugh Ross points to these five in his long experience:

* Origin of space, time, matter, and energy
* Origin of life
* Human exceptionalism
* Fine-tuning of the universe, Earth, and Earth’s life to make possible the existence and redemption of billions of humans
* Genesis 1’s predictive power to accurately describe, in chronological order, key events in Earth’s history leading to humans

At first glance, I was a bit taken aback by the reference to Genesis 1 as a natural argument. But here’s how Ross explains it:

“Genesis 1: Genesis 1:2 establishes the frame of reference for the six-day creation account as the surface of Earth’s waters, and it describes four initial conditions: ubiquitous darkness and water on Earth’s surface, no life, and unfit conditions for life.

“On day 1, Earth’s atmosphere becomes translucent (“let there be light”). On day 4, the atmosphere becomes transparent (“let there be lights in the expanse of the sky”). The Hebrew word for day, yom, has four literal definitions, one of which is a long, finite time period.

“That day 7 is not closed out by an “evening and morning” implies that the creation days are consecutive long time periods. Thus, Genesis 1 accurately predicted both the description, timing, and order of the events of creation. Resource: Navigating Genesis

Knowing that there are among HillFaith’s growing legion of readers both believers and skeptics, I’d be interested to hear responses from both camps. I think number 3 is especially persuasive. What think you?

Mark Tapscott is HillFaith’s editor, IT jockey, spiritual guide, chief bottle washer and overall Jack-of-All-Trades. Email him at mark.tapscott@gmail.com

Author: Mark Tapscott

Follower of Christ, devoted husband of Claudia, doting father and grandfather, conservative lover of liberty, journalist and First Amendment fanatic, former Hill and Reagan aide, vintage Formula Ford racer, Okie by birth/Texan by blood/proud of both, resident of Maryland.

70 thoughts on “Monday’s Biggest Issue: Are These The Five Best Natural Arguments for God?”

    1. “The Hebrew word for day, yom, has four literal definitions, one of which is a long, finite time period.” While this is absolutely true, you cannot separate the word from the context. “Evening and morning” might better be translated as “Sunset and sunrise” or “Where the sun sets (West) and morning.” The context for the first 6 days of creation is 6 24-hour days.

      “That day 7 is not closed out by an “evening and morning” implies that the creation days are consecutive long time periods. ” Only if you ignore the context of the previous six days. Theologically, we can point to the seventh day as the day in which God rested from creation i.e., that He is no longer making new, but making all things according to what was initially set-up. (“He daily and richly provides me with all that I need.” Luther’s Small Catechism.) After the seventh day, but on a day not counted, Adam and Eve fell, and God came to them in the “cool of the day” or late afternoon. (Just before darkness). We continued in this weird twilight until Good Friday.

      On Good Friday, darkness fell. He rose again on the Eighth day. The Greek word, skotas, was used both for the darkness that was called Night, and the darkness on Good Friday. All four gospel writers reference the darkness (Evening) on Easter morning, when the women went to the tomb, but then the Son rises after dawn (morning)

      Like

      1. I always assumed Einstein answered the ‘days’ question. Time is in the eye of the beholder. An outside observer – as a designer would be – would be operating at relativistic speeds. The bang, the expansion of the universe, formation of stars and galaxies, all seen at either the speed of light or a hair under. Time becomes plastic.

        The last two explanations were what settled it for me. The universe is too finely tuned to be an accident. “But we’re here so the accident must have happened” never struck me as a plausible counter. Nomadic herders explaining the construction of a biosphere or designing health codes (kosher food laws) struck me as implausible as well.

        Like

  1. Prophetic announcements of Cyrus (by name) in Isaiah, circa 700 BC and Alexander the Great (by description) circa 550 BC. Each 150 plus years beforehand.

    Like

  2. It seems to me that point 2 (origin of life), may be vulnerable to a “God of the Gaps” criticism in a way that the others are not.

    Like

  3. Those are pretty good, although I find #3 least persuasive. Since we can’t really get inside a cat’s or a horse’s head, we don’t really know how they think. Perhaps, on their own level, they all think they’re exceptional. And so they all are, in their own way.

    #5, Genesis, can be expanded. Genesis has plant/animal creation in approved scientific order, yes, but it also has civilization’s progress in order – hunting, agriculture, & so on. That’s an interesting note on yom, for which I thank you. My personal theory is that some day, evolutionists will settle down and produce a proper timeline of which animal appeared when, which can then be mathematically compared to the six days and some brilliant mathematician will come up with a formula that syncs them up.

    & for a #6, there is Scupper and the 7 things endemic to human culture: taboos against murder, incest and theft within the tribe, plus language, art, music and religion. Don’t know what other religions say about language, plus Christianity says the Word actually IS God, which is pretty wild. So we are hard-wired to search for God, which is not necessary for mere survival.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Persnickety, I especially appreciate your comment about a future mathematician syncing up the Genesis account with evolutionary staging. But will that solve the problem of explaining the sudden appearance of new species?

      Like

  4. P.S. If a knowledgeable evolutionist shows up, I would like to know what is going to come after mammals, and when. Thank you.

    Like

      1. Predicting the future is often fraught with error, but I think I can answer Persnickety: It’s impossible to KNOW what will come next, but I’m pretty sure the When will be next week sometime.
        PS: If you’re the same “recovering aerospace engineer”, it’s good to see you here.

        Like

  5. So you’re explaining the complexity of existence, life, etc. by saying it was created by something – even more infinitely complex, i.e. God? That just doesn’t make sense to me.
    I’m not saying there isn’t a God, Creator, etc.; I’m a devout agnostic after all, so I have left some wiggle room. I’m just saying your “proof” is not a logical explanation.

    Like

  6. My mother was surprised to tell me the same Genesis 1 explanation … 50 years ago! Made sense then. Still does.

    Like

  7. Yet for so many Scientismists, the starting point for their analysis is a flat rejection of a creative intelligence on the assumption that “such things just can’t be”, after which they look at the question “rationally”. Albeit usually absent the intellectual honesty of an admission that their conclusions are no more susceptible of scientific proof than is religious faith.

    Like

    1. No, the response is not that “it can’t be.” It is that “This is not science.” Science intrinsically precludes God, because once a god is involved, natural explanations are meaningless. That is not to say that there is no God, just that scientists, by definition as people who try to explain nature, not the supernatural, cannot accept that as an explanation. I have no firm opinions as to whether God exists or not, but I do know that I cannot invoke Him in a scientific explanation. That is the underlying fallacy of this entire subject.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Science is not about “truth.” That is for philosophers. Science is about explaining as best we can the natural (not supernatural) world. Once you invoke a God who can do whatever, you are out of that realm.

        Like

      2. so what is your definition of truth that science does not seek? is it related to this: “good science raises more questions than it answers”?

        Like

      3. Rand, are you assuming that anything happening in the natural world must be the result of natural processes and thereby exclude all non-natural causes? If that is the case, then aren’t you assuming before investigating the evidence that the resurrection of Christ was a hoax, a myth or mass hallucination?

        Like

      4. By definition, anything unnatural is not part of the natural world, and a man being mutilated and dying on the cross, and then arising again hale and whole three days later, is pretty unnatural. It may be true that Jesus died for our sins and arose, and it may be true that the path to heaven is to accept His teachings, but whether or not it is is beyond the realm of science. As is the broader question of whether or not God exists.

        Like

      5. I would add (and I had this discussion with Hugh Hewitt many years ago), I find it both annoying and amusing when people attempt to recruit or hijack science to attempt to endorse their religious beliefs. It indicates to me a certain lack of faith.

        Like

      6. Here is another question. Referring to the natural/supernatural dichotomy, is there a supernatural realm? I think God exists, and operates in that space, but not exclusively so. All cultures in recorded history appear to acknowledge and seek a higher power, and that process does not seem to be merely an intellectual exercise.

        Like

      7. There might be a supernatural realm but, by definition, it is not something to which science can be applied.

        A tendency toward religiosity does seem evident across humanity, but that in itself is no indication that religion has any basis in reality. Evolutionists have some plausible notions about how supernatural beliefs might have come about, and how having such beliefs could have been a selection advantage (thus widening the occurrence). The notions are largely untestable, of course, and so more philosophy than science.

        Like

  8. I don’t find any of them particularly compelling, but I don’t know how to evaluate (3) unless you explain what human “exceptionalism” means. Other animals use tools, other animals use language, other animals do math (or at least arithmetic). Is it reading and writing? Also, if God created this “exceptional” animal, why did he give it 98% of the genome of a chimp? I think the “fine tuning” is explained adequately by the anthropic principle. If this particular universe didn’t have those characteristics, we wouldn’t be here to ponder it. There could be many others that don’t work well.

    BTW, I ran into an interesting theory the other day that the reason dinosaurs could grow so large was that earth’s gravity was much less in the Mesozoic era.

    Like

  9. I think you missed a big one. The incomprehensible vastness of creation. We humans put labels on stuff and think we understand it. “The Universe is as best we can tell 14 billion years old”. That implies 14 billion light years across. We look at the 14, which we understand, and ignore the fact that we cannot really comprehend either a billion or a light year. Only the mind of God can comprehend the Universe. And I lack the amount of faith it would require to believe it is all an accident.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Aristotle’s Natural Inquiry, or Inquiry into the Nature of Things. Something like that. A convincing rational explanation as to why God exists and why His nature is shockingly similar to that described in the Bible.

    Like

  11. Those are good arguments. Mine is better. The very existence of Taylor Swift is proof of three things: That God exists, that God is male, and that God loves us.

    Like

    1. To follow this line of reasoning: since recreation and waste-disposal are placed together, should we also conclude that God is a naval architect?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Oh, I don’t know about that. Apparently, the matchmaker wasn’t blind; and there was free will involved.

        Like

  12. Well, the most obvious reason to believe is for one to have a personal relationship with God; to have the experience of “walking with the LORD.”

    When one has that experience, any wag’s claim that “God is dead” is met reflexively with the response, “When did that happen? Hell, I talked with Him just this morning!”

    The skeptic will always call this self-delusion, naturally. The person who knows God shrugs and realizes, a bit helplessly, that if his experience of God is self-delusion, so too might be his experience of the love of his parents, the humidity of summertime in the Southeast, or reality in general. So that conversation’s a nonstarter.

    The matter of Genesis 1-3 is fraught, of course. The smarter Christians from St. Augustine to Dr. Edward Feser have sneered, with more or less fraternal charity, at the likes of Duane Gish and Ken Ham, whose ability to mishandle ancient texts have made them legendary.

    But supposing that the better-trained exegetes, who view Genesis 1-11 as quasi-apocalyptic and certainly mythopoeic in their genre, are correct…what then? If Augustine correctly held, 1,600 years ago, that the early chapters of Genesis were never intended (by the original author) to be taken literalistically, then THAT means there is nothing therein which can be disproven by scientific discoveries. Christians might like that. But it ALSO means that the “order of creation” represented therein has no apologetics value: If the genre is so mythopoeic that it conveys no historical/scientific content, then its “order of events” can neither be taken as a faulty account, NOR as an accurate one. “You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.”

    What about the origin of life? Or the “irreducible complexity” so beloved of Paley and the Intelligent Design crowd?

    Well, the trick with that is it doesn’t prove what Theists call “God”: A completely transcendent being with infinite immanent power holding the universe in being at every point in space and every moment of time, and from whom all existing things derive their power to exist as a character in a man’s imagination derives his power to exist, continuously, from the man exercising that imagination.

    No, unexpectedly improbable events in evolutionary history come closer to proving the interference of a tinkering alien mad scientist, than they do to proving “God.” Or, if one insists on calling such a tinkerer “God,” then one must think of someone like Thor as depicted in the Marvel films: A finite being, with finite powers. But such arguments aren’t relevant to what St. Thomas Aquinas meant by the “First Cause,” or “Actus Purus.”

    For that, you have to use Metaphysics (as Aquinas did).

    But Americans, by-and-large, are ignorant of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Plotinus, Boethius, Maimonides, Scotus, Aquinas, Leibniz, Anselm, and the rest. About 1% of American high-schoolers heard of Anselm’s ontological argument, were handed a straw-man version of it, scoffed once at the straw-man, and that was it. “And after that,” the wise old history teacher continued, “there came a man named Immanuel Kant.” And that was it.

    So in the end, I think a lot of American believers never come to know about God through argument. They don’t have the requisite knowledge which would allow them to know about any good arguments. The bad arguments they have are entirely supplementary to their own direct experience of God. They are puzzled why others don’t always have that experience, and the arguments help them to know that, well, it’s the people who DON’T know God, who must be mistaken.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. The title you link to is “Five Best Scientific Evidences for the God of the Bible” I don’t see how four of the five are evidence of the God of the bible.

    In my opinion the fine tuning and origin of life are the best argument for an intelligent creator. Creation is good too. I think human exceptionalism is part of a different argument: macro-evolution can’t be explained by natural causes. And scientists are continually finding that animals are smarter than they thought they were.

    Like

  14. I think that the fine tuning argument is very strong, the others less so. My church has the reasonable tenant that the Bible has been handed down thru the hands of man. That makes it somewhat less reliable in detail. Furthermore the Lord provided information in a form that could be understood by man at that stage in his moral and technological development. So information in Genesis was given to sheep and goat herders and had to be what they could comprehend.

    So geologically I don’t think there was a point where the earth was 100% water covered, but of course that could change as our knowledge base grows.

    Furthermore the prime rule to me is this: the Lord is Truth. He does not deceive by leaving false geological or paleontological evidence for us to find. Or any other type of evidence. Of course we can and have misinterpret what we find.

    As for the origin of life, my personal belief is that the Lord used what I call: Guided Evolution. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, but there is no proof that it proceeds in a completely random fashion. My belief is that at critical points the Lord’s agents step in and push the process in one way. The way the eventually leads to humans. The Cambrian Explosion for example. Life existed before as a bizarre mix of body plans and afterwards it exists with the body plans we see today. There are other examples.

    The main problems with many atheistic scientists is that they confuse How with Why. Science deals with how nature works. I cannot deal with Why nature does things in a certain way. A prime example of this is the fine tuning problem in physics and cosmology. Our universe is extremely designed to allow life as we know it to exist. Tweaking one of many physical constants, by a tiny amount, would produce a sterile Universe.

    Physicists have no explanation for this, indeed they have corrupted current day physics by trying to hammer the facts into a mold that accounts for these hard truths. The many world theory for one. In the process they would destroy the scientific method. The Occam’s razor solution of course is that some outside power, God we name it, created the Universe. But since they were brought up as atheists they cannot accept this.

    Like

  15. It is literally true that each leave on a tree is far more complicated than the most intricate Rolex watch and yet it just grows for a season and falls at it’s appointed time. If, wandering in the forest, one came upon a tree covered with Rolex watches one would have no doubt that they had been created and that there was, somewhere, a creator. We are so enamored of the word “natural” and so dulled in our sense of wonder that we can look upon a creation far more complex and cunning than that Rolex and consign it’s origin to just having evolved over time with no need for intelligent design.
    Next time you get the opportunity to handle a Rolex ask yourself how long, should all the proper minerals be in one area, it would take for these ingredients to evolve into a functioning Rolex.
    I know it never will and I know there is a creator of each leaf in the forest.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. The problem with using natural arguments as an indicator of God is that they are all, ultimately, mundane. The “best” ones can be distilled as “something appears amazing, therefore God”. But as our scientific understanding increases, the number of natural phenomena appearing amazing decreases. The science doesn’t even have to be correct or complete, it just has to offer a rational explanation of something amazing for the thing to appear less amazing. Although the universe as we know it wouldn’t exist without the unique condition of hydrogen bonding, it’s something understood to science. Most people I’ve met who know about hydrogen bonding don’t see God in it – the spiritual reaction is closer to: whatever.

    Disclosure:
    Infinite mind being – agnostic
    Biblical God – highly sceptical

    Kind regards,
    Peter

    Like

      1. Mark, so long as we’re talking about the natural universe, there doesn’t seem to be (or need to be) an alternative explanation as to why H2O is such an interesting and useful molecule.

        Hope my reply doesn’t languish in moderation for ten days. 😉

        Like

  17. The existence moral evidence and moral reason and discoverable moral truth as features of the world we find ourselves in immediately raises the possibility of a moral force or power, which if it were powerful enough could be God.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. You don’t think morality is discoverable on its own? The definition of moral, broadly speaking, is “what works”. It’s learned, passed down to following generations, and becomes ingrained as moral code, its source usually long forgotten. Those cultures that select the moral survive and supplant those that don’t. This, I think, is why the world’s major religions are all in general agreement as to what is and is not moral. They’ve selected enough of the correct elements to beat out those that didn’t. It’s an evolutionary “survival of the most moral” contest that’s continually bringing humanity closer to a more perfect moral code.

      That said, having the basics for a functioning society handed down from a mountain top goes a long way toward that goal. Basically, it comes down to the Creator saying, I made you this way so here are the rules that will work best for you. And then we try everything else to prove him wrong, usually in the most painful fashion possible.

      Like

      1. Genesis 1:1

        God creates heaven and earth

        1st day: light; separated from darkness
        2nd day: firmament (“sky”), separates the waters
        3rd day: gathers the waters, dry land appears; vegetation/plants/trees
        4th day: lights in the sky; Sun, Moon
        5th day: fishes, birds; sea creatures, “Be fruitful and multiply”
        6th day: land creatures; man (mankind); male & female; “Be fruitful and multiply”
        7th day: God rests

        Genesis 2:4 &c: no days marked

        earth & heavens created
        water comes up from the ground
        man formed of dust (earth), breathed life into him
        garden (orchard) planted in Eden; put the man there; trees grew (tree of life, tree of knowledge of good & evil)
        made the animals and birds; the man named them all; made woman from the man

        (It all goes downhill from there)

        The difference is the order of creation, and that in Gen. 1, man and woman are created together. I’m not worried about the details (like, where did Cain’s wife come from). I just wonder why there are two separate, different accounts

        Like

      2. This is a reply to lectorconstans.

        First, a brief grammar lesson. Ancient Hebrew did not have punctuation the way we do today. Instead they used word choices to end thoughts. After Genesis 1:1, each verse begins the simple conjunction waw (and, but, now, etc.) Verse 2.4 does not, indicating a new thought

        Also, in Gen 2:4, we begin with the phrase “These are the generations”. This repeats throughout Genesis. It is a literary device that introduces the next stage in the unfolding story. Here the heavens and earth are created, The next stage is not the listing of patriarchs from Adam to Noah, but what happens in the time of Noah (chapter 5)

        We can look at Genesis 1 then as a creation account from a wider angle. Each day is mentioned 1 though 7 and what happened on that day. Genesis 2 is the specific account of the creation of mankind.

        Like

      1. I think that’s a very good summary, and among the simplest possible. I’d say that answers my original question (“what about the accounts’). Looking over my summaries (“1st day: light;……”), your explanation fits very well.
        Thanks!

        Like

  18. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field is a pretty big clue. When NASA aimed the world’s most powerful telescope at an empty patch of sky the size of a grain of sand at arm’s length, a patch that seemed utterly empty and devoid of any stars or galaxies or anything else, it captured an image of over 10,000 galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

    Achieving near perfect transparency over unimaginable distances while still revealing interesting objects at those distances ought to be physically impossible. The opacity gradient has to be inconceivably precise to be able to see such interesting details on literally the far side of the universe. For it to be merely random would be like hitting the Power Ball jackpot, and you can’t hand-wave it away with the Anthropomorphic Principal either. See the video ‘The Hubble Ultra Deep Field in 3D’ on YouTube by DeepAstronomy.

    The pinwheel structure of a galaxy is also mathematically impossible. Spiral galaxies simply shouldn’t exist. Computational physicists have tried for decades to create computer simulations that would create a long-term pinwheel structure of a typical spiral galaxy and it just doesn’t work, at least not without cheating. It always smears into a blob. Then dark matter (DM) was discovered. Why does dark matter exist? There’s no reason for it. It definitely exists – gravitational lensing reveals it everywhere in the cosmos – but there’s nothing in the Standard Model that explains it. It’s just there. But why? It’s only use seems to be for creating interesting and beautiful galactic structures that we can actually see at cosmological distances.

    The Hubble Ultra Deep Field a wonderful ‘smoking gun’, so to speak. The fact that miraculous photo exists, that the Universe is seems to be carefully crafted so that we as humans can actually see all these amazing, beautiful, and glorious galaxies by the billions, strongly implies that someone or something wants us to see His handiwork.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Richard Dawkins has pointed out numerous times that denial of a designer does not leave chance as the only remaining alternative. Rather, the natural laws of physics expressed through evolution have given us species of all designs and our morality besides.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Yes, he and many others who choose to reject the existence of God but citing Dawkins or others is simply an appeal to authority. Given acceptance of certain assumptions, a case can be made for evolution of species, but, unless by “morality” you mean survival of the fittest, to what other morality are you referring as the product of evolutionary processes? But morality is a guide to making choices among alternatives. How does that come from molecules in motion?

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Depends on what you mean by “design” and what you mean by “chance”. And whether God constrains himself according to the limits of your vocabulary.

        Liked by 1 person

  19. Watch the flex of a Hemoglobin molecule as it flexes one way to accept an o2 and then flexes the other way to release and pick up a molecule of co2. It hides the deadly heme molecule from contact with the life that needs it to carry 02 to it and co2 away. These several differing forces carefully flex one tiny portion of the many different needs for life. All of them need to be there at the same time. A cosmic ray damaging a gene for a hundred million to one ‘good’ result does not suffice without a vast array of other events at the same time.

    Like

  20. morality is a guide to making choices among alternatives. How does that come from molecules in motion?

    Have you read Axelrod’s Evolution Of Cooperation? He at least attempts to explain it. It also explains human (and other animal) “exceptionalism.”

    Like

  21. Human exceptionalism” relates to Enrico Fermi’s 1950 question at Los Alamos, following Tsiolkovsky’s earlier remarks regarding UFOs: “If extraterrestrials exist, where are they?” In 1961, astronomer Frank Drake posed the question as a probability function (“Drake’s Equation”) giving odds on a successful search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) via communications within Earth’s Milky Way galactic light cone (“Minkowski Space”), deriving a figure of 100,000 contemporary Advanced Extraterrestrial Civilizations (AETCs) capable of interstellar contact with humanity.

    For all its plausibility, Drake’s iconic 7-factor statistical equation neglects two crucial elements: Our galaxy’s 100,000 Light Year (LY) diameter in Space, plus its multi-billion year extent in Time. Though both Andromeda and our Milky Way loom large within our 50-galaxy Local Group, with 300 – 500 billion stars apiece both are relatively small– within our Laniakea Supercluster (“Local SCI”) of 100,000 galaxies within a 520-million LY sphere, the super-giant elliptical Virgo A (Messier 87, NGC 4486) comprises 2.6 trillion stars with 12,000 globular clusters (vs. our 150 – 200), 11.5 times our system’s size.
    On this basis, given one in 10,000 of our galaxy’s estimated “mass ratio” of 2% life-friendly F and G-type “yellow dwarf” stars, .0001 x .02 x 300 x 10^11 derives 600,000 habitable planets, of which 1/100,000 x 600-K = six (6) develops an interstellar communications capability. But these six alien cultures are widely distributed both in Space and Time; in any given million-year period, each will likely be separated by a median 314,000 LYs / 6 = 53,300 LY in space plus 1-million / 6 = 166,000 Earth-years in time. No wonder, then, that physical contact on these terms will occur rarely, if ever– the likelihood of any two comparably high-tech civilizations overlapping will be small indeed.

    And yet… what do we know? Why assume that even a rudimentary space-faring culture remains planet-bound in any wise, or that classical Newtonian physics is anything but the merest stepping-stone to extraterrestrial efflorescence? Decades past Frank Drake, we discern the cosmos as a holographic entity, governed by quantum-physical probability whereby Speed S and Distance D revert to zero, leaving only Unit Time. Expanding Special Relativity to account for probability per Unit Time obtains γ = í + mc^2! (“factorial”), converting not mass but Unit Time to energy sufficient to explode the solar system like a stick of dynamite in a rotten apple.
    On this scale, complex/virtual effects of í = √-1 shift not material position but hyper-dimensional space/time coordinates to any “present moment” one desires. Over 13.6 billion years, the way to any destination is to make it 100% probable that you’re there already.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Pyrthroes, your intelligence is far above mine, but a couple of amateur thoughts occur to me. First, is the answer to every mathematical calculation a certainty, assuming its terms and operations are correctly ascribed and performed? Second, your concluding sentence is fascinating because it sounds like a characteristic of a being who transcends time.

      Like

  22. Here is my simple proof question resulting in a perfect syllogism:

    Where is the universe?

    All places exist in relation to a person, place or thing.

    A man exists on the Earth. The earth exists in the solar system. The solar system exists in a galaxy, a galaxy exists in the universe. Where does the universe exist?

    It can only exist in God. A person apart from matter who creates all places, people and things.

    ***

    If someone says, well, the universe is a place in itself, ask them to provide proof that is so. Positive statements about reality demand evidence of their truth.

    Like

Comments are closed.