Sentences with phrase «existence of our universe»

Perhaps there is * someone * * somewhere * who thinks that, but I would say that generally atheists think that we don't know (yet, if ever) what the cause for the existence of the universe is - but that a «god did it» is not the default answer.

The existence of the universe is evidence of universe's existence; however, it does not follow that said existence is evidence per se (or even prima facie evidence) of any casual agency, let alone your preferred causal agency.

«I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.»

Even if we were created by aliens it still doesn't explain the existence of the universe.

You have not gotten to the basics: the theist claim is that there is a cause for the existence of the universe, a cause which is not comprised of mass / energy or space / time since those did not exist before the expansion; the cause had the agency to implement the universe, and therefore is a non-physical, non-temporal, agent which could and did create the universe.

The difference between an atheist and a believer is that a believer proofs the existence of a creator with the existence of the universe and everything inside.

I believe the existence of the universe and of earth and of man have perfectly good explanations without bringing God into it.

2) There is evidence that a supernatural force is needed for the existence of this universe.

The existence of the universe is not evidence of any deities.

@If horses... You might not believe the evidence for God's existence is compelling - e.g., the existence of the universe; the beginning of the universe; the fine tuning of the universe for life; the realm of objective moral value; the facts surrounding Jesus of Nazareth; personal experience of God; etc - but that does not mean there is «no evidence.»

4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3) 5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4).

Our existence or the existence of the universe is certainly NOT proof of any god's existence.

God literally became a man in order that the human categories of spirituality could be recognized as truly divine, and not the mere invention of a frightened race seeking some means of converting a miserable and ephemeral existence into a dignified and permanent purchase upon the existence of the universe.»

If you argue that god simply exists, and was not created, then things can exist without being created and there is no need for god to explain the existence of the universe.

The research points out that the existence of the universe as a causal chain requires a creator that was itself un-created.

The god argument is way too complicated, the existence of our universe doesn't need such complexities to exist.

One article suggesting that evolution would take 10 - 15x longer than the existence of the universe does not really * prove * anything.

In that we are discussing tangible, material matter (the creation and existence of the universe) I would certainly appreciate it if you could list me a few examples of items in existence without first cause.

He can not distinguish questions regarding the existence of the universe from questions regarding its physical origin; he does not grasp how assertions regarding the absolute must logically differ from assertions regarding contingent beings; he does not know the differences between truths of reason and empirical facts; he has no concept of ontology, in contradistinction to, say, physics or evolutionary biology; he does not understand how assertions regarding transcendental perfections differ from assertions regarding maximum magnitude; he clumsily imagines that the idea of God is susceptible to the same argument from infinite regress traditionally advanced against materialism; he does not understand what the metaphysical concept of simplicity entails; and on and on.

Even putting aside the fact that introducing God does nothing to explain the infinite existence of the universe, the idea of God makes absolutely no sense.

That the statement is not contradictory, though, does not make it true unless it can first be shown that the existence of some universe is a question of necessity to begin with.

In this regard, we shall proceed now to explicate Hartshorne's arguments for the necessary existence of some universe and to show why the arguments are not successful.

However, if we let p stand for the existence of the universe (this one and all others) as a whole, for all concreta, then the disjunction «p or not - p» becomes crucial for Hartshorne.

Both the existence of the universe and the origin of life raise questions which lie beyond our grasp.

When it comes to whether there is a creator - designer behind the existence of the universe, the evidence is all around us.

This popular scientific author goes on to say that physicists will eventually understand the basic laws of the universe, and then, «the existence of the universe will hold no more mystery for those who choose to understand it than the existence of the sun.»

The book starts out saying God created everything in a week earth time and is only relevant to a specific time period in a very very very long existence of the universe.

The existence of our universe is a very short pencil line drawn on that landscape.

Whitehead, like Aristotle, assumes the existence of the universe and then proceeds to deal with the factors needed to account for its structure and character.

And Fraser Watts, an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science, said that it's not the existence of the universe that proves the existence of God.

It allows you to question the existence of the universe without having to factor in «god dunnit» which is a pretty lame answer to things that can't be explained.

There's a fallacy in your questions on the existence of the universe itself.

What about the very existence of the universe?

The instrument is so sensitive that scientists hope it will be able to test many of the theories that seek to explain what happened before the Big Bang and probe for the existence of universes beyond our own.

The known laws of physics can explain the existence of the universe that we observe.

Like a forensic scientist sifting for clues before it is even clear whether a crime has been committed, Kleban and his colleagues are figuring out exactly what kinds of patterns, hidden within observable astronomical features, might expose the existence of universes beyond our own.

Humanists accept that science provides the best available explanations for the existence of the universe and life on earth.

If Bowser were to threaten the existence of the universe, including the Lumas it is likely she would give herself up as long as her Lumas are safe.

Only recently have physicists begun to doubt the existence of a universe with a space that is valid for all beings.»

Not exact matches

I think that the problem that athiests have is that you can not prove a negative such as the non existence of God to do so would require a person to have direct access to all locations in the universe at one instant in time.

Disproving the existence of something for which there is little evidence is not feasible, so I am content in knowing, that given our current understanding of the universe, it is highly unlikely.

If so, might I point your attention to Gen where god magically defied the laws of physics and spoke a universe into existence in 6 days.

Where in the Laws of Physics does it say that all the energy and matter in the universe can «big bang» into existence?

I think that the problem that they have is that you can not prove a negative such as the non existence of God to do so would require a person to have direct access to all locations in the universe at one instant in time.

I was more devout than you yet I have yet to see any proof of your «god's» existence anywhere throughout the universe.

A supernatural being with the ability to command the Earth, the Moon, the Sun, and even all the stars and galaxies in the universe into existence would certainly be able to create an ongoing supply of photons first.

But of course and religious quotings you consider as poison because you want to be deafening and blinding your self from recognizing the existence of GOD the Creator of the universe...!?! Where ever you head you will find GOD and GOD loving people so get used to it... You are running and running away but you can't run away from your self...!

It is illogical to think the universe sprang into existence on its out of pure nothingness - and yet what other «natural» altneratives are there?

If you want to postulate the existence of something that can't be observed and does not interact with the physical universe, go ahead.

I really wish that the evolution deniers would just understand that evolution neither proves nor disproves the existence of god (s), nor does it address the origin of life or the universe.