Recent content by bless life

I a just starting with the cartesian proposition "I think therefore I am". That's where modern science started. Progress from then has proceeded on the basis that someone has an idea about things are, they suggest an experiment on the basis of their prediction and then others test it. If you...

Science can explain the 2nd two pretty completely, there is not much dispute. The source of the big bang is not explained, but a creator seems a very complicated way of getting there and most people think it seems less likely.

We are not having a real conversation here. I think it is because you are starting with the premise that it is obvious that God exists. For me that is not obvious at all and for a large portion of my life looked extremely unlikely. So when you get into arguments about the earth and our...

Science and the scientific worldview is not "the opposition". Humans are curious entities, we explore and try to explain the world. Science is our best way of doing that. Basing an argument on God at the beginning when he/she/it cannot be directly detected just loses people. Science can...

You lost me with your very first sentence. Saying all things are grounded in God as your axiomatic basis leads to the next question "so can you point to him?". You can't point to God any more than you can point to an electron. All things might be grounded in God or God might be an emergent...

I was raised in the Catholic Church but since the age of about 12 I have fallen away as the narrative the Church told about the world and how it came into existence ceased to match with what I learned in science class. Now as I age and read more, I think I have finally found the argument for...