EXPLAIN the Existence of God?

Oly.. you surely choose simple questions don't you :)

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth."

I don't think anyone can 'explain' our Creator or they would BE equal to Him.
We can only 'assert' His existence and reality based on His actions and words to the world. After all, we are the 'creatION.

Romans 9:20b "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "

Perhaps Hebrews-1 can explain it best?

1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways,
2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

COMMENT.

Can anyone say more? I sure can't. Oly, all events, no matter how recent will be interpreted by observers, or hearers of reports in a certain way. On'e mans 'feeding of the 5000' is a miracle. (This was Jesus assertion) or.. "A mans selfless example shaming people into revealing the food they had brought, and sharing it with others" (Prof William Barclay) To Barclay, the miracle was the change in heart, not the multiplying of the physical resources.
Me, being the recipient of miraculous healing, am inclinded to the 'muliplying of resources' understanding.

"What is your philosophical question in three or four sentences, please?

I'm not sure if I can pad it out to three or four sentences, so you'll have to settle for one: Is evolution a scientific theory?

"Other posters and I took it you believed that (a) Popper & Kuhn had convergent approaches

Sorry about that. Not sure how you got that impression. What I suspect is that Kuhn and Popper approached the 'definition' of science from opposite directions, with Kuhn focussing on the emergent properties and Popper on the fundamentals. I agree with almost all of what Kuhn wrote. I'm not as familiar with Popper, but I get the impression he was wrong about a few things.

"Popper and Kuhn did not believe in evolution.

None of what I have posted is meant to imply that evolution is somehow 'wrong'. The theory is unscientific in the same way that the holocoust, trigonometry and oiji boards are unscientific. It just means they fall under different philosophical 'fields', based on the methods used to study and contribute to them.

"I enjoy the anonymity of OLO. I write curricula internationally and would not like my views picked-up in a Google search by someone in Asia or the Middle East. Thanks for the invite, just the same.

OzPolitic is just as anonymous. I discourage members from revealing any personal info, including their real name.

Hello Boaz,

I was picking-up on Kuhn's assertion, we should not compare one theory to the world, but two [or more] theories to the world.

For the creatiion, science [tentatively] has the Big Bang as the dominant heuristic and a the Steady State as the degraded heuristic. Here, we have empirical models. That is why I ask that Christians explain God as the creation agent, as might Roger Penrose phase-space a precursor to the Big Bang.

We know the universe must exist even, if we a simulation, becusue are here. If science can produce a model of first cause; should not Christianity do the same? [not a descriptive model like Genesis; something that would pass a PhD topic defence].

Moreover, Dawkins notes that a god must be a complex entity. How did the complexity come about?

All,

Richard Leakey alludes to evolution, without natural selection, before 500 million years ago. First of all he notes the process of the creation of primordial life does not periodically spring-up here and there, and, if it did, the primative creatures would loose out to the advanced.

However, before the Cambrian period, there were niches filled by evolving species without competition, only later, when more species evolved, then there was natural selection for each niche. Conclusion, we had evolution, without natural selection, for hundreds of millions of years and there is scientifically testimony in the fossil record. Evolution is a testable scientific theory with and without natural selection.

Sells,

If you are reading this, what is your stance?

All,

The eukatyote radiation [i.e., spread] of the ealy metazoans appear subsequent to the decline in stromatolites. Herein, circa 800 million BP we have a common ancestor to two branches of evolving fauna, namely, Ediacaran fauna [Precambrian] and Cambrian fauna [the Cambrian explosion/radiation]. The virtual extincion of Ediacaran fauna appears have occurred before the Cambrian funa radiation. Perhaps, this was natural selection between soft bodied and hard bodied species - but the time bridge is very wide - so, the jury is out*.

That said;

A fauna that had been existing for five hundred million years which took a "separate" branch to the another fauna [our tree] which led to was zapped. This has major theology ramifications. It took a further five hunderd million years for the Cambrian funa to evolvbe to the genus Homo [family]. This would be a very un-intelligent design.

Why would a god produce an essentially terminating branch, killing off millions of species, when Its intention to the "choose" genus Homo, as special from an entirely different branch of evolution? \

What is the relationship between say a Jesus dying for our sins, and killing billions of animals five hundred million years beforehand? Seems a bit odd to me.

Boaz? Sells? Sells wont answer, but it worth a try.

*Another possibility is a chamge in the level of oxygen in the atmosphere. Now it is 21%. One bilion years ago it was 1%.

Ooops. Immediately above, I didn't give a citation: Moris S.C, Nature, Jan. 21, 1993:vOL 361, PP. 219-225

Freediver,

"What is your philosophical question in three or four sentences, please?" - Oliver

"I'm not sure if I can pad it out to three or four sentences, so you'll have to settle for one: Is evolution a scientific theory?" - Freediver

- Perhaps, so we can all be in the picture, please define the constructs; evolution, scientific and theory. That should nail down your reaerch question. Then we can derive your philosophy, perhaps?

Freedriver et al,

Please don't truncate this thread. There is still more to be said. Moreover, as suggested above the Pre-cambrian exinction seems odd for a God planning on creating genus Home. Billions of creaures gone and one different genentic path to us. Wasteful? Cruel? Careless?