Daniel Godsey

All that is gold does not glitter

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

@mehdirhasan Islamophobia= the denial that a pedophile warlord who met a demon in a cave is the best example for mankind

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

@notfittobe @AtheistTakes @doofgeek4011 @grok Whatever is Self-Existing, Self-Sustaining, Self-Governing… is God. It’s what the word means.

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

@notfittobe @AtheistTakes @doofgeek4011 @grok God. Is.

That is literally the definition of God.

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

@notfittobe @AtheistTakes @doofgeek4011 @grok God is. You just don’t seem to want to accept that.

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

@notfittobe @AtheistTakes @doofgeek4011 The point is that Science does not eliminate the necessity for a worldview, the most important component of which is a Cosmogony.

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

@notfittobe @AtheistTakes @doofgeek4011 Then you have yet to find an honest worldview. To attempt to hide behind Science is cowardly and dishonest.

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

@notfittobe @AtheistTakes @doofgeek4011 You also act like some of the greatest scientists are not also Christians.
@grok, which of the most well known scientists were/are also Christians? Is Christianity at odds with Science at all?

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

@AtheistTakes A willfully ignorant person mocking and telling anyone with a legitimate theory for the Origin of Everything they are dumb. Funny.

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

@notfittobe @AtheistTakes @doofgeek4011 Then you are intentionally staying ignorant and don’t care about the biggest question in our lives. I don’t respect that kind of willful ignorance and dishonesty. It is profoundly unscientific and dishonest. Good luck with that.

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

@notfittobe @AtheistTakes @doofgeek4011 A scientific theory is different than a simply theory.

I am speaking on the level of a Scientific Hypothesis.

But the point is that Science cannot answer the question of Origin.

So what is your hypothesis on Origin?

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

The answer to your question is that every worldview has something that has no beginning. That thing is the Source of Everything. That is the definition of God.

So, by definition, God is self-existing. Otherwise he is not God.

My Source is what we call God. So what is your Source?

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

@notfittobe @AtheistTakes @doofgeek4011 I do. And by definition, Science can only theorize about Origins since it is not observable or measurable.

So what is your theory for the Self-Existing thing or Source of Everything? What was there before the Big Bang?

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

@Mesocortical @StormPath1989 @AtheistTakes @doofgeek4011 I was using an analogy to prove a point. It is not a Strawman unless you refuse to take my point at face value.

Invisible Realities like Math and Logic and an Origin of Everything are essential to existence even if I refuse to “believe” in them.

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

Where did Space-Time and Matter and Logic and Music and Life originate from?

Or- What was there before the Big Bang?

The answer to that question is the thing in your worldview that you attribute as Self-Existence.

Whatever is Self-Existing and needs nothing else to be so is the Source or Origin of Everything.

What is that in your worldview?

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

By definition, the Source of Everything is functionally “God”, no matter what you call it.

So which Source do you hold as true? An intelligent one is a legitimate and superior theory than a non-intelligent one because it fails to explain abstract realities in our universe, like Math, Logic, Quantum Theory, etc.

But you must at least propose a non-intelligent Source. What was there before the Big Bang and what made it happen?

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

Incorrect.
Until there is proof of things science cannot explain or prove, there are theories and hypotheses.

Whatever is the origination of All Things is functionally God, no matter what the name.

Naturalism simply ignores the question of that Original Source. And that is both unscientific and dishonest.

To believe there was an intelligent Source answers all of the questions of obvious order and laws and reason found in our existence.

A non-intelligent source fails to answer both the question of the laws and mechanisms in the Universe and their origin. It is a fallacy.

And yet, Naturalism gives zero answers for Origins. So it is not even a legitimate worldview. It is a half-baked faith.

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

@Mesocortical @StormPath1989 @AtheistTakes @doofgeek4011 Yes. Or provoke with the hope of meaningful responses like yours.

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

It is an analogy. Both Math and an Origin Theory are essential realities but abstract and non-physical.

The logic of math is just as essential to existence as the logic of Cosmogony. You can’t have a worldview that doesn’t acknowledge the fact that Everything had to from something and somewhere.
Atheism mocks the idea of God but ignore that there fundamentally must be an Origin of Everything.

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

@notfittobe @AtheistTakes @doofgeek4011 Ok. That’s logical. So propose an alternative. Where did Logic come from?

How does the data inside DNA originate?

What was there before the Big Bang? Where did the Bang come from?

A worldview has to at least propose a Cosmogony.

[Daniel Godsey @dcheeseater]

Existence, Abiogenesis, Physical Laws, Consciousness all require God or an alternative. Not nothing.

You clearly are a Naturalist who says Nature itself is self-regulating. Great. So explain the things above and where they came from?

It isn’t a magical entity. It is a required part of any worldview yet Naturalism ignores it and acts like it isn’t the elephant in the room.