According to science our universe has a beginning (search at “age of the universe” on http://www.pnas.org) and time is purely physical. Therefore there can be no such thing as time external to the physical universe. Timespace has a beginning.

It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo (since timespace has a beginning); i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace.

To conclude the above paragraphs:
Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.
Assume: There is no Prime Cause (Creator / Singularity).
Ergo: There is no universe.
Fact: There is a universe.
Therefore: the statement that was assumed is proven to be a false statement by reduction ad absurdum (proof by disproof).
(Since “There is no Creator” is proven false, the opposite is true: There is a Creator.)

Being logically consistent (orderly), our (to say perfectly-orderly would be a tautology) orderly universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect. An orderly—“not capricious,” as Einstein put it—Creator (also implying Just), therefore, necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a “Life’s Instruction Manual,” within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Torah , see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator’s “Life’s Instruction Manual” has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Torah —which, interestingly, translates to “Instruction” (not “law” as popularly alleged). (Source and further reading of how to relate to the Creator:www.netzarim.co.il)

The fact that the Creator is perfect implies that He isn’t self-contradictory. Therefore any religion, and all religions contradicts each other (otherwise they would be identical), that contradicts Torah is the antithesis to the Creator.

(The most common counter arguments are answered at http://bloganders.blogspot.com/search/label/counter arguments)

Anders B et al.,

” Therefore there can be no such thing as time external to the physical universe.”

One can consider time to be a property of a variable , fractional dimension.

Visu labu,

Human beings also arise from a single point, but there is no requirement that the Creator be intelligent!

spectator et al.,

Things were so much simpler and understandable 500 hundred years ago, when the earth was flat and the center of the universe, with the devil and hell in the bowels of the earth, and God and angels residing above in heaven.

Visu labu
,

Proof or no proof -  does it really matter?

Life is a process, not a product.  What is important is the acquisition of knowledge, not the knowledge as such.  We cannot know everything, and that is comforting:  there will never be an end to science.

What are we saying here? Something like… that science has finally mastered the weather? That global warming has been “proved” by our science?

Mikus E.

P.S. Hey, here’s a question for science (pertaining and framed by modern science per “evolution“). Why no brain development/evolution for four million years (out of the now “revealed” 6 million years)?

Spectator is probably right that it will be difficult to “know all” and thus again be right in saying that science will never end.

But, will science “end” if we do truly begin to know all? Is this one reason why science wants to ignore their fallacy of four million years? Or will science continue insisting to try to build upon “knowledge” that often contradicts other known science facts, while often ignoring the original logic rules of science? I mean, will science remain stuck in ever not wanting to consider the acknowledgement of “God”? So in convincing others that there is no God, will our “science” knowledge just get more and more ridicules? (More so than the “flat earth and center of the universe“?) Bottom line… if real science and God do co-exist, shouldn’t science yield before they are left without any credibility?

P.P.S. Bruno the Lett…
“Things were so much simpler and understandable 500 hundred years ago, when the earth was flat and the center of the universe, with the devil and hell in the bowels of the earth, and God and angels residing above in heaven.”
Ahhh, but isn’t the first one (flat and center) based on science while the other two are based upon the Bible.

Mikus E_ et al.,

“Ahhh, but isn’t the first one (flat and center) based on science while the other two are based upon the Bible. “

All three were based on the Bible.  Galileo was hauled before the church fathers for suggesting that earth was not the center of the universe.

Visu labu,

All three were based on the Bible.  Galileo was hauled before the church fathers for suggesting that earth was not the center of the universe.

Show me where in the Bible it is supposed to say the first (flat and center).
I dare say that the “church fathers” wanted to embrace and endorse this science from its near beginnings.—-They just didn’t realize that science can make mistakes.

Mikus E.

P.S. And just how reasonable is science’s new claim of four million years of no brain development in “near humans” (out of 6 million years)?—-One cannot blame the church fathers for that one.

Mikus E_ et al.,

“Show me where in the Bible it is supposed to say the first (flat and center”

Among other places in the Bible, in Genesis.  First day, heaven and earth was created…..  Second day, grass shrubbery, and trees…...  Third day, shiny objects in the sky, the stars, the sun,  the moon etc.,

Visu labu,

Bruno the Lett quotes the Bible…

“... created ‘heaven and earth’” (and on the first day, as well as “light”)
Okay, what do we consider as ‘heaven” and what do we consider as being “earth”?
Now “heaven” was created before “earth”? Right?

Let’s move on to the “where is the ‘flat’ quote”.

Mikus E.

P.S. And if one must think about it, being both flat and in the center are at the opposite ends of comprehension.
No, I dare say that flat and center came more from early “modern” science. Hmmm, was Galileo the first to see the errs of early science? (And does anyone see any errs in today’s science?)

Mikus E_ et al.,

“P.S. And if one must think about it, being both flat and in the center are at the opposite ends of comprehension “

BINGO !  You finally got it.

There are numerous references in the Bible to , visible to the end of earth , corners of the earth , to the end of earth, pilars of the earth, etc.

First day heaven and earth created, second day GRASS, SHRUBBERY, and TREES created, fourth day Sun etc created.  Do you see anything wrong here ?

Visu labu,

Visu labu,

first the grass, then Dugout, then matches…........easy, shmeasy.

It is stated that “light” was present during the “first” day. (Otherwise, gone would be our notion of “day”)
So what’s the “beef” with the “plants and trees“? (perhaps really considered as done on day three—- but read on for this one!)

What I still find a mystery, is the mentioning of “light” twice? Is the first day somehow making reference to that “Big Bang” theory? Granted, we should be at a greater advantage then those very early scientists, but apparently science has not progressed enough to reveal this “one” mystery. Hmmm, so will the “Big Bang” be the new “flat and center” type replacement flap based upon “careful” readings of the Bible? (It would be ironic that this is where the non-religious “Big Bang” idea originally spawned from! And my guess?—- that it is. And so whom was mocking who, when “they” attempted to say that the universe was a bigger infinite than God? )

But this is my point. Reading as an early scientist had to be definitely done in what we would consider in a “crude”/backward manner (when compared to today’s scientific reading “ability“). And not to rise in defense of the Catholic Church, but wasn’t it until as late as the early-mid 17th Century that the great majority of astronomers/scientists converted to one of the various geo-heliocentric planetary models.

So will the Big Bang finally win the big Bingo Game over the “flat and center”? It would seem that it is more plausible to believe in God instead of always having all known matter/energy present in the universe. And if working theories are still allowed in (today’s) science, then the existence of God should be considered by all.

Mikus E.

P.S. If one to read the creation passages while framed by the mindset of a computer programmer, then the first day was actually day “0” (with each next creation step bounded by the passages’ named, numbered days)—-So if we do note that the first day is actually day “0”, aren’t we now noticing that it took eight “days” for creation?

Day 0 (before Day 1): light—- this indeed could have been the longest day of the creation process !
Day 1: heaven and earth
Day 2: seas, plants and trees
Day 3: great (major and minor) lights and stars
Day 4: sea and winged creatures
Day 5: land creatures
Day 6: man and woman
Day 7: day of rest

Hmmm, seven “days” for creation plus one day for rest. Did it really take 8 days? Still, the Bible clearly says it took seven “days“. But the thing about Bible passages is that they are true even when held by themselves. (And it is this quality that makes it a little too easy to use them out of context.)
Could it be that the “redundant” (second) light day was merely an explanation passage and not a day by itself within the creation “week“?—-As the transcribers of the ancient text somehow blended-in this information as an extra day?  (Regardless, one has to admit that what was written for the “redundant” light “day” is true in itself.) Oh, here’s another thought… perhaps to simply note the transience between “eternal” days with finite days?

P.P.S. “A Jesuit priest presented the results (2009 Nov 10th) Tuesday of a five-day conference that gathered astronomers, physicists, biologists and other experts to discuss the budding field of astrobiology—- the study of the origin of life and its existence elsewhere in the cosmos.” Here’s my take… Considering the astronomical distances involved, the issue will remain academic for some time.—-But then some scientist has already said that we are only two or three years away from knowing. (Hey, isn’t this what they said about the time when they started using those electromagnetic receivers?)

P.P.P.S. In 1992, Pope John Paul II declared the ruling against the astronomer (Galeio) was an error resulting from “tragic mutual incomprehension.” ...One though has to wonder if science will ever have the nerve to do the same with “Big Bang”.

Mikus E_ et a.,

Backtracking from what we know today to biblical times puts one on a slippery slope.

Did the Big Bang, or whatever, happen about 10000 years ago ?
Did the apple from the tree fall to earth because God willed it ?  Did the apple fall because the Earth is the center of the universe ?

Eight days and streched days ?  Some people would call that heresy

If one takes the view that man ascribed human properties to God, then the grass, shrubbery, and trees before the sun is more understandable.

Visu labu,

Funny that you (Bruno the Lett) should mention “heresy” as another Bruno was actually burned at the stake for being one. (This “knight-errant of philosophy” was even excommunicated by the Lutherans—-and by the Calvinists.)

Mikus E.