Obviously not. As I already stated known opinions are not science.
I know that my favorite color is X.
I know what I heard.
I know some people agree with me.
I know that 2+2=3
I know that my god exists.
Knowing things is a subjective proposition. Science prove that we know things it establishes truths.
2=2 has been established as a truth as shown through mathematics. True it then becomes a known fact but everything isnt as simple as that. And as been demonstrated time and time again people make mistakes. But science doesnt make mistakes because it isnt a it. So when you ask about if science is the end all contributor of the known universe I have to question if you are using the typical theist assumption that science is a belief system that relies on faith? Hence my reluctance to answer a simple question because it appears to be a leading question. So perhaps you should just move on to the second part of this inquiry?
1. Can be true or false, is true if you are being honest.
2. Can be true or false, is true if you are being honest.
3. Is certainly true.
4. Is demonstrably false.
5. Can be true or false.
Science gives evidence for the way nature works, there are plenty of truths that it doesn't establish, for example you know what your favorate color is, and saying my favorate color is red IS TRUE, and science cannot prove it, nor does it care to, it's truth doesnt' depend on that.
As for your second paragraphs, it's just truisms .... you're not saying anything there.
Scholars come in many titles and face it the subject was the Resurrection of jesus christ the savior. We wouldnt I assume that the scholars were theological on that basis?
But then you only mentioned them in passing you didnt cite any of them you just appealed to their authority. So in that vain, many scholars dispute the Resurrection.
Oh sure they do, take Bart Ehrman for example, but the reason he disputes it is not that he disputes the evidnece for it, it's that he thinks there MUST be another explination (he doesn't have one), because he things miricles are inherently inprobable, because he doesn't believe in a God .... That isn't a historical reason, it's a theological one.
My explanation is that there wasnt a jesus to resurrect from the dead.
Oh boy, this should be good, can he have another thread to debate the historical Jesus?
Deflection noted. Again why do you posit that a god best explains it? What evidence led to that position?
Before we can go over whether I think that god is a relevant theory we need to determine if it even warrants the worth of being considered as a hypothesis.
When you propose that god is the end all explanation for the universe and well everything in it and perhaps even outside of it you are making a positive claim that the universe and everything it can only happen because of a god. Its a claim that it would be impossible for anything to happen that is being claimed that a god did to happen without a god. Can you demonstrate or at the very least make a theoretical demonstration of what cannot work without a god? Or at least explain why a god can do these things and not just be the result of a chain of events?
What exactly is the theory of god when applied to the universe and how it works. Is there a law which you think might possibly explain these things? For a god to exist there must be a way in which a god exists. The concept that reality is too complex that the answer must be that a god explains this complexity is as I said a lazy thing to assert. It really just moves the goal post to farther distance. If a god is the explanation for the known set of questions, then what about future questions that are unknown to us right now? Or the obvious ones like if everything that exists depends on a creator how was the creator created. That is a honest question since it follows the logic of all things must be created by a conscious will of the creator. SO then more logic comes into play and further questions arise like if everything needs a creator then what about the observable universe around us? Why is it that things can happen naturally on their own? Is the god theory claiming that a god is present in every action of the universe? Is this god manipulating every existent molecule in the universe concisenessly?
I posit that GOd is the best explination FOR THE EVIDENCE, (asking what is the evidence that god explains the evidence is circular argument), because there is no other plausable explination that I've heard.
What cannot work without a God is creation ex nihilo .... also it's implausable that without a God our Universe would be governmened by elegant, mathematically simple and beautiful laws.
Putting the goal posts farther is fine, I don't see the problem with that, if God is the explination for a set of question future questions might be answered by something else, or something we know now, I don't know.
How was the creator created is a nonsensicle question, since he is by definition uncreated, i.e. timeless, a necessary being, now you can ask how a necessary being can exist, and that's a valid question, but asking who created a necessary being is a nonsensicle one, the universe is contingant, we know that, God is not.
I don't think that ALL things must be created by the will of a creator, I'm saying the universe, i.e. physical reality, must be. If you're a mathematical platonist it's possible that math exists necessarily as well, thats a whole different question though.
Also some people believe that God is present in every action of the universe, some people take more of a Deist approach, that God isn't present, I lean towards the latter, I don't think reality is being upheld by God, as some classical and modern theologians believe, but that's a different question.
No need to be a dick