• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Science that led me away from Atheism.

Status
Not open for further replies.

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It was answered and ignored. If the appeals are to ignorance then God wins by default.


And when the appeals to ignorance are engaged in by creationists, does God lose by default?

Since when did ignorance equate to a winning hand?
Since when did not knowing everything = not knowing anything, and when did false dichotomies suddenly gain relevance?

So you think ignorance is something to hang your hat on?

That is what creationists do on a regular basis - they set up false dichotomies, plead ignorance (or more likely, reject/ignore/dismiss anything of value as evidence provided to them) and claim victory premised on their interpretations of ancient tales.

Being certain of what you accept premised on your mere belief that these ancient tales are true is not the same as being in possession of knowledge, it is the height of arrogance. That 'materialists' are willing to admit when there are unanswered questions is a virtue; pretending to know the truth when there is no reason to do so is a vice.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
First of all, the phenomena of causality, is a phenomena of physics as it exists/works IN the universe. So, to invoke this phenomena in a context where no universe exists, seems absurd.

After all, why would the laws and processes of the universe apply "outside" of the universe?
Good point and I'm glad you see that at some point there was a beginning to the universe.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If the universe is removed then what is left? Where were you 10 yrs prior to your conception? It sounds like you are asserting a universe and subsequent life from nothing is better than a universe from Something.
Appeals to ignorance. The start point for science today is assumed atheism.
There are the Davies, Richard Lewontin mandate which is atheistic and elevated to the status of unquestioned law. Quote

‘’The physicist Paul Davies tells us that “science takes as its starting point the assumption that life wasn’t made by a god or a supernatural being’’

No Divine footprint in the door.

That means God as first cause is eliminated from consideration deemed unscientific meaning scientifically false. God is demarcated. God refused to be considered. This is atheism.

If you are holding an empty hand (ignorance) then God wins by default. Atheists have not falsified God. That being since all your appeals to science means adherence to science method.

Via abduction. See above. If there are two options then one needs to be eliminated. God exists by necessity. In the same manner as triangles, squares, equations, and nothing exists. They are abstract entities. Autonomous of human minds discovered not invented, outside time, space, and matter.
Get back to us when you falsify an intelligent designer. Let's not presuppose a level playing field when we all know atheists are playing a rigged game. If science does not deal with absolute certainty then the same or proximate should not be required for God. Humans are intuitively theistic, moral, and justice seeking. That means we are programmed and that implies a programmer.


Interesting that you omitted this question from your response:

"What evidence do you have of this personified "first causer"? "
 
Upvote 0

dmmesdale

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 6, 2017
755
189
Fargo
✟74,412.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Interesting that you omitted this question from your response:

"What evidence do you have of this personified "first causer"? "
Science is not the obedient slave to atheism. It was and always has been a no brainer to me. Any Intelligent first causer would falsify atheism which explains nothing. Even if it was not personified. Off to work where ignorance is not tolerated. Not something to hangs ones hat on if required to do productive things on someone else's dime. Have a nice day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So your belief is that I made an argument from incredulity through the use of reasons other than my incredulity. Heck of an assertion, good luck making that into a coherent case.
You reasoned that it was all too incredulous to have come about naturally. Yes, argument from incredulity.
Justification for an argument and justification for a belief can be different as I pointed out. Probability is certainly not used in determining whether something is an argument or not, but I can tell you what is used to determine that - social and semantic comprehension. I am astonished that you could suggest I don't know philosophy while attempting to make a probabilistic case that my private justification is an argument. How about instead of using probability to retroactively justify your mistake you actually try to understand what someone is saying in the first place?
How do you have "Justification for an argument"? Justification IS and argument!
Determining that, because the universe exists it is probable, is not critical thinking. It is mistaken thinking. Something can be improbable and still happen. That something exists means it's possible to exist, not probable to exist.
So tell me then, if we have the grand total of ONE universe to examine, and that universe has all the life and grandeur of this universe. We literally have 100% of all universes we can examine that exhibit all the traits of this universe. How did you possibly come to decide that this universe is so improbable? How many universes do you have access to?
No, my reasons are private, hence why I had to reveal them to you in my last post.
which are of course arguments in support of your position.
Whether you insult peoples intelligence, or mock their beliefs, it makes you a terrible person, so distinction without a difference.
I disagree. Beliefs ought to be mocked. It's because of beliefs that planes flew into buildings. Homosexuals, Women who choose to have abortions and believers of other religions are persecuted because of beliefs. Children don't get vaccinated or are neglected medical care because of beliefs. Beliefs can very well be a dangerous thing - and not just to the believer, but to the people around them, their children and those who trust in them for care and support. Believers vote and institute policies and laws based on their beliefs, beliefs like minority groups don't deserve the same social welfare as believers, or that medical costs ought to be withheld or even worse outlawed because of beliefs, life saving and life altering medical research is vetoed because of beliefs, well evidenced science is ignored in favour of emissions pollution not being legislated against because of beliefs. This is a tireless list that keeps going - so your "distinction without a difference" is a horribly maligned and short-sighted opinion that is demonstrably wrong. I care very much about my fellow human beings and I care about the world I live in and the world we'll hand to our children when we pass on - but what would I know, I'm just an Atheist mocking beliefs, right??
Is that you in the audience bugeyed?
...you really are taking this hard with all the personal insults & all.... Let's say Yes, yes that's me! Now what? Are you going to demonstrate how Christian you are in your next retort? Or will you suddenly have no reason for bringing it up?
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This data compilation does not seem to help your case:

Fun with Hominin Cranial Capacity Datasets (and Excel)
Oh sure it does, notice the cranial capacity is between 400cc and 500cc until about 2mya. The average cranial capacity for humans is over 1300 cc, and the Homo Erectus fossils average right around 1000cc, so the cranial capacity doubled about 2 mya without precursors and certainly not over 7 million years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Correct, the can is kicked down the road more and scientists are now dealing in the realm of metaphysics==welcome to the club. ;)
Not so! No Scientists are making statements of fact, nor are Scientists demanding everyone pray to their respective unfounded postulations on pain of death & torture for eternity, etc.
Oh I read it. I did not post that piece as some smoking gun, look this guy concludes YHWH created the universe.
He did no such thing - please point that conclusion out...
I posted it to demonstrate scientists may be curious about beginnings but have no answers for us. Why would they? Physical events have causes and they can't explain the cause for the very first physical event.
Of course Scientists ARE curious about the beginnings and all manners of ideas have been put forth based on what we know about the universe so far. Of all the scientific based postulations put forward so far, None of them involve a deity. I don't suppose you noticed that?
One must go Higher to find the answers.
Why? What if there isn't an answer?
The only 'contender' out there Who has revealed He is the uncaused cause is “Ehyeh Who Ehyeh." It's all in the Name Yahweh the self-Existent or Eternal One.
LOL! Not by a Long Shot! Of all the Gods and creation myths, why would this be the only 'plausible' one? Is it because you haven't heard of all the others, plenty of which are still believed in today, or is it because this is the one that you personally have chosen to believe in, therefore it HAS to be the right one? How have you discounted Brahma and the Hindu religion - after all, it's both older and has a more plausible creation myth that better correlates with scientific evidence than yours does.

If we're going to go with unsubstantiated claims, then I'll go to my personal favourite then and claim that MY almighty creator of the universe is my invisible inter-dimensional pet Dragon. he's magic btw.
YHWH gives answers for such in His revelation to mankind. This is called purpose.
...like every other God ever has. Tell him to join the club.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Its just going to be something pretty simple like this if we have a protein then we would have to go with the combinatory space that it would have to solve so it would look like 1 in 10^77.

Explain the premise(s) of that calculation.

(I am assuming by the 10^77 number, you are referring to Axe's work, but I'm curious to see if you know the basis for this calc. and more importantly where Axe goes wrong in the conclusion.)
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Bugeyedcreepy

Well-Known Member
Jun 7, 2016
1,660
1,431
Canberra, Australia
✟95,748.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Oh sure it does, notice the cranial capacity is between 400cc and 500cc until about 2mya. The average cranial capacity for humans is over 1300 cc, and the Homo Erectus fossils average right around 1000cc, so the cranial capacity doubled about 2 mya without precursors and certainly not over 7 million years.
I do, what about it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
LOL! Not by a Long Shot! Of all the Gods and creation myths, why would this be the only 'plausible' one? Is it because you haven't heard of all the others, plenty of which are still believed in today, or is it because this is the one that you personally have chosen to believe in, therefore it HAS to be the right one? How have you discounted Brahma and the Hindu religion - after all, it's both older and has a more plausible creation myth that better correlates with scientific evidence than yours does.

In the Hindu religion our reality is actually part of a dream Brahma is having in a pool. In pagan mythology of a more western variety creation did not go back to the gods, the gods were created by elementals:

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being,
And none bore a name, and no destinies were ordained;
Then were created the gods in the midst of heaven, (Enuma Elish, The Epic of Creation)
From those waters life was created from the the salt and fresh water marshes that were mixed in the original creation. In pagan mythology even the gods were created from natural elements, earth, air, fire and/or water. There is another myth behind Darwinism that sounds strangely similar to Enuma Elish:

ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing. (The Temple of Nature By Erasmus Darwin)

Erasmus_Darwin_Temple_of_Nature.jpg
Frontispiece to The Temple of Nature.

Your right about one thing, most creation myths are very much alike, and very much unlike the Biblical account of creation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I do, what about it?
The post I responded to originally said the human brain developed over 7 million years, that's not true. The cranial capacity doubled over night and all those changes became permanently fixed in our Hominid line, about 2mya.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Sanoy

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2017
3,169
1,421
America
✟133,024.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You reasoned that it was all too incredulous to have come about naturally. Yes, argument from incredulity.

How do you have "Justification for an argument"? Justification IS and argument!

So tell me then, if we have the grand total of ONE universe to examine, and that universe has all the life and grandeur of this universe. We literally have 100% of all universes we can examine that exhibit all the traits of this universe. How did you possibly come to decide that this universe is so improbable? How many universes do you have access to?

which are of course arguments in support of your position.

I disagree. Beliefs ought to be mocked. It's because of beliefs that planes flew into buildings. Homosexuals, Women who choose to have abortions and believers of other religions are persecuted because of beliefs. Children don't get vaccinated or are neglected medical care because of beliefs. Beliefs can very well be a dangerous thing - and not just to the believer, but to the people around them, their children and those who trust in them for care and support. Believers vote and institute policies and laws based on their beliefs, beliefs like minority groups don't deserve the same social welfare as believers, or that medical costs ought to be withheld or even worse outlawed because of beliefs, life saving and life altering medical research is vetoed because of beliefs, well evidenced science is ignored in favour of emissions pollution not being legislated against because of beliefs. This is a tireless list that keeps going - so your "distinction without a difference" is a horribly maligned and short-sighted opinion that is demonstrably wrong. I care very much about my fellow human beings and I care about the world I live in and the world we'll hand to our children when we pass on - but what would I know, I'm just an Atheist mocking beliefs, right??

...you really are taking this hard with all the personal insults & all.... Let's say Yes, yes that's me! Now what? Are you going to demonstrate how Christian you are in your next retort? Or will you suddenly have no reason for bringing it up?
So now you are denying that I presented a reason again. The only thing consistent about you, is your inconsistency.

How is it that you took philosophy 101 and fail to apply it in every reply? Justification is not an argument. Justification is something one can hold in themselves or present to others. Look up the difference.

There are a multitude of logically possible states of affairs of which this is one of. If you can narrow that range I'll certainly hear you out.

My reasons were held privately until I revealed them later. The reasons I hold privately are not arguments, they are reasons I privately hold. Amazing that my innermost thoughts are now arguments to you. What a farce.

You disagree that your behavior is making you into a terrible person or that beliefs should be mocked? Well let me help you out here. You will not mock another beliefs on this forum. Got it?

I brought the video up because the pride you express in declaring that you mock people sounds just like the speech given in that video. I have never met anyone so reprehensible as the people cheering that on, so I wanted to see if you were one of those people. I like to learn what the people are like that do reprehensible things because life is easier if you can identify them ahead of time. I got the gist of you in your first post, but I had no idea about your pursuit in mocking people.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,632
7,166
✟341,016.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The post I responded to originally said the human brain developed over 7 million years, that's not true. The cranial capacity doubled over night and all those changes became permanently fixed in our Hominid line, about 2mya.

Evidence please...
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Genetics.
  • HAR1F: Vital regulatory gene involved in brain development, 300 million years it has only 2 subsitutions, then 2 million years ago it allows 18, no explanation how.
  • SRGAP2: One single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates. accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. 6 known alleles, all resulting in sever neural disorder.
  • 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them.
Which one would you like to discuss first?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sanoy
Upvote 0

Tanj

Redefined comfortable middle class
Mar 31, 2017
7,682
8,318
60
Australia
✟284,806.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Sorry Mark, when you said evidence, I assumed you'd provide more than a bunch of unevidenced assertions. Just to clarify, could you provide actual evidence please.

  • HAR1F: Vital regulatory gene involved in brain development, 300 million years it has only 2 subsitutions, then 2 million years ago it allows 18, no explanation how.
When providing evidence for this, please do point to the bit where it all happened 2 million years ago, overnight, and was causative for the doubling of cranial capacity.

  • SRGAP2: One single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates. accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. 6 known alleles, all resulting in sever neural disorder.

  • 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them.
Which one would you like to discuss first?

When providing evidence for these, please do include the part where they happened overnight, and were causative for the doubling of cranial capacity.

I'm happy to discuss all of them at once. At the moment my rebuttal is "that asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
39
New York
✟223,224.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I disagree. Beliefs ought to be mocked. It's because of beliefs that planes flew into buildings. Homosexuals, Women who choose to have abortions and believers of other religions are persecuted because of beliefs. Children don't get vaccinated or are neglected medical care because of beliefs. Beliefs can very well be a dangerous thing - and not just to the believer, but to the people around them, their children and those who trust in them for care and support. Believers vote and institute policies and laws based on their beliefs, beliefs like minority groups don't deserve the same social welfare as believers, or that medical costs ought to be withheld or even worse outlawed because of beliefs, life saving and life altering medical research is vetoed because of beliefs, well evidenced science is ignored in favour of emissions pollution not being legislated against because of beliefs. This is a tireless list that keeps going - so your "distinction without a difference" is a horribly maligned and short-sighted opinion that is demonstrably wrong. I care very much about my fellow human beings and I care about the world I live in and the world we'll hand to our children when we pass on - but what would I know, I'm just an Atheist mocking beliefs, right??

You do realize that this whole paragraph is full of beliefs, right? The idea that all people deserve equal treatment is a belief, as is the claim that the environment is something that we should care about. Beliefs I share, sure, but that doesn't make them magically not beliefs anymore.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Site Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,030
7,265
62
Indianapolis, IN
✟594,630.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Sorry Mark, when you said evidence, I assumed you'd provide more than a bunch of unevidenced assertions. Just to clarify, could you provide actual evidence please.

Would actual peer reviewed scientific evidence suffice or do you require a chase around the mulberry bush?

They have discovered at least two dramatic giant leaps that would have had to occur in order of the human brain to have emerged from ape like ancestors SRGAP2, HAR1F. In addition genes involved with the development of language (FOXP2), changes in the musculature of the jaw (MYH16) , and limb and digit specializations (HACNS1).

The ancestral SRGAP2 protein sequence is highly constrained based on our analysis of 10 mammalian lineages. We find only a single amino-acid change between human and mouse and no changes among nonhuman primates within the first nine exons of the SRGAP2 orthologs. This is in stark contrast to the duplicate copies, which diverged from ancestral SRGAP2A less than 4 mya, but have accumulated as many as seven amino-acid replacements compared to one synonymous change. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)​

What is the problem with 7 amino acid replacements in a highly conserved brain related gene? The only observed effects of changes in this gene in humans is disease and disorder:

  • 15,767 individuals reported by Cooper et al. (2011)] for potential copy-number variation. We identified six large (>1 Mbp) copy-number variants (CNVs), including three deletions of the ancestral 1q32.1 region…
  • A ten year old child with a history of seizures, attention deficit disorder, and learning disabilities. An MRI of this patient also indicates several brain malformations, including hypoplasia of the posterior body of the corpus callosum…
  • Translocation breaking within intron 6 of SRGAP2A was reported in a five-year-old girl diagnosed with West syndrome and exhibiting epileptic seizures, intellectual disability, cortical atrophy, and a thin corpus callosum. (Human-specific evolution of novel SRGAP2 genes by incomplete segmental duplication Cell May 2012)
The search for variation with regard to this vital gene yielded no beneficial effect upon which selection could have acted. The only conceivable way the changes happen is relaxed functional constraint which, unless it emerged from the initial mutation perfectly functional it surly would have killed the host. Mutations are found in children with 'developmental delay and brain malformations, including West Syndrome, agenesis of the corpus callosum, and epileptic encephalopathies'.(cited above)

Of course Creationists have their opinions about this gene:

SRGAP2A, SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D, which are located in three completely separate regions on chromosome number 1.1 They appear to play an important role in brain development.2 Perhaps the most striking discovery is that three of the four genes (SRGAP2B, SRGAP2C, and SRGAP2D) are completely unique to humans and found in no other mammal species, not even apes…Unique in their protein coding arrangement and structure. The genes do not look duplicated at all… (Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution by Jeffrey P. Tomkins, Ph.D)
In one of the areas of the human genome that would have had to change the most, Human Accelerated Region (HAR), we find a gene that has changed the least over just under 400 million years HAR1F. Just after the Cambrian is would have had to emerge de novo, fully formed, fully functional and permanently fixed along broad taxonomic categories. In all the time since it would allow only two substitutions, then, while the DNA around it is being completely overhauled it allows 18 substitutions in a regulatory gene only 118 nucleotides long. The vital function of this gene cannot be overstated:

The most dramatic of these ‘human accelerated regions’, HAR1, is part of a novel RNA gene (HAR1F) that is expressed specifically in Cajal– Retzius neurons in the developing human neocortex from 7 to 19 gestational weeks, a crucial period for cortical neuron specification and migration. HAR1F is co-expressed with reelin, a product of Cajal–Retzius neurons that is of fundamental importance in specifying the six-layer structure of the human cortex. (An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 16 August 2006)
This all has to occur after the chimpanzee human split, while our ancestors were contemporaries in equatorial Africa, with none of the selective pressures effecting our ancestral cousins. This is in addition to no less then 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes with no known molecular mechanism to produce them. Selection can explain the survival of the fittest but the arrival of the fittest requires a cause:

The de novo origin of a new protein-coding gene from non-coding DNA is considered to be a very rare occurrence in genomes. Here we identify 60 new protein-coding genes that originated de novo on the human lineage since divergence from the chimpanzee. The functionality of these genes is supported by both transcriptional and proteomic evidence. RNA– seq data indicate that these genes have their highest expression levels in the cerebral cortex and testes, which might suggest that these genes contribute to phenotypic traits that are unique to humans, such as improved cognitive ability. Our results are inconsistent with the traditional view that the de novo origin of new genes is very rare, thus there should be greater appreciation of the importance of the de novo origination of genes…(De Novo Origin of Human Protein-Coding Genes PLoS 2011)​

Whatever you think happened one thing is for sure, random mutations are the worst explanation possible. They cannot produce de novo genes and invariably disrupt functional genes. You can forget about gradual accumulation of, 'slow and gradual accumulation of numerous, slight, yet profitable, variations' (Darwin). That would require virtually no cost and extreme benefit with the molecular cause fabricated from vain imagination and suspended by pure faith.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Sanoy
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Site Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,117
34,056
Texas
✟199,236.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not so! No Scientists are making statements of fact, nor are Scientists demanding everyone pray to their respective unfounded postulations on pain of death & torture for eternity, etc.
Maybe join Dawkins "Circle of Reason" for $85 a month. The topic may come up.

He did no such thing - please point that conclusion out...
My statement actually said he did not say no such thing. Perhaps read it again. Thanks!

Of course Scientists ARE curious about the beginnings and all manners of ideas have been put forth based on what we know about the universe so far. Of all the scientific based postulations put forward so far, None of them involve a deity. I don't suppose you noticed that
I have noticed most won't delve into metaphysics. That is why a classical education used to include theology even in the more secular of universities. Without it an education is incomplete. Mankind is a curious lot with consciousness and the ability to love. Most other disciplines fail to address this.

Why? What if there isn't an answer?
There is if one wished to examine such. From what you have written thus far, it is apparent your knowledge of the Hebrew and Christian faiths comes from the skeptics annotated bible and various anti Theist websites. No serious student of theology would come up with the nickel and dime assertions you promote.

LOL! Not by a Long Shot! Of all the Gods and creation myths, why would this be the only 'plausible' one?
Is there any other deity claiming to be the One True God and Creator? Has any others directly interacted with humans revealing themselves?

Perhaps we could discuss that one in the philosophy section.

...like every other God ever has. Tell him to join the club.
Show me the others.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.