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.
Not to you, apparently, but it is evidence. Extraordinary evidence.
You want me to demonstrate that you can't get something from nothing? Good grief.No. It isn't. No matter how many times you say it. You must DEMONSTRATE that a creator is required. The mere existence of things does not in and of itself act as evidence for a "creator."
Reason alone is enough to arrive at the conclusion that the universe was created.It absolutely is because it has not and arguably cannot be shown that a "creator" was required.
Personally, I personally think the theory of abiogenesis is sensible. I also think the potentiality for everything, what is and what will be, was at least present from the big bang. In the 'language' of God. This is my understanding of how the universe was created 13.7 billions of years ago.I guess I'll point this out too, though and then we can move on to the actual topic of the thread: Even if I were to concede all of your points about a creator, none of that precludes the ToE UNLESS you claim that "God" created the earth and all life on it in 6 days. Otherwise "God" could have created the Earth 4 billion years ago with self-replicating cells and evolution would take care of the rest as the theory suggests.
It is the extraordinary evidence. If you claim that the universe was not created, then that is a truly extraordinary claim which runs contrary to the natural order of things.It's extraordinary all right. An extraordinary claim that has no extraordinary evidence to match.
Which is what we'd expect when dealing with God of all things since, by His nature of being outside of nature cannot leave any physical evidence.
Nothing has ever been shown to exist withoutThe concept of a creator God is congruent with science. Nothing has ever been shown to exist without a creator.
Nature exists. Therefore, it has a creator. People may arrive at different conclusions about the creator, some perhaps wildly different, but they are still seeking to learn about the creator.
Nuance is not equivocation. The definition of faith that you are using, apparently something akin to emotionalism, is unsophisticated and misleading.
There is a Bible verse that states "The heart is deceitful above all things". This awareness can help minimize self deception.
Neither your opinion, nor my opinion, changes fact.
The Christian faith is not an emotional state. Your thinking that it is an emotional state does not make it so.
A faithful Christian is not controlled by worldly impulses. Drunkenness, orgies, anger, greed, gluttony, etc. such things are all antithetical to our faith. The Christian faith is strongly opposed to such self indulgence. I would argue that this is why so many advancements in science, technology, and literature have come from Christians.
I agree with you that emotional control is a key ingredient for success. That is self evident.
The Christian faith has already done much for the advancement of physics and other fields by inspiring people to apply their talents for the betterment of others. People have also been similarly inspired by other faiths. Keeping them in the library or the lab while others are impulsively pursuing their worldly desires. Your opinion that it does "zero for the advancement of physics" is patently false.
There is no evidence of "nothing" every "existing". (The words get weird, but there is no scientific reason to think that at any point there wasn't "something". The Big Bang is, after all, the expansion of the Universe from a previous hot, dense state and not the creation of that state. It could have existed for a very long time (forever?) until it spontaneously transitioned into an expanding state, or something like that.You want me to demonstrate that you can't get something from nothing? Good grief.
We are talking about science. Reason alone is useless. Evidence *IS* required.Reason alone is enough to arrive at the conclusion that the universe was created.
And none of these are about the theory of evolution.Personally, I personally think the theory of abiogenesis is sensible. I also think the potentiality for everything, what is and what will be, was at least present from the big bang. In the 'language' of God. This is my understanding of how the universe was created 13.7 billions of years ago.
What do you know of the natural order?It is the extraordinary evidence. If you claim that the universe was not created, then that is a truly extraordinary claim which runs contrary to the natural order of things.
So be honest and dont just say things youAs in politics, religion, hollywood, fairy-tales, myths, economics, statistics, and even science now,
it is usual to find made up, mis-used, mis-directed examples to prove anything desired.
It thus seems best to avoid what is false, and remain honest, stick with what is true.
it is not.
It does not.
"Look at the trees" is not an argument for a creator.
Literally none of this can be demonstrated.
It's just a belief.
As such it doesn't really answer the OPs question.
It is the extraordinary evidence. If you claim that the universe was not created, then that is a truly extraordinary claim which runs contrary to the natural order of things.
Evolution is a real process backed by evidence.
The fact that there are gaps in scientists' knowledge of evolution doesn't disprove its reality any more than the gaps in our knowledge of the life of Jesus disprove his historicity.
Emotion based belief as neither evidence nor logicit is not.
It does not. "Look at the trees" is not an argument for a creator.
Literally none of this can be demonstrated. It's just a belief. As such it doesn't really answer the OPs question.
It thus seems best to avoid what is false,
But you won't see Christians finding skeletons in the earth and claiming they are from the lineage of Joseph or Mary.
Evolutionists will find a skeleton and claim it is from the lineage of this or that.
There are millions of time repeated/ published/ skeletons falsely dated to seem to accomodate fairy tales, every day, throughout the world, all without integrity. The fleshly carnal world loves that , and promotes it, promotes anything that makes a profit and especially denies God.
Is the distinction between 'false science' and 'true science' anything that lines up with your specific and personal religious beliefs and viewpoints perhaps?
Right, wrong, or otherwise, science can take a hike.
There are millions of time repeated/ published/ skeletons falsely dated to seem to accomodate fairy tales, every day, throughout the world, all without integrity.
The fleshly carnal world loves that , and promotes it, promotes anything that makes a profit and especially denies God.
Emotion based belief as neither evidence nor logic gets to a "god".
That's quite an accusation you level. Care to back it with facts?There are millions of time repeated/ published/ skeletons falsely dated to seem to accomodate fairy tales, every day, throughout the world, all without integrity. The fleshly carnal world loves that , and promotes it, promotes anything that makes a profit and especially denies God.
Yeah but you'll claim it's from Shem or Ham or Japheth, right?
Well ... you know ...
If the shoe fits ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?