Is there evidence of something beyond nature?

[Gottservant]

The world is less complete than it ought to be, not because God has failed to design what is necessary, not because God has failed to stop the Devil from destroying design, not even because God does not want it to be complete, but because we (as those with the power to ask God for what we want) have forced God to accept the work of the Devil as if it was His own.

When believers insist that we must believe God created the world, they mean we must renew our efforts to differentiate between what God has created and what the Devil has destroyed, or else the value of either will be lost.

Yes, you can speculate that it might be eons before the world vanished into fire, if God withdrew His hand, but that is not the point, the point is we are alive now and ought to help even the Devil with what only God could have completed.

We are not so foolish as to think that because we see the appearance of something that follows an order in order to exist, that it is merely acquiescing to that order that creates life - so for example when Evolution claims that sex kills things, we do not suppose that that means there will never be life.

This I believe is the fundamental error of most Evolutionists, that asserting a principle on its own, is somehow principled, when if you had principles, you would not merely assert it.

 

[Loudmouth]

When believers insist that we must believe God created the world, they mean we must renew our efforts to differentiate between what God has created and what the Devil has destroyed, or else the value of either will be lost.

You could start by presenting evidence that God created any of it.

 

[justlookinla]

In an atheistic creationist world, everything is the result of chance.

 

[Dizredux]

In an atheistic creationist world, everything is the result of chance.

Do you have even a passing contact with reality? This is about as wrong a statement as I have seen in a long time.



Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Do you have even a passing contact with reality? This is about as wrong a statement as I have seen in a long time.



Dizredux

Start with the creation of the universe. Chance?

 

[bhsmte]

Do you have even a passing contact with reality? This is about as wrong a statement as I have seen in a long time.



Dizredux

Wrong, but self comforting.

 

[Gracchus]

Start with the creation of the universe. Chance?

Water flows downhill. Chance?

 

[Gottservant]

I think that's really it.

There is infinite chance and finite chance.

And only finite chance can explain that we are finite.

But if there was only infinite chance, it would have stayed infinite.

Simple really.

 

[Dizredux]

Water flows downhill. Chance?

In Just's world, probably so. After all he believes that weather, volcanoes and natural selection are random.

Dizredux

 

[PsychoSarah]

In an atheistic creationist world, everything is the result of chance.

Nope.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You disagree with the scientists?

What about his claim with respect to the cosmological constant?

I feel that this has more substance than his something from nothing hypothesis, but does nothing to free the universe from the fine tuning argument as it does not explain how the known contributors cancel so remarkably. It also uses hypothetical unknown particles that can not be detected and probably won't ever be.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It also uses hypothetical unknown particles that can not be detected and probably won't ever be.

*dies from irony*

 

[Oncedeceived]

*dies from irony*

Please elaborate. If you can resurrect yourself.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Please elaborate. If you can resurrect yourself.

You know why it is ironic

 

[Loudmouth]

I feel that this has more substance than his something from nothing hypothesis, but does nothing to free the universe from the fine tuning argument as it does not explain how the known contributors cancel so remarkably.

You have not presented evidence that any being fine tuned anything. Once again, you are shifting the burden of proof.

It also uses hypothetical unknown particles that can not be detected and probably won't ever be.

Irony.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please elaborate. If you can resurrect yourself.

Double irony.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have not presented evidence that any being fine tuned anything. Once again, you are shifting the burden of proof.

I've not claimed that I can present evidence that God fine tuned anything. I said that the fine tuning of the universe supports my position that God possibly fine tuned the universe and that it is a reasonable conclusion.

Irony.

Not really. It is not I that holds to a purely naturalistic empirical standard to explain the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You know why it is ironic

I know why it would be ironic for me but it is not my position that a purely empirical naturalistic universe needs to be explained only by that which can be shown scientifically.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've not claimed that I can present evidence that God fine tuned anything.

Then no one has to disprove that God fine tuned anything, or disprove design. There is nothing to disprove.

I said that the fine tuning of the universe supports my position . . .

And here we go with your semantic arguments. You are trying to create the false appearance that your claims are scientifically supported. They aren't. You don't have support.

"I've not claimed that I can present evidence that God fine tuned anything . . ."

If you don't have evidence, then you don't have support. It is that simple. Stop playing the semantics game.

Not really. It is not I that holds to a purely naturalistic empirical standard to explain the universe.

It is you who holds to beliefs that can not be demonstrated, not I. I don't hold to a purely naturalistic standard, although I do require evidence. Requiring evidence is not believing in unknown or undetected particles. Requiring evidence is the exact opposite of the faith beliefs that you try to project onto others.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I know why it would be ironic for me but it is not my position that a purely empirical naturalistic universe needs to be explained only by that which can be shown scientifically.

Not every idea presented is always directly testable, however, simulations help big time.