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.
We have been through this before. You can claim that the evidence doesn't support the existence of God, but you can't claim the evidence is not objective. Please, its not that difficult to understand.
If it doesn't support God, then it isn't objective evidence of God.
Can you provide a valid point against my argument? #194. I would be interested in knowing what logical fault you can find in it.
We have been through this before. You can claim that the evidence doesn't support the existence of God, but you can't claim the evidence is not objective. Please, its not that difficult to understand.
Do we? If everything that ever existed was created when the universe began, . . .
Regardless of that logic, you are ignoring the fact that everything that we know the physical cause of is based on the laws of physics that again were created at the same time of the universe.
However God claims the heavens declare His existence.
However, I agree that anyone can deny evidence if it doesn't point to what they personally believe.
Oh really? Make your case.
Of course not. Creation can't be treated scientifically because supernatural events can't be subjected to the scientific method. But a natural event such as abiogenesis should be able to be.A tacit admission that creation by God is not being treated scientifically or objectively.
If you're up on the subject you're aware of how desperate the situation regarding abiogenesis has become. So desperate, in fact, that a forward thinker such as Eugene Koonin is now on record as appealing to the multiverse to get it done. He's undoubtedly a very sharp guy, far sharper than myself, yet even he doesn't seem able to make the probabilities work.Also, I have yet to see any probability calculations for abiogenesis, and frankly I don't see how they could be calculated since we don't have any clue as to all of the potential pathways for abiogenesis.
You have yet to show that it isn't feasible naturally, and you have supplied zero evidence that God did anything.
Of course not. Creation can't be treated scientifically because supernatural events can't be subjected to the scientific method.
If you're up on the subject you're aware of how desperate the situation regarding abiogenesis has become. So desperate, in fact, that a forward thinker such as Eugene Koonin is now on record as appealing to the multiverse to get it done. He's undoubtedly a very sharp guy, yet even he doesn't seem able to make the probabilities work.
As an aside, which came first, the proteins that repair DNA damage or the DNA which just so happens to contain the assembly instructions for those very same proteins?
According to the findings of the Minimal Genome Project, if you can solve that dilemma in a test tube 371 times, simultaneously, you might have the beginnings of a cell. But if you can solve it only 370 times, then sorry, no cell.
It's a fact not an assertion. What governs your reasoning? Fact or fantasy?
The physical universe includes the forces that hold it together, the laws that govern motion, gravity, etc.
Everything that exists came into existence by the word of God, by his knowledge, by his understanding, and one day it is going to dissolve into nothingness.
BTW that's a prediction not a hypothesis.
Let's take ED's premise which I believe from what he is saying is this:
The universe exists. That is an objective fact. It stands alone. No one other than those that think everything is an illusion will agree. So this is an objective fact that can be used for a multitude of differing theories and beliefs. So we have this universe that we all agree exists, now we must determine what best explains its existence. There are three explanations that we can think of that can contribute to the universe and its existence.
1. It always has existed.
2. It created itself.
3. It was created by something else outside of itself.
1. Science has determined that the universe had a beginning and that nothing existed before it.
Alexander Vilenkin, Cosmologist, says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning though he cant pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, hes found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.
2. Nothing comes from nothing. How would the universe which didn't exist prior to existing create itself?
3. Number 3 is the only answer that fits with reality and scientific discovery.
If something outside of the universe created the universe, that something had to have certain attributes:
1. Creative power. IF the universe was indeed created it had to be created from something or someone.
2. Had to be eternal. IF not eternal, then there would be a limit to how far back this creative force could go before we are back to the same question.
3. Has to explain how the laws of physics of the universe are the way they are and how they arose themselves.
This evidence supports the existence of God by the claims that the Bible makes for God. That God is eternal and has always existed. HE is an intelligent being that has creative power to create the universe. He is an intelligent being who can make rules that the universe would contain. He has an intelligent mind which could provide a mathematical intelligible universe.
The existence of the universe is evidence that supports God's existence. This is one piece of evidence that supports His existence.
Loudmouth, lightening is part of the universe and is a result thereof.
Cause and effect are the laws of physics that rule the universe but the universe and the laws that rule it were not in existence prior to the beginning of the universe.
You can keep typing what you like, but you still have provided no objective evidence to show God created the universe.
Well someone created the universe. It didn't create itself.
Krauss doesn't have a consensus on the idea that something can come from nothing, even with his atheist science peers. There are tons of refutations online... some good and some bad. But I don't think it is considered a solid theory just yet. Remember, a vacuum is not nothing.
SOMEONE? What a stupid thing to say.Well someone created the universe. It didn't create itself.
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?