Bringing it into being.
How did you reach that conclusion?
If I am wrong please bring in forward.
Failed. It is clear that what happened "prior" to the instantiation of the cosmos may not be accessible to science.
That is true, however, that doesn't change the consensus that the Big Bang has actual evidence and is believed to be most probable to most scientists. It is also the consensus that the universe had a beginning.
By now, theres scientific consensus that our universe exploded inexistence almost 14 billion years ago in an event known as the Big Bang. But that theory raises more questions about the universes origins than it answers, including the most basic one: what happened before the Big Bang? Some cosmologists have argued that a universe could have no beginning, but simply always was. In 2003, Tufts cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin and his colleagues, Arvind Borde, now a senior professor of mathematics at Long Island University, and Alan Guth, a professor of physics at MIT, proved a mathematical theorem showing that, under very general assumptions, the universe must, in fact, have had a beginning.
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning
You can see how the scientific community wishes to eliminate the possibility for a beginning to the universe. It seems they would be happy to conclude the Big Bang and stop there but with Theists out there it would seem it drives new theories in hopes that it can be put down.
Yes, you are cherry picking the bible. Are you a Floodist?
What is a floodist?
Where have you determined that the bible is "Bible is the living word of God"?
I have determined the Bible is the living word of God because:
Don't answer that. I know you can't in any meaningful way, and that for me to pursue it further is probably in violation of the site rules.
OK. I answered it but decided to delete it.
The only frustration I may have is that you have yet to address the problem of falsifiability with your claims.
Take it up with the scientific studies, I used verified, testable studies to provide evidence for the predictions the Bible made.
Do you know what falsifiability is?
According to the scientific model:
Falsifiability or
refutability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by a particular observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that
if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated.
Yes, the weak anthropic principle. The fallacy is trying to use it to demonstrate design.
Why?
What doesn't support creationism? If everything supports "creationism", the word becomes meaningless. Unfalsifiable. Without significance.
I've shown several times what would falsify it.
I said, as you did not include a way to test or falsify these predictions, there is no point in going further with them.
False. If there was
evidence that the universe did not have a beginning it would falsify the Bible. It would not be enough to have a hypothesis that makes a claim for the universe to have been in existence always or part of universes that have always existed.
There is no way to determine if the universe (multiverse?) has or has not always existed, rendering your claim unfalsifiable. Without significance.
Read the article above.
The materialist double standard once again, you claim that you will only consider those things possible that can be proven by scientific methodology, for instance, the Big Bang. However, you throw that out if it is used in the Theists argument. You want your cake and to eat it too.
It is true with every hypothesis one must look at available evidence and see if the evidence we have presently is supportive of that hypothesis. Speculation is a very large part of every avenue of the scientific model and it seems that even with evidence of a beginning of our universe you choose to ignore it or count it as unfalsifiable. So tell me, what evidence do you think is falsifiable?
......................
I don't think what the bible says matters, but you keep bringing it up.
The Bible is necessary to determine predictions which in turn can be tested by what we know presently from what evidence we have.
True. Your claims were neither testable nor falsifiable.
No, that is false. I have shown you evidence that supports the claim that the universe is designed. It is testable and has been shown to be supported by the evidence we presently have.
Whatever. Another unfalsifiable claim.
The evidence supports that there is something that holds the universe together that is non-detectable. This supports the claim that God does indeed hold the universe together. I concede that it does not prove it is God that is doing it, however, it supports the Christians worldview that He does. It is a reasonable assumption from the evidence we have presently in the Christian worldview that God does hold the universe together as He claimed in the Bible.
It is equally evident that there is nothing in the materialist world view that can show that this is possible with only a materialistic processes. I am not trying to show a gap that God fills, although it can be shown to be so, it is a point in my claim that the Christian worldview is more consistent with the reality of our universe than is the materialistic one.
Only if you can show the how-to instructions for flush toilets detailed in the bible.
I concede there are no how-to instructions for flushing toilets detailed in the Bible.
God-of-the-gaps:
"God is responsible for holding the universe together."
I'm glad I have Fred.
What you continually misunderstand is that I am not trying to claim there is a gap in the knowledge but a complete disconnect to it. It is not possible in the materialistic worldview to provide evidence for the phenomenon of this non-material aspect of the universe. Laws of logic, laws of physic, laws of mathematics are all outside of the materialistic worldview. It is not a gap that God fills, it is an absence of a materialistic possibility.
I couldn't find what this was referring to?
Address my question: By what testable criteria do you determine if something is designed?
When the alternative has absolutely no possibility in the setting it arises. Materialism has no possible explanation of such exact, precise fine tuning for the universe. Materialism has no explanation for the fact there are laws that govern the universe, let alone the existence of the universe itself.
No time like the present.
Was there something specific we haven't already went over that you wished to discuss? I didn't go back to look.
Not with "How does one determine that God would be of no significance?".
The onus is on you to establish the existence of, and significance of, your particular choice of gods.
No it isn't. I am arguing the Christian God. The significance is that I am providing evidence for it and it alone. If you want to discuss the merits of religion and which one seems more tenable then that is for Exploring Christianity.
Yes it is. Even in the complete absence of any theories to explain the diversity of biology on this planet, theists like yourself are still on the hook for the responsibility to establish the veracity of their claims.
Materialists make claims and up to and including now, no such evidence has been provided for the claims they have made. Evidence is what supports a premise, and if the materialist wants to only accept that which is empirically proven, it self refutes. That is what you and the others don't understand. It isn't a God of the gaps argument. It is whether the materialistic empirical position is or is not consistent within its own requirements. It is then ironic that you and others demand evidence of God, as if we can provide absolute material proof of Him Himself. It is absurd. The whole universe supports His existence and provides a consistent position for the Christian. Materialism does not.
Pascal's Wager? lol. How do you know you've got the right god?
Same holds true.
And irrelevant, for the purposes of living day to day.
Strictly opinion.
Why? I think you take something that is believed by a greater number of people more seriously than say one person who believes in something. It stands to reason that if a certain percentage of the world shares a common belief that there is more likelihood of it being something rather than nothing. Ju
st sayin.
You get to use the "it's in a book" argument. Why not me?
Well go ahead, however I doubt that you can make the claim that your book has been around for millennia and written by numerous authors during different eras that maintain a intertwining of materials that culminate in the largest growth of any other belief system ever shared.
Which is why I asked, are you going to present your evidence in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, or not? Don't just delete this line from my post as you did last time.
I deleted the line because it was redundant.
I disagree.
You have not, other than saying that is was nonsensical. Do you not have free will? Can you choose to not believe in deities for a week? Or a different one?
There was a time when I didn't know God. I didn't believe in "deities" at all. I then knew that God existed and that He was the Christian God. It would seem rather nonsensical to say that I don't have free will if I know something exists and live daily with that knowledge. I lived for years not believing in a deity. I lived for several years believing that all deities were man's interpretation of the same God. God then revealed Himself as the Christian God. I have had free will all along and continue to do so.
So yes, I could choose not to believe in "deities" for one week, I have. I could believe in a different one, I have.
