Philip wrote:Ken: Everything you just said had nothing to do with the point I’ve made. In case you forgot, I said
“Don’t assume because an atheist doesn’t believe theistic claims that they are automatically going to accept all scientific claims. The same skepticism applied to theism can also be applied to science as well.”
That is the only point I was making.
Ken, which basically means that you do not base your beliefs on anything other than the whims of your own desires. You apparently don't like the scientific implications of something prior to the universe that is eternal, and you don't like the theistic ones either - and neither did Einstein as he was forced to realize his "steady state" ideas were wrong. And for you to believe that non-intelligent, random things can assemble themselves, eventually producing astounding, unfathomable brilliance in complexity, design, functionality, AND that these individually so systems and things must perfectly interact likewise, shows me that you are willing to believe the absurd, the impossible, and that you do so without a shred of evidence. You also do so without a shred of basic logic or common sense!
Ken, I would say your basic problem is that you simply refuse to believe, basically, because you don't want to. AND you expect some unreasonable level of evidence perfectly packaged ONLY as YOU would find personally (though NOT intellectually) acceptable. And that means that ANY evidences that are supportive of God are automatically rejected. That's because you have your thinking switch set to reject all evidences you don't like the implications of - and as to whether those implications are derived from science or theology.
These things even Einstein understood well: The universe had a beginning. It had a beginner that was unfathomably powerful and intelligent. Its marvelous configurations and functionalities are DESIGNED by a superior intelligence. Yet, he did not accept that the God of the Bible was that Beginner. He refused belief in a relational God who had come to earth as a man.
And yet, as there was and is a Creator/Designer who made things with such breath-taking specificity, on such a scale, as He obviously produced the most intelligent creature (by FAR) on the planet, along with having left nothing to pure chance (as EVERYTHING on earth has locked parameters), does it make any sense that He created only ONE creature with such a mind and ability to understand and communicate, without He Himself communicating with that creature???!!! You see, to believe that a Superior Intelligence Who created with such detailed specifics, it makes no sense that man or the capabilities of which he was given is a mere accident. So, it stands to reason that this Creator would have interacted with man. So, what are the evidences of that? I say they are plenty AND powerful!
While the range of THEORIZED possibilities for the cause of all things is wide, their realistic, NECESSARY attributes are the same: That thing must be eternal, all powerful, immensely (beyond our understandings) intelligent. That is, collectively, what all of the evidences point to. Those entirely necessary attributes are basic logic. While the IDENTITY of that Cause is reasonably debatable, the unavoidable key attributes of "it" are NOT! And whether or not one believes it so, the attributes of the God of the Bible perfectly fits the key, necessary attributes of the Cause of the universe. This is also undeniable. Lastly, whatever the cause actually was/is, what we theorize or believe about it won't change what it actually is! The important question is: If you are WRONG about God, does it truly matter? As if the Bible is correct, EVERYTHING about that question matters immensely, and eternally!
Alexander Vilenkin who claimed a point in history when nothing existed also believes in a “multiverse” aka multiple Universes existing at the same time. This idea of a multiverse is not a scientific theory, it is just a hypothetical that this (and perhaps a few other) scientist has. You would be hard pressed to find a scientific theory that supports many of the claims he makes including his idea of a point in history when nothing existed.