Philip wrote:TrulyE: There is also no indirect, physical, observable, measurable, or direct evidence to suggest that a who, or a what, was involved in its creation.
Of course we do, because what immediately came into existence and how those first amazing things functioned require an intelligent designer - as just random things pointlessly bumping into each other didn't appear, but things with awesome designs and functionality, operating with great precision, obeying complex laws, and a directional purpose. These are all the hallmarks of an incredible intelligence, able to operate with great power and on a scale that was breathtaking to consider. So, you're back to re-enforcing your illogical belief in what blind, random things can accomplish - not the least trick is to jump from a non-physical state to a physical one, immediately. Your belief not only takes immense faith, but also is illogical, as we have ZERO examples of non-intelligent things showing such capabilities, anywhere in the universe - just popping into existence, uncaused, unguided, etc.TrulyE: It is also true, that I don't have a clue what a blind, massively intelligent, massively powerful thing is. Especially one that is capable of creating my entire reality.
Maybe you don't - but you DO know that something with those characteristics necessarily existed, from what was instantly created.TrulyE: But there are thousands of entities, past and present, that you can chose from. Maybe you can provide an example?
I'm not sure what you are referring to - perhaps other religions - but none compare to Christianity. Obviously, none of the pantheistic religions are true - because the universe could not create itself. If the universe once did not exist, and now it does, the universe, us, all material things, could not in totality make up God.TrulyE: What you claim may or may not be true. Since you cannot or will not demonstrate your claims(assertions) as being a certainty, you are simply being intellectually dishonest.
OK, so you admit that what I assert "may" be true. But in the breath say I'm being intellectually dishonest. I'm not the one who thinks unfathomable designs and functionality can pop into existence, uncaused, without some grand intelligence. Are you smarter than Einstein - he got it - he immediately realized the implications of the universe having a beginning. And he spoke of it as "god" - but not "God."TrulyE: By trying to censor my responses...
That's a debating tactic - instead, I've merely asked you questions, and how certain things are possible. You don't have an answer to that and so you lash out. HOW have I censored you - that's not credible.TrulyE: My history in spirituality is personal and irrelevant to these discussions.
Oh, but it might well be relevant. Besides, what is there to hide or be secret about? I will answer anything you ask about my spiritual journey, my testing of the very same questions you have - but over 40 years ago, and intensely so.TrulyE: But I will go out on a limb and suggest, that you would be less open to any concept or idea that would challenge any of your already established beliefs.
I was raised to faith from childhood - but in my later teens, I questioned it all - nearly rejected it, for many of the things I mistakenly had begun to think truly challenged it. My closest friend was an atheist - and he challenged me greatly to see what I truly believed. So, yours is a very old story to me, your kicking up very familiar and ancient ground for me. There will not be one objection to theism or Christianity I've not encountered or deeply considered. Every year, we on the forum see people with your views show up - and what we see over and over are the very same false beliefs that have no supportable basis. But your saying you just don't know, but then also asserting you DO know what preceded the physical universe couldn't possibly be God - that's a contradiction in thinking.
TrulyE: I would appreciate it if you would avoid the deviant behavior of labeling me. It is also apparent that you have clearly misrepresented Atheism. It is dishonest to mischaracterize all atheist as immoral, ignorant, self-centered, narcissistic, soulless, and God-hating.
You have me confused with someone else. One of my oldest friends is agnostic, some of my closed friends have been or are atheists. Where did I ever accuse you of being immoral or self-centered. I'm sure you may be a nice fellow, caring of your fellow man - maybe much more than me. You are not asserting a stereotype of Christians and projecting it upon me - who has only asked you direct questions. Please don't accuse me of what I've not done. But please indicate how I've called you immoral, etc. - I'm open to being shown how.
Please re-read your own paragraph, and explain just how Atheism is portrayed.
" Truly, how much do you know about the Bible? What is your upbringing, related to spiritual matters? Because you seem not to understand the Christian beliefs surrounding the character and holiness of God, that corruption cannot be tolerated in His presence. And most atheists suggest God should have made a perfect world so that the fall and redemption would have been silly and unnecessary. That the world would have been optimally created to last forever. But the issue is, FREE WILL. God could have made us robots, incapable of choosing for ourselves, or bad things. But atheism, per the individual, can only have a specific person's view of right and wrong. But as a person is not some god-like authority - morality for the atheist becomes mere opinion - as if they were right - NO God - then no sin, no good or bad, all would just be choices by some happenstance of a nature that somehow came into existence. So, atheists suppose of the kind of world THEY would have made - one without bad stuff. Which requires a world where no one will make bad choices - or that bad choices don't exists, aren't merely subjective. But such a world doesn't exist - ours does.". This will be the last time I will justify my reaction to something you have stated. Let's move on.
It is irrelevant if all my comments have been stated before. Repetition is not grounds for exclusions. Repetition is not false by repetition. Just what exactly have you proven at the instant of the BB? There is a very big leap of faith from the beginning of strong nuclear forces and the handyworks of a Designer. There is a big leap in faith from all natural events coming together to lead to your creation, and an orchestration of events by a Designer. If you wish to believe that everything that we observe, everything that we think, everything that we make, and everything that we are, is designed by a God, simply because it appears impossible for it to have happen any other way. This is the true definition of an argument from ignorance. Give me an example of anything that exist in nature, that can be determined as blind or random that is not effected by causality? Give me an example of anything that can be determined by science as being dependant on the supernatural or metaphysical as its cause or its effect? Is there any fallacy-free logic or creation-specific evidence to support a claim of Intelligent Design? Other than, "just look out the window" subjective nonsense?
You must be able to understand my level of obvious skepticism. Any religion or any cult can label creation with their own Deities. Since it is unfalsifiable it is also unprovable. I'm only stating that if your claims aren't falsifiable, then they aren't science. They are simply your belief, which requires no evidence at all. Remember, scientific evidence is not limited to observation only. It can be intuitive, inductive and deductive, measureable, inferred or predicted. But above all it must be falsifiable. You also seem to forget that you are making an extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof rest with you.
So please, what are these scientific evidences that prove that God must exist? Maybe you should start with something easier, like proving the power of prayer. Don