Evidence for Creation?

MayCaesar

Creationism is absolutely correct: humans created god. We are the most creative beings on this planet, and as such our creations are often incredible in some respect: in their ingenuity, or in their destructiveness, or in their positive contribution to human life... or in their stupidity.

Factfinder

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

Factfinder said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Sorry but you fail again. If evil is the default position of resisting the notion god exist, then god willingly created evil, as its word says.  

@Factfinder ;  I disagree....Our Creator has given His all for you that you choose to trust Him by faith...It is our Creator who gives faith, not evil or unbelief...these things exist as a default of faith and trust and belief; otherwise, you could never truly believe with authenticity, or trust or possess faith, you would be robotic. 

Unbelief does not have to be created but exists by necessity due free will as the default to Belief-Faith; otherwise, Belief-Faith could not exist or possess value as there was no alternative...robotism negates authenticity and reciprocal relevance. Our Creator is perfect Righteousness...if evil was not the default of Righteousness, true Righteousness could never exist as nothing negating it was a free will choice.  Evil exists as a necessary default of Righteousness. Why is one considered righteous? Due to their free will decision to reject evil.

Sorry but no, your god if it's all you say it is, knows it gave people brains that can not accept blind faith as an answer. It's is not freewill, it's programing by your very own testimony. Unbelief by default, your god created beings it knew had no chance. Or your god isn't omniscient, which is it ricky?

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

The fact that you'd blatantly lie about  Lee Smolin's statement that has nothing to do with god really should make you reevaluate your fairy god book and you're allegiance to it, if you were honest that is. An atheist who converts to theism are not atheists saying god did it, they are theists saying god did it. So what? None have said they've discovered supernatural evidence. Your faith and appeals to authority along with a bowl of beans gets you a meal, nothing else. God of the gaps isn't science. Try again.

Smolin's statement:

Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.”  - Life of the Cosmos. Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist.

Shows that the odds of a universe with stars forming is astronomical.  It does have implications.  Which is more probable with those kinds of odds - that the universe just accidently got it right, or that there is some intelligence?  Again, you have a real blind spot when your faith is challenged.  The quotes were from a mix of Christians and atheists.  I mentioned that in my post.  The point is that the universe does appear to be finely tuned for life where even small variations would have resulted in no universe at all.  

It says nothing of a god. The reason why there are no reputable odds on the existence of god posited is because there is NO EVIDENCE to base such odds on. Plus, not all scientists (in fact most do not) automatically assume an Abrahamic god when they contemplate a 'god' like creative force. You know that yet you deliberately misrepresent them, why? 

The odds actually been calculated by atheists such as Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and even Lee Simolin.  They all freely admit that the universe does appear to be incredibly finely turned and that there are no reasons that the fundamental forces have to have the values that they do if the universe was created by random chance.  Probabilities are used in science and in court rooms every day.  At a trial someone may point out the odds of someone having that same DNA signature or the odds of someone else having the same vehicle and partial license plate.  I suspect that you deny, what even atheist scientists readily admit to, because your atheistic faith will not allow you to be open to it.  

The universe had a beginning, the best science we have says so.  Again, I ask the question, since the universe began to exist, and you can't have space, time, or matter, without a universe - how did it begin?  Just how much matter can you fit in zero space?  Your faith is worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat.  Even though it is statistically much more likely that an intelligent force created the universe, you believe it came from nothing.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  I'm just not as good at playing pretend as you.

When was matter and energy created? Let me guess, god did it? How scientific. (sarcasm) You fairy book tells you in proverbs how much it hates deception. You really should stop misrepresenting people on purpose. It's un christ like you know. So where is the reputable scholarly atheistic peer reviewed study where the empirical evidence pointed to your specific abrahamic god? Or are you just quoting out of context, misrepresenting what people say off the cuff in non scientific settings again? Calculating the presence of any god would be strictly a mathematical exercise that has nothing you do with your faith. I've said I can't say for sure no god exists, does that reinforce your faith too?  It takes critical thinking to be atheist, not faith.

@Factfinder ; Our Creator IS "energy"...He is the origin of the "energy" we perceive via our senses as He is omnipotent...what does your eviloution say about energy, its genesis? "critical thinking" and atheism are not compatible nor are they logical.

Yawn, again, this is a science thread. Fairytale books are just as full of it here as in reality. 

The evidence of the red shift suggests that our universe had a beginning and is expanding.  The evidence when taken to its logical conclusion suggests that the universe was at one time no larger than planck size (or nothing at all).  Again, I ask the scientific question - how much matter can you fit in 0 space?  You can't have matter, time, or space without a universe.  In fact, scientific theory says space time and matter are all dependent upon one another and the universe is often referred to as spacetime.  There are serious scientific issues with any theory that posits that energy 'beyond' spacetime created the universe.  Considering the evidence of how finely tuned the universe is, it is most likely that the universe is the creation of a intelligent being.

There is no evidence that the universe is fine tuned. You are misunderstanding science. https://www.technologyreview.com/2011/01/18/260556/evidence-emerges-that-laws-of-physics-are-not-fine-tuned-for-life/

"An analogy here might be apt. Suppose that you’re captured by an alien race whose intentions are unclear, and they make you play Russian roulette. Then suppose that you win, and survive the game. If you are convinced by the fine-tuning argument, then you might be tempted to conclude that your captors wanted you to live.

But imagine that you discover the revolver had five of six chambers loaded, and you just happened to pull the trigger on the one empty chamber. The discovery of this second fact doesn’t confirm the benevolence of your captors. It disconfirms it. The most rational conclusion is that your captors were hostile, but you got lucky.

Similarly, the fine-tuning argument rests on an interesting discovery of physical cosmology that the odds were strongly stacked against life. But if God exists, then the odds didn’t have to be stacked this way. These bad odds could themselves be taken as evidence against the existence of God." 

https://nautil.us/fine-tuning-does-not-imply-a-fine-tuner-236373/

I laughed hysterically at your MIT article.  Forgive me, if I get too technical or in the weeds for you.

The guy's premise is this:

Therefore the measured value of the cosmological constant, which is positive, is evidence against the idea that the constants have been fine-tuned for life.

Roger Penrose is no doubt shaking his head in disbelief.  The ratio for the amount of variance that is permissible in the low entropy of the universe that would allow for an expanding universe with matter that didn't immediately collapse in upon itself is 1 part in 10 to 123rd power.  To put this into perspective for you, there are approximately 1 in 10 to the 60th power number of particles in the universe (not atoms, but the stuff that makes up atoms).  That means that if you were off by one electron in 1 part in 10 to the 60th that it wouldn't work for for that number, but 10^123rd is a much more massive number, meaning that the amount of variance permissible is much much less than 1 electron + or - in the universe.  

There are lots of scientific implications to this statement (all of which devastate theories about energy fluctuations, universes created by inflationary theories, and expanding/contracting models).  

Until recently, cosmologists had assumed that the constant was zero, a neat solution. But the recent evidence that the universe is not just expanding but accelerating away from us, suggests that the constant is positive. 

If true, this is far more devastating for numerous scientific theories, but not a universe created by a God.  For example, Lawrence Krauss' universe from nothing is immediately eliminated.  He believes that a quantum fluctuation created the universe and his theory is dependent on the constant being  zero to work, even in theory.  The theory fails anyway on easily calculated time frames of how long a quantum fluctuation with enough energy/mass to create a universe can last  and the time needed to create the fundamental forces which would permit/trigger inflation.  The math says the fluctuation would always last for too short of a time to form the fundamental forces needed for inflation.

It seems the guy is arguing that if God had created the world he would have been even more precise than he was.  This is an incredibly weak argument.  it is the equivalent of saying that the Mona Lisa is not a masterpiece because you believe it could have been painted even more perfectly.  Please tell me you weren't fooled by this argument.  You are better than this.  It assumes to know the mind of God and falsely assumes that God has limited resources to work with and can't spare anything in his creative work.  

Considering the staggering odds, a much better gun analogy would be if you were in front of a firing squad with 10^123 number of guns pointed out you and they all fired and missed.  You could reason that you were still alive, so they all had to have missed, but it would not explain to you how so many bullets missed you.  Keep trying.  I think it may be helpful to you work your way through a lot of these theories, it will help you to realize how the evidence does suggest that there is an intelligence at work in the design of the universe.

Like I believe you understand what you cut and pasted. A 'devastation' to a scientific theory has nothing to do with your mythology, get it? 'God did it' don't count, um, unless you care to right a letter to santa?

MayCaesar

Here is an experiment. Take a coin and flip it 400 times. You will get a sequence like HTTHTHHTHTTTHHHTTHHH...

Now let me blow your mind: the outcome you just obtained had the probability of 1 / 2^500, or roughly 1 / 10^150. This probability is far-far lower than the "staggering odds" mentioned above. Crazy, right? You must have designed this outcome: your coin flips must not have been random.

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

Here is an experiment. Take a coin and flip it 400 times. You will get a sequence like HTTHTHHTHTTTHHHTTHHH...

Now let me blow your mind: the outcome you just obtained had the probability of 1 / 2^400, or roughly 1 / 10^133. This probability is far-far lower than the "staggering odds" mentioned above. Crazy, right? You must have designed this outcome: your coin flips must not have been random.

You realize I've had several shots of tequila and you're blowing my mind, right? 

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

Glad to help! Apparently I was also tipsy, as I made a small mistake in the math... Corrected now.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

The fact that you'd blatantly lie about  Lee Smolin's statement that has nothing to do with god really should make you reevaluate your fairy god book and you're allegiance to it, if you were honest that is. An atheist who converts to theism are not atheists saying god did it, they are theists saying god did it. So what? None have said they've discovered supernatural evidence. Your faith and appeals to authority along with a bowl of beans gets you a meal, nothing else. God of the gaps isn't science. Try again.

Smolin's statement:

Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.”  - Life of the Cosmos. Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist.

Shows that the odds of a universe with stars forming is astronomical.  It does have implications.  Which is more probable with those kinds of odds - that the universe just accidently got it right, or that there is some intelligence?  Again, you have a real blind spot when your faith is challenged.  The quotes were from a mix of Christians and atheists.  I mentioned that in my post.  The point is that the universe does appear to be finely tuned for life where even small variations would have resulted in no universe at all.  

It says nothing of a god. The reason why there are no reputable odds on the existence of god posited is because there is NO EVIDENCE to base such odds on. Plus, not all scientists (in fact most do not) automatically assume an Abrahamic god when they contemplate a 'god' like creative force. You know that yet you deliberately misrepresent them, why? 

The odds actually been calculated by atheists such as Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, and even Lee Simolin.  They all freely admit that the universe does appear to be incredibly finely turned and that there are no reasons that the fundamental forces have to have the values that they do if the universe was created by random chance.  Probabilities are used in science and in court rooms every day.  At a trial someone may point out the odds of someone having that same DNA signature or the odds of someone else having the same vehicle and partial license plate.  I suspect that you deny, what even atheist scientists readily admit to, because your atheistic faith will not allow you to be open to it.  

The universe had a beginning, the best science we have says so.  Again, I ask the question, since the universe began to exist, and you can't have space, time, or matter, without a universe - how did it begin?  Just how much matter can you fit in zero space?  Your faith is worse than magic.  At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of his hat, he has a hat.  Even though it is statistically much more likely that an intelligent force created the universe, you believe it came from nothing.  I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  I'm just not as good at playing pretend as you.

When was matter and energy created? Let me guess, god did it? How scientific. (sarcasm) You fairy book tells you in proverbs how much it hates deception. You really should stop misrepresenting people on purpose. It's un christ like you know. So where is the reputable scholarly atheistic peer reviewed study where the empirical evidence pointed to your specific abrahamic god? Or are you just quoting out of context, misrepresenting what people say off the cuff in non scientific settings again? Calculating the presence of any god would be strictly a mathematical exercise that has nothing you do with your faith. I've said I can't say for sure no god exists, does that reinforce your faith too?  It takes critical thinking to be atheist, not faith.

@Factfinder ; Our Creator IS "energy"...He is the origin of the "energy" we perceive via our senses as He is omnipotent...what does your eviloution say about energy, its genesis? "critical thinking" and atheism are not compatible nor are they logical.

Yawn, again, this is a science thread. Fairytale books are just as full of it here as in reality. 

The evidence of the red shift suggests that our universe had a beginning and is expanding.  The evidence when taken to its logical conclusion suggests that the universe was at one time no larger than planck size (or nothing at all).  Again, I ask the scientific question - how much matter can you fit in 0 space?  You can't have matter, time, or space without a universe.  In fact, scientific theory says space time and matter are all dependent upon one another and the universe is often referred to as spacetime.  There are serious scientific issues with any theory that posits that energy 'beyond' spacetime created the universe.  Considering the evidence of how finely tuned the universe is, it is most likely that the universe is the creation of a intelligent being.

There is no evidence that the universe is fine tuned. You are misunderstanding science. https://www.technologyreview.com/2011/01/18/260556/evidence-emerges-that-laws-of-physics-are-not-fine-tuned-for-life/

"An analogy here might be apt. Suppose that you’re captured by an alien race whose intentions are unclear, and they make you play Russian roulette. Then suppose that you win, and survive the game. If you are convinced by the fine-tuning argument, then you might be tempted to conclude that your captors wanted you to live.

But imagine that you discover the revolver had five of six chambers loaded, and you just happened to pull the trigger on the one empty chamber. The discovery of this second fact doesn’t confirm the benevolence of your captors. It disconfirms it. The most rational conclusion is that your captors were hostile, but you got lucky.

Similarly, the fine-tuning argument rests on an interesting discovery of physical cosmology that the odds were strongly stacked against life. But if God exists, then the odds didn’t have to be stacked this way. These bad odds could themselves be taken as evidence against the existence of God." 

https://nautil.us/fine-tuning-does-not-imply-a-fine-tuner-236373/

I laughed hysterically at your MIT article.  Forgive me, if I get too technical or in the weeds for you.

The guy's premise is this:

Therefore the measured value of the cosmological constant, which is positive, is evidence against the idea that the constants have been fine-tuned for life.

Roger Penrose is no doubt shaking his head in disbelief.  The ratio for the amount of variance that is permissible in the low entropy of the universe that would allow for an expanding universe with matter that didn't immediately collapse in upon itself is 1 part in 10 to 123rd power.  To put this into perspective for you, there are approximately 1 in 10 to the 60th power number of particles in the universe (not atoms, but the stuff that makes up atoms).  That means that if you were off by one electron in 1 part in 10 to the 60th that it wouldn't work for for that number, but 10^123rd is a much more massive number, meaning that the amount of variance permissible is much much less than 1 electron + or - in the universe.  

There are lots of scientific implications to this statement (all of which devastate theories about energy fluctuations, universes created by inflationary theories, and expanding/contracting models).  

Until recently, cosmologists had assumed that the constant was zero, a neat solution. But the recent evidence that the universe is not just expanding but accelerating away from us, suggests that the constant is positive. 

If true, this is far more devastating for numerous scientific theories, but not a universe created by a God.  For example, Lawrence Krauss' universe from nothing is immediately eliminated.  He believes that a quantum fluctuation created the universe and his theory is dependent on the constant being  zero to work, even in theory.  The theory fails anyway on easily calculated time frames of how long a quantum fluctuation with enough energy/mass to create a universe can last  and the time needed to create the fundamental forces which would permit/trigger inflation.  The math says the fluctuation would always last for too short of a time to form the fundamental forces needed for inflation.

It seems the guy is arguing that if God had created the world he would have been even more precise than he was.  This is an incredibly weak argument.  it is the equivalent of saying that the Mona Lisa is not a masterpiece because you believe it could have been painted even more perfectly.  Please tell me you weren't fooled by this argument.  You are better than this.  It assumes to know the mind of God and falsely assumes that God has limited resources to work with and can't spare anything in his creative work.  

Considering the staggering odds, a much better gun analogy would be if you were in front of a firing squad with 10^123 number of guns pointed out you and they all fired and missed.  You could reason that you were still alive, so they all had to have missed, but it would not explain to you how so many bullets missed you.  Keep trying.  I think it may be helpful to you work your way through a lot of these theories, it will help you to realize how the evidence does suggest that there is an intelligence at work in the design of the universe.

Like I believe you understand what you cut and pasted. A 'devastation' to a scientific theory has nothing to do with your mythology, get it? 'God did it' don't count, um, unless you care to right a letter to santa?

You think I copied and pasted?  Wow, I appreciate the compliment.  Nah, that's just from memory.  I am certainly no cosmologist.  If you are interested in critiques of Krauss' book, then atheist Sean Carroll rips him a new one with a ergodicity argument and the classic Boltzmann brains argument - essentially if fluctuations pop things into existence we should see lots of other things popping into existence in our universe like a human brain - which is far more likely than a universe that is as big as ours- since we don't see things like bicycles, horses or other stuff popping in and out of existence it suggests that such things are not possible - remember if this process has been going on since eternity - the universe should be littered with stuff like that. 

Daniel Albert wrote a blistering review of the book in the NYT.  Christian cosmologist Hugh Ross also has an accessible but content filled explanation of some of the problems of the 'universe from nothing' theory, which is a misleading name. 

For me, the biggest problem with quantum fluctuations is they a) need a quantum field which indicates the existence of the universe to start with, and b) the time that a particle fluctuation 'can exist is a very specific time limit - fractions of a second, and that time is too short for the fundamental forces to form that would trigger inflation.

Again, thanks for the compliment.   

Factfinder

@just_sayin

since we don't see things like bicycles, horses or other stuff popping in and out of existence it suggests that such things are not possible

Scientists setting up hypothesis and then ripping into them is what they do. They're searching for the truth, not necessarily confirmation. One could just as easily say if god were real then bicycles , horses and things like that would keep popping up everywhere and since there not god isn't possible. But neither one of us know if there are any other circumstances in the universe either becoming; or is conducive to life as we know it. The universe is too big to make that call, 'WE' as in you and I don't know. I'm comfortable with that. Are you? 

I'm comfortable with the fact the universe is about 15 billion years old. I'm also comfortable with the earth being about 5 billion years old and wasn't here before the rest of the universe. Are you? The difference between science and creationism is science searches for the truth where as creationism seeks confirmation. The truth is you will never find it because there is no model for defining or testing empirical evidence of a so called supernatural nature. Even with quantum mechanics, dark matter... everything still only produces natural answers to natural phenomenon and/or more questions. Not one thing points to abrahamic gods.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

since we don't see things like bicycles, horses or other stuff popping in and out of existence it suggests that such things are not possible

Scientists setting up hypothesis and then ripping into them is what they do. They're searching for the truth, not necessarily confirmation. One could just as easily say if god were real then bicycles , horses and things like that would keep popping up everywhere and since there not god isn't possible. But neither one of us know if there are any other circumstances in the universe either becoming; or is conducive to life as we know it. The universe is too big to make that call, 'WE' as in you and I don't know. I'm comfortable with that. Are you? 

I'm comfortable with the fact the universe is about 15 billion years old. I'm also comfortable with the earth being about 5 billion years old and wasn't here before the rest of the universe. Are you? The difference between science and creationism is science searches for the truth where as creationism seeks confirmation. The truth is you will never find it because there is no model for defining or testing empirical evidence of a so called supernatural nature. Even with quantum mechanics, dark matter... everything still only produces natural answers to natural phenomenon and/or more questions. Not one thing points to abrahamic gods.

Boltzmann's brain theory is a pretty significant problem for theories that either involve quantum fluctuations or branes.  Essentially ours is a huge universe and any build up of energy/matter is much more likely to happen on a much smaller scale - so it is much more likely that a brain with memories fully formed would appear out of these fluctuations than a universe like ours.  The fact there is no indication of this and no background energy from other universes observable also is an issue.  You can do a quick search on Boltzman brains at wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain#:~:text=The Boltzmann brain thought experiment,cosmologists think it actually did 

My faith isn't based on a number for the years the universe or earth have been here.  God could have created the universe through a big bang and evolution if he wanted to.  As Wheeler and Tipler point out in their book The Anthropic Principle - (its very technical book - not a pro-Christian perspective)   that for the universe to be life permitting or for evolution to have occurred many 'miracles' had to occur and the odds of them are beyond astronomical.  They identify at least 10 biological miracles that would have to have occurred for evolution to have happened and for which scientists can not reproduce or figure out a means to replicate.  So if evolution occurred, its evidence for God.

Now, I don't claim that the creation of the universe points specifically to an abrahamic God.  I do think that you are mistaken that thereis no evidence:
1) evidence of Christ's miracles, and resurrection - there is a lot of historical evidence of this both from eye witnesses and even his enemies
2) evidence of miracles in general - I've provided over 100 links in the prayer thread about documented miracles which @MayCaesar has laughably used a science of the gaps argument numerous times to answer 'Even when science says its impossible, trust me, its possible'.  And then he pretends that wasn't his argument.  Got to love the ongoing denial.  You'd think he would get that when I ask what the scientific explanation of the miracle is then and he hasn't got an answer, you'd think he could admit science doesn't have the answer, but his faith in scientism is too strong to be honest.  
3) Evidence of prophecies being fulfilled is another means - even Jesus' enemies conceded he predicted future events. That's not the kind of thing your enemy tends to admit about a person.  

Exactly why do you deny Jesus' resurrection when so many of the eye witnesses of it went to their deaths for refusing to recant their belief that it had occurred?   

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

since we don't see things like bicycles, horses or other stuff popping in and out of existence it suggests that such things are not possible

Scientists setting up hypothesis and then ripping into them is what they do. They're searching for the truth, not necessarily confirmation. One could just as easily say if god were real then bicycles , horses and things like that would keep popping up everywhere and since there not god isn't possible. But neither one of us know if there are any other circumstances in the universe either becoming; or is conducive to life as we know it. The universe is too big to make that call, 'WE' as in you and I don't know. I'm comfortable with that. Are you? 

I'm comfortable with the fact the universe is about 15 billion years old. I'm also comfortable with the earth being about 5 billion years old and wasn't here before the rest of the universe. Are you? The difference between science and creationism is science searches for the truth where as creationism seeks confirmation. The truth is you will never find it because there is no model for defining or testing empirical evidence of a so called supernatural nature. Even with quantum mechanics, dark matter... everything still only produces natural answers to natural phenomenon and/or more questions. Not one thing points to abrahamic gods.

Boltzmann's brain theory is a pretty significant problem for theories that either involve quantum fluctuations or branes.  Essentially ours is a huge universe and any build up of energy/matter is much more likely to happen on a much smaller scale - so it is much more likely that a brain with memories fully formed would appear out of these fluctuations than a universe like ours.  The fact there is no indication of this and no background energy from other universes observable also is an issue.  You can do a quick search on Boltzman brains at wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain#:~:text=The Boltzmann brain thought experiment,cosmologists think it actually did 

My faith isn't based on a number for the years the universe or earth have been here.  God could have created the universe through a big bang and evolution if he wanted to.  As Wheeler and Tipler point out in their book The Anthropic Principle - (its very technical book - not a pro-Christian perspective)   that for the universe to be life permitting or for evolution to have occurred many 'miracles' had to occur and the odds of them are beyond astronomical.  They identify at least 10 biological miracles that would have to have occurred for evolution to have happened and for which scientists can not reproduce or figure out a means to replicate.  So if evolution occurred, its evidence for God.

Now, I don't claim that the creation of the universe points specifically to an abrahamic God.  I do think that you are mistaken that thereis no evidence:
1) evidence of Christ's miracles, and resurrection - there is a lot of historical evidence of this both from eye witnesses and even his enemies
2) evidence of miracles in general - I've provided over 100 links in the prayer thread about documented miracles which @MayCaesar has laughably used a science of the gaps argument numerous times to answer 'Even when science says its impossible, trust me, its possible'.  And then he pretends that wasn't his argument.  Got to love the ongoing denial.  You'd think he would get that when I ask what the scientific explanation of the miracle is then and he hasn't got an answer, you'd think he could admit science doesn't have the answer, but his faith in scientism is too strong to be honest.  
3) Evidence of prophecies being fulfilled is another means - even Jesus' enemies conceded he predicted future events. That's not the kind of thing your enemy tends to admit about a person.  

Exactly why do you deny Jesus' resurrection when so many of the eye witnesses of it went to their deaths for refusing to recant their belief that it had occurred?   

@just_sayin

evidence of miracles in general - I've provided over 100 links in the prayer thread about documented miracles which @MayCaesar has laughably used a science of the gaps argument numerous times to answer 'Even when science says its impossible, trust me, its possible'.  And then he pretends that wasn't his argument.

You just do not understand what @MayCaesar was saying. The science community doesn't speak in absolutes. 

 The Anthropic Principle - (its very technical book - not a pro-Christian perspective)   that for the universe to be life permitting or for evolution to have occurred many 'miracles' had to occur and the odds of them are beyond astronomical.  They identify at least 10 biological miracles that would have to have occurred for evolution to have happened and for which scientists can not reproduce or figure out a means to replicate.  So if evolution occurred, its evidence for God.

This is a 'typical god of the gaps' position. When articles, opinions or new discoveries are talked about publicly the distinguished people speaking try to dumb down what they're saying. You should know that. When they refer to a significant event, or series of events as 'miracles' they do not have your god in mind. It merely means they haven't discovered causation. No evidence of a god has been purposed.  And let's be honest, you're not debating on behalf of any god, your references to a designer, god and what not are specifically centered around your god. An abrahamic god. The god of the bible.

And that brings me to this: Your book says god created the universe in 6 days. You believe that to be fallible? 

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

just_sayin said:

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

since we don't see things like bicycles, horses or other stuff popping in and out of existence it suggests that such things are not possible

Scientists setting up hypothesis and then ripping into them is what they do. They're searching for the truth, not necessarily confirmation. One could just as easily say if god were real then bicycles , horses and things like that would keep popping up everywhere and since there not god isn't possible. But neither one of us know if there are any other circumstances in the universe either becoming; or is conducive to life as we know it. The universe is too big to make that call, 'WE' as in you and I don't know. I'm comfortable with that. Are you? 

I'm comfortable with the fact the universe is about 15 billion years old. I'm also comfortable with the earth being about 5 billion years old and wasn't here before the rest of the universe. Are you? The difference between science and creationism is science searches for the truth where as creationism seeks confirmation. The truth is you will never find it because there is no model for defining or testing empirical evidence of a so called supernatural nature. Even with quantum mechanics, dark matter... everything still only produces natural answers to natural phenomenon and/or more questions. Not one thing points to abrahamic gods.

Boltzmann's brain theory is a pretty significant problem for theories that either involve quantum fluctuations or branes.  Essentially ours is a huge universe and any build up of energy/matter is much more likely to happen on a much smaller scale - so it is much more likely that a brain with memories fully formed would appear out of these fluctuations than a universe like ours.  The fact there is no indication of this and no background energy from other universes observable also is an issue.  You can do a quick search on Boltzman brains at wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain#:~:text=The Boltzmann brain thought experiment,cosmologists think it actually did 

My faith isn't based on a number for the years the universe or earth have been here.  God could have created the universe through a big bang and evolution if he wanted to.  As Wheeler and Tipler point out in their book The Anthropic Principle - (its very technical book - not a pro-Christian perspective)   that for the universe to be life permitting or for evolution to have occurred many 'miracles' had to occur and the odds of them are beyond astronomical.  They identify at least 10 biological miracles that would have to have occurred for evolution to have happened and for which scientists can not reproduce or figure out a means to replicate.  So if evolution occurred, its evidence for God.

Now, I don't claim that the creation of the universe points specifically to an abrahamic God.  I do think that you are mistaken that thereis no evidence:
1) evidence of Christ's miracles, and resurrection - there is a lot of historical evidence of this both from eye witnesses and even his enemies
2) evidence of miracles in general - I've provided over 100 links in the prayer thread about documented miracles which @MayCaesar has laughably used a science of the gaps argument numerous times to answer 'Even when science says its impossible, trust me, its possible'.  And then he pretends that wasn't his argument.  Got to love the ongoing denial.  You'd think he would get that when I ask what the scientific explanation of the miracle is then and he hasn't got an answer, you'd think he could admit science doesn't have the answer, but his faith in scientism is too strong to be honest.  
3) Evidence of prophecies being fulfilled is another means - even Jesus' enemies conceded he predicted future events. That's not the kind of thing your enemy tends to admit about a person.  

Exactly why do you deny Jesus' resurrection when so many of the eye witnesses of it went to their deaths for refusing to recant their belief that it had occurred?   

@just_sayin

evidence of miracles in general - I've provided over 100 links in the prayer thread about documented miracles which @MayCaesar has laughably used a science of the gaps argument numerous times to answer 'Even when science says its impossible, trust me, its possible'.  And then he pretends that wasn't his argument.

You just do not understand what @MayCaesar was saying. The science community doesn't speak in absolutes. 

 The Anthropic Principle - (its very technical book - not a pro-Christian perspective)   that for the universe to be life permitting or for evolution to have occurred many 'miracles' had to occur and the odds of them are beyond astronomical.  They identify at least 10 biological miracles that would have to have occurred for evolution to have happened and for which scientists can not reproduce or figure out a means to replicate.  So if evolution occurred, its evidence for God.

This is a 'typical god of the gaps' position. When articles, opinions or new discoveries are talked about publicly the distinguished people speaking try to dumb down what they're saying. You should know that. When they refer to a significant event, or series of events as 'miracles' they do not have your god in mind. It merely means they haven't discovered causation. No evidence of a god has been purposed.  And let's be honest, you're not debating on behalf of any god, your references to a designer, god and what not are specifically centered around your god. An abrahamic god. The god of the bible.

And that brings me to this: Your book says god created the universe in 6 days. You believe that to be fallible? 

Unless you and May are arguing that scientists are unable to verify someone has 2 legs as opposed to 1 leg - as in the miracle of Calanda example - you are just being dishonest.  The medical doctor's verified the amputated leg and its restoration.  You are the science deniers here.  Gonna throw out the evil twin theory again?  LOL  May, believes only nature exists so as he has specifically stated he will only accept natural answers.  He is closed minded and ignores any evidence that goes against his faith.  

You don't know what the Anthropic Principle is do you?  It quite literally is the ultimate science of the gaps argument.  You can't make up just how hilariously wrong you are.  The anthropic principle says the world looks finely tuned because we are looking at it and if it wasn't we wouldn't be able to look at it.  So it must not be something unique - which ignores the science that the there is nothing that requires the fundamental laws to be what they are.  When I see something like code, I can reasonably assume a coder.  For instance if you walked into a room and saw your scrabble letters spelling out 'yes, there is a God.'  You could conclude it was just an accident, but reason suggests it is infinitely more likely that someone spelled it out.  DNA is significantly much more complex than a short sentence with random joining of sugars and bases much more likely to result in an unusable strand than one that is beneficial.  You want me to leave my brain behind in order to follow your anti-science faith.  Again, I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Unless you and May are arguing that scientists are unable to verify someone has 2 legs as opposed to 1 leg - as in the miracle of Calanda example - you are just being dishonest.  The medical doctor's verified the amputated leg and its restoration.  You are the science deniers here.  Gonna throw out the evil twin theory again?  LOL  May, believes only nature exists so as he has specifically stated he will only accept natural answers.  He is closed minded and ignores any evidence that goes against his faith.  

No one has verified that silly story. Your faith and hearsay do not equate to science. It's quite comical you think it does. A guy with two legs indicates there was no amputation no matter how convincing an ancient deceptive cult makes it appear to the gullible.

You don't know what the Anthropic Principle is do you?  It quite literally is the ultimate science of the gaps argument.  You can't make up just how hilariously wrong you are.  The anthropic principle says the world looks finely tuned because we are looking at it and if it wasn't we wouldn't be able to look at it.  So it must not be something unique - which ignores the science that the there is nothing that requires the fundamental laws to be what they are.  When I see something like code, I can reasonably assume a coder.  For instance if you walked into a room and saw your scrabble letters spelling out 'yes, there is a God.'  You could conclude it was just an accident, but reason suggests it is infinitely more likely that someone spelled it out.  DNA is significantly much more complex than a short sentence with random joining of sugars and bases much more likely to result in an unusable strand than one that is beneficial.  You want me to leave my brain behind in order to follow your anti-science faith.  Again, I just don't have enough faith to be an atheist.  

Well of course I understand your 'god did it' principle. I reject your conclusion due to lack of evidence. No faith required, just a brain. When you say things like 'there is nothing that requires the fundamental laws to be what they are.  When I see something like code, I can reasonably assume a coder.  For instance if you walked into a room and saw your scrabble letters spelling out 'yes, there is a God.' You could conclude it was just an accident, but reason suggests it is infinitely more likely that someone spelled it out.' It's just an appeal on your part. How do you know there is nothing that requires fundamental laws to be what they are? Just because we don't know why gravity exist or what caused it to exist I should say, doesn't mean we have a cognitive creator. We do know it does and we have been able to experiment with it. Still no evidence for your god. In your god of the gaps argumentation you simply insert god as the coder and subsequently assert the fallacy that the universe is spelling out god plainly. Everyone should see that, right? That's your whole argument in a nut shell. Special pleading, nothing more.

MayCaesar

@just_sayin

I would appreciate it if you stopped lying about my words and beliefs every time you mentioned me. I am not lying about yours, so why do this, man?

Barnardot

@MayCaesar @just_sayin ;I would appreciate it if you stopped lying about my words and beliefs every time you mentioned me. I am not lying about yours, so why do this, man?

Who knows why but he knows very well that hes an absessive lier and once you get stuck in that rut its hard to get out of it. You have to want to and before you decide you want to you have to acknowledge what every bodies been saying about you but I dont think Lier Boy is in the right space to even think about that at this present point of time. 

But just wait because I have a solution. And no its not the solution that comes to hand every time Lier Boy does his stu pid lieing stuff. 

When you analize the hole thing in the end this is a very viable solution thats right up his alley. Just wait till you see the next topic.

Dreamer

Don't underestimate denying science's harm.

"The destructive potential of antiscience was fully realized in the U.S.S.R. under Joseph Stalin. Millions of Russian peasants died from starvation and famine during the 1930s and 1940s because Stalin embraced the pseudoscientific views of Trofim Lysenko that promoted catastrophic wheat and other harvest failures. Soviet scientists who did not share Lysenko’s “vernalization” theories lost their positions or, like the plant geneticist, Nikolai Vavilov, starved to death in a gulag."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-antiscience-movement-is-escalating-going-global-and-killing-thousands/