religion

[Zierro]

The word "random" was being used to mean "an event that easily could not have occurred". If this is your definition of random, then the origins of the Earth were not random.

 

No, the term "too random" was used for that. There is no "unlikely" connotation behind the word "random" by itself unless you give it one.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

We just defined random as being something that happens by chance. Lots of things happen by chance. Are you saying that the chance of DNA mutating or the Earth forming is somehow different from the chance of a die being rolled? What are you talking about "replicating" randomness?

 

I'm talking about something that was truly random. You can flip a coin, yes, but the result is directly controlled by things like wind speed, coin weight, and how hard you flick it, so that there's in fact nothing random about the coin flipping. It merely has the appearance of being random.

 

Same goes for pulling paper out of a hat, using a computer to generate a "random" number, etc etc.

 

Yes, I'm using the proper definition.

 

Then theres nothing random about physics, biology, chemistry, cosmology, or astronomy. The position and formation of all of the planets could have been predicted if you could calculate what would happen based on like 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 events. Random DNA mutations aren't really random in the mathematical sense of the word. Theyre just impossible or very hard to predict. I don't know of anything in the physical world that is actually random.

 

What makes you think that the origins of the universe are random then?

 

The word "random" was being used to mean "an event that easily could not have occurred". If this is your definition of random, then the origins of the Earth were not random.

 

No, the term "too random" was used for that. There is no "unlikely" connotation behind the word "random" by itself unless you give it one.

 

"Too random" is a nonsense phrase, if we are going by the definition of random. The connotation is given to random if you say something is "too random". Saying it is too random implies you think it is unlikely. I am just going by the same argument I have heard every creationist make where they use the phrase "too random". Saying the words "too random" is like saying that somebody is "too dead" to offer medical assistance to. Either the person is dead or not. Same thing with events, using the textbook definition of random, things would either be random or not.

 

Nobody uses the textbook definition of random though. There isn't really anything that is truly random.

 

I dont even understand why we are talking about randomness now. I just want to know how in the hell anything being random relates to the existence or nonexistence of a deity.

[obfuscator]

 

"Too random" is a nonsense phrase, if we are going by the definition of random. The connotation is given to random if you say something is "too random". Saying it is too random implies you think it is unlikely. I am just going by the same argument I have heard every creationist make where they use the phrase "too random". Saying the words "too random" is like saying that somebody is "too dead" to offer medical assistance to. Either the person is dead or not. Same thing with events, using the textbook definition of random, things would either be random or not.

 

Nobody uses the textbook definition of random though. There isn't really anything that is truly random.

 

I dont even understand why we are talking about randomness now. I just want to know how in the hell anything being random relates to the existence or nonexistence of a deity.

 

 

The reason we're talking about randomness is quite simple. For something to be truly random, it must have no outside force exerting influence on its behavior or outcome. People such as yourself maintain that the universe we live in was formed without any outside force exerting influence on its behavior or outcome.

 

If there isn't anything truly random, how could the universe have possibly came from such?

[Myweponsg00d]

 

"Too random" is a nonsense phrase, if we are going by the definition of random. The connotation is given to random if you say something is "too random". Saying it is too random implies you think it is unlikely. I am just going by the same argument I have heard every creationist make where they use the phrase "too random". Saying the words "too random" is like saying that somebody is "too dead" to offer medical assistance to. Either the person is dead or not. Same thing with events, using the textbook definition of random, things would either be random or not.

 

Nobody uses the textbook definition of random though. There isn't really anything that is truly random.

 

I dont even understand why we are talking about randomness now. I just want to know how in the hell anything being random relates to the existence or nonexistence of a deity.

 

 

The reason we're talking about randomness is quite simple. For something to be truly random, it must have no outside force exerting influence on its behavior or outcome. People such as yourself maintain that the universe we live in was formed without any outside force exerting influence on its behavior or outcome.

 

If there isn't anything truly random, how could the universe have possibly came from such?

 

Nobody claims that the universe came from a place of no influence. No scientific claim actually even exists yet for what came before the big bang.

 

Some of the current "hypotheses" say that our universe is only one of many other universes, which exist in a place we have yet to discover. This higher place could have its own set of rules governing how a universe should behave. Again, this would raise a lot more questions, but thats what happens when we don't know something.

 

But yeah...nobody is claiming that the universe all of a sudden just came from absolutely nowhere. It is a thought, a possibility, but nobody is claiming it to be true.

[obfuscator]

 

Nobody claims that the universe came from a place of no influence. No scientific claim actually even exists yet for what came before the big bang.

 

Some of the current "hypotheses" say that our universe is only one of many other universes, which exist in a place we have yet to discover. This higher place could have its own set of rules governing how a universe should behave. Again, this would raise a lot more questions, but thats what happens when we don't know something.

 

But yeah...nobody is claiming that the universe all of a sudden just came from absolutely nowhere.

 

Would raise a lot more questions, yes...successfully violating Occam's Razor in the process.

 

I also never claimed that the universe suddenly appeared - I imagine it was a process spanning several billion years. It doesn't change the fact that if there is no creator or higher being, it can only have occurred randomly, and since true random doesn't exist in any manner in our universe I find that theory hard to believe.

 

I'm not attempting to show this demonstrates definitive proof of God - but for me this is certainly a question I feel is not sufficiently answered by science and thus makes me wary of ruling out a creator as an origin for our universe.

[Myweponsg00d]

 

Would raise a lot more questions, yes...successfully violating Occam's Razor in the process.

 

 

Does Occam's Razor say that objects should be made of moluecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of particles, which are made of even smaller and smaller stuff? Occam's Razor sure sounds like a pretty concept, but it doesn't have anything to do with the physical world.

 

I also never claimed that the universe suddenly appeared - I imagine it was a process spanning several billion years. It doesn't change the fact that if there is no creator or higher being, it can only have occurred randomly, and since true random doesn't exist in any manner in our universe I find that theory hard to believe.

 

False dichotomy, purely and smimply. Mind giving me your evidence that the only possible explanation for where the universe came from is either divine creation or random occurance? We have no idea what was before the universe, or what might be outside of it.

 

I'm not attempting to show this demonstrates definitive proof of God - but for me this is certainly a question I feel is not sufficiently answered by science and thus makes me wary of ruling out a creator as an origin for our universe.

 

You're right, it is a question that is not sufficiently answered by science, because it is NOT answered by science yet.

 

I still don't think that the designer answers any questions. Where did the designer come from? Random occurance? If the designer came about randomly, then why couldnt the universe?

 

Or maybe the designer was "always there"? Well then why can't the universe just be "always there"? An intelligent designer just creates an extra step before you have all of the same questions.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

This whole question of "randomness" is just a pointless semantics debate.

 

Y_Guy. Do you believe in a creative force of some sort? Why? What evidence do you have to support that idea?

[obfuscator]

 

Does Occam's Razor say that objects should be made of moluecules, which are made of atoms, which are made of particles, which are made of even smaller and smaller stuff? Occam's Razor sure sounds like a pretty concept, but it doesn't have anything to do with the physical world.

 

Of course - Occam's Razor is a philosophical construct most aptly used when scientific constructs do not apply - such as in this situation where you freely admit science has next to no idea where we came from.

 

 

False dichotomy, purely and smimply. Mind giving me your evidence that the only possible explanation for where the universe came from is either divine creation or random occurance? We have no idea what was before the universe, or what might be outside of it.

 

Well, one can reasonably assume that there mere existence of a creator (ignoring other factors) is a fairly straightforward yes or no question. A creator either exists, or he does not.

 

The definition of random, as I've already said, stipulates an occurrence or series of such with no interference from an outside force. If there is no creator, there can be no outside force. Once again, a creator either exists or does not.

 

Therefore, if a creator does not exists, then the universe must have created itself - and therefore the only way this can possibly happen is to have been randomly.

 

 

You're right, it is a question that is not sufficiently answered by science, because it is NOT answered by science yet.

 

I still don't think that the designer answers any questions. Where did the designer come from? Random occurance? If the designer came about randomly, then why couldnt the universe?

 

Or maybe the designer was "always there"? Well then why can't the universe just be "always there"? An intelligent designer just creates an extra step before you have all of the same questions.

 

So once again we reach the great divide - you choose to believe that science will one day answer the question in favour of no creator. I choose the other path. Neither is right nor wrong.

 

A corollary to that is your "multiple universe" theory. While you may not think of another universe as a God - if it is a "higher universe" and it created the universe we currently inhabit, then it fulfills the creator role nonetheless.

 

I agree that believing in a designer merely serves to add more questions, or at very least reiterate the questions already posed by other theories. I think theists and athiests can share common ground in this regard - we can both agree that our current knowledge of the laws of our universe make it difficult to see how exactly creation could have taken place - hence the theist theory of God and the (some)atheist theory of a higher universe.

 

 

This whole question of "randomness" is just a pointless semantics debate.

 

 

Allow me to disagree - the question of randomness is crucial rather than semantic.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Allow me to disagree - the question of randomness is crucial rather than semantic.

 

Howso? Say I grant you that the existence of our universe and the life in it boils down to random chance. What does that gain you?

[obfuscator]

Allow me to disagree - the question of randomness is crucial rather than semantic.

 

Howso? Say I grant you that the existence of our universe and the life in it boils down to random chance. What does that gain you?

Read my responses to wep - I find it hard to believe that universe could have been created by random chance since random chance does not exist in our universe.

[meol]

Well, there is atomic radioactive decay, which is random. And I think some quantum effects can be described as random in some objective sense, but I'm not sure.

 

But anyway, I don't really understand what you actually mean by "random chance". We don't know if there was some causality (with or without a creator) behind the beginning of the universe, and it's pretty inane to assign probabilities to this universe having the constants it has, or to life arising in a planet, since we don't know whether there are more universes or lifeforms out there.

 

Then, just because it would be too improbable, it does not follow that a creator (whose existence and complexity is yet to be explained without cop-outs) must have then created the universe.

 

And what if we assumed that the beginning of the universe was too improbable and it must have been created by (a/several) god(s)?

 

It's still a gigantic leap to say he created it did with humans as the pinnacle, no, as the very purpose of all creation. Or that these curious meat beings were endowed with an immortal, immaterial soul that is to be judged by their actions, and rewarded or punished for an eternity by a an all-loving God. Or that he'd care at all about us -we might just be a curiosity in the huge symphony of astronomical events he created for his own delight-.

[obfuscator]

Well, there is atomic radioactive decay, which is random. And I think some quantum effects can be described as random in some objective sense, but I'm not sure.

 

Atomic radioactive decay merely creates an illusion of randomness, as have the other examples. It is easily predictable precisely because it follows a definitive pattern - just because we haven't fully analyzed the specifics of the causation doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

But anyway, I don't really understand what you actually mean by "random chance". We don't know if there was some causality (with or without a creator) behind the beginning of the universe, and it's pretty inane to assign probabilities to this universe having the constants it has, or to life arising in a planet, since we don't know whether there are more universes or lifeforms out there.

 

This is precisely my point. If there is some causality in our origins, that fulfills the creator role. If you argue there is no creator and the universe was created without causality, it cannot have been anything but random.

 

Then, just because it would be too improbable, it does not follow that a creator (whose existence and complexity is yet to be explained without cop-outs) must have then created the universe.

 

Of course, but then all you're left with is a battle of probabilities, which is exactly where we started. Is it more probable the universe began without or with causation?

 

And what if we assumed that the beginning of the universe was too improbable and it must have been created by (a/several) god(s)?

 

It's still a gigantic leap to say he created it did with humans as the pinnacle, no, as the very purpose of all creation. Or that these curious meat beings were endowed with an immortal, immaterial soul that is to be judged by their actions, and rewarded or punished for an eternity by a an all-loving God. Or that he'd care at all about us -we might just be a curiosity in the huge symphony of astronomical events he created for his own delight-.

 

If we were to assume that it would at least merit thought - I don't believe we can know very much at all about the creator or creators of the universe. I'm merely suggesting that the makeup of the universe dictates that some sort of creative force (the specifics are up for grabs) is not unlikely.

 

I agree that it is a gigantic leap forward, as we know next to nothing about other species that may exist, where they exist, and what they are like.

 

I find it further hard to believe that we could merely be "just a curiosity in the huge symphony of astronomical events he create for his own delight". We could be just a curiosity, yes - but the fact that we've been given intelligence enough to understand and question our origins would make it nonsensical to not care.

[meol]

Well, there is atomic radioactive decay, which is random. And I think some quantum effects can be described as random in some objective sense, but I'm not sure.

 

Atomic radioactive decay merely creates an illusion of randomness, as have the other examples. It is easily predictable precisely because it follows a definitive pattern - just because we haven't fully analyzed the specifics of the causation doesn't mean there isn't one.

I'm not sure. But you raised my curiosity. I'm going to talk with a professor about this.

This is precisely my point. If there is some causality in our origins, that fulfills the creator role. If you argue there is no creator and the universe was created without causality, it cannot have been anything but random.

Of course, but then all you're left with is a battle of probabilities, which is exactly where we started. Is it more probable the universe began without or with causation?

Even if chance is ruled out (which I'm not convinced of, since the anthropic principle gives us a huge "luck boost"), you are still jumping to a sentient creator. What if the cause is somehow naturalistic? Unless you would call that God.

 

If we were to assume that it would at least merit thought - I don't believe we can know very much at all about the creator or creators of the universe. I'm merely suggesting that the makeup of the universe dictates that some sort of creative force (the specifics are up for grabs) is not unlikely.

 

I agree that it is a gigantic leap forward, as we know next to nothing about other species that may exist, where they exist, and what they are like.

 

I find it further hard to believe that we could merely be "just a curiosity in the huge symphony of astronomical events he create for his own delight". We could be just a curiosity, yes - but the fact that we've been given intelligence enough to understand and question our origins would make it nonsensical to not care.

I mean a a god "who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings". The creator of the Universe needs not care for us, or have created us, or have created the universe for our sake. This hypothetical god that created the physical constants and set the universe in place needs not have created consciousness and "given us" intelligence. To see the world around you and marvel is only natural, but to think it was made all for you is not only arrogant but also illogical. Even assuming there was such a creator in the first place.

 

Are there any religions that do not believe in a soul?

[obfuscator]

 

Even if chance is ruled out (which I'm not convinced of, since the anthropic principle gives us a huge "luck boost"), you are still jumping to a sentient creator. What if the cause is somehow naturalistic? Unless you would call that God.

 

I wouldn't call that God, perhaps...but I would at least say the role of creator had been fulfilled. The anthropic principle applies indeed, but at the same time it's simply demonstrative of the consequences of many completely random chances.

 

I mean a a god "who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings". The creator of the Universe needs not care for us, or have created us, or have created the universe for our sake. This hypothetical god that created the physical constants and set the universe in place needs not have created consciousness and "given us" intelligence. To see the world around you and marvel is only natural, but to think it was made all for you is not only arrogant but also illogical. Even assuming there was such a creator in the first place.

 

Are there any religions that do not believe in a soul?

 

Once again, the question arises that, if there is a creator, why would he have given us intelligence if not to attempt to discover him? He clearly created an enormous variety of other life forms with various degrees of sentience - why make humans the (so far) only exception?

 

To my knowledge, all religions believe in some sort of soul-like object. Of course, the specifics vary tremendously.

[Myweponsg00d]

Of course - Occam's Razor is a philosophical construct most aptly used when scientific constructs do not apply - such as in this situation where you freely admit science has next to no idea where we came from.

 

This is still a scientific question though. This is like saying since we cant answer "What is the AIDs vaccine?" we should try to answer this question philosophically....

 

Well, one can reasonably assume that there mere existence of a creator (ignoring other factors) is a fairly straightforward yes or no question. A creator either exists, or he does not.

The definition of random, as I've already said, stipulates an occurrence or series of such with no interference from an outside force. If there is no creator, there can be no outside force. Once again, a creator either exists or does not.

Therefore, if a creator does not exists, then the universe must have created itself - and therefore the only way this can possibly happen is to have been randomly.

 

These are not the only two options! There could be many many more degrees of complexity outside of the universe! We have no idea what the options are for universal creation. You are assuming that you know nothing came before the universe, and nothing exists outside of it. We dont know this!

 

 

So once again we reach the great divide - you choose to believe that science will one day answer the question in favour of no creator. I choose the other path. Neither is right nor wrong.

No, I choose to believe nothing about the origins of the universe. You choose to believe something that has no evidence. In no other aspect of life do we just say "If we don't know, anyone can believe whatever the hell they want!" If we don't know, then we don't know. And anyone is a fool to think that they have any understanding of how the universe came to be...cause we don't know!

 

A corollary to that is your "multiple universe" theory. While you may not think of another universe as a God - if it is a "higher universe" and it created the universe we currently inhabit, then it fulfills the creator role nonetheless.

 

So are you saying that the universe either came from somewhere, or came from nowhere? And you want to lump all of the "came from somewhere" theories together into a "God" theory? There still is no reason to believe in either case, other than philosophical reasons, which have absolutely no bearing on what actually exists in the physical world. We didn't use philosophy to discover Pluto, and we can't use philosophy to determine where the universe came from.

 

I agree that believing in a designer merely serves to add more questions, or at very least reiterate the questions already posed by other theories. I think theists and athiests can share common ground in this regard - we can both agree that our current knowledge of the laws of our universe make it difficult to see how exactly creation could have taken place - hence the theist theory of God and the (some)atheist theory of a higher universe.

 

The difference being that theists claim belief of their theory, and atheists leave their hypotheses as what they are: guesses that aren't based on evidence. Its not like cosmologists would say "I believe XXX theory of universal creation." It just simply isn't part of scientific knowledge, and we accept that. Theists don't do that.

[obfuscator]

 

This is still a scientific question though. This is like saying since we cant answer "What is the AIDs vaccine?" we should try to answer this question philosophically....

 

A philosophical answer is not a scientific answer - and the existence of God is infinitely more complex than just science as it has many moral and philosophical offshoots.

 

 

These are not the only two options! There could be many many more degrees of complexity outside of the universe! We have no idea what the options are for universal creation. You are assuming that you know nothing came before the universe, and nothing exists outside of it. We dont know this!

 

You're missing my point. My point deals with the creation of the universe as well know it, as well as anything outside of that. My point holds true no matter how many layers of alternate universe there are - if there is no creator it must still have been created randomly.

 

No, I choose to believe nothing about the origins of the universe. You choose to believe something that has no evidence. In no other aspect of life do we just say "If we don't know, anyone can believe whatever the hell they want!" If we don't know, then we don't know. And anyone is a fool to think that they have any understanding of how the universe came to be...cause we don't know!

This is where I disagree - a fervent disbelief in God is as much of a belief as the opposite.

 

So are you saying that the universe either came from somewhere, or came from nowhere? And you want to lump all of the "came from somewhere" theories together into a "God" theory? There still is no reason to believe in either case, other than philosophical reasons, which have absolutely no bearing on what actually exists in the physical world. We didn't use philosophy to discover Pluto, and we can't use philosophy to determine where the universe came from.

 

Yes, that is the logical conclusion (to your first sentence). I never said you should lump all the "came from somewhere" theories into a "God" theory - but you can lump them all into a "creator" theory, or at least some kind of higher guiding power.

 

 

The difference being that theists claim belief of their theory, and atheists leave their hypotheses as what they are: guesses that aren't based on evidence. Its not like cosmologists would say "I believe XXX theory of universal creation." It just simply isn't part of scientific knowledge, and we accept that. Theists don't do that.

 

I hold philosophical belief in God. I accept that by strict scientific definition there is no direct evidence for God. Evidence for God (from science's perspective) boils down to theories and hypotheses.

[Myweponsg00d]

A philosophical answer is not a scientific answer - and the existence of God is infinitely more complex than just science as it has many moral and philosophical offshoots.

 

So why does this ONE issue of the physical world get to be answered by philosophy instead of science?

 

You're missing my point. My point deals with the creation of the universe as well know it, as well as anything outside of that. My point holds true no matter how many layers of alternate universe there are - if there is no creator it must still have been created randomly.

 

If by "creator" you mean "any causal mechanism" then okay.

 

This is where I disagree - a fervent disbelief in God is as much of a belief as the opposite.

 

 

If I tell you that a teapot is in orbit around Jupiter, does it take more faith to believe me or to disbelieve me?

 

Also, nobody has any bones to pick with God. If you make any claims that are based on zero evidence I would be just as little convinced.

 

If I claim that I have an invisible pet unicorn, does it take just as much faith to believe me as to not believe me?

 

Watch this video for more discussion about "belief" that atheists have:

 

 

I hold philosophical belief in God. I accept that by strict scientific definition there is no direct evidence for God.

Do you hold other beliefs about the physical world that have zero evidence?

 

Evidence for God (from science's perspective) boils down to theories and hypotheses.

What? A theory is not evidence. Not sure what youre saying here.

[sephiroth_king]

HOLY CRAP thank you. I love the Atheist experience.

 

...

 

Just thought I should throw that in their before I get back to my university work :shock:

[Zierro]

Watch this video for more discussion about "belief" that atheists have:

 

Which is entirely fine, but how many atheists actually leave it at a lack of belief? How many go around asserting that "God = Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, invisible lizardmen running the Illuminati, four-sided triangles, etc." (hint: "I declare god fictional")? Please, I see just as many passionate atheists reciprocating religious people's unfounded claims with more unfounded claims. Did I mention I love it when an atheist argues in intricate detail how modest their belief is?

[Myweponsg00d]

Watch this video for more discussion about "belief" that atheists have:

 

Which is entirely fine, but how many atheists actually leave it at a lack of belief? How many go around asserting that "God = Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, invisible lizardmen running the Illuminati, four-sided triangles, etc." (hint: "I declare god fictional")?

 

What? What the hell are you talking about. The point is that God is just as believeable as any of these things because none of them have any supporting evidence. Except I have never heard the "four sided triangle" comparison. I would disagree with that comparison because that is an impossibility, not a theory that lacks evidence.

 

Please, I see just as many passionate atheists reciprocating religious people's unfounded claims with more unfounded claims.

 

Such as? I'd love to hear the claims that you hear other "atheists" make

 

Did I mention I love it when an atheist argues in intricate detail how modest their belief is?

 

Modest? Belief? Again, I'm lost as to what you are talking about and what your point is.

[obfuscator]

A philosophical answer is not a scientific answer - and the existence of God is infinitely more complex than just science as it has many moral and philosophical offshoots.

 

So why does this ONE issue of the physical world get to be answered by philosophy instead of science?

 

Because science can't answer it, and you've already admitted multiple times.

 

 

If by "creator" you mean "any causal mechanism" then okay.

 

I mean creative force - and a creative force by definition has some sort of intent or purpose.

 

 

If I tell you that a teapot is in orbit around Jupiter, does it take more faith to believe me or to disbelieve me?

 

Also, nobody has any bones to pick with God. If you make any claims that are based on zero evidence I would be just as little convinced.

 

If I claim that I have an invisible pet unicorn, does it take just as much faith to believe me as to not believe me?

Do you hold other beliefs about the physical world that have zero evidence?

 

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. What I've been reiterating over the past few pages is scientific evidence for the reasonable existence of, at very least, some kind of creative force to whom all the laws of our universe cannot apply.

 

What? A theory is not evidence. Not sure what youre saying here.

 

Interesting - yet the big bang has never been observed, yet many seem content to take that theory as evidence.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

Interesting - yet the big bang has never been observed, yet many seem content to take that theory as evidence.

 

HERP DERP.

 

The Big Bang has not been observed, clearly, since it happened 13-odd billion years ago. But we can plainly see the evidence of it.

[Myweponsg00d]

Because science can't answer it, and you've already admitted multiple times.

 

CAN'T answer it? You mean...ever? Why wouldn't science be able to answer the question? I have never "admitted" that the question cannot be answered. I have said that we do not yet have the answer.

 

There are plenty of things that science does not have an answer for right now, and the only one people think "God" is an acceptable explantion for is creation. Do you use philosophy to answer other unanswered scientific questions?

 

Do you have a personal theory for the cure for AIDS? Do you have a personal theory for how we will unify the standard model of particle physics? Theres lots of unexplained questions about the physical world, and we don't just go around writing philosophy for use as an explanation.

 

I mean creative force - and a creative force by definition has some sort of intent or purpose.

 

Why did there have to be someone who intended something to happen? Do you think of other natural things, such as volcanoes erupting, having intent or purpose?

 

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. What I've been reiterating over the past few pages is scientific evidence for the reasonable existence of, at very least, some kind of creative force to whom all the laws of our universe cannot apply.

 

What? You've been reiterating evidence? You have no evidence.

Interesting - yet the big bang has never been observed, yet many seem content to take that theory as evidence.

 

There are many other sources of evidence that are not direct historical observation. Think: did we see any animals evolve? No. Also, another common example is the fact that Pluto's orbit is over 200 years in length but we haven't even known about the planet for 100 years. How do we know this? Because direct observation of an event is only one source of scientific evidence. Our evidence in support of the big bang is largely similar to our evidence for evolution; it is based on historical reconstruction.

 

Also "take that theory as evidence" doesn't make any sense. Theories are not taken as evidence. Evidence is taken as evidence and theories are constructed based on that evidence.

[sees_all1]

I wish someone would answer my logical problem with space age christianity.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802629.htm

[Myweponsg00d]

I wish someone would answer my logical problem with space age christianity.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802629.htm

 

What if the aliens are atheists?

 

 

EDIT: Come on creationists, I'm waiting to debate more flawed logic. Let's get back in this thread