Originally posted by Alfheim
Well...if I understand what you're saying...I could say that the universe is proof of God's existance but the naturalistic explanation could be the big bang for example?.......uhhhh....that does kinda sound like what you're saying above, but even if you could apply a naturlastic explanation for me that doesnt refute existance of god.
which was the point of my first post
I have no interest in refuting the existence of god or whatever. My question to you is what evidence is there that this thing exists. If the best evidence you have is that I cannot explicitly disprove its existence (which is impossible to do anyways) then I don't think you have made a very good case.
You talk about the origins of the universe. a) Well, at least you have selected a topic at the most abstract reaches of our current understanding as to make it impossible for anyone, even those learned in the subject (which I am not), to do anything but speculate, that does set a good standard. The universe only originated once, or at least once since we have been here (or here this time depending on how cyclical one thinks the universe is), there has been no chance to study it. Hiding one's beliefs in the most inaccessable of knowledge does not benefit ones argument. b) Many learned people have made models and have speculated on how the universe could have originated naturally based on evidence. While these cannot absolutly disprove the existance of God, you must explain why what we do know shows more clearly that the universe was created by something and did not originate from nothing. For instance, people have done the calculations and found that the universe originated 0 energy, there was no action potential before the existance of the universe. This is exactly what one would expect if the universe originated naturally from nothing. Again, not disproof, but why does that finding support a supernatural cause. What supernatural model are you presenting that better explains the observations.