Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Now we are getting somewhere. You have finally admitted to having blind faith in something/someone. What? It is not blind faith? Sure it is. Again, did you conduct the research that your faith is founded upon? Were you there looking over the shoulder of these astronomers as they supposedly formulated their logic-based, scientific explanations? No? Well, then without further ado pal--it is blind faith.And stop picking on my poor wittle (I meant to write that) metaphors. (I hope you realize that I am just trying to add some levity and fun to this discussion).
I have faith on their method of inquiry, the scientific method. That faith is justified by the fact that scientific explanations from the said methodology was peer-tested and proven to be correct and accurate upon application, time and time again, in the field of medicine, field of electronics etc. which i encounter first hand. If it works for them, then its safe to assume that it also works for the field of astronomy. Given its high rate of success and my own experiences first hand, faith in the scientific method is NOT an example of blind faith.
Faith in stupid religious explanations like god created the rainbow using his spoken words, that has zero explanatory power however does.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Enlighten me.I never said that it did constitute proof did I? I believe I stated that this universe and earth with their advanced degree of complication and endless lists of favorable coincidences (as far as supporting life is concerned) was the evidence pointing to a very, very (say "very" Tempy, I'll wait...Okay, good job) intelligent, powerful (in terms of ability and energy) Person (we call Him God).
Uh...Tem-py...this is a very poor illustration, but I understand your point. Would you like to know why your example is a bad one? You have not given any cogent evidence for Mr. Clause's existence as I have with regard to God.
I already addressed this (see above answer under Santa Clause).
I don't know why you place science and God in discrete, compartments. Science is one of God's greatest proponents and preachers. Science has done more to testify of God's existence (and I don't believe that this was an accident or coincidence) than atheists realize. The more they (the illuminati and intelligentsia) study this world the more they discover just how planned, precise, predictable, measurable, calculable, and designed this universe is.
So now your using for the Argument of Universal Design for God's existence. Lets break this down:
The necessity of having an Intelligent Designer to "design the universe" does not constitute as PROOF for the existence of the one claiming to be the Intelligent Designer. You still have to provide outside and reliable proof for its existence.
Applying the Argument of of Universal Design for God's Existence.
I: the universe appears to be designed or fine-tuned
J: the universe needs a designer
K: God is the designer of the universe
Therefore, God exists
The problem here is K because by claiming that God is the designer of the universe, it assumes that God already EXISTS. But thats what we are trying to prove with the Argument of Universal Design for God's Existence. We are getting ahead of our conclusion. The inclusion of K shows that the Argument of Universal Design for God's Existence is an example of a circular argument, invalidating the conclusion. Take away K however and the argument falls flat. Prove first by reliable means outside of the framed argument that God exists before using him as proof. Heck if God was proven to exist outside of the framed argument, we wont even be NEEDING the Argument of Universal Design on the FIRST PLACE.
Both I and J themselves are also problem points. To claim that the universe was designed or requires a designer, it must first be established that it was manufactured or designed. This is where the problem lies. It must FIRST be demonstrated that the Intelligent Designer exists, and then - and only then - can it be asserted with confidence that the universe is INDEED manufactured or the product of a designer. Yet another circular argument, when will it stop?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, the Bible is reliable because it is historically, prophetically, and scientifically sound--not to mention given by inspiration of God. Again, I accept this by faith just like you except the untested research of your heroes the astronomers and astrophysicists (did I spell that right?).
This is blind faith at work. Your average comic book is more scientifically sound than the Bible. Somebody should have told the author of Numbers that bats and whales are mammals. The Bible and the Greek Iliad have the same level of historical accuracy. Plenty of names and places are rooted in real history but the events described are mixed with a heavy dose of fiction. Its difficult to seperate the fact from the fiction. Prophetically, do i have to post again the list of messianic prophecies that Jesus FAILED?
And honestly, what makes the Christian Bible superior than other divinely inspired books out there like the Koran and the Vedas? They cant be all right especially since the Koran, i believe, declares that the Bible has been tampered with.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I already addressed this (see above answer under Santa Clause).(Didn't I already answer this?) You have it all wrong. The evidence (the natural world) corroborates what the Scriptures proclaim. This is not a circular argument. You seek evidence and it is right in front of all five of your senses. It is the proof that you request. This world shouts that God exists from the top of the highest mountain and yet you can't hear it. We live in a universe that functions better than any machine that has ever been invented. Stop and think about it: when was the last time the earth has had a tune up? It has never had its spark plugs changed, oil changed, filter replaced, tires changed, timing belts installed, a new transmission, and yet it just keeps on rotating and supporting life. Sounds to me like it must have a Designer Who knows what He is doing. That is a better track track record than any manufacturer. The earth has no warranty and yet it just keeps on doing what it was created to do: sustain life.
No, it's not speculation--it's faith based on the Word of God, and corroborated by a material world that has one too many coincidences in favor of design. Uh...I don't recall stating that I doubted that a big bang explosion has occurred, did I? That is not the issue here. The crux is whether or not this material world is evidence for God's existence.
You are recycling information from the last post. I already explained that the big bang must (imperative necessity) have had a stimulus. How is the,
"alternative of assigning a supernatural god as the First Cause is a huge leap of logic and is an unecessary complication."?
If anything it is more plausible than any other explanation that you could propose because of the sheer magnitude of intellect, wisdom, and power (especially over matter) that is required to produce such an awesome system geared solely to support life on one planet (that we know of).
As demonstrated above, the Argument of Universal Design has MORE logical flaws than the Argument of First Cause. The Bible is still an unreliable book to based your truths on because its based on blind faith. From our current understanding of the Big Bang, the state of "nothingness" that precedes it doesnt have a cause/ or stimulus for the same reason that an imaginary supernatural god wouldnt need one. They are both beyond the concept of time hence there is no "time before" for their supposed cause to exist. Time started with the Big bang. Any arbitrary and unfounded claims that would make a supernatural god as the cause of the Big Bang would also work for this state of "nothingness"