Creation and God

So if I can take a stab at your central premise here, I might summarize it as: "Does science point to the existence of a God?" Am I in range?

The answer is no. No evidence, no evidence, no evidence. Bible? Baseless ignorance from scientifically illiterate cultures (plural). Your intuitive beliefs or thoughts? Backed by nothing, and no more plausible than the next guy's theory. The universe? Pretty solidly supported by empirical research and plausible explanations for not just life on earth, but existence in the universe as well. So you're looking at God of the Gaps at best, and the subversion of logic and reason at worst.

It's possible vs. plausible. We can't discredit the former on intellectual rigor, but saying your ideas are plausible is laughable.

Your arguments sound half-formed. Your Big Bang stuff? Sounds like a poor man's version of the cosmological argument (which itself is long since debunked). The optic nerve stuff? Sounds like the beginnings of an old creationist trope. But you don't even match the stereotypical arguments in terms of depth, let alone add anything to them.

Now...convince me you're not playing madlibs and we can chat. If not, best of luck with your theory.

Originally posted by Digi
So if I can take a stab at your central premise here, I might summarize it as: "Does science point to the existence of a God?" Am I in range?

The answer is no. No evidence, no evidence, no evidence. Bible? Baseless ignorance from scientifically illiterate cultures (plural). Your intuitive beliefs or thoughts? Backed by nothing, and no more plausible than the next guy's theory. The universe? Pretty solidly supported by empirical research and plausible explanations for not just life on earth, but existence in the universe as well. So you're looking at God of the Gaps at best, and the subversion of logic and reason at worst.

It's possible vs. plausible. We can't discredit the former on intellectual rigor, but saying your ideas are plausible is laughable.

Your arguments sound half-formed. Your Big Bang stuff? Sounds like a poor man's version of the cosmological argument (which itself is long since debunked). The optic nerve stuff? Sounds like the beginnings of an old creationist trope. But you don't even match the stereotypical arguments in terms of depth, let alone add anything to them.

Now...convince me you're not playing madlibs and we can chat. If not, best of luck with your theory.

👆

I am in no way advocating religious fanaticism, but there are many things science doesn't know. The universe is still very much a mystery and the Big Bang is still a theory.

Despite lack of evidence, the possibility of an unknown entity, existing beyond the realm of our knowledge and physics, is plausible to consider.

I believe there is evidence out there, we just haven't uncovered it yet.

Originally posted by Digi
So if I can take a stab at your central premise here, I might summarize it as: "Does science point to the existence of a God?" Am I in range?

The answer is no. No evidence, no evidence, no evidence. Bible? Baseless ignorance from scientifically illiterate cultures (plural). Your intuitive beliefs or thoughts? Backed by nothing, and no more plausible than the next guy's theory. The universe? Pretty solidly supported by empirical research and plausible explanations for not just life on earth, but existence in the universe as well. So you're looking at God of the Gaps at best, and the subversion of logic and reason at worst.

It's possible vs. plausible. We can't discredit the former on intellectual rigor, but saying your ideas are plausible is laughable.

Your arguments sound half-formed. Your Big Bang stuff? Sounds like a poor man's version of the cosmological argument (which itself is long since debunked). The optic nerve stuff? Sounds like the beginnings of an old creationist trope. But you don't even match the stereotypical arguments in terms of depth, let alone add anything to them.

Now...convince me you're not playing madlibs and we can chat. If not, best of luck with your theory.

Since when is it a crime to post thoughts here and them be different then someone else's and talk to others about their beliefs? If its not a crime or a rule violation. I will continue to do so.

Originally posted by Firefly218
👆

I am in no way advocating religious fanaticism, but there are many things science doesn't know. The universe is still very much a mystery and the Big Bang is still a theory.

Despite lack of evidence, the possibility of an unknown entity, existing beyond the realm of our knowledge and physics, is plausible to consider.

I believe there is evidence out there, we just haven't uncovered it yet.

If we cannot convincingly prove we are from the Big Bang from science and science cannot prove God.

Why can't the Big Bang be from God? It is a plausible theory in my opinion.

Originally posted by Supra
It is a plausible theory in my opinion.

A theory without evidence. Once again, its not impossible that you're right.

Originally posted by Supra
Since when is it a crime to post thoughts here and them be different then someone else's and talk to others about their beliefs? If its not a crime or a rule violation. I will continue to do so.

Did I say it was a crime? Address my points if you want to engage me, don't imagine slights that don't exist. I think your ideas lack substance, for reasons stated. I'm happy to be dissuaded, but forced indignation won't do it.

Originally posted by Digi
So if I can take a stab at your central premise here, I might summarize it as: "Does science point to the existence of a God?" Am I in range?

The answer is no. No evidence, no evidence, no evidence.

I disagree. I think science points towards a Supreme Being. I think at every turn, the universe screams a Supreme Being as an architect.

🙂

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. I think science points towards a Supreme Being. I think at every turn, the universe screams a Supreme Being as an architect.

🙂

It also screams unicorns dancing in the spring time. Just look around you for the evidence!

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. I think science points towards a Supreme Being. I think at every turn, the universe screams a Supreme Being as an architect.

What you're talking about still isn't evidence. It's a (supposed) implication. Two different things entirely. Because I think at every turn, it screams no grand architect. But if that's my argument, we're both working with the same subjective bias and lack of evidence, so then we go to things like burden of proof, which still leaves the theistic argument out in the cold.

It's ok if you think this. I can't disprove it, per se, and your personal belief structure is more rational than many. Just know where it stands and how it lacks explanatory power.

I also wasn't addressing you in my earlier posts. Supra doesn't have a grasp on the scientific principles he's trying to invoke to prove his God. Or if he does, he's terrible at showing it. So my arguments were catered to his OP. They remain true in any context, imo, but again, you're welcome to present the evidence that would turn a belief in God from possible to plausible in the minds of the skeptical.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree. I think science points towards a Supreme Being. I think at every turn, the universe screams a Supreme Being as an architect.

🙂

Funny how all comics point to a Supreme Being as well, all the comics have Yahweh and TOAA as well.

Originally posted by Supra
Funny how all comics point to a Supreme Being as well, all the comics have Yahweh and TOAA as well.

Well, that really doesn't say much. Just that the concept of a supreme being is fun to write about. Until someone comes up with the supreme supreme being.

Originally posted by Supra
Funny how all comics point to a Supreme Being as well, all the comics have Yahweh and TOAA as well.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
👆

You have hit the nail squarely on the head.

😄

Originally posted by Digi
What you're talking about still isn't evidence. It's a (supposed) implication. Two different things entirely. Because I think at every turn, it screams no grand architect. But if that's my argument, we're both working with the same subjective bias and lack of evidence, so then we go to things like burden of proof, which still leaves the theistic argument out in the cold.

It's ok if you think this. I can't disprove it, per se, and your personal belief structure is more rational than many. Just know where it stands and how it lacks explanatory power.

I also wasn't addressing you in my earlier posts. Supra doesn't have a grasp on the scientific principles he's trying to invoke to prove his God. Or if he does, he's terrible at showing it. So my arguments were catered to his OP. They remain true in any context, imo, but again, you're welcome to present the evidence that would turn a belief in God from possible to plausible in the minds of the skeptical.

My point on the optic nerves and the brain and how we see things is so complex I don't see nature on its own making that possible

The human brain is so entirely complex I can't give credit to nature for that.

Originally posted by Supra
My point on the optic nerves and the brain and how we see things is so complex I don't see nature on its own making that possible

The human brain is so entirely complex I can't give credit to nature for that.

This would be true if only humans had eyes, but we can look at all the animals with eyes and see have they developed naturally.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This would be true if only humans had eyes, but we can look at all the animals with eyes and see have they developed naturally.

Humans don't have eyes? 😂

Originally posted by Supra
Humans don't have eyes? 😂

😛 If humans were the only animal to have eyes.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
😛 If humans were the only animal to have eyes.

I mean all of creation that has eyes🙂 Sight is a miracle. To be blind, I could not bare it. Jesus went around healing the blind giving back what had been taken away.

How else could sight have been created if not from a being that has sight?

Originally posted by Supra
My point on the optic nerves and the brain and how we see things is so complex I don't see nature on its own making that possible

The human brain is so entirely complex I can't give credit to nature for that.

We have a lot of evidence and differently far developed eyes in nature (some only really seeing light "on and off" and others much further developed than ours) to pretty much know how eyes evolve.

YouTube video

Like this young version of odd, atheist Dawkins shows...

Dude, that guys a kook, cmon now.

I demand to see the missing link in evolution.