i never said that everything needs a creator. but the laws of nature(which are forces that are so constant that no know test has been shown to falsify them) dictate there needs to be a lawgiver. you are more than welcome to believe that the universe created itself but then you must concede that there is no purpose to why life exist.
1. There doesn't need to be a lawgiver.
Your argument proving there is a God is because.... there must be one?
2. Laws of physics so constant that they break down because of heavy concentrations of the gravitational force? Some universe, God.
3. You're more than welcome to believe that God created itself but then you must concede that there is no purpose to why God exists.
he doesn't. The physical laws are only sustained by his will.
Through psychic powers, magic, and voodoo? Real scientific.
this logic you presented to me is flawed. The design aspect of the creation proves a creator.
"Design" hasn't been proven, therefore it doesn't prove a creator.
The logic you presented me is NONEXISTENT.
- Complex things exist
- ??????
- They must have been designed!
There is no middle step. You're just declaring that complex things need a designer, which is your opinion and not substantiated by any evidence and all of science thus far.
I really wish you wouldn't even mention the word logic until you know what it means. It doesn't mean statements of opinion. It means there's something connecting the opinion to the facts. You have no connective argument.
Stop attributing everything as explained through the theory of evolution. I can just as easily ask you to present provable, testable scientific evidence on how the first cell came into being without any gaps in your explanation.
No no no, you're still not getting it.
"God of the Gaps" doesn't mean science is meaningless because there are gaps in science.
"God of the Gaps" means it is fallacious to assume that because science doesn't yet have the ability to explain 100% of the universe through observable, testable theories, that does not mean they can never do so without invoking God, and it does not mean that the default position is God.
That's, again, like saying Zeus throws lightning at us when he's angry, if we don't understand how lightning works.
It's fallacious and you should know better than to invoke such nonsense in an argument. Shouldn't you?
through his spoken word in the Bible.
Demonstrate how anything about this Creator is capable of being
known. I didn't say believed on faith, I said KNOWN.
You don't
know it's "his" word. KNOWN, not opinion, not belief. Known.
You cannot seem to separate what is real from what is imaginary. You show me the Bible, I see a flawed book written by hateful, bigoted men with very very limited knowledge, containing no moral truths that an atheist three year old wouldn't instinctively understand already, filled with lies and contradictions.
I don't get the impression from reading it that I am being filled with awe because of the overwhelming genius of a perfect omniscient writer. It's nothing but a story book to me.
Until you prove otherwise, that's exactly what it is. In your opinion there's something more to it. But there's zero evidence that there is something more to it.
It's most certainly not a fact that the Bible is true. I can rattle off a list of things that are false by contradiction alone, let alone all the stuff it gets wrong science-wise and logic-wise. Basic, basic logic doesn't hold up inside the wondrous "Bible".
non can account for the ability reasoning , uniformity of nature(which science is based on), and morality (what is right and wrong). don't get me wrong everyone uses them but they can not consistently account for them in their religion or worldview especially in a materialistic way.
Nature existed before the Bible was written. Morality did too.
the mere fact that science is consistent is more than enough evidence for creation. which is not what we expect in a random chance universe.
No no no.
No.
You don't know what evidence is.
"I can turn the faucet on. That proves evolution is true."
See? No connecting logic. I'm citing something that has nothing to do with anything.
That's what you're doing.
Science is NOT consistent either, it changes and adapts, unlike religious faith.
So, admit that what you just said was total nonsense.
Science being consistent would be evidence of science being consistent. It would not be evidence of life on Mars. Nor go-go Girls from Planet Vaginalon XXIV. Nor would it prove that Santa Claus is real.
It most certainly does not provide ANY ANY ANY ANY evidence of Creation.
That's why you don't understand what evidence is. Because you don't know how evidence is supposed to relate to the theory at hand. You consider everything in the universe evidence of creation because you do not discriminate between relevant information and irrelevant information, evidence in favor or evidence against, or evidence that's totally neutral.
You state something which may or may not be factual, and with no connecting logic, state like a fact that it proves Creationism.
That's why you don't understand science. You don't get the underlying concepts. You've demonstrated such by totally missing the most fundamental aspects of science whenever you post here.
incorrect. everyone knew God at one time in history. there are ancient cultures around the world that recorded a high God .
(shangdi) I can dig up some more on native American, African, and Australians.
Incorrect, everyone did not know God at one time in history. There are ancient cultures around the world that did not record a "high" God, and many which recorded thousands of gods.
I can dig up some more on Norse mythology, Greek mythology, asian beliefs.
A monotheistic faith is a relatively recent invention of man.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Monotheism#Early_History
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Zoroastrianism
There were plenty of other religions around before then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism
And that's the "oldest LIVING religion", there were other beliefs which have now gone the way of the dinosaur, and hopefully someday, Young Earth creationism.
if your computer elevated three feet of the ground right now. you would never attribute it to be a miracle but to some unknown scientific phenomena that has yet to be explained
And you know what's amazing? Stuff like that never happens. Holy poop on a stick, doesn't that mean your argument is ineffective?
"If God proved himself to you, you'd know he was real. Therefore he is."
Imagine if all the stars in the sky spelled out for you that God wasn't real. Wouldn't that prove to you that he wasn't real?
Cleverly, stuff like that doesn't happen, rendering that argument silly.
What is it with all these non-arguments and illogical statements and other outrageous nonsense? Can't I get someone to actually argue science with me for a change, and do it well?
god can not be tested scientifically since he is beyond the creation.
Convenient. Neither can the
Great Fire-Breathing Leprechaun, I guess he must be proven fact too, because there's no evidence of him and no way to test him scientifically.
That guy is also beyond creation. But I know he's real because I've seen leprechauns before, on boxes of Lucky Charms. Therefore he's as real as Jebus.
God cannot be tested means he's not part of science. So, you can't teach creationism as science. Brilliant!
but if there is design there is a designer. DNA is a information system which must have a programmer.
"Design" hasn't been proven, therefore it doesn't prove a creator.
DNA is a information system which must have a programmer.
You do realize DNA "programs"
itself, right? There's no dude typing at a computer?
You know how it does that?
Through the evil mutations you're convinced will destroy us all.
Therefore, you're either convinced God is trying to destroy us all with degrading DNA, making him a genocidal freak (evidence of other genocidal behavior can be found in the Bible, for those who believe....

) or, he's not a very good designer, or.... or.....
Maybe the mutations are natural and allow progress to happen, and don't require a programmer.
Amazing!
See, you haven't discounted that possibility by stating "The universe is designed!" (not a fact) "Therefore, it must have a designer!" (not a fact).
You ever see the Grand Canyon? Sometimes there are rocks sitting on top of really thin structures, and it looks like a God put them there. You know how they got there?
They were already there. Wind carved out the rest of it, naturally, without any interference by an outside force.
If you knew nothing about it you'd say "SEE, PROOF OF GOD RIGHT THERE!!! Only a giant, powerful being could do that!!!" but in reality, the air can do it. Caused by heat from the sun, which allows for temperature changes in the air, which causes it to move because of differences in pressure and density.
No painter needed to paint the landscape. No programmer needed for DNA to evolve. The leprechaun on the lucky charms box doesn't exist.
Stating that he does exist because the universe looks designed to you, is an opinion, and it lacks connecting logic, and is not even remotely close to proven, or fact, or science at all.
You're entitled to have beliefs, but this is a scientific debate, which requires evidence and logic, and you haven't demonstrated any connection between any evidence you've presented and the conclusions you've drawn. There is zero connecting logic.
That.... is why you fail.
You don't believe you have to use logic and reason, you think you can just state your opinion as fact. That doesn't work in a scientific discussion. That is why you fail.