Arguments for the existance of God that don't fall into the "God of the Gaps."

[leibowde84]

exactly my original point then, which was just that ultimately our own personal experience is the most important in forming our beliefs- the most convincing evidence of anything we can ever have.

Our own personal experiences can be extremely misleading. Just ask any psychiatrist.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Our own personal experiences can be extremely misleading. Just ask any psychiatrist.

They are very clever people, my wife's psychiatrist remotely diagnosed me as being the cause of every marital argument for 20 years, quite brilliant!

 

[leibowde84]

They are very clever people, my wife's psychiatrist remotely diagnosed me as being the cause of every marital argument for 20 years, quite brilliant!

So, your experience with a single psychiatrist shapes your opinion of all psychiatrists. Now that is putting too much reliance on subjective experience!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So, your experience with a single psychiatrist shapes your opinion of all psychiatrists. Now that is putting too much reliance on subjective experience!

you may be right, I should get a 2nd opinion- I calculated that the odds of a menstrual cycle, perfectly coinciding with every argument over this time, to be less than one in a googol squared.

 

[leibowde84]

you may be right, I should get a 2nd opinion- I calculated that the odds of a menstrual cycle, perfectly coinciding with every argument over this time, to be less than one in a googol squared.

I'll take that as a win. Way to stay classy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1. Again, I know what the Bible claims Jesus taught. But, my issue is that it doesn't make sense or play out in the real world. In situations where a child has no opportunity to embrace or even really learn about Jesus or Christianity, how will they be regarded? In other words, there are certainly people who "find God" but do not believe that Jesus was devine. How can you explain this.

2. Writings from Jesus; Historical accounts of Jesus' actions written by unbiased (non-Christian) sources that match up with the accounts of the Gospels; Evidence as to who actually wrote each Gospel and why they felt that they were able to do so; Roman accounts that match the Gospels written by non-Christian sources; etc. Keep in mind that I am a believer in much of what the Gospels claim. But, my belief and the strength of my beliefs in no way contradict the FACT that the Gospels might be inaccurate or fabricated in a large degree.

3. The fact that "most people say that God is self-evident" can easily be explained through psychology. We feel comfort in things like life after death, an approachable God, a God that loves us as his creation, etc. We are wired to believe in God, but because of reason and logic developments, we are unable to accept this as fact.

4. The passage you are referring to in Luke is a far stretch from claiming to get first hand accounts from eyewitnesses. Here is the passage which merely claims that the stories they have heard passed orally surely came from eyewitnesses AT SOME POINT. That says absolutely nothing about a claim that the author of Luke spoke directly to eye-witnesses.

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; (‭Luke‬ ‭1‬:‭1-2‬ KJV)

1. Both testaments say those who trust God will be saved. It is not a necessity to trust Jesus to be saved, for example, Jesus died and their were very devout persons worldwide who didn't hear the gospel for years. This is called "inclusivism" by those who ascribe it power. "Exclusivism" is the view you are propounding here. Further, I've heard many testimonies about Jesus revealing himself to persons in very far-flung places, so that even exclusivists know that Jesus is saving people today.

2. Why are you "seeking" Roman accounts that match the NT when they exist? The three greatest Roman historians of the 1st century acknowledged that there was a Jewish sect promulgating the resurrection of the Christ. The Bible was written by people in situ, the Romans did not have the theology/Judaism/tools to write anything to match it. Also, you cannot logically (or legally in a court of law, as if you're contesting a will or testimony--which the NT claims itself to be) say the gospels are falsified unless you can provide evidence of such falsification. On the contrary, we both know we can look at extensive source texts and fragments to show little or no alterations to the texts--ever.

3. I'm not saying skeptics are unable to explain away God in our consciences. I'm saying that when you come right down to it, what we call reality can ultimately only be "proven" to exist with our first source acknowledgment, cogito, ergo sum, as laid down by uber-brilliant Christian thinker, Rene Descartes. Don't be so quick, please, to dismiss God in our minds, for this is where we live.

4. You are skirting the following, although not intentionally, I'm sure. 1) Luke also says he was incredibly careful to compile precise, orderly accounts. 2) The NT itself says that biblical prophecy fulfilled is far more reliable than even eyewitness accounts (1 Peter 1) and I personally agree. However, you brought this subject forward by stating in this thread how the scriptures are insufficient to prove God's existence and purpose. Not only is that statement contrary to the entire Christian rubric of the gospel since Jesus came to Earth, it's dismissive of the fact that prophecy fulfilled makes the Bible MORE reliable than sensate experience, self-awareness, outside agency and experience, etc. We all know that the translation of the OT to Greek circa 250 BCE is undisputed among all scholars, liberal or conservative. We KNOW the OT in the form in which we have it was all there, waiting for prophecy fulfillment.

Thanks.

 

[leibowde84]

1. Both testaments say those who trust God will be saved. It is not a necessity to trust Jesus to be saved, for example, Jesus died and their were very devout persons worldwide who didn't hear the gospel for years. This is called "inclusivism" by those who ascribe it power. "Exclusivism" is the view you are propounding here. Further, I've heard many testimonies about Jesus revealing himself to persons in very far-flung places, so that even exclusivists know that Jesus is saving people today.

2. Why are you "seeking" Roman accounts that match the NT when they exist? The three greatest Roman historians of the 1st century acknowledged that there was a Jewish sect promulgating the resurrection of the Christ. The Bible was written by people in situ, the Romans did not have the theology/Judaism/tools to write anything to match it. Also, you cannot logically (or legally in a court of law, as if you're contesting a will or testimony--which the NT claims itself to be) say the gospels are falsified unless you can provide evidence of such falsification. On the contrary, we both know we can look at extensive source texts and fragments to show little or no alterations to the texts--ever.

3. I'm not saying skeptics are unable to explain away God in our consciences. I'm saying that when you come right down to it, what we call reality can ultimately only be "proven" to exist with our first source acknowledgment, cogito, ergo sum, as laid down by uber-brilliant Christian thinker, Rene Descartes. Don't be so quick, please, to dismiss God in our minds, for this is where we live.

4. You are skirting the following, although not intentionally, I'm sure. 1) Luke also says he was incredibly careful to compile precise, orderly accounts. 2) The NT itself says that biblical prophecy fulfilled is far more reliable than even eyewitness accounts (1 Peter 1) and I personally agree. However, you brought this subject forward by stating in this thread how the scriptures are insufficient to prove God's existence and purpose. Not only is that statement contrary to the entire Christian rubric of the gospel since Jesus came to Earth, it's dismissive of the fact that prophecy fulfilled makes the Bible MORE reliable than sensate experience, self-awareness, outside agency and experience, etc. We all know that the translation of the OT to Greek circa 250 BCE is undisputed among all scholars, liberal or conservative. We KNOW the OT in the form in which we have it was all there, waiting for prophecy fulfillment.

Thanks.

Just to discuss your first point, isn't unfair unless Jesus reveals himself to EVERY PERSON in these "far-flung" places? If Jesus is the only way to salvation, what about those who have no experience with Christianity and Jesus never reveals himself. My point is that it seems like an unrealistic/cruel expectation to require belief in Jesus or the Christian God.

 

[Blastcat]

unless you consider what those things are based on; observation, logical deduction, probability, predictive ability- but it is ultimately personal, acknowledging personal faith in our beliefs is important for atheists and theists alike

Ok.. always willing to consider. But.. can I ask for an example of any of this? Because I don't happen to see any logical deduction that arrives clearly to the conclusion that a god exists that doesn't rely on premises I can't accept.

Can you provide me one?

Now.. probability.. yes.. can you explain how you arrive at a high probability that a god does exist? I haven't seen any of that, either. not being snarky.. Really, that's why I'm an atheist, you know....

Predictive ability.. yowsers.. new one for me. Are you talking about prophecy? But again, some example might be nice.

And you throw all of that apparently wonderful evidence, and tell us that your evidence is ultimately just a personal opinion?

Having a bit of trouble following you.. but if you can clarify with some examples, I'd love to consider it all.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Just to discuss your first point, isn't unfair unless Jesus reveals himself to EVERY PERSON in these "far-flung" places? If Jesus is the only way to salvation, what about those who have no experience with Christianity and Jesus never reveals himself. My point is that it seems like an unrealistic/cruel expectation to require belief in Jesus or the Christian God.

Please read my posts more carefully. Most Christians I know are inclusivists and allow for people to trust God unto salvation without having Jesus appear to them or reveal Himself to them in His person.

However, what would be "unrealistic" would be to assume there are communities of people in the known world/history who were atheist as an entire group. There may be people on a desert island who never heard of Jesus, but islanders tend to believe in god(s).

 

[leibowde84]

Please read my posts more carefully. Most Christians I know are inclusivists and allow for people to trust God unto salvation without having Jesus appear to them or reveal Himself to them in His person.

However, what would be "unrealistic" would be to assume there are communities of people in the known world/history who were atheist as an entire group. There may be people on a desert island who never heard of Jesus, but islanders tend to believe in god(s).

You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that they wouldn't know a god or many gods, they would just have no connection with the christian god or christian doctrine. Just think about all of the children brought up in the Middle East to hate Christianity and Judaism? Are they still expected to embrace Christianity? What about aboriginal communities? Are they destined for failure simply because they will never "know" the Christian God or anything like it?

That is what I am arguing.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ok.. always willing to consider. But.. can I ask for an example of any of this? Because I don't happen to see any logical deduction that arrives clearly to the conclusion that a god exists that doesn't rely on premises I can't accept.

Can you provide me one?

Now.. probability.. yes.. can you explain how you arrive at a high probability that a god does exist? I haven't seen any of that, either. not being snarky.. Really, that's why I'm an atheist, you know....

The probability of somebody cheating at Poker in a casino is low, but if they produce 10 royal flushes in a row, the probability of chance is way lower.
So too for the universe, if you could calculate the probability of God's existence being a billion to one, this would still be far more likely than the odds of a fluke- which are practically infinitely low, according to the number of multiverses proposed to overcome the odds.


i.e. we have no direct empirical evidence for any explanation do we? All we can do is consider which is least improbable.

Predictive ability.. yowsers.. new one for me. Are you talking about prophecy? But again, some example might be nice.

OK one rather large example involving the greatest question in the history of science, was the universe static/eternal or did it begin in a specific creation event?

Atheists overwhelmingly preferred and predicted the former (no creation= no creator) 'Big Bang' was the term originally used to mock the priest Lemaitre's 'primeval atom' for what they complained of as the overt religious implications of a specific creation event .'pseudoscience' Hoyle called it

which prediction was correct?

And you throw all of that apparently wonderful evidence, and tell us that your evidence is ultimately just a personal opinion?

Having a bit of trouble following you.. but if you can clarify with some examples, I'd love to consider it all.

Thanks.

Yes, acknowledging faith is acknowledging we can't prove our beliefs, theist or atheist- however well founded. Otherwise we claim inherent intellectual superiority- justifying forcing our 'superior' beliefs down other's 'inferior' throats- as atheists like Stalin, Mao, Il Sung tried to do.

Of course this can happen with theists also in certain circumstances, and this is where the problems start here also- is it not?

 

[McBell]

The probability of somebody cheating at Poker in a casino is low, but if they produce 10 royal flushes in a row, the probability of chance is way lower.
So too for the universe, if you could calculate the probability of God's existence being a billion to one, this would still be far more likely than the odds of a fluke- which are practically infinitely low, according to the number of multiverses proposed to overcome the odds.

Now all we need is for someone to show the math...

 

[Blastcat]

The probability of somebody cheating at Poker in a casino is low, but if they produce 10 royal flushes in a row, the probability of chance is way lower.

I don't agree with your peculiar take on gambling probabilities. Most gambling houses win huge profits precisely due to how people establish probabilities so poorly. We establish CORRECT probabilities based on math. When you get a royal flush the probability is very low compared to all the other hands possible. But this probability does NOT change when a new hand is produced.

Every single time we get dealt a new hand we get precisely THE SAME probability of a royal flush. And that probability is NOT influenced AT all by what hand happened BEFORE or AFTER. You have a "common sense" approach to gambling. And that is PRECISELY how the gambling houses make their money. If everyone was good at stats, the houses would NOT be able to offer high rollers free drinks OR keep their doors open very long. They happen to KNOW that you are likely to gamble more money if you have a very high winning streak.

The house may lose on an INDIVIDUAL hand or on a particular number of hands, but taken as a WHOLE, they always win. Look at Vegas.. Very PROSPEROUS town, Vegas.

So too for the universe, if you could calculate the probability of God's existence being a billion to one, this would still be far more likely than the odds of a fluke- which are practically infinitely low, according to the number of multiverses proposed to overcome the odds.

So, your bad method of establishing gambling odds apply to the universe, ok.. let's take a peek. ( I'm not an expert statistician, so, I'll have to give you the benefit of the doubt. )

A billion to one FOR the probability of God's existence. I wonder why you consider it so high?... Ok, well, let's just play your hand.

So, something we have NO evidence for at all in any way.. has a higher probability than things that happen very often. Hmmmm interesting premise. We KNOW that chance events happen with HUGE frequency, but we are told to .. put an extremely LOW probability on these actually happening. Hmmm

Can you explain that?

i.e. we have no direct empirical evidence for any explanation do we? All we can do is consider which is least improbable.

You might be confusing not being able to make a probability to establishing a low probability.
If we have NO empirical evidence then we simply CANNOT make ANY probability claim.

IF we can GET some empirical evidence for or against a probability, then we can start. But to imagine that simply because we don't KNOW something that it is also IMPROBABLY TRUE.. that would be a fallacy. If you don't know ANYTHING at all about something, then your ACTUAL probability is 50%. That's the NEUTRAL position. Not ZERO.

Now, in the case of the UNIVERSE, we KNOW for a fact, that everything IN IT that can be observed empirically HAS a natural physical material cause. So the PRIOR probability is very HIGH that whatever else we discover about it will ALSO be physical and material and so on...

So at LEAST 50% FOR material causation and NOTHING AT ALL YET for some supernatural causation. That's 50 to nuthin' buddy. I know where I'm going to place my bet.

What we seem to be disagreeing on here is how you have established your priors. But continue. I'm confident that you will explain that bit.

OK one rather large example involving the greatest question in the history of science, was the universe static/eternal or did it begin in a specific creation event?

Ok, I love examples.. We have a great question. Got it.

Well, most scientists agree on the Big Bang Theory... this isn't such a big scientific "question" right now.

Atheists overwhelmingly preferred and predicted the former (no creation= no creator) 'Big Bang' was the term originally used to mock the priest Lemaitre's 'primeval atom' for what they complained of as the overt religious implications of a specific creation event .'pseudoscience' Hoyle called it

Hoyle was a theist. But. ok, let's say that most atheists held to the static nature of the universe. When they were shown otherwise, they mostly all changed their mind.

which prediction was correct?

IT doesn't matter really if someone is right by using the wrong methods. The creationists were wrong. They believe that god magic created the universe, the Big Bang was never part of the model. They mistakenly thought it fit. Lemaitre obviously didn't agree.

The big bang explains a bit about HOW the universe started. but says absolutely NOTHING about "who".. as if.
Now who is talking about chance ?
When you use faith as a method to make a prediction about the nature of reality, such as a roll of the dice or anything at all, your probability of being correct is NO MORE THAN MERE CHANCE.

So, yeah, they rolled a seven, they got a royal flush, but we can expect some wins in a gamble. But in the gambling house of REALITY. the house always wins. Science is the best method to establish what may BE the correct interpretaion of reality.

Faith is found in some old book .. so, let's HOPE that reality matches that book.. and now , you think you have a HIT.. the bells chime, the lights go off.. the coins drop and everyone keeps gambling.. and losing.. because the method that they use is false.

The house uses CORRECT statistical analyses and WINS.. more often than not.

Yes, acknowledging faith is acknowledging we can't prove our beliefs

Ouch!!

So stats and probabilities are OUT the door when establishing the truth of your beliefs.
I wonder why you even bothered to bring them up.
Could have saved us a lot of time.
I guess you don't have to bother now figuring out all of your probabilities.
And don't go to Vegas.. you're more likely to LOSE than to win..

You see, Vegas is ALL ABOUT figuring out precise probabilities.. they will eat anyone up who doesn't.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The simple truth found at Hebrews 3:4; "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."
Of course, no reasonable person denies that a house has a builder. Yet many deny that DNA, far more complex and functional than anything man could build, is dismissed as the product of random events. And DNA is only one part of a world filled with engineering marvels. The effects (creation) prove the Cause (the true God), to me and to millions of others.
Science has no answer for how life arose, but the Bible does. (Genesis 1:1)

How about this - my explanation is a magical, lucky horseshoe that has existed for all of eternity. From it stemmed all material of the universe which was formed and attracted to it from out of nothing due to its immensely dense concentrations of "pure luck". And then, some billions of years beyond its initial attractions/generation of matter its luck finally matured into an even more powerful force - "dumb luck", and by this, life arose from the waters of some of the rocks orbiting fireballs that had come about due to all the matter introduced into the universe.

I ask you - if I were to write this down - maybe carve it out into stone, how is this delusion any different than ANY OTHER CREATION STORY EVER TOLD?

 

[Blastcat]

How about this - my explanation is a magical, lucky horseshoe that has existed for all of eternity. From it stemmed all material of the universe which was formed and attracted to it from out of nothing due to its immensely dense concentrations of "pure luck". And then, some billions of years beyond its initial attractions/generation of matter its luck finally matured into an even more powerful force - "dumb luck", and by this, life arose from the waters of some of the rocks orbiting fireballs that had come about due to all the matter introduced into the universe.

I ask you - if I were to write this down - maybe carve it out into stone, how is this delusion any different than ANY OTHER CREATION STORY EVER TOLD?

The REAL theological question here and the ONLY real question possible is "Was the horseshoe UP or was it pointing DOWN.. because we all know about the evil downward pointing demonic horseshoes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't agree with your peculiar take on gambling probabilities. Most gambling houses win huge profits precisely due to how people establish probabilities so poorly. We establish CORRECT probabilities based on math. When you get a royal flush the probability is very low compared to all the other hands possible. But this probability does NOT change when a new hand is produced.
Every single time we get dealt a new hand we get precisely THE SAME probability of a royal flush. And that probability is NOT influenced AT all by what hand happened BEFORE or AFTER. You have a "common sense" approach to gambling. And that is PRECISELY how the gambling houses make their money. If everyone was good at stats, the houses would NOT be able to offer high rollers free drinks OR keep their doors open very long. They happen to KNOW that you are likely to gamble more money if you have a very high winning streak.
The house may lose on an INDIVIDUAL hand or on a particular number of hands, but taken as a WHOLE, they always win. Look at Vegas.. Very PROSPEROUS town, Vegas.

I think we agree on the probabilities of 10 royal flushes, astronomically low, yet the probability of the 10th royal flush being dealt is no less than the first right?

and in fact any particular combination of the same total number of cards has the exact same low probability of occurring yes?

So if you work in the fraud dept- do you quote your logic to your boss, as rationale for letting the guy leave with all the house's money? i.e. the reason we suspect cheating is not the low probability, it's the significance of the outcome which tells us cheating is more probable

So, something we have NO evidence for at all in any way..

are you referring to steady state, static universes, M theory, multiverses or Big Crunch?

As we began, we have no empirical evidence for either, no default explanation, both must compete on their own merits. The only theory in cosmogony that was ever verified, was the one rejected and mocked by atheists as 'big bang' explicitly for the overt theistic implications of a specific creation event.

The fundamental prediction of a creation event was validated- of course this is not ultimate proof of God, just a little predictive ability- credit where it's due

Had the universe turned out to be as atheist predicted= static/eternal/uncreated- then I'd accept the implications of that (no creation = no creator) I am willing to accept the opposite implication also- the one of observed reality.

The larger point being that the biggest scientific discovery of all time was a battle between science and atheism

Atheist theories were forced to work around scientific observation- first to steady state, then to Big Crunch, all debunked where testable. The remaining theories then moved inherently beyond the inconvenience of scientific scrutiny- multiverses, M theory etc- atheism of the gaps?

Now, in the case of the UNIVERSE, we KNOW for a fact, that everything IN IT that can be observed empirically HAS a natural physical material cause. So the PRIOR probability is very HIGH that whatever else we discover about it will ALSO be physical and material and so on...

Now, in the case of this WEBSITE SOFTWARE, we KNOW for a fact, that everything IN IT that can be observed empirically HAS an automated function which can operate without any creative intelligence. So the PRIOR probability is very HIGH that whatever else we discover about it will ALSO be automated- i.e. the software presumably wrote itself...

doesn't work does it?

The same fallacy applies to the universe. Claiming the laws of nature are ultimately fully accounted for by those very same laws... is not simply an unfounded assumption, it's a paradox unique to atheism

 

[McBell]

I think we agree on the probabilities of 10 royal flushes, astronomically low, yet the probability of the 10th royal flush being dealt is no less than the first right?

and in fact any particular combination of the same total number of cards has the exact same low probability of occurring yes?

So if you work in the fraud dept- do you quote your logic to your boss, as rationale for letting the guy leave with all the house's money? i.e. the reason we suspect cheating is not the low probability, it's the significance of the outcome which tells us cheating is more probable

are you referring to steady state, static universes, M theory, multiverses or Big Crunch?

As we began, we have no empirical evidence for either, no default explanation, both must compete on their own merits. The only theory in cosmogony that was ever verified, was the one rejected and mocked by atheists as 'big bang' explicitly for the overt theistic implications of a specific creation event.

The fundamental prediction of a creation event was validated- of course this is not ultimate proof of God, just a little predictive ability- credit where it's due

Had the universe turned out to be as atheist predicted= static/eternal/uncreated- then I'd accept the implications of that (no creation = no creator) I am willing to accept the opposite implication also- the one of observed reality.

The larger point being that the biggest scientific discovery of all time was a battle between science and atheism

Atheist theories were forced to work around scientific observation- first to steady state, then to Big Crunch, all debunked where testable. The remaining theories then moved inherently beyond the inconvenience of scientific scrutiny- multiverses, M theory etc- atheism of the gaps?

Now, in the case of this WEBSITE SOFTWARE, we KNOW for a fact, that everything IN IT that can be observed empirically HAS an automated function which can operate without any creative intelligence. So the PRIOR probability is very HIGH that whatever else we discover about it will ALSO be automated- i.e. the software presumably wrote itself...

doesn't work does it?

The same fallacy applies to the universe. Claiming the laws of nature are ultimately fully accounted for by those very same laws... is not simply an unfounded assumption, it's a paradox unique to atheism

STILL waiting for you to show the math...

 

[rusra02]

How about this - my explanation is a magical, lucky horseshoe that has existed for all of eternity. From it stemmed all material of the universe which was formed and attracted to it from out of nothing due to its immensely dense concentrations of "pure luck". And then, some billions of years beyond its initial attractions/generation of matter its luck finally matured into an even more powerful force - "dumb luck", and by this, life arose from the waters of some of the rocks orbiting fireballs that had come about due to all the matter introduced into the universe.

I ask you - if I were to write this down - maybe carve it out into stone, how is this delusion any different than ANY OTHER CREATION STORY EVER TOLD?

The fact that there are numerous false stories does not mean the true account of Creation cannot be found. Unlike the unbelievable myths common in false religions, the Bible account is consistent and reasonable, at least to me. It speaks of a superior intelligent Being, God, as the reason the universe exists. This God goes on to explain in his Word the means he used to do this. What is stated in the Bible accords with proven science. (Isaiah 40:26)

 

[Blastcat]

I think we agree on the probabilities of 10 royal flushes, astronomically low, yet the probability of the 10th royal flush being dealt is no less than the first right?

I am not a statistician, and I presume that you aren't either. But I'm trying to see what we can say about your ten flush series.

1.Any hand at all has the same exact probability of happening ten times in a row as any other. Royal flushes are very rare for ONE hand, but if you had, say the worst possible hand in poker ten times in a row, the probabilities of that would be just as low as any other kind of series. What are the odds of getting the worse hand in poker more than once in a game? It's just that we VALUE the royal flush more than the worse hand in poker.
2.Every time a new hand is dealt, we get the same odds that the royal flush will happen. So, if the royal flush happens more than once, the odds don't go up or down for the next royal flush happening.

So if you work in the fraud dept- do you quote your logic to your boss, as rationale for letting the guy leave with all the house's money? i.e. the reason we suspect cheating is not the low probability, it's the significance of the outcome which tells us cheating is more probable

The odds of a royal flush is very low. So a good pit boss will be watching of course.

are you referring to steady state, static universes, M theory, multiverses or Big Crunch?

I didn't know I was referring to a theory, usually, I try to go with the best theory out there.. Big Bang seems to be the one now. Anything else is less accepted. The Big Crunch is a theory about the END of the universe, not the beginning.

As we began, we have no empirical evidence for either, no default explanation, both must compete on their own merits. The only theory in cosmogony that was ever verified, was the one rejected and mocked by atheists as 'big bang' explicitly for the overt theistic implications of a specific creation event.

We are always correct to be skeptical of new ideas. That's how science advances and gets to be so rigorous. IF you think that the mockery in question, Hoyle's for example( the person who coined the pejorative phrase "Big Bang"), was due to anything concerning a GOD, you are sorely mistaken. Don't believe everything you read. Science is always extremely critical of itself, so as to EXCLUDE bias FOR any new idea. Once the new idea passes RIGOROUS testing, it is accepted. This is what occurred with the Big Bang theory.. and NOT some atheist positioning. Science is NEUTRAL on the question of any god. If it WAS BIASED.. it would be BAD SCIENCE. Bias is the sign of bad science.

The fundamental prediction of a creation event was validated- of course this is not ultimate proof of God, just a little predictive ability- credit where it's due

I don't know why you are repeating yourself.

Had the universe turned out to be as atheist predicted= static/eternal/uncreated- then I'd accept the implications of that (no creation = no creator) I am willing to accept the opposite implication also- the one of observed reality.

You are repeating yourself. Science isn't atheist. Science is NEUTRAL as to any god.

The larger point being that the biggest scientific discovery of all time was a battle between science and atheism

Only in the mind of bad apologists. This is not true. Good science is NOT driven by atheism, That is a myth. Science is NEUTRAL concerning gods. People can be theistic or atheistic, but if they drag their bias into science, the science suffers one of the worst failures and is rejected for it.

Atheist theories were forced to work around scientific observation

There is no such thing as atheist theories. Where did you come up with that idea? Is it a conspiracy theory?

Now, in the case of this WEBSITE SOFTWARE, we KNOW for a fact, that everything IN IT that can be observed empirically HAS an automated function which can operate without any creative intelligence. So the PRIOR probability is very HIGH that whatever else we discover about it will ALSO be automated- i.e. the software presumably wrote itself...

Human made objects and naturally occurring objects are different in that we KNOW who made the human made objects. And I don't see how poker odds, the start of the universe have anything to do with your ID theory. Seems like a complete non sequitur.

Maybe you would be better served to keep on track.

The same fallacy applies to the universe. Claiming the laws of nature are ultimately fully accounted for by those very same laws... is not simply an unfounded assumption, it's a paradox unique to atheism

Nobody is claiming that. Nobody is assuming that. Science has to have hypotheses to test. That's how science works, BUT, the hypotheses get TESTED. If some hypotheses fails consistently, it is DROPPED.

There is no "dogma" in science, and there is no "Atheist science".
You are describing a myth.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am not a statistician, and I presume that you aren't either. But I'm trying to see what we can say about your ten flush series.

1.Any hand at all has the same exact probability of happening ten times in a row as any other. Royal flushes are very rare for ONE hand, but if you had, say the worst possible hand in poker ten times in a row, the probabilities of that would be just as low as any other kind of series. What are the odds of getting the worse hand in poker more than once in a game? It's just that we VALUE the royal flush more than the worse hand in poker.
2.Every time a new hand is dealt, we get the same odds that the royal flush will happen. So, if the royal flush happens more than once, the odds don't go up or down for the next royal flush happening.

OK so we agree entirely, and I think most people get this. So a pit boss might rightfully claim that cheating in his casino is extremely difficult, almost impossible, no direct evidence of it happening, or even any idea hpow it could have happened... yet he will certainly suspect cheating under these circumstances- that's the power of creative intelligence, it can overcome vast improbabilities where there is motive, purpose, intent, and these phenomena can only exist in a conscious mind yes?

In this case money, in the case of God.. what is more valuable? the greatest motivation a conscious being can ever have??

All you need is love Blastcat!

There is no such thing as atheist theories. Where did you come up with that idea? Is it a conspiracy theory?

atheist theories are theories created by atheists, with explicit atheist implications, and overwhelmingly championed by atheists. There have been many- all debunked where testable.
The 'big crunch' WAS about an atheist beginning, Hawking (atheist) proposed it as a cyclical system of regenerating the universe which would 'make God redundant' (atheism) in his own words.- can't get much more atheisty than that!


Another example if you don't like the casino-

you see the word 'HELP' spelled in rocks on a beach- on a deserted island with zero evidence of anybody around- do you assume the waves washed them up that way? why not?

it's simply about power of explanation