Evidence

[Sculelos]

Evidence suggests that the big bang started with something. Evidence does not suggest where that something came from. You talk as though the universe is a balloon and that time and existence only exists as part of the balloon. Fine but what happens when you deflate this balloon, what is left of it and where did time and existence suddenly go. Of course the universe could just as easily have existed outside of time before time was even an issue. Time is only an issue for us, not an issue for the something that existed without change. Saying god did it doesn't solve the issue. In order for god to be timeless then god couldn't change either. The act of creating would have to be simultaneous with the act of existing and existing means time is in effect whether your god or the universe.

Unless God exist out of time, then God created a different being in time, then ordered the other being what to do.

There must always be two sources. God and Jesus is a very logical explanation. Since if you have an infinite (God, the Electron) source you must have a finite energy (Jesus, the neutron) since nothing infinite can exist in finite space as more then energy, and nothing physical can exist in infinite space.

 

[idav]

Unless God exist out of time, then God created a different being in time, then ordered the other being what to do.

There must always be two sources. God and Jesus is a very logical explanation. Since if you have an infinite (God, the Electron) source you must have a finite energy (Jesus, the neutron) since nothing infinite can exist in finite space as more then energy, and nothing physical can exist in infinite space.

Though what I had pointed out is that God would no longer be infinite the moment God created anything because infinite is without change or action. The source should not be limited to acting through an agent, the source is it's own agent, limitless and infinite. What we see is the tiniest of fractions of things, even the death of the universe wouldn't change the timelessness of existence.

 

[Sculelos]

Though what I had pointed out is that God would no longer be infinite the moment God created anything because infinite is without change or action. The source should not be limited to acting through an agent, the source is it's own agent, limitless and infinite. What we see is the tiniest of fractions of things, even the death of the universe wouldn't change the timelessness of existence.

I've been over this time again and if the source is the agent it always leads you in a circle and all circles presuppose, which means to depend on their own existence to exist. Therefore something else MUST have created the circles (or squares) in the first place or else they couldn't and wouldn't exist.

God is Infinite and as he has no body so he is limited to acting through his physical finite energy as the finite can not be infinite and the infinite can not be finite.

Both must exist at the same time, both must remain separate, or else infinity would not be infinite and indeed would be finite. It's similar to the relationship a negative charge has, if something has a negative charge it must transfer through some sort of mass or else it will still be there but nothing else would exist on the flip side if the mass existed but the charge did not have a structure or order to it, it would simply remain void and empty and never do anything.

 

[idav]

I've been over this time again and if the source is the agent it always leads you in a circle and all circles presuppose, which means to depend on their own existence to exist. Therefore something else MUST have created the circles (or squares) in the first place or else they couldn't and wouldn't exist.

Of course the source depends on itself to exist, thats what being the source means. Nothing else could depend on itself, everything else depends on coming from something.

I do see what your getting at though with the beginning being the word with god as god. To me the word was creation itself with no need to bring in another entity into the picture, creation is god. Simultaneously existing and creating at the same time which gets rid of your objection for needing the two since I've accounted for that.

 

[Sculelos]

Of course the source depends on itself to exist, thats what being the source means. Nothing else could depend on itself, everything else depends on coming from something.

I do see what your getting at though with the beginning being the word with god as god. To me the word was creation itself with no need to bring in another entity into the picture, creation is god. Simultaneously existing and creating at the same time which gets rid of your objection for needing the two since I've accounted for that.

Creation cannot be the creator neither can the creator be created.

 

[idav]

Creation cannot be the creator neither can the creator be created.

"[Tao] is its own source, its own root. Before heaven and earth existed it was there, firm from ancient times. It gave spirituality to the spirits and gods; it gave birth to heaven and to earth." (Chuang-Tzu 6)

Taoism

 

[Sculelos]

"[Tao] is its own source, its own root. Before heaven and earth existed it was there, firm from ancient times. It gave spirituality to the spirits and gods; it gave birth to heaven and to earth." (Chuang-Tzu 6)

Taoism

Tao is otherwise translated as Power of God going into the power of Jesus. Basically it means Energy spread to create the neutron then energy put into the neutron. However there is still one finite being and one infinite being even in Taoism if you rip it apart.

 

[idav]

Tao is otherwise translated as Power of God going into the power of Jesus. Basically it means Energy spread to create the neutron then energy put into the neutron. However there is still one finite being and one infinite being even in Taoism if you rip it apart.

Why this about us being finite? Jesus is finite? We are all part of that infinite.

 

[Sculelos]

Why this about us being finite? Jesus is finite? We are all part of that infinite.

Finite means you can only do a limited amount of things at one time and can only exist in one space at a time. Jesus is finite but God is not for he is infinite.

 

[idav]

Finite means you can only do a limited amount of things at one time and can only exist in one space at a time. Jesus is finite but God is not for he is infinite.

You didnt adress the part ”we are all part of that infinite”. Jesus even implies being god.

 

[Sculelos]

You didnt adress the part ”we are all part of that infinite”. Jesus even implies being god.

We are part but we are not finite. Jesus himself said plenty of times that while he did exactly what his father told him to that God the father was greater then him.

 

[idav]

We are part but we are not finite. Jesus himself said plenty of times that while he did exactly what his father told him to that God the father was greater then him.

And he said I and the father are one, seen me seen the father.

 

[sonofdad]

No, its not clear enough. False, actually. The kalam is…

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (things don’t come in to existence from a state of nothingness)
2. The Universe began to exist (which can be found in any textbook on cosmology)
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause (if 1 and 2 are correct, then 3 follows logically)

1. Do you have an example of "nothingness" we can examine to verify that things don't come from it?
2. You're defining the universe as the entirety of physical reality. We have absolutely no idea how or if that ever began to exist. We know the universe (as cosmologists define it) began to expand, and maybe began to exist.

They would if the argument is that God existed infinitely in time...but since that isn't the argument, the argument remains coherent.

When your made up argument contradicts your made up explanation and causes a made up problem for your made up being, what do you do?

The Bord/Guth/Vilenkin theorem proves that ANY universe that has been expanding throughout its history must have had a beginning. This theorem is so powerful that it holds true regardless of our limited knowledge of what was before “Planck” time.

You really should stop getting your physics lessons from theologians.

I am not putting God at the end of scientific knowledge. The question of origins is not even a scientific question. Science cannot be used to explain the origins of itself. Based on the argument from contingency, an external cause is necessary.

You state you are not putting God at the end of scientific knowledge, then you proceed to describe how you're doing exactly that, and rationalize it.

No it doesn’t. The ontological argument gives the traditional definition of God at which either such a being exists necessarily, or doesn’t exist necessarily. If it is possible for such a being to exist necessarily, then such a being must in fact exist necessarily.

1. What is the traditional definition of God? (there are so many, I get confused)
2. Why do you think this God possibly exist?
3. Why does its logically possible existence mean it actually exists?

Thermodynamics, entropy, impossibility of infinity, modern cosmology, argument from contingency…all of these points to a finite universe.

Yet you accept a supernatural being that contradicts most of them.

I understand that you don’t like the implications of a finite universe (most non-believers don’t), but that doesn’t change the fact that this is where all evidence is pointing, like it or not.

It's not that I don't like it, I have no convictions depending on an eternal universe in any way, I don't really care either way, I care about the truth. The only negative effect finding out the universe is finite would have on my life would be all the believers running around saying "I told you so", taking it as a definitive proof of the god of their choosing. (ironic because the same people usually reject any scientific discoveries contradicting their beliefs).
That would be annoying, but at the same time exciting seeing science getting a little closer to finding out how all this stuff is here.

You may be misinterpreting what I am trying to do as asserting that the universe is infinite. I am trying to explain to you that you can't know whether it is or it isn't right now, you can only speculate, and either way it most certainly does not prove that your god exists.
I'm sure if we ever find out how this actually all started, we're both in for a big surprise.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1. Do you have an example of "nothingness" we can examine to verify that things don't come from it?

It never fails. The lengths that people will go through just to negate the existence of God. So if you go outside one day and you notice that your windshield has been completely smashed out with a brick, and you nor any of your neighbors saw who did it. You call the police and upon investigation the police officer states “Maybe the brick just came out of nowhere and smashed your window”. Would you accept that answer?

2. You're defining the universe as the entirety of physical reality. We have absolutely no idea how or if that ever began to exist. We know the universe (as cosmologists define it) began to expand, and maybe began to exist.

The universe did not exist before the expansion. That is the big bang theory…there was no time or space prior to the big bang. Second, as I keep iterating, you still have the philosophical arguments against infinite time that you have to deal with. Positing a eternal universe or eternal physical reality does not help the problem at all.

When your made up argument contradicts your made up explanation and causes a made up problem for your made up being, what do you do?

Is it made up because you can’t refute it? I understand.

You really should stop getting your physics lessons from theologians.

Actually, the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem that I’ve mentioned at least twice proves that the universe began to exist, and it is not a theorem from theologians but a theorem from physicists, the same physicists that bears the theorems name (Arvind Bord, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin).

You state you are not putting God at the end of scientific knowledge, then you proceed to describe how you're doing exactly that, and rationalize it.

First off, the Ontological Argument has nothing to do with science in the first place.

1. What is the traditional definition of God? (there are so many, I get confused)

Well, the traditional definition of the Christian God is an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, supernaturally necessary being that is eternal. (I am not sure whether omnibenvolence should be thrown in there as well, but I will leave it out for simplicity reasons)

2. Why do you think this God possibly exist?

Because the concept is logically coherent.

3. Why does its logically possible existence mean it actually exists?

Because if it is logically possible for anything to exist necessarily, then it must in fact exist. Necessary truths are true regardless of whether we know it is true or not. So, if it is “possible for something to exist necessarily, it must exist necessarily”, and if something DOESN’T exist necessarily, then it is POSSIBLE for it to exist necessarily.

That is exactly why the Ontological Argument is so powerful (in my opinion), because most people will admit that it is possible for God to exist. The problem is, if they admit that such a being is possible, they are unknowingly admitting that God exist. This is because it cannot be possible for something to be necessarily true, and still have the possibility of being false. If it is possible for something to be necessarily true, then there IS NO WAY it can be false, otherwise, it was never possibly necessarily true in the first place.

Yet you accept a supernatural being that contradicts most of them.

Contradict them? No, God TRANSCENDS them. He is beyond natural law and even created time itself.

It's not that I don't like it, I have no convictions depending on an eternal universe in any way, I don't really care either way, I care about the truth.

Well, above it seems as if you are willing to accept possibility of something coming from nothing. I don’t think there is anything truthful about that.

The only negative effect finding out the universe is finite would have on my life would be all the believers running around saying "I told you so", taking it as a definitive proof of the god of their choosing. (ironic because the same people usually reject any scientific discoveries contradicting their beliefs).

Well, as I told Legion…Genesis 1:1 stated that the universe began to exist over 3,000 years ago. So far from rejecting science…science has corroborated what we have been saying all long….so yeah “I told you so”.

That would be annoying, but at the same time exciting seeing science getting a little closer to finding out how all this stuff is here.

Once again, science cannot explain the origin of its own domain.

You may be misinterpreting what I am trying to do as asserting that the universe is infinite. I am trying to explain to you that you can't know whether it is or it isn't right now, you can only speculate, and either way it most certainly does not prove that your god exists.
I'm sure if we ever find out how this actually all started, we're both in for a big surprise.

I’ve already stated why the universe can’t be infinite. You’ve addressed almost NONE of the reasons…….infinity….entropy…thermodynamics…contingency. None.

 

[Sculelos]

The way I see it is that God is Good. Good means you pour out the energy of life. That's it. Wanting people to do whats best for them to let them remain in his love eternally is Good.

Only God is Good, humans have no goodness except that which God has given us. He first Loved us so that we MIGHT love him. That's right, God knows you have a Free mind and wants you to willingly CHOOSE life over death. If there was no choice life would be essentially MEANINGLESS. So therefore God has created a universe where every possible type of Good and Evil would be carried out so that people in the NEW heavens and earth would see the full effects of both and no longer even have the desire to HATE each other, which means to tear the truth away from another.

God is Love, Love is Truth, God is Truth, God is Life. The Devil Satan is a great energy that hates love, hates truth, hates God and hates life.

There is only two paths and most people chose HATE over LOVE, why because we are Selfish, Sinful and Hateful to one another, especially to God. We must cast off our own self righteousness and be humble like an infant might be in that they cry to us for their every need and if we don't love them, they will die... in the same way if we hate God we will die, forever permanently in hell which means the great locking away of all HATE.

 

[Skeptisch]

There is only one God who makes sense, it is Spinoza’s, good old Albert’s, Carl Sagan’s and many, if not most, reputable scientists’ God:
“I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.”

That goes hand in hand with:
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”.
Carl Sagan

 

[sonofdad]

It never fails. The lengths that people will go through just to negate the existence of God. So if you go outside one day and you notice that your windshield has been completely smashed out with a brick, and you nor any of your neighbors saw who did it. You call the police and upon investigation the police officer states “Maybe the brick just came out of nowhere and smashed your window”. Would you accept that answer?

When did I say that?
As far as I know, we don't have any actual example of the fuzzy philosophical definition of "nothing" which we have been able to examine to verify whether something can come from it or not, I don't even know whether that kind of nothing even exists or has ever existed (or should I say doesn't exist). I do not accept "something can not come from nothing" because it is a completely meaningless statement until you find some way to test it.

All the evidence we have shows material things coming from other material things.

Positing a eternal universe or eternal physical reality does not help the problem at all.

What exactly is "the problem" from your point of view?

Is it made up because you can’t refute it? I understand.

It is made up because you don't have any actual evidence to support it. If you had any actual evidence you wouldn't need philosophical arguments, they would be redundant.

Actually, the Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem that I’ve mentioned at least twice proves that the universe began to exist, and it is not a theorem from theologians but a theorem from physicists, the same physicists that bears the theorems name (Arvind Bord, Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin).

I am aware that these are actual physicists, your interpretation of their work however comes directly from one Dr. William Lane Craig, correct?

First off, the Ontological Argument has nothing to do with science in the first place.

Glad we agree on something.

Well, the traditional definition of the Christian God is an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, supernaturally necessary being that is eternal. (I am not sure whether omnibenvolence should be thrown in there as well, but I will leave it out for simplicity reasons)

Necessary existence is part of its definition. Therefor it necessarily exists.
Omnibenovolence you leave out, I'm guessing, because you know about the problem of evil.

Contradict them? No, God TRANSCENDS them. He is beyond natural law and even created time itself.

How is this in any way different from just saying: it was magic.

Well, as I told Legion…Genesis 1:1 stated that the universe began to exist over 3,000 years ago. So far from rejecting science…science has corroborated what we have been saying all long….so yeah “I told you so”.

Genesis also stated that the sky is actually a giant roof with stars hanging off it. Has science corroborated that?
When you make enough claims, you're bound to get something right. Logically it's a 50/50 chance, either the universe had a beginning or it didn't.
Besides, it has not been established that the universe (as in all physical reality ever in existence) had a beginning, according to my understanding this is all highly theoretical.
But clearly, when science supports your bible, science is right.
When science contradicts your bible, science is wrong.

Once again, science cannot explain the origin of its own domain.

Can you elaborate on that?

I’ve already stated why the universe can’t be infinite. You’ve addressed almost NONE of the reasons…….infinity….entropy…thermodynamics…contingency. None.

I have been addressing them, you failing to recognize it doesn't make you right.
I'm not going to go into the detailed physics with you because I'm not a physicist and you aren't either, so that discussion would play out like two 5 year olds arguing about sex.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

When did I say that?

As far as I know, we don't have any actual example of the fuzzy philosophical definition of "nothing" which we have been able to examine to verify whether something can come from it or not, I don't even know whether that kind of nothing even exists or has ever existed (or should I say doesn't exist). I do not accept "something can not come from nothing" because it is a completely meaningless statement until you find some way to test it.

I would like my analogy to be answered, please. If the police tells you that the brick that smashed your windshield “came from nothing”, would you accept that. Will you say “Well, alrighty then officer, that solves everything, come in to my house and let’s have doughnuts and coffee, shall we?” I would like an answer.

All the evidence we have shows material things coming from other material things.

And logical reasoning shows that “material things coming from other material things” cannot be a past infinite process.

What exactly is "the problem" from your point of view?

If you are building a house that has an infinite amount of steps before it can be completed, will you ever complete it? Please explain your answer.

It is made up because you don't have any actual evidence to support it. If you had any actual evidence you wouldn't need philosophical arguments, they would be redundant.

Infinity, contingency, entropy, thermodynamics…

I am aware that these are actual physicists, your interpretation of their work however comes directly from one Dr. William Lane Craig, correct?

That is when I first heard about the theorem, correct. But the work of these physicists are independent of me or WLC…so if me and WLC never existed, the theorem would still hold true. Not only that, but Vilenkin has spoken about the theorem through both his public and written work, so any beef one may have about the finitude of the universe, take it up with him J We are just going where the science takes us.

Glad we agree on something.

It isn’t a scientific argument . That doesn’t make it any less coherent.

Necessary existence is part of its definition. Therefore it necessarily exists.

Either it is possible for God to exist necessarily, or it isn’t possible. If it is possible, it must be true.

Omnibenovolence you leave out, I'm guessing, because you know about the problem of evil.

The problem of evil can be used as a reason to believe in God, actually (but that is another story). Omnibenvolence doesn’t strike me as a “necessary” attribute because it seems as if one can postulate an necessary evil being, one that still has the other “omni” attributes.

How is this in any way different from just saying: it was magic.

To say that it is possible for the universe to pop in to being out of nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least we can determine that the magician caused the rabbit to appear, even if we don’t know how he did it. But on your “possible” view, there is no magician, the rabbit just popped in to being uncaused out of nothing.

Genesis also stated that the sky is actually a giant roof with stars hanging off it. Has science corroborated that?

A scripture would come in handy.

When you make enough claims, you're bound to get something right. Logically it's a 50/50 chance, either the universe had a beginning or it didn't.

Right, so if I am sitting down at the dinner table and weighing both options….about how we have this universe that is balanced on a razors edge as far as precision is concerned…a universe that was fine tuned for human life…eyes to see, ears to hear, consciousness, digestive system, reproductive system, circulatory system, nervous system, immune system, etc…along with arguments AGAINST the opposing view such as the impossibility of traversing infinity..impossbility of having an infinite number of things, the mind-body distinction, all of these things point to a ID.

The opposing view is the exact opposite. A process that has no mind at all, no consciousness, no intelligence…a process that cant see, think, or hear….such a process created a digestive system to break down food and fuel the body, created a process that allows life to reproduce, created a process that allows blood to flow through the body, a process that helps fight diseases that invades the body, and a produces that allows us to think and reason…you believe that we have all of this “stuff”, from a process that doesn’t have a “clue” what it is doing. And as I mentioned earlier, to even get to the point to where there is life on earth, the cosmic conditions has to be “just right”, and even then you are still far from life, because the conditions on earth has to be “just right” also.

For the life of me, I just can’t accept such a theory and still consider myself a “reasonable” man.

Besides, it has not been established that the universe (as in all physical reality ever in existence) had a beginning, according to my understanding this is all highly theoretical.

Borde/Guth/Vilenkin theorem. Not to mention philosophical arguments against an infinite past, which I mentioned at least 7 or 8 times by now and you failed to address.

But clearly, when science supports your bible, science is right.
When science contradicts your bible, science is wrong.

When has science contradicted the bible?

Can you elaborate on that?

Sure. Can you be used to explain the origins of yourself? Don’t you need an external explanation to explain the origin of you (your parents)? Well, how can we use science to explain the origins of all nature, if nature itself began to exist? We have scientific evidence supporting the finitude of the universe, and we have philosophical arguments as well. Each argument is independent of the other arguments…so for example, if the BGV theorem was proven wrong, you will still have the philosophical arguments to deal with. It is an uphill battle.

I have been addressing them, you failing to recognize it doesn't make you right.
I'm not going to go into the detailed physics with you because I'm not a physicist and you aren't either, so that discussion would play out like two 5 year olds arguing about sex.

I have yet to see one refutation of the argument from contingency, and the infinity problem.

 

[sonofdad]

I would like my analogy to be answered, please. If the police tells you that the brick that smashed your windshield “came from nothing”, would you accept that. Will you say “Well, alrighty then officer, that solves everything, come in to my house and let’s have doughnuts and coffee, shall we?” I would like an answer.

If you want me to accept or even consider "something can't come from nothing", give me a real example of "nothing" we can test to see if something can come out of it.
Show me how this philosophical notion of "nothing" has any basis in the actual world.

And logical reasoning shows that “material things coming from other material things” cannot be a past infinite process.

According to quantum mechanics, the universe doesn't really operate according to our logical reasoning.

If you are building a house that has an infinite amount of steps before it can be completed, will you ever complete it?

No.

Either it is possible for God to exist necessarily, or it isn’t possible. If it is possible, it must be true.

Why don't we just shorten it down to: God exists, therefor God exists.

If God is defined as a maximally great being, and existing is considered greater than not existing, then you are defining God as a being which exists.
Sure you can conceive of such a being, but that does not mean it actually exists outside your own mind.
You can't define something into existence, you say you're not doing that, then you keep doing it.

The trickery lies in saying "you have to refute the premise or accept the argument", but the argument is flawed all the way through so there's no need.

To say that it is possible for the universe to pop in to being out of nothing is worse than magic.

When did I say that?

When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least we can determine that the magician caused the rabbit to appear, even if we don’t know how he did it. But on your “possible” view, there is no magician, the rabbit just popped in to being uncaused out of nothing.

I hate to break it to you, but the rabbit already existed before the trick. It's not really magic.

I'm saying magic, not illusions which have natural explanations.
You postulate this magical, supernatural, all-powerful being which said: let there be universe. And then the universe existed. Because this being is supernatural, there is no need to try to explain the mechanics of it, it's magic.
How does saying: "God did it" in any way add to our knowledge of the universe?

A scripture would come in handy.

Firmament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right, so if I am sitting down at the dinner table and weighing both options….about how we have this universe that is balanced on a razors edge as far as precision is concerned…a universe that was fine tuned for human life…eyes to see, ears to hear, consciousness, digestive system, reproductive system, circulatory system, nervous system, immune system, etc…along with arguments AGAINST the opposing view such as the impossibility of traversing infinity..impossbility of having an infinite number of things, the mind-body distinction, all of these things point to a ID.

You're assuming the universe exists specifically for us.
But yeah, it's a guess with a logically 1/2 change of being right. I'd be impressed if the bible predicted cosmic background radiation from the big bang or something.

When has science contradicted the bible?

Evolution.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you want me to accept or even consider "something can't come from nothing", give me a real example of "nothing" we can test to see if something can come out of it.

Show me how this philosophical notion of "nothing" has any basis in the actual world.

I guess I will have to accept the fact that you won’t answer my analogy.

According to quantum mechanics, the universe doesn't really operate according to our logical reasoning.

Quantum physics is a natural phenomenon. Natural phenomenon occurs within the universe. The universe began to exist. See where this is leading?

No.

So if the past is infinite, for the present moment to arrive, an infinite set had to be complete, right? But wait a minute, you just said that an infinite set cannot be complete? Which is it?

Why don't we just shorten it down to: God exists, therefor God exists.

Keep singing, I like your tune.

If God is defined as a maximally great being, and existing is considered greater than not existing, then you are defining God as a being which exists.

…a being which exists because of the necessity of his nature, yes.

Sure you can conceive of such a being, but that does not mean it actually exists outside your own mind.

All possible necessary truths exists in reality. If it is possible for something to be necessarily true, it must in fact be true, because if it isn’t true, then it isn’t possible.

You can't define something into existence, you say you're not doing that, then you keep doing it.

How am I “defining” something in to existence? Either God’s existence is necessary, or it isn’t. I can define my pet snake’s existence as a necessary truth, but does it follow that just because I define it that way, that it is true??? Obviously not.

The trickery lies in saying "you have to refute the premise or accept the argument", but the argument is flawed all the way through so there's no need.

The argument has at least 5 premises, neither of which I’ve seen you offer refutation against. I am waiting to see this flaw you are talking about.

When did I say that?

You are talking about “I never examined nothing” as if you are leaving open the possibility that it could actually happen.

I hate to break it to you, but the rabbit already existed before the trick. It's not really magic.

Unsupported assertion.

I'm saying magic, not illusions which have natural explanations.
You postulate this magical, supernatural, all-powerful being which said: let there be universe. And then the universe existed. Because this being is supernatural, there is no need to try to explain the mechanics of it, it's magic.

It is magic to you, it was “just a day at the office” for God.

How does saying: "God did it" in any way add to our knowledge of the universe?

How does a blind and mindless process that didn’t know what it was doing create intelligent beings with specified bodies?

Firmament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I said a scripture, not a wiki link.

You're assuming the universe exists specifically for us.

Well, on my view, it does. It is called Christianity.

But yeah, it's a guess with a logically 1/2 change of being right. I'd be impressed if the bible predicted cosmic background radiation from the big bang or something.

Well, I don’t know about cosmic background radiation…..but according to the BBT, the universe is expanding from a singularity state, and it continues to expand, even today. Hmmm, but as I read Job, its states

Job 9:7-8 “He speaks to the sun and it does not shine;
he seals off the light of the stars.
8 He alone stretches out the heavens
and treads on the waves of the sea.

He stretches out the heavens? Hmmm..and the universe is expanding?? Hmmm. This is also mentioned numerous times in the book of Isaiah. So an ancient book that was written by sheppards predicted that the universe began to exist (when the rest of the world thought it was eternal), and that the heavens are stretching (which no one knew until Hubbel’s discovery). Hmmm, sounds like the big bang to me.

Evolution.

The bible said “they will bring forth after their kind”. Have you seen otherwise? Probably not. So until you see otherwise, you nor anyone else has any reason to believe in evolution. The bible say they will bring forth after their kind, and that’s all man has ever observed.