DESTROY NOAH'S ARK

[Huggy Bear]

---

That's the dilemma isn't it? Any explanation of the origin of the universe will not be rational, you're just going to have to accept that a supernatural event took place at some point. I find it curious however that you state how you don't know how the universe was created, but somehow are quite certain that it wasn't God.

---

Woah... that's quite a jump you made there. From I don't know to it's unknowable and something supernatural happened? Kindly refrain from misrepresenting me.

Not knowing is not a bad thing. It doesn't mean that that vacuum must be filled. I'm okay with allowing more evidence to come in and answering that question in it's own time. And there is nothing to suggest that something supernatural happened. As a matter of fact, it has been shown that matter coalescing from nonmatter is part of the natural order of things.

smh, now who's doing the mental gymnastics? Matter forming out of thin air is the very definition of "supernatural". Also you state that it "has been shown", where is the evidence? According to the "law of conservation of matter" matter cannot be created or destroyed.

I don't claim to know the origins of the universe. I am quite sure it wasn't farted into existence by a dyslexic flamingo. It is just as curious that I don't think that happened as it is for me not thinking a god created it. The evidence is the same.

remove the flamingo and you have the big bang. All kidding, aside you're wrong, there maybe no evidence for the dyslexic flamingo, but there is evidence that matter can be transformed from energy. Isn't God described as light?

John 1(KJV)
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not

---

How can you begin to dispute something if you have no basis on which to form your argument? If you have no peticular belief or theory on the creation of the universe then you'd have to take a neutral stance because you "don't know".

---

I sure can begin to dispute something for which there is no evidence. You are showing your profound ignorance on every level. Your contention here is that since I don't pretend to know how the universe began, I cannot possibly evaluate the evidence (or profound lack thereof) for your claim? Come on. You're better than that. Probably not.

You cannot dispute something "for which there is no evidence" with "I don't know". Saying "I don't know" is admitting ignorance. How can you even begin to dispute something from a position of ignorance?

Let me make it simple for you. If I told you I [insert any activity here] yesterday, could you dispute it?

---

Because "I don't know" is not an expression of faith.

"I don't know, it could be X but there's more evidence for Y, so it's probably Y"

"I don't know, therefore the only logical explanation is G, O, A, and E" is an expression of faith.

And faith + lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary = irrational faith.

Words have meaning. Deal with it.

I don't think you know what faith is. Faith and proof or "evidence" cannot coexist. Lets take the expression "leap of faith" for example, faith is no longer required if you have proof of where you're leaping.