Disproving the Bible

[Esquilax]

I don't believe this is a matter of evidence. This is a matter of which philosophical position is more plausible. The existence if God will not be proved (nor will the contradictory) with evidence.

Well, that's a problem, because you certainly can't prove the existence of god with anything else. Without evidence, some correspondence between what you're saying and reality, your claims are indistinguishable from fantasy.

You are right, but the argument is attempting to show that if everything other than this category is caused, then this category needs something in it.

Something, yes, and even then only if we share in the assumption that everything needs a cause, which isn't something you've demonstrated either. There's a vast gap between "something" and "god of the bible," that hasn't yet been bridged, and isn't even addressed by the argument from contingency.

This argument is not looking for evidence of God, it is laying out that the more plausible explanation of the cause of the universe is God.

"Plausible" doesn't equal true, and plausibility requires some calculation of probability, something that you cannot derive without observations of reality; in other words, evidence. This is my point exactly: you can't say something is more plausible than some other thing when you have extremely limited evidence of one thing, and no evidence at all of the other. In the case of the big bang and god, at least you have a fairly strong case for the existence of the big bang, and when it comes to straight plausibility everything is more plausible than a magical being that does anything. That's what I don't get: you're attempting to establish the plausibility of god when nothing in the real world would even lead you to believe that a god is possible, and the argument that you're using only stretches so far as "something."

I don't think everything has a cause (If I did, I misspoke). Obviously God fits into the necessarily uncaused category.

So then attempting to establish rules whereby the universe must have a cause is simple hypocrisy, since you've already accepted the idea that things don't need causes.

Don't the cosmologist admit that eternal inflation theories cannot have occurred infinitly in the past, that they at some point must of had a beginning?

I think they'd agree that the issue is unsettled, however. The only one making declarative statements about what must have happened at the beginning is you, here. I'm saying not to do that.

Isn't your argument an example of the genetic fallacy? A scientist would have to lay out what was wrong with the argument or at least show that another theory fits all the data better.

You asked why the article was scientifically wrong, and the simple answer to that question is because it's not scientific at all. You're asking me to evaluate an argument for which the conclusion will be the same thing whether the evidence supports the claim it's making or not, and I don't see much point in that. The problem is that these guys are dishonest, working under the pretense of investigation and evidence following when the truth is that what you're getting is twisting and omission of the facts to fit a predrawn conclusion.

My one question to you would be: do you really think you're going to get an objective, unvarnished look at the facts from a group that begins the conversation, at the foundation of their website, with a statement that "this is what's true, and everything that says otherwise is wrong."?

If I offered you a source that stated up front a presupposition that any evidence in favor of god would be disregarded out of hand, would you find that source compelling? Would you even look at it? And if you're going to tell me you'd fact check further, well, why not do the same with the source you gave us?

Because, let's be real clear: even a cursory search of mainstream scientific sources will demonstrate that you've been lied to by creation.com.