Subsequent truths

[Norfolk And Chance]

Norfolk: to state there is no reason for a creator is no more valid than saying that you believe there is one. Extrapolate logically...

Why do I believe in God? I just do.

Automatically, you're on the back foot.

If there is no Creator, where did the universe come from?

The big bang. Next question is where did the big bang come from? From something that was there before? From nothing? From a creator? Those are the three options. And the brutal truth is we can't know.

The trouble is theists want to have a certain answer, and insert a creator into that gap. I see no reason why a creator is more likely than the other two options, thus I see no reason to believe that it MUST be a creator. Subsequently this creator is supposed to co - exist with us until this day, yet there is no evidence to support that. The logical answer to "where did the universe come from?" is "I don't know", rather than "well it MUST be a creator"

If it WAS a creator, then who created the creator, and who created who created the creator? And where did that come from? Theistic answer - the creator just is. Equally the universe could just "be". No solid reason for a creator.

Or you could even go into major brain strain mode and postulate there was something before the big bang, and something before that, and something before that - for infinity! Trouble is, infinity has neither a start nor an end so you couldn't go back far enough to find a creator.

The answer to the universe, can only be "don't know", "we can only go back as far as the big bang", realistically. If a creator is ever proven then we can insert it into the equation as the cause.

Both positions eventually come down to an argument about which we currently can provide no scientific answer.

We can actually say scientifically that there was a big bang which was the cause of the universe, theists want a cause of the cause, as I tried to illustrate.

This is where we must leave science and this is where our philosophies and ideologies guide our thinking. You stating there is no evidence of and no necessity for a God may be true, but the leap to say that he therefore does not exist is an unsupported belief

But it isn't a leap though, it isn't an unsupported belief. It is a non belief in YOUR unsupported belief.

in exactly the same way that you say my belief is unsupported. The difference at present is that you say my belief is wrong and yours is not, whereas I say both are valid and I will hold mine until proven otherwise.

They are polar opposites, you have an unsupported belief, I do not have a belief. These are not two beliefs that you can stick into a box and label as "both valid" because they are not the same thing.

I'll further quantify that a non belief that something exists because there is no evidence to support it is logically valid, whilst a belief that something exists with no evidence to support it is logically invalid. How can you claim that an unevidenced belief is valid? It is a belief and nothing more. Fine, have your belief but don't try and claim there is any validity in it.

Saying something isn't true or is impossible just because you haven't observed it is a very closed-minded view of the universe. How would we have developed then refined atomic and then quantum theory?

I'm sure that scientists who refine quantum theory have established workable, testable theories that would produce certain results - I'm no expert on quantum theory. Are you? You seem to use it enough as a sort of joker card...

If there is one thing we should learn from human endeavour it is that the impossible is only supported by a lack of imagination.

Illogical statement.

I'd say it is impossible for you to turn into a whicker basket right now, and it isn't impossible because I haven't got enough imagination. It is just impossible. We both know this.

So please retract your last comment as a silly statement or untruth.

PS all the imagination in the world won't make god real, or even 0.000000000000000001% more possible.