Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[Abracadabra]

Apply that logic to the Big Bang. Where would you get the idea the universe created itself spontaneously? You’re essentially saying, “I don’t think God exists, so therefore life arose by itself.” You’re defaulting to the Big Bang, which is just as (or even less than) evidenced than God.

Actually the evidence that the universe actually had a beginning started via observations made by astronomers (particular those of Edwin Hubble) in the 1930's. Prior to that it was believed that the universe was infinity old and was basically eternal.

So the Big Bang has been forced onto us by facts. Yet here you are acting like it's just a guess? And since the 1930's the evidence for it has increased until today it cannot be denied. I mean, you might still argue about the earliest seconds, but we understand the history of the universe very well over its 13.7 billion year lifespan. So it's not only known information, but it's very well-known information.

We have a remarkably accurate and complex Bible, morality, experience and more in favor of God, but absolutely nothing for the Big Bang other than the requirement that matter came to exist.

All you are doing there is displaying extreme ignorance. To claim that we have absolutely nothing for the Big Bang other than the requirement that matter came to exists is totally false. Who taught you such nonsense?

Also, there is nothing "remarkably accurate" about the Bible. That again is another false information. Evidently people are teaching you these things and you're just accepting them without bothering to look into them for yourself. Of if you do look into it you probably do so through highly biased religious sites who are naturally going to support those lies.

Clearly, you can't dismiss something just because you can't see it. We can't see gravity but we can see its effects. There are dozens of scientific laws you can't put your finger on, but they still must be considered. God must also be considered.

That's not why I dismiss the Hebrew fables of God.

In fact, I actually consider the possibility that reality is spiritual. I argue with the atheists about this all the time.

But that doesn't send me running off to worship Zeus. And neither should it send me running off to worship the God of the Hebrews.

I personally reject the Bible because it's supposed to be a story about an all-wise all-benevolent God, yet the stories have this God going utterly stupid and non-benevolent things. In short, the stories can't be true for that very reason.

I don't reject the biblical God just because he supposedly plays hide and seek and is invisible. However, IMHO the very idea of a personified God who plays hide and seek with humans he expect so obey him is an oxymoron in and of itself.

The idea of a supposedly all-benevolent God who plays hide and seek and will be horrifically cruel to you potentially for eternity if you don't find him is utterly ludicrous. It flies in the face of the very meaning of benevolent.

Thus the stories must necessarily be dismissed based solely on their absurdity. And on the blatant contradiction that a supposedly all-benevolent God would need to be a horrifically evil demon in order for these stories to be true.

They necessarily have to be false. There's just no other possible conclusion.

It has long been apparent to people that the world was designed--it's only recently we have challenged this in their minds.

The reason this has only been challenged recently is because new information has become available.

The burden of proof is on evolutionists to prove their alternative to the most obvious and simplest solution (see Ockham's razor).

Evolution has been proven.

Moreover, Occam's Razor doesn't even apply here. Before you can apply Occam's Razon to theories you must have at least two theories to apply it two. Then you ask which of these is the simplest.

Evolution is the only "theory" for how life came to be on earth.

Creation by a personified God is not a "theory" is a superstitious myth.

However, even if these were both valid "theories" Occam's Razor would favor evolution because evolution stands alone as a very simple theory.

A theory that some more highly evolved lifeform (i.e. a God) would be required to get life started is a far more complex theory. That theory requires that life requires life to get it started (i.e. God a supposedly living entity is required to get life started).

Such a theory would be circular anyway.

Evolution stands on it's own just as it is without the need for anything more.