Even though the weight and preponderance of scientific data is in favor of the universe coming into existence (at least in its present form) appox 13.7 billion years ago, I didn't argue from that point of view, I merely stated the universe exists which is a foundational evidence to the claim God created the universe. I couldn't make the claim someone murdered someone without a dead body or evidence someone was killed. Evidence is synonymous with facts. Facts that are probative (comport with a claim) are admissible. Secondly whether or not the existence of something is reason to believe it was caused is in the eye of the beholder. When we consider that everything we can think of in existence can be traced back to a cause we have no reason to make an exception of the existence of the universe.
In some instances yes, like water going from ice, to water to steam, in either case its still water in different forms. In the case of the universe the current theory is it came forth from a phenomena called a singularity. The singularity can't be described by any of the physics we are familiar with, it isn't anything like the space time we exist in, the phenonmon of time may not have existed. The thinking is the 4 major forces of nature are one. It would be a stretch to say the singularity is the universe in a different form since they share nothing in common, matter as we know it doesn't even exist. Even a rabbit turning into an orange would be a stretch to say the orange is a rabbit in a different form but it can be said both share atoms and molecules in common. I would say this is something only atheists could buy into. Actually you probably don't actually buy into it either but that doesn't stop you from raising it as an objection. I should label this kind of argument the argumus from bullshitish fallacy. Thats when a person raises an alternative they themselves don't actually subscribe to.
Again I never made the argument that life began to exist. Let me refresh your memory.
2. The fact life exists
Again this might seem like a trivial fact but I don't think anyone disputes life exists. If life didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to debate whether we owe our existence to a Creator, its the fact life exists that raises the question whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend to cause life or even cause the existence of a universe that allows life in the first place. There is no condition that needs to true for atheism to possibly be true. There are conditions that need to occur in order for us to have a debate about whether a Creator of the universe exists. Two of those conditions are a suitable place for us to live and for life to exist. No one would postulate God doesn't exist therefore I expect a universe with life to exist. The existence of the universe and life are red flags that lead folks to question the narrative that we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend either the universe or life, yet inspite of neither the desire, the intent or the plan to create life, without knowledge of how to do it mindless forces stumbled blindly upon the formula to create life and cause a universe that allows life. Moreover if we are to believe the atheist narrative, lifeless mindless forces created something totally unlike itself...life. Yet the only way we have observed life coming about is through life. We have yet to observe life coming from non-life. The theory is that's how it came about but evidently we haven't been able to figure out using intelligence how to cause life that mindless forces are alleged to have produced without trying or knowing how.
Also there is irrefutable observable repeatable evidence that life comes from life.
Two things.
In other words some day it may be a fact that life came from non-life through some process no one has figured out yet. When that day happens I will grant you its a line of evidence in favor of your belief. This is the irony, atheists claim they come to thier conclusion because supposedly that is the direction the available facts lead them; of course it isn't true but that is what they say. This is a case in point. The only verifiable, repeatable observable and proven method of producing life is from life. If one were led by the facts as atheists claim they are they should conclude (unless proven other wise) that life comes from life. Unfortunately that fact doesn't square with their apriori belief in the non-existence of God so they opt to disregard the proven fact and go for the theory instead.
Truth is...you don't believe life always existed do you? Is there ever going to come to a point where you argue what you really think is true? There is a difference between a fact cited in support of a case and the argument made from the fact. When a jury retires they are admonished that the lawyers arguments are not themselves facts. Its fine for you to suggest something you don't actually believe, that life always existed in rebuttal but since even you don't believe in that line of BS its hard to imagine anyone else is. Its hard to be persausive when as you say something your nose grows.
And who determines that?
I can only hope if you do so you make a case you actually believe in.
Right and that is a judgment call. How can you say if they decide for themselves it makes them wrong? Didn't you decide for yourself which arguments best explain the facts?
Considering at least half of the things you offer in rebuttal you yourself don't believe I have to agree with you.
Well good news I don't think you have lost any of your fellow atheists on this board. You mistakenly use the word refute because it makes it sound like you have disproven the case I am making when in fact all your offering is alternative theories many of which you yourself don't believe.
Quote:First of all, do you really not see the difference between coming into existence and coming into existence in its present form?
In some instances yes, like water going from ice, to water to steam, in either case its still water in different forms. In the case of the universe the current theory is it came forth from a phenomena called a singularity. The singularity can't be described by any of the physics we are familiar with, it isn't anything like the space time we exist in, the phenonmon of time may not have existed. The thinking is the 4 major forces of nature are one. It would be a stretch to say the singularity is the universe in a different form since they share nothing in common, matter as we know it doesn't even exist. Even a rabbit turning into an orange would be a stretch to say the orange is a rabbit in a different form but it can be said both share atoms and molecules in common. I would say this is something only atheists could buy into. Actually you probably don't actually buy into it either but that doesn't stop you from raising it as an objection. I should label this kind of argument the argumus from bullshitish fallacy. Thats when a person raises an alternative they themselves don't actually subscribe to.
Again I never made the argument that life began to exist. Let me refresh your memory.
2. The fact life exists
Again this might seem like a trivial fact but I don't think anyone disputes life exists. If life didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to debate whether we owe our existence to a Creator, its the fact life exists that raises the question whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend to cause life or even cause the existence of a universe that allows life in the first place. There is no condition that needs to true for atheism to possibly be true. There are conditions that need to occur in order for us to have a debate about whether a Creator of the universe exists. Two of those conditions are a suitable place for us to live and for life to exist. No one would postulate God doesn't exist therefore I expect a universe with life to exist. The existence of the universe and life are red flags that lead folks to question the narrative that we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend either the universe or life, yet inspite of neither the desire, the intent or the plan to create life, without knowledge of how to do it mindless forces stumbled blindly upon the formula to create life and cause a universe that allows life. Moreover if we are to believe the atheist narrative, lifeless mindless forces created something totally unlike itself...life. Yet the only way we have observed life coming about is through life. We have yet to observe life coming from non-life. The theory is that's how it came about but evidently we haven't been able to figure out using intelligence how to cause life that mindless forces are alleged to have produced without trying or knowing how.
Also there is irrefutable observable repeatable evidence that life comes from life.
Two things.
Quote:1. With regards to life coming from non-life, study the hypothesis of abiogenesis which evidence that it is possible. Your statement about life only coming from life is far from refutable.
In other words some day it may be a fact that life came from non-life through some process no one has figured out yet. When that day happens I will grant you its a line of evidence in favor of your belief. This is the irony, atheists claim they come to thier conclusion because supposedly that is the direction the available facts lead them; of course it isn't true but that is what they say. This is a case in point. The only verifiable, repeatable observable and proven method of producing life is from life. If one were led by the facts as atheists claim they are they should conclude (unless proven other wise) that life comes from life. Unfortunately that fact doesn't square with their apriori belief in the non-existence of God so they opt to disregard the proven fact and go for the theory instead.
Quote:2. Take a look at the bolded phrase. Is your grasp of logic so poor that you do not realize that they imply a beginning? Anyway, if life did not being to exist then there is no cause for it. If you are arguing a cause, then it has to begin to exist. This is not the logic a five-year old should fail at.
Truth is...you don't believe life always existed do you? Is there ever going to come to a point where you argue what you really think is true? There is a difference between a fact cited in support of a case and the argument made from the fact. When a jury retires they are admonished that the lawyers arguments are not themselves facts. Its fine for you to suggest something you don't actually believe, that life always existed in rebuttal but since even you don't believe in that line of BS its hard to imagine anyone else is. Its hard to be persausive when as you say something your nose grows.
Quote:Secondly, which theory is better is not in the eye of the beholder. The one with greater explanatory power is better.
And who determines that?
Quote:Thirdly, when I'm making a case for my theory, then you can present yours as a rebuttal, but rest assured, I can and will present facts to show how my theory explains things better than yours. It just isn't required here.
I can only hope if you do so you make a case you actually believe in.
Quote:Once again - no, it is not in the eye of the beholder. Even if people decide for themselves, it'd simply make them wrong. Which theory is better depends upon which of them explains the evidence better, i.e. explains more facts more accurately.
Right and that is a judgment call. How can you say if they decide for themselves it makes them wrong? Didn't you decide for yourself which arguments best explain the facts?
Quote:No, but it is not my opinion that is presented as a rebuttal.
Considering at least half of the things you offer in rebuttal you yourself don't believe I have to agree with you.
Quote:What it does show is that you have not made the case for theism that you have set out to do. The refutation of your arguments shows that your theory has no ground to stand on and there is no reason for someone impartial to judge it as correct. The fact that there is no given reason to go for any of the alternates is irrelevant.
Well good news I don't think you have lost any of your fellow atheists on this board. You mistakenly use the word refute because it makes it sound like you have disproven the case I am making when in fact all your offering is alternative theories many of which you yourself don't believe.
