Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism

[Esquilax]

I dispute your contention that the universe is eternal.

You can dispute anything you want, but until you've provided evidence sufficient to logically exclude such a possibility, none of us are rationally justified in excluding it at all.

Your answer only pushes the question of the cause of the Big Bang further back.

Actually no, since in that hypothesis the big bang would only be the expansion of the universe into its current state. Please note, though, that as I've been saying for some time now, this isn't my position.

For example, this site, What happened before the Big Bang? at http://io9.com/5881330/what-happened-bef...e-big-bang hypothecizes that other universes existed before ours. So? What caused those universes to exist?

I don't know. You think it's god though, huh? Got any proof for that?

It takes a bigger leap of faith to believe that universes "just happen" than the leap of faith I take in believing God cause the universe(s) to exist.

Whew, good thing I don't believe either and am happy just admitting that I don't know for now. Wow, it'd be really stupid to profess belief based on insufficient knowledge, when an adult can just say they don't know, huh? I hate faith claims!

When I look at the incredible design of the universe, I see an intelligent designer, not a random accident.

So, you think the universe was designed for us, huh? So why's the earth seventy percent water, when we drown? Why's space so hostile to us? Why is a lot of the universe on fire, or exploding, or radioactive, or otherwise lethal to life? Such a fine design!

Please note that I asked you this before, and you just ignored me.

For example, check this site out:
What if strong force were stronger and weak force weaker? This site
http://www.space.com/11968-forces-form-m...eaker.html explains another mystery that I do not think is a coincidence.

If the strong force were stronger and the weak force were weaker, we'd have a different kind of universe! So what? Things are the way they are, you don't get to jam your assumptions in there without proof.

Why were scientists at CERN able to find the Higgs particle exactly as predicted? Because the universe has a design.

No, because they were smart cookies who paid attention, knew what to look for, and designed an experiment using the science you routinely shit on to get to your god presupposition.

Yes, there is the law of entropy, but that could also be part of the design.

And there's the fundamental dishonesty in your claim: "What? They used something else? Well, everything is designed!" You're willing to assume whatever you need to, without evidence, to get to what you want to. Well, claims about reality are demonstrated, not asserted. You want to claim these things are designed? Prove it first.

And what about gravity? How come it is strong enough, but not too strong?

Because of the mass and density of the planet. On other, larger planets, gravity is higher. And what do you mean, "too strong?" Too strong for what? Life? Life can survive under higher gravity, it would just need to be differently structured, with higher density bones and such. Your objection here only works if we assume your conclusion to be true before we apply it, and there's no reason to do that. If gravity were stronger, life would have evolved differently. That's the whole point.

Also, why does the whole universe seem to be designed so that humans can exist?

Right, that's why all the other planets in our solar system are deadly to us if we don't wear protective suits. And why the gaps between planets are radiation filled death traps, stretching for months' long journeys at least. Among many other things. Does it hurt, to remain this willfully ignorant?

All the science in the world cannot explain the purpose of creation.

This is another objection that only works if one assumes your conclusion, and is thus circular. If the universe wasn't created and thus has no purpose, then there's no purpose to explain, and your objection is nonsensical. Try harder.

The earth is not too far away from the sun nor too close.

Actually, since the Earth is on an elliptical orbit, the distance between it and the sun varies quite a bit. Hundreds of miles, in fact. There's no delicate balance here, you know; we wouldn't burn or freeze a few inches either way. There's a ton of wiggle room... which you'll no doubt also attribute to design, because your whole argument is top to bottom dishonest anyway.

Etc, etc., etc. It is not just one fact that appears designed, but so many taken together makes a pattern of evidence for a designer. It is not a cosmic accident.

Only if you continue to ignore the facts that I keep bringing up in response to this (repeated, unevidenced) claim you keep making. But then, that hardly makes you look like an intelligent argument-winner. More like a kid with her fingers in her hears, singing "la,la,la! Can't hear you!"

I prefer the leap of faith I have taken to yours any day.

Okay, again, I have no position here. I'm just bringing up alternatives to show that assuming god is an intellectually lazy, vapid, and unwarranted path to take. Thank you, then, for confirming this so wonderfully for everyone else.

I can have reasonable certainty that God exists, and that is good enough for me.

You don't have any certainty, because you have no evidence. What you have is faith. Filthy, useless, faith.

Unless you can prove it is impossible for God to exist, I'll stick with mine. Since I am confident, you cannot do that, I don't think I will become an atheist again.

And we end with a shifting of the burden of proof, the last word in lazy theistic nonsense. Nice form, Betty! Keep it up! You're making my position look all the stronger!