(February 18, 2014 at 10:18 am)Sword of Christ Wrote:It's wrong, because you have zero evidence for your assertions... just "faith".(February 18, 2014 at 9:08 am)Esquilax Wrote: Assertion, assertion, assertion.
Assertions of facts science can support with evidence. Assertions that Atheists don't believe in God, last time I checked that was the idea of it. If anything I said is wrong feel free to point out what and why.
And that doesn't cut it.
(February 18, 2014 at 10:18 am)Sword of Christ Wrote:You design argument fails when you use these analogies, because they are not equivalent to what your designer faith-based entity allegedly did.Quote:We don't recognize design via complexity, genius.
So if you had never seen a fighter plane before and you saw one flying overhead you wouldn't see it as being something purposefully designed and crafted by an intelligence for a purpose? As long as we're clear on your way of thinking. It's not a usual way of thinking though most people would recognize the plane as a work of an intelligence. Now take the universe as a whole and the exact same applies. You don't need to prove it was you just ought to know via common sense. You can't prove it anyway seeing as science can study God directly only what he created.
When you build a car, a plane, a chair, whatever... you're taking materials already in existence and assembling them in a way that generates an object with a new purpose.
But your god-boy, allegedly made all of this out of nothing... The guy didn't transform something into something else... it just poofed stuff into existence.
And that... that... sort of ruins your analogy.
Besides, if, as it seems, you accept that this all came from the singularity that preceded the big-bang, then whatever was created then was far from complex... a soup of very simple and energetic quarks...