TheDarkestOfAngesl, when you have tried to discuss the matter, however you have not refuted any of the points I made. Moreover from your comments it seems you have not understand any of the points I have made since otherwise you would not have made these comments. I will clarify:
"That's fine. I'm absolutely baffled how otherwise rational people can accept that a person you cannot ever see touch smell or feel created the universe despite no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Aren't we all amazed here?"
We cannot see the 2 in the equation x+3=5 but rather we deduce it from the rest of the equation. The 'supporting evidence whatsoever' is the rest of the equarion and likewise the supporting evidence for the creator is you and me and all that exists. Perhaps you are baffled and amazed because you are blind or in denial to see the evidences around you?
"God is just as unprovable by science as any other product of my or human imagination, but why is god given special treatment over things like spiderman, unicorns, and godzilla?"
God is unprovable by science because by defintion God is unlimited and independednt and not a subject of cause and effect. Unicorns, Godzilla by defintion would be limited and dependant and subjects of cause and effect so science can hypothesis about these matters. You dont seem to be understanding the properties of the creator and the properties of creation. It is not a question of special treatment it is a question of logic.
"No one in science who understands the field has ever postulated that the universe arose from nothing. Were this the case, it would violate anyway some important fundemental principles in physics (like the first law of thermodynamics.) That's something that people like you who want to interject a creator into the mix despite the fact that there are many truely unknown variables in terms of how life and the universe began.
The fact that you and other theists want there to be a god there doesn't excuse the fact that there is no real reason, at this time, for a god to be necessary for anything."
I agree with the first part but science as already mentioned is to examine all the tangible things which are subject to cause and effect so I do not know why you keept discussing this matter. It is not a fact that there are many truely unknown variables in terms of how life and the universe began. We may not know the details of all the causes and effects which detail how the universe began but whatever they are in the beginning the cause must have been an unlimted independant creator. This is the real reason for God to be neccassary so again you are missing the point.
"Things are never that simple. The oversimplification such as what you postulated above is necessary for theists such as yourself to cover for the lack of understanding of the scientific principles and decades of hard labor and scientific discovery. "
It is absolutely disgusting how you keep using science to this question when I have explained the limitation of science in my original response and even your fellow athiest agreed with me. Go back and read my first two posts and contemplate what is being said. You statements simply prove that it is you who are trying to cover for the lack of understanding of the scientific principles and decades of hard labor and scientific discovery. You are clearly misunderstanding the basic principles regarding what science can do.
"That's fine. I'm absolutely baffled how otherwise rational people can accept that a person you cannot ever see touch smell or feel created the universe despite no supporting evidence whatsoever.
Aren't we all amazed here?"
We cannot see the 2 in the equation x+3=5 but rather we deduce it from the rest of the equation. The 'supporting evidence whatsoever' is the rest of the equarion and likewise the supporting evidence for the creator is you and me and all that exists. Perhaps you are baffled and amazed because you are blind or in denial to see the evidences around you?
"God is just as unprovable by science as any other product of my or human imagination, but why is god given special treatment over things like spiderman, unicorns, and godzilla?"
God is unprovable by science because by defintion God is unlimited and independednt and not a subject of cause and effect. Unicorns, Godzilla by defintion would be limited and dependant and subjects of cause and effect so science can hypothesis about these matters. You dont seem to be understanding the properties of the creator and the properties of creation. It is not a question of special treatment it is a question of logic.
"No one in science who understands the field has ever postulated that the universe arose from nothing. Were this the case, it would violate anyway some important fundemental principles in physics (like the first law of thermodynamics.) That's something that people like you who want to interject a creator into the mix despite the fact that there are many truely unknown variables in terms of how life and the universe began.
The fact that you and other theists want there to be a god there doesn't excuse the fact that there is no real reason, at this time, for a god to be necessary for anything."
I agree with the first part but science as already mentioned is to examine all the tangible things which are subject to cause and effect so I do not know why you keept discussing this matter. It is not a fact that there are many truely unknown variables in terms of how life and the universe began. We may not know the details of all the causes and effects which detail how the universe began but whatever they are in the beginning the cause must have been an unlimted independant creator. This is the real reason for God to be neccassary so again you are missing the point.
"Things are never that simple. The oversimplification such as what you postulated above is necessary for theists such as yourself to cover for the lack of understanding of the scientific principles and decades of hard labor and scientific discovery. "
It is absolutely disgusting how you keep using science to this question when I have explained the limitation of science in my original response and even your fellow athiest agreed with me. Go back and read my first two posts and contemplate what is being said. You statements simply prove that it is you who are trying to cover for the lack of understanding of the scientific principles and decades of hard labor and scientific discovery. You are clearly misunderstanding the basic principles regarding what science can do.
