My dumbass parents doubt evolution

[Truth Matters]

Is that so, then why is it every time I hear a scientist of some profession asked, what is dark matter and dark energy, they say we do not know, we know it's there, we just do not know what it is, if that's not faith based I do not know what would be. It has not been seen, touched, tasted, smelled or proven in any way period, yet they know it's there, sort of sounds like God doesn't it.

Not knowing what it is doesn't mean we don't know it exists.
We know gravity exists yet we don't know what it actually is.
No faith is required, just more scientific research.
Still no evidence for your god though.

---

Then prove what gravity is - without arguing in circles
Try to debate me Atheist. We'll see who gets shredded in reason.

---

The question wasn't what gravity is, it is about prove of its existence.
Stop trying to move the goal posts.

A character that incidentally is loud mouthed, opinionated, obnoxious and ill informed.

Co-incidence much?

You and your faithful Atheist brethren have utterly failed to demonstrate a single flaw in my arguments.

I challenge you to demonstrate one.

You're a toothless rodent.

The fact that you have failed to offer up even of shred of evidence in support of your claims and assertions.

I'm guessing that you are only young(based on your ignorance)
So let me explain how science actually works.

A scientist will propose a theory based on ideas he has had or observations he has made.

Then that theory will be tested to see if its predictions work.

And even after it has been accepted as valid it is subject to new tests as new ways of testing are invented.

What you have done is declare "God must exist because he should"!!

Well, sorry lad, that is just not enough.

Badger, you are simply dead wrong and ignorant of science and philosophy.
We know of many things in science due to their necessity to sufficiently explain the known effect.

Nobody one can prove gravity exists. We know it exists due to it's necessity to explain the known effect. We know it exists because it pulls on bodies with mass. Well, how do we know gravity is pulling on the bodies? Because we know it has the effect of pulling our bodies. Well, how do you know it is gravity pulling your body? The circular loop repeats.
This is the same for God. We know God exists by God's necessity to explain known effects and our experiences of those known effects.

No on can prove atoms exist by observation. We believe they exist due to their explanatory necessity.
No one can prove sub-atomic particles exist. We know believe they exist by observation of their necessity to explain known effects.
Those Higgs Bosons, for example were always part of the standard model, because we knew they must exist due to their known effect. We still only have further confirmation of their known effects. We can't actuall se them.

We believe Mathematics but we can't prove it scientifically. Science rests on Mathematics.
We believe Logic, but we can't prove it scientifically without arguing on a circle.

Badger, explain how we know gravity exists without arguing in a circle - or admit you were wrong. Man up.

---

God's moral nature is a perfectly sufficient as a Plausible grounding.

Please explain how. You're just begging the question.

t's not objective because 'I believe it'. I believe it because there is no other rationally possible - much less plausible and sufficient grounding apart from God's existence.

You still haven't showed how you came to this conclusion. Do I simply have to trust you?

Give me your rationally coherent basis for claiming a serial killer 'ought not' pursue his pleasure to kill and torture others for his personal gratification

I know it is late and it's easy to miss a few words here and there, but if you read my argument carefully you'll realize that I am referring to the pleasure and pain of humanity as a whole.

No matter how much gratification a serial killer gets from murder and torture, he's still increasing pain.

I played football. I endured pain constantly.

Yet you found the amount of pleasure you received from baseball to be more than the amount of pain you endured, otherwise you'd have stopped playing.

What makes causing pain bad

Did you read what I wrote? Causing more pain than pleasure is bad because it goes against the preferred behavior of humanity as a whole.

---

Contingency – God is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing? Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause. (a) Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists. Self-existence is logically necessary. A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime. (b)

a) In quantum mechanics, particles and anti-particles can arise from quantum vacuum. "Nothingness" doesn't exist.

b) This a classic example of "god of the gaps". We don't know what was there before the Big Bang (if we can talk about such a thing as "before the Big Bang") so let's call it god.

Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.

There is absolutely no need for the cause of our universe to be non-physical, space-less, timeless or willful. There are many hypothesis about how it could have happened (Lee Smolin's fecund universes springs to mind). None of them is about a non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful entity.

Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.

The theory of evolution explains life with no need for a design. And irreducible complexity has been completely refuted (once again, even beheadmitted he has no concrete evidence for it).

Design doesn't exist in nature. The evolution of life doesn't have a purpose.

Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.

Again with the Fine tuning. How many times do I have to write that universe is not fine-tuned for life, life is fine.tuned for the universe?

Plus Stenger's work has shown that the "infinitesimally narrow range" and the "razor's edge" are myths. You can change the contastants up to 25% of their value and you'll still have stars, and therefore carbon.

Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.

And since it's metaphysically possible that I have 1000 dollars in my pocket, I actually have them.

Kant refuted the ontological argument in 1781. You can't take the leap from a concept to a reality on the basis of the attributes of that concept. The existance is not a predicate.

Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?

See above. There's no intelligence in nature. We find order in nature because we try to understand it through our mental schemes, but nature is inherently chaotic. Quantum mechanics show that clearly.

Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?

The evolution of religion is a fascinating subject. There are many possible reasons as to why religion evolved. Basically, religion is a tenative explanation of reality that humanizes nature, gives power to a chief, strengthen ities within a community and unites individuals against a common enemy.

Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul. Chemicals have no moral duties.

You're supposing that free will exists as something other than a byproduct of our brains.

Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies. Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena. Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.

Hearsay, forgeries, and inanity. Irrelevant.

You need to know the material before offering superficial commentary on things you know nothing about. Tangential commentary on every point that does not engage the arguments or premises does nothing to answer or defeat arguments.
It's fairly clear that you are skimming the arguments and rattling off the first thought that comes to mind just to deflect off.

Let's stick to one argument for now.

With respect to the moral arguments. You apparently don't understand how argument works. You need to defeat premises, not demand I prove premises in an argument in infinite regression. You need to tell me how God is not sufficient as a plausible grounding for an objective realm of moral values and duties. You have not done that. Further, You have not offered any plausible alternative. You can't simply protest and demand I prove the premise - and then prove the proof of the premise.....