What is "FAITH"

[Silver]

Is there anything that science can't do?

Plenty. Science is not perfect. Nothing is. However, as time progresses and man evolves, there will always be more that science can accomplish.

[Consilius]

What reason have you to believe that the discovery of the origin of the universe outside of God is among the things that science cannot do?

[Bad Writer]

There is good in the world, hence, the world is characteristically good.

By train of the thought, the world is also characteristically bad. Do you see what I mean?

We have a finite universe that came into being at a single point in time. Whatever caused this coming into existence would need to exist outside of time to cause it.
Space came into existence at this point in time. Space must come from outside of space. Something that is not limited by space.
And we go on.

And how do you know that? I know you can't fathom something coming from nothing, but if there is a creator, and if this creator is your god, and if he can't make something from nothing, then your God also can't come from nothing, which means he has a creator, and so on and so on. Does your god worship his creator? You can't possibly know these things, so then why do you accept them as fact?

A little something called secular reasoning. Science has made great strides in understanding the universe and how it works. Of course, tremendous strides could have been accomplished sooner had it not been for the theistic abhorrence of science that tends to slow down scientific progress.

Is there anything that science can't do?

How can anyone possibly know the answer to that question? We know so much, but it's also possible that we've only scratched the surface of what there is to know of science.

[Silver]

What reason have you to believe that the discovery of the origin of the universe outside of God is among the things that science cannot do?

I do not recall stating that science could not one day do such a thing.

[Consilius]

There is good in the world, hence, the world is characteristically good.

By train of the thought, the world is also characteristically bad. Do you see what I mean?

We have a finite universe that came into being at a single point in time. Whatever caused this coming into existence would need to exist outside of time to cause it.
Space came into existence at this point in time. Space must come from outside of space. Something that is not limited by space.
And we go on.

And how do you know that? I know you can't fathom something coming from nothing, but if there is a creator, and if this creator is your god, and if he can't make something from nothing, then your God also can't come from nothing, which means he has a creator, and so on and so on. Does your god worship his creator? You can't possibly know these things, so then why do you accept them as fact?

Is there anything that science can't do?

How can anyone possibly know the answer to that question? We know so much, but it's also possible that we've only scratched the surface of what there is to know of science.

Bad is the absence of good. What you are saying is that there are points in time and space where good is absent, like dips on a plain.
What I am suggesting is that there has always been an immaterial entity that has always had the power to create the physical from itself.

---

What reason have you to believe that the discovery of the origin of the universe outside of God is among the things that science cannot do?

I do not recall stating that science could not one day do such a thing.

So there is chance that science can and can not find an atheistic answer?

[Silver]

So there is chance that science can and can not find an atheistic answer?

What do you mean?

[Consilius]

Is it possible that science will never provide an explanation for the origin of the universe outside a creator?

[Silver]

Is it possible that science will never provide an explanation for the origin of the universe outside a creator?

Yes, but never knowing the answer will still not automatically mean god did it, especially when there is no verifiable proof of the deity's existence.

[Consilius]

The existence of the God of monotheism can and has been logically deduced. A working conclusion exists, but your conclusion may or may not be reached in an indeterminable number of years.
Doesn't this, to you, sound like a scientist telling you to close your eyes and count up while he looks for an answer he isn't bound to give you?

---

Surely you are aware of how theists have logically arrived at the conclusion that a creator like the Judeo-Christian God must exist out of necessity, independent of Scripture.

[Silver]

The existence of the God of monotheism can and has been logically deduced.

False. All any theist has is faith. Nothing more. Faith is not verifiable proof of the existence of god so much as it is the veritable lack of evidence in support of said god.

The very fact that atheism exists proves that god cannot be proven to exist.

---

Surely you are aware of how theists have logically arrived at the conclusion that a creator like the Judeo-Christian God must exist out of necessity, independent of Scripture.

Surely, you must be aware that theism is the very antithesis of reason.