Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Thor]

This planet was formed 4 billion years ago. For billions of years it was covered in solid sheet of ice so that may have delayed development of complex multicultural life.

Source for this claim?

We would really need to find other planets with life on them to know how long the process will take on average. But certainly what you're looking at here is a very complex process, it has a very complex outcome and it will take a very long time to build up toward this complexity. So it is what you would expect to see.

Actually, if some deity created this planet specifically for humans, I would expect to see it created with humans on it from the very beginning. I would also not expect to find it inhabited by nasty things that harm and kill us.

He exists within time and space being immanent within his creation but as these things are his creation to begin with he isn't restricted to having to exist within time and space.

Unsubstantiated claptrap. I could claim that unicorns exist within time and space. Doesn't make it true.

[Sword of Christ]

Source for this claim?

The Holy Spirit... well no science.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/ancient_eart...ball_Earth

I'm sure that will have delayed things a little.

Actually, if some deity created this planet specifically for humans, I would expect to see it created with humans on it from the very beginning.

So a cake will be edible as a cake instantly without having to mix the ingredients together and bake it in an oven? I'm like your instant gratification logic here. Why do women bother with this whole pregnancy and childbirth thing when this fully formed 18 year old man/woman can just tear instantly tear out of their body the moment they have sex? No gradual development or build up or anything.

I would also not expect to find it inhabited by nasty things that harm and kill us.

It's called evolution if there is a niche for a predator or parasite then that's what you're going to end up with. Darwin's theory is actually somewhat good for whole the problem of natural evil issue, we know why these things exist.

Unsubstantiated claptrap. I could claim that unicorns exist within time and space. Doesn't make it true.

You could also claim the the universe just created itself and exists for no purpose at at all but wouldn't make it true either. What you don't substantiation when you do it because you're a special case?

[Jackalope]

Sword - do you understand the difference between millions and billions?

The available evidence suggests no.

[Esquilax]

So a cake will be edible as a cake instantly without having to mix the ingredients together and bake it in an oven? I'm like your instant gratification logic here. Why do women bother with this whole pregnancy and childbirth thing when this fully formed 18 year old man/woman can just tear instantly tear out of their body the moment they have sex? No gradual development or build up or anything.

Given that a: your bible literally claims the thing you're making fun of here, and b: a god with the properties your peeps describe him with would have no need for the roundabout method of creation anyway, where do you get off being this sarcastic and snarky?

You could also claim the the universe just created itself and exists for no purpose at at all but wouldn't make it true either. What you don't substantiation when you do it because you're a special case?

For someone who has provided no evidence whatsoever for his claims, just assertions and books from apologists (read: frauds) I find this line hilarious.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Sword - do you understand the difference between millions and billions?

The available evidence suggests no.

650 million out of 4.6 billion leaves.....ooooh....about 4 billion years for stuff to happen.

That's 4,000 million years Sword.

[Tonus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/ancient_eart...ball_Earth

I'm sure that will have delayed things a little.

The information at that link speaks of a hypothesis that the Earth was extensively covered by ice at one or more points in time, the last being around 650 million years ago. It does not claim that the Earth was icebound for billions of years until that point.

God's experimental treatment of Earth left us with a planet that seems no different from one that developed through natural processes, based on the evidence left behind. Now that we're starting to map the topography of the oceans, perhaps one day we'll find that there is a system of valleys in the deep Pacific that spells out "GOD WUZ HEAR LOL" and we'll finally know the truth of the universe.

I'm guessing that we won't, though.

[Sword of Christ]

Sword - do you understand the difference between millions and billions?

The available evidence suggests no.

There may have been a number of successive global glaciations over a span of billions of years.

---

Given that a: your bible literally claims the thing you're making fun of here, and b: a god with the properties your peeps describe him with would have no need for the roundabout method of creation anyway,

God decided to create the universe and humanity the way he did and you can be sure it was done this way for a good reason. The reason I would say is human freedom of will and freedom to sin. See the book of Genesis.

where do you get off being this sarcastic and snarky?

Because atheists never make sarcastic snarky posts in response to good solid well reasoned and valid theistic arguments? If you can give it you can take it, I'm not going to be put off by it. I'm not going out of my way to initiate it myself.

For someone who has provided no evidence whatsoever for his claims, just assertions and books from apologists (read: frauds) I find this line hilarious.

But you're setting a criteria that would be impossible even in principal if you mean scientifically certain evidence of a non-physical God you can't observe. I can use arguments that science would strongly support such as the fine tuning of the universe. You're still not going to take any notice of it and insist it all randomly came together like a tornado running through a junkyard!

[Esquilax]

God decided to create the universe and humanity the way he did and you can be sure it was done this way for a good reason. The reason I would say is human freedom of will and freedom to sin. See the book of Genesis.

Proof or shut the hell up. Surprisingly, your opinions mean jack shit to me without outside verification.

Because atheists never make sarcastic snarky posts in response to good solid well reasoned and valid theistic arguments?

The moment theists start making solid, well reasoned and valid arguments, I'll let you know.

But you're setting a criteria that would be impossible even in principal if you mean scientifically certain evidence of a non-physical God you can't observe. I can use arguments that science would strongly support such as the fine tuning of the universe. You're still not going to take any notice of it and insist it all randomly came together like a tornado running through a junkyard!

Except that... mainstream science doesn't accept fine tuning... because the universe is not fine tuned.

And, again, a non physical god that doesn't interact with the world is no different from a god that doesn't exist, and therefore, you have no possible justification for believing in it. At all.

That's just the way rationality works.

[Sword of Christ]

Proof or shut the hell up. Surprisingly, your opinions mean jack shit to me without outside verification.

Same goes for your own unproven opinions then. Go on the better arguments, there are better arguments for God than atheism.

The moment theists start making solid, well reasoned and valid arguments, I'll let you know.

But you have been pounded by well reasoned and valid arguments in favor of the belief in Gods existence. Note I'm not saying you can "prove" God the way you're demanding. You can't.

Except that... mainstream science doesn't accept fine tuning... because the universe is not fine tuned.

Mainstream science doesn't accept fine tuning because it accepts materialist dogma. There's no other reason why it doesn't.

And, again, a non physical god that doesn't interact with the world is no different from a god that doesn't exist

He interacts with humanity on a 24 hour basis. Miracles are very rare events but God has constructed his creation in such a way that there will be some kind of a context that would allow for them. They won't be "violations" of the natural order but are parts of the same design. No there is no proof for this but like you said if God exists then it will have to be a God who interacts with us and revealed himself through human history. Specifically in this case through the person of Christ.

, and therefore, you have no possible justification for believing in it. At all.

I may as well say you have no justification for your belief in materialism beyond "what mainstream science accepts" which is an argument from authority not your own reasoning.

That's just the way rationality works.

You have been told that atheism and a materialist view of the universe is rational so that's what you believe. You haven't explained why you think it's rational beyond "because scientists say so". Scientists don't have all the answers they just have their own specialist subjects. Most of them haven't studied philosophy or theology and science is perfectly well compatible with God.

[Esquilax]

Same goes for your own unproven opinions then. Go on the better arguments, there are better arguments for God than atheism.

Good thing atheism doesn't require arguments, considering it's not a claim, then.

But you have been pounded by well reasoned and valid arguments in favor of the belief in Gods existence. Note I'm not saying you can "prove" God the way you're demanding. You can't.

The fact that you believe that is legitimately the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.

Mainstream science doesn't accept fine tuning because it accepts materialist dogma. There's no other reason why it doesn't.

Methodological naturalism. Meaning the scientific method.

Oh, and what do you say about the religious scientists that also don't agree with you?

But hey, keep going with your conspiracy theories, they're so totally logical. Because scientists actually hate Nobel prizes and large sums of money, and so they'll deliberately ignore evidence that might point to the existence of a god, which would be literally the discovery of the millennium. The scientific community certainly wouldn't enjoy the fame and praise they would get for saving the souls of everyone on earth. No, your claim here makes total sense.

He interacts with humanity on a 24 hour basis. Miracles are very rare events but God has constructed his creation in such a way that there will be some kind of a context that would allow for them. They won't be "violations" of the natural order but are parts of the same design. No there is no proof for this but like you said if God exists then it will have to be a God who interacts with us and revealed himself through human history. Specifically in this case through the person of Christ.

So effectively you still can't demonstrate that he interacts, so you've just moved the problem one step back and given yourself yet another claim you cannot possibly demonstrate.

I may as well say you have no justification for your belief in materialism beyond "what mainstream science accepts" which is an argument from authority not your own reasoning.

Lucky that I'm not a materialist and you're a liar, then.

You have been told that atheism and a materialist view of the universe is rational so that's what you believe. You haven't explained why you think it's rational beyond "because scientists say so". Scientists don't have all the answers they just have their own specialist subjects. Most of them haven't studied philosophy or theology and science is perfectly well compatible with God.

I'm not a materialist. Quit lying. I don't see how we can have an effective conversation if you're committed to not arguing against my position, but instead some strawman that you've conjured.