Free Will

[Ravenstar]

What B.A.A. and Bill are trying to say, in a nutshell is:

 

Scientists follow the data to it's natural conclusion, whatever that may be. Even if it proves their current theory wrong, ESPECIALLY if it proves their theory wrong - that's how science falsifies itself..it's self-correcting.

 

Apologists (not just religious ones either) start with a conclusion and seek data to confirm it  (look up 'confirmation bias', a very common psychological phenomena) and reject all information that doesn't support their view.

 

see the difference?

 

IF you, or anyone had evidence of the veracity of the Bible, I wouldn't reject it... because that would make me dishonest.

[RipVanWinkle]

Exactly. bill

[bornagainathiest]

Hey TB!

 

Check this out... http://www.zonu.com/detail-en/2009-09-18-7242/Oil-and-gas-infrastructure-in-the-Caspian-Sea-and-Black-Sea-Regions-2001.html

 

If you click on the map (really BIG image) you'll see a list of 66 oil companies who drill for oil in this region.  (In the box at top center.) 16 of them are US companies.

 

These oil guys don't **** around!

They'll use whatever works best to get at the black gold in the most cost-effective way possible.  They don't have any time or money to waste on false results.  They can't afford to be deluded about how long the oil takes to form.  They want results - pronto!

 

If the scripture-based time scale of 6,000 years is the true age of the Earth, why is it that all these companies are using the false 4.5 billion year time scale arrived at by Geological science?

 

Or, putting it another way -  if Creationism is true, why aren't any oil companies anywhere in the world, using it?

 

BAA

 

 

 

 

 

[midniterider]

 

 

 

They do not need physical evidence to believe. They never say they have to have it, they simply provide evidence for the the theory of a young earth created by God in order that people who have been deluded by the world can see that the evidence points to what they already believe. 

You already know all the arguments that any christian apologist has offered and all the evidence that we as Christians have. You in fact were one of us at one point. 

I am not being a troll. I am simply stating what I believe which is what my God tells me to do. I never wanted to start an argument I only wanted to provide a christian perspective on free will.  If any thing I have said has offended anyone I am sorry. The Bible says the gospel is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. This is found in 1 Peter 2:8.

I am not closed minded at all I have looked at both sides with much scrutiny and have found your side wanting. If you as an atheist are right then I as christian will lose nothing I will simply be put into the ground to rot, but if I as a christian am right then you lose everything. Wisdom would tell you that you should be a christian. I am sorry but to me all the knowledge in the world cannot compete with wisdom.  

I will continue to pray for you all.

 

 

Ok, TB.

 

Perhaps you could explain something to me?

If the universe is as exactly as old as the Bible says (about 6,000 years), then it MUST be impossible for astronomers to discover that it isn't, right?  If they start off with the wrong age (13.8 billion years) and make false and deluded predictions based on their false and deluded assumptions, these predictions MUST confirm the true, Biblical age of the universe, right?  It's not possible to get the right answer if you start off with the wrong assumptions, is it?  Deluded people cannot be proven right by God's creation, can they?  The created universe MUST agree with the Bible... yes?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

 

You don't have to grasp the technical stuff here, TB.  All you have to do is scroll down to the 'Features' section and look at the diagram on the right.  If you read the latter half of the wordage, it says...

"...the error bars are too small to be seen even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve."

 

I'll explain this for you.

The astronomers predicted the shape of the curve on this graph, based upon their 'deluded' understanding of the universe's age.  They made this prediction before they acquired the data, using telescopes and satellites.

 

The agreement between their prediction and the observed data is perfect.  Got that?  PERFECT.  PERFECT.

 

So perfect that it's impossible to tell the difference between their prediction and the data they observed.  They made a perfect prediction and it was perfectly validated by what they saw in the sky.  Their predicted 13.8 billion year age of the universe was perfectly confirmed by light from the heavens.

 

So, please explain to me how this can be - if the universe is only 6,000 or so years old.  As scripture says it is.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

First, the bible never says that the earth is only 6000 years old much less the universe itself. The universe could possibly be much older that is not what I argue. I argue the the creation within the world was created by God. Day 1 Light and Dark Day 2 Sky  Day 3 Land Day 4 Plants Day 5 Animals Day 6 Humans

I quote you "It's not possible to get the right answer if you start off with the wrong assumptions, is it?"

You are correct in that assertion. I have a question though how do you know that they did not start off with the wrong assumption? Many creationists have started with the prediction that the earth is only 6000 years old and those predictions have been verified as true.

Here is an example http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n4/magnetic It is about the age of the earth in relation to the earths magnetic field.

So which one started off with the wrong assumption? Who is to say one way or another? That is if you truly do believe there are no absolutes?

There is evidence to support both sides while both side claim to have the right evidence yet they both came at it from there own preconceived predictions.

The only way to actually prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, any of this would be to go back to both times and see what was taking place.

You say it is not possible to get the right answer if you start off with the wrong assumptions, well what are the wrong assumptions?

 

You miss the point entirely, TB.

 

If the universe was only 6,000 years old, that's the result the light seen by the telescopes would have been - regardless of any human assumptions, false or otherwise.  The universe is not beholden to us to show any other age than that which it really is, regardless of our assumptions, correct or not.

 

Since it was measured to this value, in exact agreement with predictions you think are deluded, then you must be wrong about the delusions you say these scientists are laboring under.

 

The critical point TB is this.

 

The universe doesn't lie about itself, nor can it be deluded about itself, nor does it make any assumptions about itself.

 

If I measure something with the wrong expectation, then I will not get the answer I expect, regardless of my assumptions.  Wrong expectations can never yield correct answers, regardless of any assumptions I make.  Therefore, my false expectation is proven false by the true measurement.

 

But if I measure something with a correct expectation, I will get the answer I expect.  Seeing as the universe itself is giving me true knowledge about itself, my expected result MUST therefore be true also.

 

Clear now?

 

BAA

2+2=5. Jesus said it and I believe it. :-)

[mymistake]

 

2+2=5. Jesus said it and I believe it. :-)

 

 

 

INFIDEL!!!!   2+2=3

[midniterider]

 

 

2+2=5. Jesus said it and I believe it. :-)

 

 

 

INFIDEL!!!!   2+2=3

 

 

Ha. Ok then. Actually I forgot the "and that settles it" part.....

[TrueBeliever]

 

 

 

 

They do not need physical evidence to believe. They never say they have to have it, they simply provide evidence for the the theory of a young earth created by God in order that people who have been deluded by the world can see that the evidence points to what they already believe. 

You already know all the arguments that any christian apologist has offered and all the evidence that we as Christians have. You in fact were one of us at one point. 

I am not being a troll. I am simply stating what I believe which is what my God tells me to do. I never wanted to start an argument I only wanted to provide a christian perspective on free will.  If any thing I have said has offended anyone I am sorry. The Bible says the gospel is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. This is found in 1 Peter 2:8.

I am not closed minded at all I have looked at both sides with much scrutiny and have found your side wanting. If you as an atheist are right then I as christian will lose nothing I will simply be put into the ground to rot, but if I as a christian am right then you lose everything. Wisdom would tell you that you should be a christian. I am sorry but to me all the knowledge in the world cannot compete with wisdom.  

I will continue to pray for you all. 

 

 

Ok, TB.

 

Perhaps you could explain something to me?

If the universe is as exactly as old as the Bible says (about 6,000 years), then it MUST be impossible for astronomers to discover that it isn't, right?  If they start off with the wrong age (13.8 billion years) and make false and deluded predictions based on their false and deluded assumptions, these predictions MUST confirm the true, Biblical age of the universe, right?  It's not possible to get the right answer if you start off with the wrong assumptions, is it?  Deluded people cannot be proven right by God's creation, can they?  The created universe MUST agree with the Bible... yes?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

 

You don't have to grasp the technical stuff here, TB.  All you have to do is scroll down to the 'Features' section and look at the diagram on the right.  If you read the latter half of the wordage, it says...

"...the error bars are too small to be seen even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve."

 

I'll explain this for you.

The astronomers predicted the shape of the curve on this graph, based upon their 'deluded' understanding of the universe's age.  They made this prediction before they acquired the data, using telescopes and satellites.

 

The agreement between their prediction and the observed data is perfect.  Got that?  PERFECT.  PERFECT.

 

So perfect that it's impossible to tell the difference between their prediction and the data they observed.  They made a perfect prediction and it was perfectly validated by what they saw in the sky.  Their predicted 13.8 billion year age of the universe was perfectly confirmed by light from the heavens.

 

So, please explain to me how this can be - if the universe is only 6,000 or so years old.  As scripture says it is.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

First, the bible never says that the earth is only 6000 years old much less the universe itself. The universe could possibly be much older that is not what I argue. I argue the the creation within the world was created by God. Day 1 Light and Dark Day 2 Sky  Day 3 Land Day 4 Plants Day 5 Animals Day 6 Humans

I quote you "It's not possible to get the right answer if you start off with the wrong assumptions, is it?"

You are correct in that assertion. I have a question though how do you know that they did not start off with the wrong assumption? Many creationists have started with the prediction that the earth is only 6000 years old and those predictions have been verified as true.

Here is an example http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n4/magnetic It is about the age of the earth in relation to the earths magnetic field.

So which one started off with the wrong assumption? Who is to say one way or another? That is if you truly do believe there are no absolutes?

There is evidence to support both sides while both side claim to have the right evidence yet they both came at it from there own preconceived predictions.

The only way to actually prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, any of this would be to go back to both times and see what was taking place.

You say it is not possible to get the right answer if you start off with the wrong assumptions, well what are the wrong assumptions? 

 

 

You miss the point entirely, TB.

 

If the universe was only 6,000 years old, that's the result the light seen by the telescopes would have been - regardless of any human assumptions, false or otherwise.  The universe is not beholden to us to show any other age than that which it really is, regardless of our assumptions, correct or not.

 

Since it was measured to this value, in exact agreement with predictions you think are deluded, then you must be wrong about the delusions you say these scientists are laboring under.

 

The critical point TB is this.

 

The universe doesn't lie about itself, nor can it be deluded about itself, nor does it make any assumptions about itself.

 

If I measure something with the wrong expectation, then I will not get the answer I expect, regardless of my assumptions.  Wrong expectations can never yield correct answers, regardless of any assumptions I make.  Therefore, my false expectation is proven false by the true measurement.

 

But if I measure something with a correct expectation, I will get the answer I expect.  Seeing as the universe itself is giving me true knowledge about itself, my expected result MUST therefore be true also.

 

Clear now?

 

BAA

 

 

 

What B.A.A. and Bill are trying to say, in a nutshell is:

 

Scientists follow the data to it's natural conclusion, whatever that may be. Even if it proves their current theory wrong, ESPECIALLY if it proves their theory wrong - that's how science falsifies itself..it's self-correcting.

 

Apologists (not just religious ones either) start with a conclusion and seek data to confirm it  (look up 'confirmation bias', a very common psychological phenomena) and reject all information that doesn't support their view.

 

see the difference?

 

IF you, or anyone had evidence of the veracity of the Bible, I wouldn't reject it... because that would make me dishonest.

 

 

Hey TB!

 

Check this out... http://www.zonu.com/detail-en/2009-09-18-7242/Oil-and-gas-infrastructure-in-the-Caspian-Sea-and-Black-Sea-Regions-2001.html

 

If you click on the map (really BIG image) you'll see a list of 66 oil companies who drill for oil in this region.  (In the box at top center.) 16 of them are US companies.

 

These oil guys don't **** around!

They'll use whatever works best to get at the black gold in the most cost-effective way possible.  They don't have any time or money to waste on false results.  They can't afford to be deluded about how long the oil takes to form.  They want results - pronto!

 

If the scripture-based time scale of 6,000 years is the true age of the Earth, why is it that all these companies are using the false 4.5 billion year time scale arrived at by Geological science?

 

Or, putting it another way -  if Creationism is true, why aren't any oil companies anywhere in the world, using it?

 

BAA

Yes, I understand what you are saying.  Here is an article I found looking up evidence for the flood account in Genesis. http://people.howstuffworks.com/creationism.htm According to this article I think I lean more towards gap creationism as explained on page 4. What I gather from what you have all said is that you would agree with the last paragraph on page 5.  

I quote,

"According to the scientific community, there is no scientific evidence in favor of creationism; there is a Biblical record and there are holes in the theory of evolution. However, scientists note that citing holes in the theory of evolution is setting forth negative as opposed to positive evidence: The holes in evolution are proof only of holes, not of any particular competing theory. There is nothing to test for in "creation science" -- it is impossible to prove or disprove the presence of God or miraculous occurrences using the scientific method. Most scientists believe this makes creationism a metaphysical or philosophical theory, not a scientific one."

I agree for the most part with this statement. I think that us creationists seek to prove the metaphysical with the physical and vice versa. So when we do start to debate every avenue we use points to the metaphysical realm.  Which in all reality is impossible to prove or disprove, that I accept. I also say that in the scientific world it is impossible to prove any theory as a fact. This is why over the years the earth, in scientific circles has progressively gotten older and older.  Of course, I accept that the science of mathematics is exact and is therefore factual, but that is the only factual science that I know of.

Since your arguments are on the physical plane and mine are on the metaphysical plane they will never be entirely reconcilable. It is much like arguing whether Michael Angelo or Picasso was a better painter. Your answer would depend on your perspective of how you view art and the rest of the world.

I encourage you to read the article mentioned above. It is a very unbiased look into what creationism is.           

[florduh]

It is a very unbiased look into what creationism is. 

 

I know some Creationists. I've read the books. Creationism, or Intelligent Design, is the practice of ignoring factual evidence that disproves the religious premise and embracing or twisting anything that may support the supernatural premise.

 

A common tactic is to denigrate the scientific method, to mischaracterize the meaning of scientific theory, and assume that since science doesn't have all the answers yet, the religious camp must therefore be right after all. They are ill informed, disingenuous, and frequently outright dishonest while furthering their agenda. They assume there is a diabolic conspiracy throughout all of science to systematically cast doubt on ancient mythology that some still take as fact. Scientists seek real answers and eventually get them; the religious seek confirmation for their unfounded beliefs.

[Ravenstar]

"I also say that in the scientific world it is impossible to prove any theory as a fact."

 

I have to correct you here, theories are not facts, nor can they ever be... this is a common misunderstanding... "A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

(emphasis mine)

 

read more... sourced below:

 

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

[Ravenstar]

Mathematics is not a 'factual' science, per se. It is a very precise logical language to define and express truths about natural phenomena and to make predictions. Higher mathematics is quite abstract.

 

And its Michelangelo... aaargh.  Michelangelo Buonarroti, Not Michael Angelo. And SCIENCE is NOTHING like personal opinions on art. You can't approach the reality of physics (or any of the hard sciences) based on subjective opinion - that is exactly the OPPOSITE of science.

 

If something is true and supported in science (and mathematics - it's all gotta work together or it's just conjecture), it just IS... doesn't matter how you FEEL about it. Example: The Theory of Gravity is real no matter what your personal opinion is of it's veracity. Try to fly... see? 

[bornagainathiest]

It's impossible to prove any theory as a fact?

 

Ok then TB, if a theoretical prediction (Yes! That one again. See post # 209) is perfectly matched by the observed data, does that make it a fact?  Does that prove it?

 

If not, why not?  On both counts.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[mymistake]

 I also say that in the scientific world it is impossible to prove any theory as a fact. This is why over the years the earth, in scientific circles has progressively gotten older and older.  

 

Nope.  The reason scientist have revised their date for Earth's age is because they keep looking for the truth so they keep finding more evidence.  When a new piece of evidence shows that the old idea is wrong scientists drop the old idea and embrace the new information.

 

 

I encourage you to read the article mentioned above. It is a very unbiased look into what creationism is.      

 

I think I can rely on my own experience of being a creationist for several decades to understand creationism.

[LivingLife]

Whatever gaps may exist in science, science will eventually answer. Since Darwin the ToE has only moved forward and never hit a brick wall. The science expound its knowledge as new evidence is discovered. The Lenski experiment has proven the ToE but creationists who do not understand the ToE will dismiss this a "they still be bugs".

 

Compare this to the biblical account of origins. You have texts that are not even original and they were dead wrong as they had no idea and invented gods to explain stuff they did not understand. Do you believe that Zeus/Thor have anything to do with the weather?

 

The story of Genesis has been around for a very long time and has NEVER been updated to reflect new knowledge, old is not always better as are many other claims in the bible. Since my HS science in the 70s, there has been huge advancements and the little we knew of genetics back then did not include using DNA as forensic evidence in crime scenes. The Police have stayed abreast of science and DNA is the most compelling evidence to put one at the scene of a crime. Prior to DNA, creationists arguments against evolution were totally different. Most theists still argue against what we consider ancient science like Darwin and call us Darwinists. The ToE has come a long way since then.

 

Creationists conflate Cosmology with Abiogenesis with Evolution to try and find a soundbyte explanation equal to the simplistic godunnit account that requires little to no thinking. These three are huge fields each in their own with sub disciplines.

 

The BBT stands on its own merit as to the age of the universe being around 13.8Bn years old, it is probably older.

 

Abiogenesis is close to becoming a theory

 

Evolution is globally accepted as fact

 

Creationists are in the minority and only so high a number in the USA b/c of lack of proper education and religion injection into education and politics.

 

You have to be a complete moron to dismiss all evidence in these disciplines and favour the biblical version of origins.

[TrueBeliever]

Mathematics is not a 'factual' science, per se. It is a very precise logical language to define and express truths about natural phenomena and to make predictions. Higher mathematics is quite abstract.

 

And its Michelangelo... aaargh.  Michelangelo Buonarroti, Not Michael Angelo. And SCIENCE is NOTHING like personal opinions on art. You can't approach the reality of physics (or any of the hard sciences) based on subjective opinion - that is exactly the OPPOSITE of science.

 

If something is true and supported in science (and mathematics - it's all gotta work together or it's just conjecture), it just IS... doesn't matter how you FEEL about it. Example: The Theory of Gravity is real no matter what your personal opinion is of it's veracity. Try to fly... see? 

 

I was not saying that science was subjective in any way. I was simply trying to explain the difference between the metaphysical and the physical and how we can see different outcomes to some scientific theories.  

 

It's impossible to prove any theory as a fact?

 

Ok then TB, if a theoretical prediction (Yes! That one again. See post # 209) is perfectly matched by the observed data, does that make it a fact?  Does that prove it?

 

If not, why not?  On both counts.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

A theory can never be made a fact. I refer to the link in post #234. So no, to the first question. 

It gives proof that it is correct but that was based on the presupposition that they were correct. What if they had started with a different presupposition, would they have proven that to be correct? Maybe not, maybe so. We don't really know. All we know is they proved themselves correct in their assertions then stopped in much the same way creationists do.  

They do have evidence in support of that theory, but again the only way to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that theory is to go back that many millions of years to see what actually was. 

Again, I argue that God created the world. The whole premise of this argument is metaphysical and therefore cannot be proved or disproved. I refer to the link I mentioned in post #232 and the quote. All the  holes you put into my metaphysical theory are only negative evidence and do not necessarily prove your theory that God did not create the world. In order to disprove my argument you must first prove there is no God which cannot be done, the existence of God being metaphysical in nature. The only way to know this for sure is to die, but then we can't come back and tell anyone. So, the point is essentially moot. Being a gap creationist I don't have a problem with an older earth. I simply believe that God created the earth.

[Storm]

 

Again, I argue that God created the world. The whole premise of this argument is metaphysical and therefore cannot be proved or disproved. I refer to the link I mentioned in post #232 and the quote. All the  holes you put into my metaphysical theory are only negative evidence and do not necessarily prove your theory that God did not create the world. In order to disprove my argument you must first prove there is no God which cannot be done, the existence of God being metaphysical in nature. The only way to know this for sure is to die, but then we can't come back and tell anyone. So, the point is essentially moot. Being a gap creationist I don't have a problem with an older earth. I simply believe that God created the earth.

 

Your entire belief in god (and creationism) comes from a 2000+ year old book full of contradictions and inaccuracies, written by anonymous men using pseudonyms, and who are claiming they are writing the actual word of god. And you believe this over a series of actual studies by real people who you can verify actually existed and who actually did the experiments and the calculations and the exhaustive studies to obtain the information that they have introduced to the world. Really?

[midniterider]

Again, I argue that God created the world. The whole premise of this argument is metaphysical and therefore cannot be proved or disproved. I refer to the link I mentioned in post #232 and the quote. All the  holes you put into my metaphysical theory are only negative evidence and do not necessarily prove your theory that God did not create the world. In order to disprove my argument you must first prove there is no God which cannot be done, the existence of God being metaphysical in nature. The only way to know this for sure is to die, but then we can't come back and tell anyone. So, the point is essentially moot. Being a gap creationist I don't have a problem with an older earth. I simply believe that God created the earth.

 

 

Again, I argue that Invisible Pink Unicorns created the world. The whole premise of this argument is metaphysical and therefore cannot be proved or disproved. I refer to the link I mentioned in post #232 and the quote. All the  holes you put into my metaphysical theory are only negative evidence and do not necessarily prove your theory that Invisible Pink Unicorns did not create the world. In order to disprove my argument you must first prove there are no Invisible Pink Unicorns which cannot be done, the existence of Invisible Pink Unicorns being metaphysical in nature. The only way to know this for sure is to die, but then we can't come back and tell anyone. So, the point is essentially moot. Being a gap unicornist I don't have a problem with an older earth. I simply believe that Invisible Pink Unicorns created the earth.

 

I used to believe God created the world until one day the real and true Invisible Pink Unicorn revealed itself to me. You cannot disprove my theory that the IPU created the world and lives in my heart today. Though it may seem absurd to some people, even Christians who also believe in their God without any physical evidence (are thoughts really evidence?), as for me and my house we serve the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

 

My theory cannot be disproven so it "could" be right. As long as you have faith. That's all the IPU asks for is faith.

[TrueBeliever]

 

 

Again, I argue that God created the world. The whole premise of this argument is metaphysical and therefore cannot be proved or disproved. I refer to the link I mentioned in post #232 and the quote. All the  holes you put into my metaphysical theory are only negative evidence and do not necessarily prove your theory that God did not create the world. In order to disprove my argument you must first prove there is no God which cannot be done, the existence of God being metaphysical in nature. The only way to know this for sure is to die, but then we can't come back and tell anyone. So, the point is essentially moot. Being a gap creationist I don't have a problem with an older earth. I simply believe that God created the earth.

 

Your entire belief in god (and creationism) comes from a 2000+ year old book full of contradictions and inaccuracies, written by anonymous men using pseudonyms, and who are claiming they are writing the actual word of god. And you believe this over a series of actual studies by real people who you can verify actually existed and who actually did the experiments and the calculations and the exhaustive studies to obtain the information that they have introduced to the world. Really?

 

I do no have anything against science. Science is important, but nothing in this physical world is with out its flaws.  I have very little to dispute with chemistry or physics. The differences lie mainly in biology, geology, and astronomy. Both sides claim to have the answers but only one can be right. Either God or something created the earth or the world happened by chance. As for me, I cannot in good conscience disregard the evidence for intelligent design. I could sit here and give you all the philosophical arguments for the existence of God, but being a former christian you already know most of them if not all. I myself cannot deny the logicality of these arguments. Therefore, I accept that there is a God. As my signature says "We may ignore, but we can nowhere evade, the presence of God." - C.S. Lewis   

[mymistake]

TB why don't you do the gutsy thing and admit there is no logic or evidence for God/ID but you choose to take it all on faith?  That is what is really going on.

[bornagainathiest]

I'm out of this thread, TB.

 

Twice now I've made it quite clear that nobody can get then right answer to something, regardless of their assumptions and twice now you've agreed and then gone back and raised the assumptions issue again.

 

Clearly you aren't stupid - just in denial.

 

Therefore... bye, bye!

 

BAA

[TrueBeliever]

TB why don't you do the gutsy thing and admit there is no logic or evidence for God/ID but you choose to take it all on faith?  That is what is really going on.

You are right it is faith, but even logic itself points me to this conclusion.

[florduh]

Again, I argue that God created the world. The whole premise of this argument is metaphysical and therefore cannot be proved or disproved.

 

This not an argument at all, but rather a statement of unfounded faith. 

 

There is no reason for me to participate any further. Enjoy the "debate."

[Astreja]

TrueBeliever, you said this:

I have very little to dispute with chemistry or physics. The differences lie mainly in biology, geology, and astronomy. Both sides claim to have the answers but only one can be right. Either God or something created the earth or the world happened by chance.

Hogwash! Biology, geology and astronomy all rely heavily on both chemistry and physics.

 

You also have an execrable understanding of how a non-divine process works. It is not "chance." It is closer to a jigsaw puzzle or a chain reaction, wherein particles combine with other particles because they're good matches (for instance, hydrogen combining with oxygen, carbon or nitrogen but generally not to helium).

 

Saying "a god created all this" answers nothing, nothing at all. I think it's utterly pathetic when people claim such a thing but then declare arbitrarily that their hypothetical imaginary friend doesn't require an explanation of its own. If anything, it needs an even bigger explanation.

[TrueBeliever]

Astreja,

You say, "If anything, it needs an even bigger explanation."

This is precisely why I appeal to philosophy. This provides the bigger explanation.  

[Astreja]

Philosophy?

 

Heeheeheeheehee! Philosophy ponders much but explains nothing. It's a circle-jerk of conflicting hypotheses and nothing more.

[Margee]

 As for me, I cannot in good conscience disregard the evidence for intelligent design.

Hi TB.... watch this carefully and then please give me your opinion on 'intelligent' design?