Jump to content


Photo

What Designed The Designer?


  • Please log in to reply
211 replies to this topic

#1 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 06 October 2009 - 03:46 PM

Richard Dawkins' challenge to Intelligent Design is "What designed the designer?"

I don't think the question is much of a challenge, because the question is outside the scope of Intelligent Design; as an explanation for certain features of biology. Just as the question "how did life begin?" is outside the scope of Evolutionary Theory; as an explanation for biological change and diversity. Surely Dawkins' knows that in science some questions are outside the scope of a theory, therefore he presents no challenge.

What do you think?

#2 Bex

Bex

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1066 posts
  • Interests:God, creation, friends/family, animals, health topics, auto/biographies, movies (horror, comedy, drama, whatever, just as long as it's good), music, video games (mainly survival horror, or survival/adventure types), crossword puzzles, books on real life crime/serial killers/etc. Prophecy/miracles/supernatural/hauntings etc, net surfing/forums etc.<br /><br />One of my favourite forums for information on many topics:<br /><br />http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 06 October 2009 - 05:56 PM

Richard Dawkins' challenge to Intelligent Design is "What designed the designer?"

I don't think the question is much of a challenge, because the question is outside the scope of Intelligent Design; as an explanation for certain features of biology.  Just as the question "how did life begin?" is outside the scope of Evolutionary Theory; as an explanation for biological change and diversity.  Surely Dawkins' knows that in science some questions are outside the scope of a theory, therefore he presents no challenge.

What do you think?

View Post


Dawkins question makes little sense anyway. He can go onto affinity if he wishes with the next question "Who made the one whom made God/the Designer"? and so on and so on..... All continues to go back to "what/whom is the ultimate source"? Which I believe is the Creator God, whom cannot be created, since He always was, is and always will be. Eternal. The alpha and Omega.

Where does our observation of the evidence lead us?

I consider design/purpose/direction/intelligence undeniable in life/biology and I attribute its ultimate source to a genius mind! By faith yes, but also by observation leading to what I feel is a logical conclusion.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 October 2009 - 09:44 PM

The question is not to find out truth, it is designed to weaken one's faith due to the inability to answer such a question. When a evolutionists ask me such a question, I give them the same situation concerning their own belief to make them realize how stupid the question really is.

Like: Where did matter come from for the big bang? How does all know laws of physics get broken to compress all known matter in the universe into a dot, when one cannot even compress a glass of water into a dot?

Now Dawkins would answer with a cop out answer like: Matter and time were created from a rip in the fabric of time and space. LOL. Basically he is trying to pull a God did it answer and make it sound scientific. Why is it a God did it type answer:

1) It's unseeable.
2) Unobservable.
3) Untestable.
4) Unconfirmable.
5) Unrepeatable.
6) There is "no" evidence pointing in that direction.
7) No one really knows if the fabric exists, or what would even happen if it were torn.

Using reason and logic, one can conclude that there has to be a stopping point where things exist and there is nothing before the very first thing.

Problem is, the laws of this universe do not allow such things. Which means there is a parallel dimension that has laws that does, and from that dimension this universe was created. Otherwise there is no curent naturalistc explaination for where everything came from unless the laws do change.

#4 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 06 October 2009 - 10:26 PM

How does all know laws of physics get broken to compress all known matter in the universe into a dot, when one cannot even compress a glass of water into a dot?

View Post


Well I can't answer exactly how. I think the math is far too difficult for me to even consider putting my head to. But compressing a glass of water into a dot can be done by black holes. And to my knowledge there isn't any limit on how much matter a black hole can consume, so I assume you could fit the universe in there. :)

Honestly, I don't know how all that math works. But I also have a hunch you don't either. Actually, I'm not even sure the best in the biz know.

Now Dawkins would answer with a cop out answer like: Matter and time were created from a rip in the fabric of time and space. LOL. Basically he is trying to pull a God did it answer and make it sound scientific. Why is it a God did it type answer:

1) It's unseeable.
2) Unobservable.
3) Untestable.
4) Unconfirmable.
5) Unrepeatable.
6) There is "no" evidence pointing in that direction.
7) No one really knows if the fabric exists, or what would even happen if it were torn.

View Post


1. True
2. False. 'Observable' includes using math and logic, so yes it is observable. There are also many other natural phenomenon that have been observed and support the big bang (expanding universe, radiation etc).
3. False. Again, you don't need to physically see something to test it. This theory can be tested with maths.
4. True. If we can't figure out black holes this one might stay unconfirmed.
5. False. Repeatable doesn't mean you need to be able to repeat the beginning of the universe (although it'd be nice if we could :P). It means 'does the math done by one scientist match the math done by another?' If yes then it's repeatable.
6. False. Seriously, do you think scientists just pull this idea out of nowhere? Of course it's backed up by evidence. I don't proclaim to know every bit of that evidence, but we all know the universe is expanding. Reverse that and extrapolate and you get the big bang, or what's jokingly called the gnabgib.
7. True. I don't actually think the big bang is a rip in time and space, but point still remains, if we extrapolate the data backwards we're not 100% certain what should happen, no.

Using reason and logic, one can conclude that there has to be a stopping point where things exist and there is nothing before the very first thing.

View Post


Does that include God? If there was nothing before the first thing then what created the first thing?
Even then, we know matter can't be created or destroyed. So how can you extrapolate backwards and get nothing? What is destroying matter as you go backwards?

Problem is, the laws of this universe do not allow such things. Which means there is a parallel dimension that has laws that does, and from that dimension this universe was created. Otherwise there is no curent naturalistc explaination for where everything came from unless the laws do change.

View Post


Again, you're stretching my limited knowledge on the subject, but I think the laws do change as you get closer to a singularity. If nothing else I'm almost certain the speed of light changes.

Tell me Ike, have you ever properly studied the big bang and the singularity? I mean it's math that's stumped Hawkings, but you seem to speak like your an expert on the subject. I'm concerned as to where you're getting this information from. And I'm even more concerned as to what it's based on. If you're starting point is that there is no evidence pointing to the big bang then I think your conclusions are destined to be flawed.

Regards,

Arch.

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 06 October 2009 - 11:28 PM

Well I can't answer exactly how. I think the math is far too difficult for me to even consider putting my head to. But compressing a glass of water into a dot can be done by black holes. And to my knowledge there isn't any limit on how much matter a black hole can consume, so I assume you could fit the universe in there. :)


You wording speaks truth about what you really believe. Like assume. You speak of black holes and gravity as if you know what exactly goes on. Science cannot even explain the source or origins of gravity, so how can they absolutely know how a black hole works?

For all we know, gravity like light, may have a cut off point in it;s strength. One that is a lot less than you think. Because can you prove how much gravity exists in a black hole? And could you prove that every back hole has the same amount of gravity power?

Honestly, I don't know how all that math works. But I also have a hunch you don't either. Actually, I'm not even sure the best in the biz know.


Just because someone maybe able to work out a feasible math equation on how something would work. "if" it happened. Does not mean it did happen.

1. True
2. False. 'Observable' includes using math and logic, so yes it is observable. There are also many other natural phenomenon that have been observed and support the big bang (expanding universe, radiation etc).


And you restrict all answers to naturalistic ones only? That's why you cannot see beyond a certain point.

3. False. Again, you don't need to physically see something to test it. This theory can be tested with maths.


Again, math may work out a possible solution. But until observed, it does not mean that this is what happened.

4. True. If we can't figure out black holes this one might stay unconfirmed.
5. False. Repeatable doesn't mean you need to be able to repeat the beginning of the universe (although it'd be nice if we could :P). It means 'does the math done by one scientist match the math done by another?' If yes then it's repeatable.


The math is repeatable, not the claim that it did happen this way. Math explains things only if the conditions allow it. What we see "now" may not have been that way all through time. And you could not prove that it was either.

6. False. Seriously, do you think scientists just pull this idea out of nowhere? Of course it's backed up by evidence. I don't proclaim to know every bit of that evidence, but we all know the universe is expanding. Reverse that and extrapolate and you get the big bang, or what's jokingly called the gnabgib.


You are the one claiming false, so now show the evidence to back it up.

7. True. I don't actually think the big bang is a rip in time and space, but point still remains, if we extrapolate the data backwards we're not 100% certain what should happen, no.
Does that include God? If there was nothing before the first thing then what created the first thing?


Now you are starting to get the point. How can one even get to the point of of finding the "first thing" if current laws do not allow first things to exist? Because I don't care how many workarounds you can come up with to explain this away. Something had to always exist in order for the rest to have a source in which to come from. Eliminating the always existed idea, also eliminates ever finding the first thing under current laws of physics.

Even then, we know matter can't be created or destroyed. So how can you extrapolate backwards and get nothing? What is destroying matter as you go backwards?


Now you are getting a lot warmer to the problem that I see with a naturalistic beginning. The current laws do not allow something to come from nothing, nor do they allow things to be created and destroyed. Which brings us back to having a dimension where everything always existed. And was the source for the matter and laws we currently can observe

Again, you're stretching my limited knowledge on the subject, but I think the laws do change as you get closer to a singularity. If nothing else I'm almost certain the speed of light changes.

Tell me Ike, have you ever properly studied the big bang and the singularity? I mean it's math that's stumped Hawkings, but you seem to speak like your an expert on the subject. I'm concerned as to where you're getting this information from. And I'm even more concerned as to what it's based on. If you're starting point is that there is no evidence pointing to the big bang then I think your conclusions are destined to be flawed.

Regards,

Arch.

View Post


If the laws change, how do they change to allow all these things to happen?
And how did the current laws balance themselves out to work together as they currently do?

You see, you pose a problem on where God comes from. But over-look the same problem of where matter. laws, etc... came from. Coming up with excuse ideas like singularities is like me doing the same thing and claiming God came from one. How would you disprove it? Can you test a singularity? No more than I could disprove the things claimed about the singularity. But, not being able to disprove does not prove the claim. Why? The math may prove that it "could" happen, it does not prove that it did happen.

That is why things need to be testable and repeatable. It could happen does not mean that it did happen.

#6 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 October 2009 - 04:54 AM

You wording speaks truth about what you really believe. Like assume. You speak of black holes and gravity as if you know what exactly goes on. Science cannot even explain the source or origins of gravity, so how can they absolutely know how a black hole works?

View Post


You're absolutely right, you can't. But I believe our understanding of the singularity is tied up with our understanding of black holes. If we're wrong about one, odds are we're wrong about the other. So if you think our understanding of black holes is wrong, that'll affect our understanding of the big bang. And then we'd have nothing to talk about :D

Just because someone maybe able to work out a feasible math equation on how something would work. "if" it happened. Does not mean it did happen.

View Post


Well it's not really a magic 'if' button. It's all based on what we see around us today. I agree that it could all be wrong, but it's the best understanding we have at present.

And you restrict all answers to naturalistic ones only? That's why you cannot see beyond a certain point.

View Post


I didn't say that :) I don't see why supernatural answers can't be considered. But as of yet no one has thought of a way to test for them. By their very definition I don't think you can.

Again, math may work out a possible solution. But until observed, it does not mean that this is what happened.

View Post


Ditto for Creation. I'm just sharing what I believe is the best explanation we currently have. When we have data that points in another direction I'll share that.

The math is repeatable, not the claim that it did happen this way. Math explains things only if the conditions allow it. What we see "now" may not have been that way all through time. And you could not prove that it was either.

View Post


Well technically the claim is based on the math, so it is repeatable.
No, things may not have been the way they are now. As I said, at the singularity things change, so odds are they weren't. I honestly don't know how the maths works. I assume those working on it know more than I do and have ways of figuring out how things may have changed. Because I don't think these scientists make up stories to tell the rest of us.

You are the one claiming false, so now show the evidence to back it up.

View Post


I did :) You even quoted me:

"I don't proclaim to know every bit of that evidence, but we all know the universe is expanding. Reverse that and extrapolate and you get the big bang"

Do you disagree with that? Or are you just asking for more information?

Now you are starting to get the point. How can one even get to the point of of finding the "first thing" if current laws do not allow first things to exist?

View Post


First things don't exist. Last things don't exist. It all just keeps cycling in some form or another. Without further information, I'd say everything around us has always existed.

Now you are getting a lot warmer to the problem that I see with a naturalistic beginning. The current laws do not allow something to come from nothing, nor do they allow things to be created and destroyed. Which brings us back to having a dimension where everything always existed.

View Post


Yes, I call it our universe. In our universe all matter is, and cannot be destroyed, so it must have always existed. Why the need to invoke an alternative universe when ours suits our purposes quite nicely?

If the laws change, how do they change to allow all these things to happen?
And how did the current laws balance themselves out to work together as they currently do?

View Post


Sorry mate, you've completely exhausted my knowledge. I'm as much in the dark as you are :( Unless someone else can take a crack at answering this one, I'm afraid we've both going to have to do a lot more reading.

...really must get back to listening to those lectures on "understanding the universe"...

You see, you pose a problem on where God comes from. But over-look the same problem of where matter. laws, etc... came from. Coming up with excuse ideas like singularities is like me doing the same thing and claiming God came from one. How would you disprove it?

View Post


Bingo :P Now you're starting to get it. Going to work today I was struck by an equation.

God * eternity = universe = Matter * eternity
God * eternity = Matter * eternity
God = matter

Interesting no? Now the idea of the Bible is that God created matter. But if we were going to use good science, we'd go for the simplest answer wouldn't we? Why imagine an eternal being to create matter, when it is much easier to imagine matter itself could be eternal? Why invoke the supernatural when a natural explanation will suffice? I can understand the desire to, but I don't see the need to.

Regards,

Arch.

#7 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 October 2009 - 09:29 AM

God * eternity = universe = Matter * eternity
God * eternity = Matter * eternity
God = matter

Interesting no?


Interesting. Using the same formula you could get "God = energy". If you treat spacetime as low energy you would have a basis for pantheism.

#8 TheJarJam

TheJarJam

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Indy

Posted 07 October 2009 - 10:36 AM

It's hard to comprehend reality and why/how it exists.

As far as I can gather using logic, the First Cause must be either eternal or self-caused. This nullifies the whole "who created God" argument because any First Cause - whether God or not - faces this same dilemma. You say "who created God", I say "who created whatever you believe to be the First Cause". We're at a standstill.

Whatever this First Cause was, it's set off a chain of reactions which have led to our rational universe that's governed by immaterial laws, and conscious beings that are ran by a literal nano-factory full of microscopic machines operating at the cellular level.

I'm neither arrogant enough nor foolish enough to believe this was all the product of blind chance, or "hitting the cosmic jackpot" as some crackpots have called it (Dawkins comes to mind). In my highly rational mind, the implications of intent and design behind the universe and life are overwhelming and cannot be denied by any sane human being.

#9 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 07 October 2009 - 12:30 PM

The Big Bang does not explain what started the universe, it describes and explains the general development of the universe from a certain point in time. So according to secular science, it cannot be said the universe started with a big bang. The claim the universe started with a big bang, is like claiming we started our lives as babies (and ignore conception, embryonic and fetal development).

I agree with Ike. Claims like "rips in the spacetime continuum" and "God caused the universe" are metaphysically equivocal.

#10 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 October 2009 - 03:35 PM

I'm neither arrogant enough nor foolish enough to believe this was all the product of blind chance, or "hitting the cosmic jackpot" as some crackpots have called it (Dawkins comes to mind). In my highly rational mind, the implications of intent and design behind the universe and life are overwhelming and cannot be denied by any sane human being.

View Post

The problem is that if the laws of the universe were completely different and intelligent life had managed to exist, they'd say the exact same thing about their universe.

There are essentially two paths of thought on this idea. The one you seem to employ is "Isn't it amazing that the universe is perfectly suited for us to survive in".

The other is the one I employ, and its "Isn't it amazing we are perfectly suited to survive in the universe".

Very similar thoughts, but vastly different implications.

Regards,

Arch.

#11 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 October 2009 - 03:36 PM

Interesting.  Using the same formula you could get "God = energy".  If you treat spacetime as low energy you would have a basis for pantheism.

View Post


Absolutely :)

#12 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 October 2009 - 12:55 AM

God = energy to create matter.

#13 Arch

Arch

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 08 October 2009 - 04:49 AM

God = energy to create matter.

View Post


Why the extra step? Why not just energy = matter?

#14 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 08 October 2009 - 11:29 AM

Why the extra step? Why not just energy = matter?

View Post

God↔[e=mc2] :rolleyes:

#15 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 08 October 2009 - 11:48 AM

How's about....none of us really know. It all stems down to if you want believe God did it, or if the universe just randomly assembled itself with no logical purpose.

God did say that He did not create this world in vain. Random assembly on the other hand= you decide.

#16 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 08 October 2009 - 01:38 PM

How's about....none of us really know. It all stems down to if you want believe God did it, or if the universe just randomly assembled itself with no logical purpose.

God did say that He did not create this world in vain.  Random assembly on the other hand= you decide.

View Post

The intepreting of secular explanations as "random assembly" is hyperbole.

For arguments sake, suppose the "universe came from a singularity" hypothesis was accepted. There is nothing in the hypothesis that suggests the singularity and the Big Bang was a non-determined and spontaneous event.

Whenever "random" is used in science, it is generally shorthand for, "I do not know the causal factors in sufficient detail".

For example, Chaos Theory can tell us why a snow flake crystalizes in a seemingly random way. But it cannot explain the variables in any particular case. So even though there is an appearance of randomness, there is a deterministic system that underscores the process.

How variables act to shape matter can be explained deterministically, even though the determinants are unknown and the outcomes are unpredictable.

But I agree, it comes down to a matter of difference on whether you believe God determines the shape of the snowflake or something else in nature does.

#17 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 08 October 2009 - 06:11 PM

Richard Dawkins' challenge to Intelligent Design is "What designed the designer?"

I don't think the question is much of a challenge, because the question is outside the scope of Intelligent Design; as an explanation for certain features of biology.  Just as the question "how did life begin?" is outside the scope of Evolutionary Theory; as an explanation for biological change and diversity.  Surely Dawkins' knows that in science some questions are outside the scope of a theory, therefore he presents no challenge.

What do you think?

View Post


I think you give a good comparison and analogy. On the philosophical side though. I have never figured out what atheists are trying to achieve by this question. Seems to me they are just bringing attention to the self-evident FACT of ultimate causation. The train has to stop somewhere.

#18 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 08 October 2009 - 07:36 PM

I think you give a good comparison and analogy.  On the philosophical side though.  I have never figured out what atheists are trying to achieve by this question.  Seems to me they are just bringing attention to the  self-evident FACT of ultimate causation.  The train has to stop somewhere.

It's meant to be a conceptual challenge to Intelligent Design; in which an infinite regress is supposed to undermine the concept by showing the designer is presupposed and cannot be explained.

However, scientific hypothesis make presuppositions all the time. String Theory was built on the presupposition of extra-dimensional reality at subatomic level. It would be impossible to create a theory that predicts extra-dimensions without presupposing they exist.

And aspects of theories are frequently unexplained. For example, theories on gravitation explain how gravity operates as a force, but cannot explain what causes things to gravitate.

So the fact Intelligent Design presupposes an unexplained designer is not a problem. And Dawkins is not much of a philosopher, so his challenge is rather naive philosophically.

#19 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 08 October 2009 - 08:23 PM

I have never figured out what atheists are trying to achieve by this question. Seems to me they are just bringing attention to the self-evident FACT of ultimate causation. The train has to stop somewhere.

View Post


Yes, and neither atheists nor creationists know what this beginning was. The atheist theories are often criticized by creationists because they suggest matter originated from nothing at all. In most cases “nothing” is an oversimplification, but for now I’ll just put that aside and agree with you: atheists believe the universe originated from non-matter. This of course violates an important natural law, that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

Now creationists don’t know how the universe originated to any greater extent than atheists do, but they theorize that it was created by an eternal entity with power and intelligence exceeding anything humans could possibly comprehend. This being is capable of feeling emotion (anger, love, ect), reading our minds, answering our prayers, and being omnipresent. This is arguably the most complex entity in existence. It doesn’t follow ANY of the natural laws we know. Its very existence requires that we temporarily ignore all the physics and biology and chemistry we have ever been taught.

Since I don’t know the origins of the universe, I’m left to pick between either atheism or theism based on what I personally find more logical. The atheist theory violates a few natural laws, and assumes that something very simple led to the complexity of our universe. The theist theory violates all the natural laws and suggests that something infinitely complex (with human characteristics, I might add), designed our universe. I find the latter difficult to rationalize. I’d pick the theory that is the most consistent with science, and that happens to be atheism.

#20 Loungehead

Loungehead

    Troll

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • New Zealand

Posted 08 October 2009 - 08:54 PM

Since I don’t know the origins of the universe, I’m left to pick between either atheism or theism based on what I personally find more logical. The atheist theory violates a few natural laws, and assumes that something very simple led to the complexity of our universe. The theist theory violates all the natural laws and suggests that something infinitely complex (with human characteristics, I might add), designed our universe. I find the latter difficult to rationalize. I’d pick the theory that is the most consistent with science, and that happens to be atheism.

View Post

I appreciate your parsimonial reasoning, but you're isolating origins of the universe from the wider spiritual and moral system of the God Theory. While secular science might currently be inconsistent with the God Theory, in no way does secular science refute it. So, although you choose secular science over creation science, there is no dilemma between atheism and theism that must be decided.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users