Is your place more tolerant than mine? Is this what youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re suggesting? That, to me, sounds like an intolerant statement.
Of course! That's exactly what I meant! :sarcasm:
Actually, that it the main point. You have to have Ã¢â‚¬Å“faithÃ¢â‚¬Â either way. Plus, there is absolutely no logical, rational, or scientific evidence or reasonable explanation for a Ã¢â‚¬Å“naturalisticÃ¢â‚¬Â origin for the universe.
Actually, the faith statement you have made is something I already said early on in the discussion. The fact that you can assert that there is no logical, rational, or scientific evidence for a naturalistic origin to the universe is like saying that there is no logical, rational, or scientific evidence for a creator. It's philosophical and my contention is that drawing the line at the philosophical is pointless.
Another interesting thought: 100 years ago could someone claim to be a naturalist? By the discussion here, one would argue that nobody, ever, could ever claim to be a naturalist. The Big Bang didn't even exist back then.
So, nobody can believe in anything, because technically we know nothing...if my mistake in my original post was that I left out the philosophical, you got me.
I have, and you havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t yet posited any evidence (other than your imaginings).
But, the big bang isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t an Ã¢â‚¬Å“explanation for the origin of the universeÃ¢â‚¬Â, its an explanation of a result. An explanation to what caused the big bang would be closer to what you should be trying, if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re to attempt a Ã¢â‚¬Å“naturalisticÃ¢â‚¬Â causation explanation.
So anyway, if you would provide said "naturalistic" evidences, we could discuss it further.
Well then Ron, let's see what's happened so far:
1. I gave the Big Bang was given as evidence for the origin of the universe.
2. Adam rightly pointed out that such an explanation cannot be an explanation because it invokes things that can't exist outside of natural order.
3. I suggested that asking for a natural explanation for things outside of natural order was equivalent to asking the question of what created the creator. Utterly pointless, and it does not take away from the explanatory power of the mechanism (naturalism, creationism)
If you don't consider the Big Bang evidence of the origin of the universe because the evidence isn't good enough, that's your prerogative. It IS an explanation, no matter how flawed. It ISN'T required to be PERFECT because NO explanation for the origin of the universe IS perfect. No explanation for the universe is falsifiable (again, something I admitted earlier), but once again, if the contention is that, in my original post is that I left out the philosophical...my bad. I guess I'll have to put a disclaimer beneath my statements to make things more clear.
One thing that did concern me a little...
An explanation to what caused the big bang would be closer to what you should be trying, if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re to attempt a Ã¢â‚¬Å“naturalisticÃ¢â‚¬Â causation explanation.
Did you actually read what we've been discussing? I've gone over a few times already of why it's impossible to naturally explain things outside of natural law. If you need clarification, let me try leveling the playing field again, so I ask again:
Who/what created the creator? Anything? More importantly, does it truly matter? And, even more importantly, if you cannot answer that question, does it take anything away from the idea that special creation can explain everything you see today?