DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The only reason you say leprechauns and garden faeries are nonsense is because you don't understand them. You have a closed mind.
Did God create the universe?
- Thread starter Concordicus
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I’ve been participating in a variety of discussion forums for over a decade now. In that time I have interacted with countless creationists. One of their common features, perhaps unsurprisingly, is a misunderstanding of science. They often seem to think - or affect to think, for rhetorical purposes - that the presence of unanswered questions indicates a failure of science.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
There has been a few since I joined two years ago but they rarely seem to stick around. Creationists joining a science site (or you YouTube science video comments section) do not do so for honest discourse, as a rule ( in my experience )
An open mind to what exactly? How is it possible that God created us yet we can't understand the Bible? What framework is required to understand?
I know you can't explain these questions but I hope it gives you something to think about when making ridiculous excuses for religion.
God coming from nothing... does that sound more sensible?
Face it, neither of us has an answer for where it all came from.
В Библии есть ответ на этот вопрос. Там написано, что Бог - безначальный. Т.е. Был всегда.
Возможно, она была другой, но всё равно она была всегда.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
It's not so much nonsense as it is fictional. It's an allegory.
The evidence strongly points to a universe that's billions of years old, and there's no compelling evidence that God did it.
Middleman fallacy.
God coming from nothing just pushes the 'where did everything come from' problem one step back by introducing a superfluous entity between nothing and now.
There's nothing 'sensible' about God. Unless you believe in magic.
Дэйв, просто у вас неправильное представление о Боге.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Are you an early model of A.I.?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Hi Pinball, hope you're well!
I also think religious people are close minded. An enquiring mind is suited to the agnostic position otherwise you'll learn nothing.
Creationists should not debate as in my time here their beliefs are so alien to atheists, and they shouldn't be, both debaters should have solid understanding of their own material and understand their opponent
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Yeah yeah. The latest in insults. Call someone a bot. I'm wounded.
The arguments you make about understanding God can be made about any target of belief, such as leprechauns or faeries.
'The only reason you don't believe in leprechauns is because you don't understand them!'
It is revealing that so any believers never seem to realize this.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
You give but can't take it. Coward.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Strange thing to say. Here I am, taking it. Rolling my eyes while doing so.
Here's a pro-tip about insults: the insults themselves are vacuous. It's the takedown on-topic that's the burn - the nugget of truth.
You had something to say about God. I demonstrated the illogic of your 'you just need to understand it' by drawing an analogy to leprechauns; or any other belief-based characters that only manage to show themselves to those who desire to see them.
The burn is that there is truth to what I said. The self-burn is that you failed to back it up with an on-topic counter. You basically came back with 'Nuh-uh!'
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Hi Dave, long time no see.
Anyone with a strong view can be closed minded to the other side.
Discussion can get tricky if that is the case.
grzegorzsz830402
Registered Senior Member
Yes.
Not really.
It merely infers that our understanding is incomplete.
And it needs to be updated.
Earth is not flat therefore God did it?
No we needed to update our understanding.
Geocentric model was incorrect therefore God did it?
No we needed to update our understanding.
Ok. If you want to imply that God created reality / universe you are still left with impossible puzzle to solve.
Which one?
Beside you do not need to justify your beliefs.
You are free to believe whatever suits you.
Your beliefs do not have to be logical.
Your justification for them certainly was not.
Beliefs serve a different function.
And even if science will eventually answer questions you currently have, it would not make you abandon your belief in God.
So, logically you have to admit that they are not foundation of your belief.
Concordicus
Registered Member
These are hardly equal in any environment. No sane person I know advocates for the reality of magic or pixie dust. Jews, Christians and Muslims make up about 55 to 60 percent of the world's population and they all believe in a one-God theology, I sincerely doubt that any of them believe that magic or pixie dust is a viable explanation for anything. If this wasn't such and asinine statement, I would call it a straw man argument since you are arguing a point than no one is making.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
1. Argument by popularity. Lots of people believing something doesn't make it true.
2. Read more carefully. Specifically, the two words I wrote: objective and evidence. Both of them mean not based on what people believe or wish.
Concordicus
Registered Member
I really get tired of these inane attempts to relate non-living structures as being representative of living self-replicating cells. The hexagons did not make one another as cells make one another.
Both you and the article you cited obviously do not actually appreciate the complexity of living matter. The article assumes already existing nucleotides and peptides. The only known source of these things are living cells. The article assumes that if all the parts of something are miraculously present, it will spontaneously assemble. No need to explain how the parts got there.
Those working in this area of beginning of life struggle with the problem that all living cells are made up of molecules which are only produced by living cells. While simple nucleotides and peptides can be made in a laboratory, it requires the expertise of an intelligent being to put them together. Of those, even the most complex man-made nucleotide or peptide is far less complex than any that are present in living tissue. This is prime example of the science of the gaps.
.