Let
Let me just say it has been here long enough for humans to have caused it to be well on it's way to being uninhabitable. It may be a long way off but it sure is heading in that direction.
It would not be the first time. Plants poisoned the planet with their waste product: oxygen. This is what allowed animals to evolve.
Even Hawkins the scientist admits that the Big Bang theory had to have something already in existence for a Big Bang to occur. ( if it ever did occur at all). No getting around it. Nothingness cannot ever produce something.
Well then, according to logic and your theology ... where did your god come from. "Always was" is not a vaild answer unless you are willing to accept "always was" with respect to the mass and energy that make up the universe.
H
He knew that there was a point which eluded him. The point that the Big Bang theory could not have come from nothingness. The name God is the name given to what is yet the unknown 'something' to which all in existence owe their existence. The 'something' replied I AM. Tell them I AM sent you when Pharoah asks who sent you. Moses was told this.
Much like god(s) there is a complete absence of evidence when it comes to Moses and the Exodus.
As yet not one person has come up with proof either way. Is there or isn't there a Creator? You sound so positive for someone who possesses no absolute proof of what you are saying.
I don't need absolute proof, all I need is to point to the complete absence of any evidence. The burden of proof is yours.
T
he facts speak for themselves when it comes to the question of there being a Creator of all that exists.i
I do not have any proof. My question then being: why is humanity left in a state of not knowing? Why is there no absolute proof either way? Instead of asking is or isn't there a God, the bigger question to be asking is: why there is no proof? We are left with beliefs ( religious and otherwise), theories, conjecture etc. but no absolute proof either way. WHY???? That is my stance.
Face it, you are, in the main, an atheist too ... I just extend my atheism to one more god than you do.
I think you should apply your mind to the question of why there is no proof either way.
I have. What I discovered is that it is highly improbable that there is a god since there is no evidence of one that stands up to critical examination. As far as absolute proof is concerned ... that is impossible. In a construct that is akine to Zeno's paradox (you can never get to a wall since you appoach it in halves and there is always a distance remaining that can be further halved) there is always one more rock, over the next hill, on the nex planet, that god might just be hiding under.
A
nd I will keep repeating that something cannot come from nothing until it is proven otherwise.
Why not? That's is just an unprovable assumption. It is like the difference between Euclidean geometry and Non-Euclidean geometry with respect to parrell lines.
If
If any fact existed that proves the existence or non- existence of a Creator, we would not be debating the issue. The fact is, such a fact is non- existent.
But the two constructs are not, as I have already show, co-equal.
You sound so certain about something which has it's believers and non- believers. Which is where it all rests. On the belief of an individual.
now that is the question, isn't it. There is no absolute answer to that question. The Big Bang theory gives an explanation. But no-one can explain the Big Bang ( if it did occur at all). What was the source of the 'supposed' Big Bang? Nothingness could not trigger an explosion. Even Stephen Hawkins admits this. So what was the source? And from what did that source come into existence?
I don't yet know and am looking is very different than I don't know so God-did-it.
And there is no proof of a Big Bang even having occurred. It is a theory.
No. You don't understand what a theory is.
A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.
It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". In everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" can imply that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, idea, or, hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of the word "theory" in science. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science versus "prediction" in vernacular speech, denoting a mere hope.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g., Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light).
Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g., electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.
Paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and science historian Stephen Jay Gould said, “...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world′s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.”
(thanks wiki)
Will
Can anyone out there give me one possible.reason why humanity has no absolute proof of the existence or non- existence of a Creator.
Asked and answered.
Religion Can based on that, science can easily arrive at that and does reductively. So reduction and theism curiously seem to be the identical thing!!!
No, scientific reductionist is based on evidence, theism does not even make it to hearsay, it is, by and large, stuck in what is at best historical fiction.
