If this were a scientific discussion about morality, then ruling out the supernatural would be proper because, by definition, the supernatural has no place in science. But since we're having a philosophical discussion and no one has ruled out anything, your complaint is way off base. I dismiss your claim that God is the basis of morality because by your own admission you cannot prove that there is a God so you simply assume it.
Can you prove dark matter exists. Science has a far greater burden that faith yet allows its self far more indulgence than it will permit for faith. Unless you can show dark matter, strings, pathogenesis, and multiverse exist then the argument is academic and I dismiss your claims on far greater grounds than you do mine.
Claiming there is no evidence of dark matter illustrates how little you know about the subject and science in general. Since theology habitually assumes an answer then goes looking for the evidence supporting it, I can see why you would be confused. Cosmologists were perfectly happy with the idea that what we see is all that there is. It wasn't until experiments showed that matter was behaving as if there was something else out there that the idea of "dark matter" was born. True, we don't know anything about it, but we do know that it is there.
Oh boy, the trusty old Christians are too stupid or ignorant to understand just how omniscient science is never gets old. Dark matter like God is non detectable and derived by inference. I think God a vastly more substantial theory because the concept existed long before these questions did. Dark matter is a term used as a place holder for whatever explains certain anomalies found in cosmology. It isn't even a theoretical thing, it is at this time nothing, no - thing. Whatever weird process is holding the galaxies together will be used as the definition for the term dark matter. At present there is no quantifiable dark matter substance known. I believe their is something holding the galaxies together and calling in dark mater is fine with me but there is a vast difference in the validity of these two concepts.
Both in the case of dark matter and God we are positing a theoretical concept to explain effects in the natural which at present have no known traditional cause.
1. Dark matter was simply invented out of this air as a concept to meet a need.
2. God was a pre-existant concept (intuitively believed in by 90% of humanity throughout the ages) that preexisted the needs of cosmology, morality, and meaning. We unlike science did not invent the concept of God to meet a modern need.
Likewise, biologists were satisfied with the idea that all species began in their present form until the evidence started indicating otherwise. Darwin didn't just dream up his Theory of Evolution and then go looking for the evidence, that's what apologists do. The evidence for evolution was right in front of him the whole time and has only gotten stronger in the 150 years since.
Well Darwin should have simply read the Bible. It records that evolution occurs over 3000 years ago. You were right to say the evidence was right before Darwin's eyes but evolution while being more understood has vast gaping problems which no natural solution is even a theoretical candidate at this time. Nothing in nature explains the Cambrian explosion of how life formed in some mud puddle with a lightening strike. Evolution far from being an argument against God confirms what he said long ago and has brought to light an entirely new field of study for which only with him could we ever get what we have.
Apologists do not invent anything in general, they have no need. Our answers unlike science are not formulated to meet the needs of the question. They were pre-existant and simply shown how they explain things. I did no have to invent God to combat bad science. God existed prior to all science and only given a God is science even possible.
It's the incoherence between these positions which shows that your God cannot exist. On one hand you argue that God is eternal and knows the past, present and future, but you have no problem believing that the same God would be disappointed enough with man that it would destroy them all. This level of cognitive dissonance is simply astounding.
If I have a child that I know is rebellious and will choose wrong it does not make his choices any less heartbreaking. I am really getting sick of these garbage claims, that faith is stupid. The arrogance it takes to claim that millions of the greatest minds in history who had faith are all idiots, and that you have the all mighty capacity to sit in judgment of the faith of billions is simply reprehensible. Even in my post virulent atheism days I would have never, ever, done this. If my claims rested on the idea that Davinci, Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Maxwell, Greenleaf, Lydhurst, Sandage, Collins etc.... ad infinitum were all idiots, I would be too embarrassed to say so.
