Summations Only

With all due respect, what implies that it wasn't? I have yet to read a better suggestion....do you have one? I understand that this is not considered a valid argument, but it is food for thought, nonetheless, no? However, I will grant that the word "being" is perhaps too limited a word for a force/Person so powerful that it/He transcends all forces and contsraints of our universe. It may be the "best" word we as humans can come up with, and may be far too limited to encompass all that God is; perhaps He allows it because He knows well our limitations. But, I digress. Because we are mere humans made of matter and bound by senses and reason, we look to the evidence we can perceive. We might even think that such a transcendent cause might leave no evidence at all, because it wouldn't be vital to the survival of the system, so why would said creating force bother (unless it was intelligent and interested in its creation), yet there is evidence. No argument has surfaced that adequately explains the fine-tuning, for example, of the expansion rate of the universe (were it any different, life would not be possible, which I'm sure you already know). There IS evidence of design and fine-tuning, which happen to be consistent with words attributed to the "Being" Himself. While you may argue that the evidence is flawed or insufficient, it is present nonetheless, which makes this theory unique....others lack evidence. All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the best, yes? Since a Designer is the "Big Bang Cause" argument with the largest body of evidence, it is the default unless new information comes to light.

Sorry, but your argument that the it seems like the universe is consistent with Design Theory because Design Theory was invented by humans because it seems like the universe is consistent with Design Theory because Design Theory was imagined by humans is a bit on the circular side...Ok. Matter can't be created or destroyed in our universe..we agree on this, at least. So...I will try to put this into words the best I can. As soon as the universe was created, matter was created in the universe. In other words, simultaneously, the universe began and universal laws took effect. So for matter to have been "spontaneously created" in the Big Bang is impossible. The instant it was created it could not be created...a paradox. Unless there is a supernatural..oops, dirty word! Excuse me ... Unless there is a TRANSCENDENT explanation.

As I said, that isn't an argument; just "food for thought." I'm aware. Still, hard to ignore.

I'm sorry if I was not clear. I will try again. I'm not a scientist, just someone who likes to learn, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong when I say that if the universe expanded much more quickly or more slowly, life would not be possible. I've heard one scientist/philosopher assert that it is fine-tuned to one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, and that were changed by one part the universe would not support life. Is that incorrect? If it is, I would really like to know, since I don't wish to use it again if it is. And if it is correct, one could certainly argue that it points toward design.In any case, my bottom line is this: We don't know of any other transecendent force capable of creating matter (not to speak of life) from nothing. The only force we know even POTENTIALLY exists is a supernatural Being, and there is some body of evidence that points toward His existence.I want to clarify my thoughts further, and answer you better, but I have to go pick up my daughter from school. I will try to get back online a bit later and continue the discussion.

With all due respect, that's just your opinion. Many scientists agree that there is at least the appearance of fine-tuning around us. And whether you are Christian or not, I am sort of shocked that you would accuse me of being "sophomoric" and "silly" when I am trying to have a respectful discussion and we have never actually met. I'm sorry if my opinion offends you. You are, of course, entitled to your own. My understanding is that we are free to disagree on the internet and in this forum in particular....have I missed something? We are adults here, yes? In any case, may you be blessed and I wish you the best.

Yes, I can, though I doubt it will satisfy you. Stephen C. Meyer, PHD from Cambridge University. At the time he said this, he was the Director and Senior Fellow at the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, though I'm not sure if that still applies.He has spoken in symposia at various institutes of higher learning such as Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, etc.and has written for The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, National Review, and others.As for the statistic, not being a scientist myself, I have no idea how he arrived at the figure. I am new to all of this and am fascinated by it, so am reading a lot. You are free to try to debunk him....if you are a scientist, you are far better equipped to do so than am I.

I understand all you're saying, and you make some valid points, and are clearly much more informed than I am, but as for the concept of God being something I imagined... well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion, but as you know there are literally millions upon millions at least that would disagree, and who've interacted with or seen the results of interactions with said force. I imagine that you will say that this is not a valid argument because personal accounts are unreliable, but if you had millions of personal accounts by scientists who had seen firsthand a certain natural force at work and were forthcoming with all kinds of information describing the force, even though they could not yet explain it, I doubt you would accuse them of suffering from some sort of mass delusion or inferior intellect simply because you personally had not seen the same force at work or had the same experiences. Edited by EWCCC777, : fixed a grammatical and clarified a couple of points

If we did that you would say, "See? Told you there was no God. If there was, He wouldn't be lying here on this lab table." Well, perhaps not, but that is certainly how it feels on our end. Can you absolutely prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that He is not real?I'm sorry; perhaps I misinterpreted your tone as is wont to happen via the internet from time to time, but it certainly seemed like you were ridiculing me. I still think you were, no offense.I know you will say that the burden of proof rests with us (Design proponents), but certainly the idea of Design has been around since the beginning of humanity in one form or another, where as evolution is a relatively new theory, so (and I realize that I am flying in the face of many, many scientists who think theists have to "defend" faith as if we are ashamed of it) one could argue that the burden of proof could just as easily rest with science. All about the spin.Edited by EWCCC777, : No reason given.

I forgot to add that we are not discussing a pothole full of water but an extremely complex universe capable of sustaining life, full of sytems for "producing food, replenishing the air, generating energy, and disposing of wastes." It is full of these processes that center around the survival of life, which are continuous and interdependent. Forgive me, but the odds of that happening in an instant, unprovoked by anything but pressure and energy, seem to have to be the worst odds of all time (or whatever came before--or not "before" since there was no "before", but you get my drift --time).

Ok then. You're right, we are discussing the Big Bang...I made a mental leap by myself, so I stand corrected. Even so, the Big Bang is an even newer theory than evolution...a theory which, by the way, I do not contest. All I contest is the idea that it happened spontaneously.Additionally, you probably already know this, but I never said that an idea being old made it true...I was just pointing out that design is a theory; so is evolution (and so is the BB for that matter), but design theory in some form has been around the longest, so the idea that the burden of proof rests with design just because someone says so doesn't make sense. Many, many people have believed in a creator since the beginning of humanity, and believe they have seen evidence of His existence. You may disagree, but the fact that in the past two hundred years or so people have questioned design more and have found "evidence" of evolution (but not conclusive, once-for-all proof) does not automatically make evolution theory true...any more than being "old" makes design theory true.Edited by EWCCC777, : changed pronouns to nouns for clarity

Well, yes, he is a CP! I would have assumed you would have inferred that from the information I had already given you. I wasn't attempting to hide that fact! But as for being a scientist, he has a doctorate from Cambridge,and has spent a lifetime doing scientific research. Yes, he holds a worldview that includes a Creator and apparently includes Western Thinking. Maybe this doesn't qualify him as a scientist to you.Do you believe that one cannot a scientist if he holds a different worldview than yours? I know some believe that only one worldview is welcome in the scientific community, to say nothing of the intellectual community as a whole.

I think fine tuning is reasonable evidence for a designer. I think the personal experiences of so many people who have encountered Him (eyewitness accounts) are reasonable evidence (though I know it is much easier and more convenient to mock these people than consider that they might actually be intelligent...although, if you read, for example, an epistle of the apostle Paul, you might disagree with him; you might find him narrow and trite, but you may find it very hard to believe that he was nothing more than a moron who was willing to die for a faith for which he had no evidence). I think the Cambrian explosion is at least interesting in relation to the design concept. I do not have physical proof...but neither do you. We each know of evidence that we believe to be reliable. Who is to say my evidence is less reliable than yours? According to my worldview, it is infinitely more reliable.

Right, and if the BB is not free of the burden of proof, how is it any more solid than design theory? Which is actually kind of beside the point, because the BB and design theory are not mutually exclusive in my opinion.And yes, that is exactly what I mean. Different variations on the same theory, some seemingly ridiculous, some seemingly more plausible. Kind of like BB theories.

Yes, I understand. But thanks for clarifying anyway.

"Scientists don't begin with a conclusion then bend the evidence to fit within that conclusion. They try to conform their conclusions to the evidence. He's not a scientist."Oh... so...evolutionists didn't decide that God didn't exist until after they saw all those transitional intermediates on the lab table...right? I don't mean to sound rude, but that's a bit of a double standard, it seems.The entire concept of evolution was approached in exactly the manner you're demonizing.And you're one hundred percent sure he doesn't follow the scientific method at all? You may be right, but I doubt it. I could be wrong... it has happened before.In my first post on this subject, I told you some of the publications in which he's written. You are free to explore them if you like. I haven't, but I would be interested to know what you find.