Summations Only

A forest fire certainly is more complex than the spark that started it, or perhaps you have never been in one.The evidence though is overwhelming that many causes are insignificant, trivial and transient.

You are making a claim that there is some Designer or Creator God, yet seem unwilling to present evidence of such a critter. And yes, if you did bring such a critter in for examination it would show that it was not anything supernatural.That is exactly why is is so silly and sophomoric to try to make a claim of evidence of God.I certainly am not ridiculing you, only the ideas that you have presented.

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.

The BB is not free of the burden of proof, which is why you'll find scientists working to provide evidence of it. By creator you mean the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Odin the Allfather right?

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.

Your argument so far hinges on asserting, without proof, statement #2: "If the universe has existed for a finite amount of time (Q), then the universe had a beginning (P)"Not true. I never made that argument. The argument I quoted was this:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 

The universe began to exist. 

Therefore, the universe has a cause.I also discussed the history of Big Bang Theory from its theoretical origins to the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is nearly universally seen as observational evidence of the big bang, the beginning of our spacetime/universe.The answers to your questions regarding the conservation of energy would only apply after the big bang and not before. The physical laws of our universe only apply to our universe. You cannot expect them to apply before the universe came into existence. Yes, I agree in the present universe that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by or in nature. I accept the universe is a closed system, except, of course, to the creator God or Designer who can do whatever he wants when he wants, but such actions would be miracles because they would violate the natural physical laws. I am uncertain of your meaning regarding the wider system of which the universe is a smaller part? The conservation of energy would only fail upon the action of the creator God or Designer to create or destroy matter-energy.Sorry I was not able to respond more fully earlier. I was trying to get the post Message 49 prepared and was pressed for time.

Please explain how a burnt forest is less complex than an unburnt forest. I am eager to hear your answer.

Do you have an understanding of what a scientific theory is? Hint, it is not a conjecture or hypothesis.

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.

His PhD is in the history and philosophy of science. That does not make him a scientist. Then I'm sure you'll have no problem finding a raft of peer reviewed papers he's written. If his "worldview" directs his view of the evidence instead of letting the evidence lead him to his conclusions, he's not a scientist. 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. No, I believe someone cannot be a scientist if he doesn't follow the scientific method. Meyer doesn't. He can hold any "worldview" he wants, but if he doesn't follow the scientific method, he's not a scientist.

Yes, I understand. But thanks for clarifying anyway.

No theory is free from the burden of proof, scientists constantly work to either support or tear down established theories. What makes the BB more solid than any of the design "theories" is the work of scientists that support it.

Well you certainly do not act as if you do. Why don't you humor me and give me your understanding of what a scientific theory is? It would certainly make discussions easier if we knew we had a common understanding of scientific theory.

What qualifies one as a scientist is following the scientific method.Credentials are nice but all the credentials in the world won't make a creationist into a scientist if the scientific method isn't followed.(We see a lot of that.)

No, he didn’t show that. I have responded to his comment. You are welcome to read it.Next, you question whether my comments follow from the Davies quote I cited. Let’s do this again.Davies writes:
If there was no time (or place) before the big bang for a causative agency to exist, then we can attribute no physical cause to the big bang.Note the word physical in the sentence. Davies is correct. Because the big bang happened before a physical universe existed, we cannot attribute a physical cause. I am saying we can attribute and, in my opinion, must attribute an unphysical (or immaterial) cause. In the same way because the big bang happened before time was created, the big bang must have been caused by a being which is timeless or eternal.Does my explanation go beyond what Davies was willing to write? Certainly. But I also think you can see the logic of my conclusions. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.