Best evidence for Creation

So whenever science has yet to understand something, this is evidence for a creator?So when we did not understand what kept a positively charged nucleus together, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand how the Sun and the Earth could come to be, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand what made thunder and lightning, this was evidence for a creator? When we did not understand in any way how life could possibly come into existence from non-life, that was evidence for a creator?Hmmm, the track receord isn't that good, is it?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

1) This is an assertion. Please demonstrate its validity.2) And if it doesn't have a 'beginning'?

So you have observed a property of a few elements of a potentially infinite set, and then you try to claim that therefore the set itself has this property? Not so much wrong as making no sense whatsoever...

Likewise, this makes completely no sense. 'come in to existence' requires some aspect of temporalness, yet the 'absence of anything' precludes this. And how on Earth can an 'outside help' exist in an 'absence of anything'?

As a mathematician, it is unlikely I would forget. But it is simply untrue. We build the concept of zero by considering the empty set {}. But we still have the concept of set. Zero is not 'absence of anything' - we have no concept for this. Gibberish

ICANT, I've been considering this sort of thing for nearly three decades, and for a good portion of that was paid to do so. I'm not sure I've ever been so insulted as to suggest that 'I'm beginning to get the picture' via discussion with you Who said there was nothing? At any time? If the Universe 'began' 13.7 billion years ago, then the answer to 'what came before?' is not 'nothing' but, 'I'm sorry, your question makes no sense'.We have tried to explain this to you for god knows how long now, and you still don't get it...

Why should it not be exempt? This is your seconf fallacy of composition this thread. Causality is a property of the internal constituents of the Universe. The Universe is not a constituent of the Universe. The set R of the Real numbers does not have the properties of the numbers contained within R.

WTF? Is this a reading comprehension problem or deliberate mis-quoting? ICANT, believe me, you get nothing, and your idiotic reply above demonstrates this more than my words could ever convey.I repeat:If the Universe 'began' 13.7 billion years ago, then the answer to 'what came before?' is not 'nothing' but, 'I'm sorry, your question makes no sense'.We have tried to explain this to you for god knows how long now, and you still don't get it...

Please support this bare assertion with evidence. Then your best evidence is rather poor...

Of course not How does the expansion of the Universe "to where it is today" have anything to do with a lack of causality???

How the hell does this follow from anything of what you wrote above it???

It did not have to be created at all... And this is nonsense. You have made no such demonstration that "it had to be brought into existence".

No, it does not.

To 'come into existence' requires some sense of time or causal structure. The 'beginning' we talk of is at a point without causal structure - therefore you cannot talk of something 'coming into existence'. There is no before, no 'nothing then something' - there is simply existence, which has an earliest time.

I would argue that some there is some slight evidence (from theoretical phsyics) to suggest that perhaps the Universe existed prior to the Big Bang. He would agree with that. We don't know yet. Probably? Possibly... By many, yes. By all, no. Incorrect