Virgin birth of Jesus

[Juma]

If it is your universe, then please can you explain in detail, how it came to be?

You have a body? If so, explain in detail, how it came to be.

 

[AJ113]

...Please enlighten me, so that I do not have to pretend anymore. Some science would help.

As a non-scientist, this is my understanding of how science works: A hypothesis is formed in order to explain a specific gap in our knowledge. Then evidence is examined, and the hypothesis is accepted, discarded or modified as a result. In your case the hypothesis fails because there is a lack of supporting evidence. Well, more an absence of evidence than a lack of it, which is not surprising since your 'hypothesis' is based on fantasy as opposed to bearing any relation at all to the workings of the real world.

 

[Learner]

Iv'e adopted the phrase that gorgeous George Galloway uses; " Absence of Evidence is NOT Evidence of Absence". This has always been the case obviously until something is discovered or understanding modified similar to what you say.

 

[PyramidHead]

Iv'e adopted the phrase that gorgeous George Galloway uses; " Absence of Evidence is NOT Evidence of Absence". This has always been the case obviously until something is discovered or understanding modified similar to what you say.

That phrase is false, though. All other things being equal, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. If something doesn't exist, you wouldn't expect to find any evidence for it. You can't prove it doesn't exist by pointing to absence of evidence, but it's a check in the right column.

 

[Learner]

That phrase is false, though. All other things being equal, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. If something doesn't exist, you wouldn't expect to find any evidence for it. You can't prove it doesn't exist by pointing to absence of evidence, but it's a check in the right column.

Ok.. By this concept we should then at least agree there is no such thing as there ever being a bigbang or multiverses.

 

[PyramidHead]

That phrase is false, though. All other things being equal, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. If something doesn't exist, you wouldn't expect to find any evidence for it. You can't prove it doesn't exist by pointing to absence of evidence, but it's a check in the right column.

Ok.. By this concept we should then at least agree there is no such thing as there ever being a bigbang or multiverses.

Multiverse, perhaps. But the big bang is one of the most well-evidenced theories in all of science. The theory only proposes what is needed to elegantly explain the evidence we observe. I suggest you take some time to educate yourself on what it actually says.

 

[Eric H]

...Please enlighten me, so that I do not have to pretend anymore. Some science would help.

As a non-scientist, this is my understanding of how science works: A hypothesis is formed in order to explain a specific gap in our knowledge. Then evidence is examined, and the hypothesis is accepted, discarded or modified as a result.

Ok,

In your case the hypothesis fails because there is a lack of supporting evidence. Well, more an absence of evidence than a lack of it, which is not surprising since your 'hypothesis' is based on fantasy as opposed to bearing any relation at all to the workings of the real world.

We have faith and trust that God exists, he is the creator of all that is seen and unseen. Science seems to have little convincing evidence of a first cause. The big bang is unsatisfactory, where did the matter and energy come from? An infinite regress of causes, seems to be blowing in the wind. Science needs an answer to a first cause, something that had no beginning, or something that did not come from anything. How are you going to find supporting evidence for this?

I am happy to trust in God as a first cause.

 

[bilby]

As a non-scientist, this is my understanding of how science works: A hypothesis is formed in order to explain a specific gap in our knowledge. Then evidence is examined, and the hypothesis is accepted, discarded or modified as a result.

Ok,

In your case the hypothesis fails because there is a lack of supporting evidence. Well, more an absence of evidence than a lack of it, which is not surprising since your 'hypothesis' is based on fantasy as opposed to bearing any relation at all to the workings of the real world.

We have faith and trust that God exists, he is the creator of all that is seen and unseen. Science seems to have little convincing evidence of a first cause. The big bang is unsatisfactory, where did the matter and energy come from? An infinite regress of causes, seems to be blowing in the wind. Science needs an answer to a first cause, something that had no beginning, or something that did not come from anything. How are you going to find supporting evidence for this?

I am happy to trust in God as a first cause.

Why?

If God is eternal, then an eternal something is OK - so why not just eternal mass-energy?

If God is not eternal, then God doesn't constitute a first cause.

There is every reason to say that something has always existed; or that something arose from nothing.

There is no reason to say that that something is a god, or indeed is any kind of intelligent entity.

 

[Eric H]

There is every reason to say that something has always existed; or that something arose from nothing.

They do seem the only two options. So just for arguments sake, if you were to say that hydrogen always existed, how could you find supporting evidence for such a claim?

There is no reason to say that that something is a god, or indeed is any kind of intelligent entity.

All we have is faith and trust, there seems to be no supporting evidence, that would change the minds of someone who did not want to believe.

 

[bilby]

They do seem the only two options. So just for arguments sake, if you were to say that hydrogen always existed, how could you find supporting evidence for such a claim?

There is no reason to say that that something is a god, or indeed is any kind of intelligent entity.

All we have is faith and trust, there seems to be no supporting evidence, that would change the minds of someone who did not want to believe.

All we have is ignorance. In the absence of any evidence, why pick any particular answer? What is it about not knowing that makes the tall tales of Middle Eastern shepherds a few thousand years ago more compelling than the tall tales of any other culture?

Faith means believing something for no reason. Trust means believing something just because someone else said it. Neither is of the slightest help in overcoming ignorance; if the answer is 'nobody knows yet', then that's the end - until and unless some evidence is forthcoming.

If pressed, it seems less implausible that a bunch of subatomic particles might suddenly exist from nowhere than that anything with a complex set of attributes and abilities might. Certainly it seems laughable to say 'something appeared from nothing, and that something cares whether you eat pork, masturbate, or sing hymns on a Sunday'. That's just fucking nuts.

 

[Learner]

Multiverse, perhaps. But the big bang is one of the most well-evidenced theories in all of science. The theory only proposes what is needed to elegantly explain the evidence we observe. I suggest you take some time to educate yourself on what it actually says.

Without disputing , if only it were a "well evidenced fact " and not a theory.

 

[PyramidHead]

Multiverse, perhaps. But the big bang is one of the most well-evidenced theories in all of science. The theory only proposes what is needed to elegantly explain the evidence we observe. I suggest you take some time to educate yourself on what it actually says.

Without disputing , if only it were a "well evidenced fact " and not a theory.

All facts are theories. We just call them facts when the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the theory. That applies to big bang cosmology (as well as gravity, evolution by natural selection, the germ theory of disease, electromagnetism, etc.). Again, you really should take some time to read about this stuff.

 

[Learner]

Your advice is noted.

 

[AJ113]

...I am happy to trust in God as a first cause.

Dude, if there is something you don't know, be man enough to admit it. Don't go making shit up, it's not cool.

 

[Eric H]

All we have is ignorance. In the absence of any evidence, why pick any particular answer?

Science does not have a clue as to how the universe came to be. The big bang is an unsatisfactory solution, because it cannot explain where the matter of the universe came from.

If pressed, it seems less implausible that a bunch of subatomic particles might suddenly exist from nowhere than that anything with a complex set of attributes and abilities might.

We are here today asking all these questions. If you extrapolate back in time, something did not have a beginning or something did not come from anything, both these options as you say are implausible, and defy logic.

That's just fucking nuts.

Just nuts is sufficient.

 

[bilby]

Science does not have a clue as to how the universe came to be. The big bang is an unsatisfactory solution, because it cannot explain where the matter of the universe came from.

Clearly you are not qualified to make this assertion. Science has a lot of clues, and can tell us a great deal about the earliest moments of the universe that dramatically limits what might have occurred immediately before. Religion has no clue. Just bald assertions that are not even logically sound.

If pressed, it seems less implausible that a bunch of subatomic particles might suddenly exist from nowhere than that anything with a complex set of attributes and abilities might.

We are here today asking all these questions. If you extrapolate back in time, something did not have a beginning or something did not come from anything, both these options as you say are implausible, and defy logic.

That's just fucking nuts.

Just nuts is sufficient.

If it were, then that's what I should have said.

I don't use needless words, and the word 'fucking' was there for a reason.

If nothing else, it has served very well as an intelligence test - and you just failed.

 

[Learner]

Clearly you are not qualified to make this assertion. Science has a lot of clues, and can tell us a great deal about the earliest moments of the universe that dramatically limits what might have occurred immediately before. Religion has no clue. Just bald assertions that are not even logically sound.

He is as qualifed as anyone here to make assertions I agree with him.

If nothing else, it has served very well as an intelligence test - and you just failed.

Not sure how this works but I know I've failed too.

 

[Lion IRC]

I find the F-bomb a very rational and persuasive contribution to thoughtful discourse.
It truly conveys a level of intellectual superiority for which Internet atheists are renowned.

 

[Lion IRC]

When an atheist tells me I'm just a plain old garden variety moron I typically won't believe them.
But if they say....youre a &!#@£!!! moron well that really cuts me to the core.

 

[Lion IRC]

As Forrest Gump said I may not be a smart man...
But I know that asexual reproduction is not a miracle.
Amazing yes. But not impossible or unheard of.
God is awesome !

Abiogenesis is a miracle.