Question for believers in intelligent design

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If it were true that God created the universe that would be an objective fact that we cannot prove at this point in time but we would find this out in the future. The universe exists. The truth of how it got here would be objectively true regardless of what we believed about it at this point in time. In due time we should find out either way. The evidence ...[text shortened]... to see. You can obviously choose to bury your head in the sand and pretend that it is not there.

We have discussed this kind of thing before ~ your use of the word "objective" to refer to your superstitions ~ and you have talked about me supposedly burying my head in the sand before, so you know what my stance is; you know that I don't need to repeat myself or type out my response again.

Originally posted by @fmf
We have discussed this kind of thing before ~ your use of the word "objective" to refer to your superstitions ~ and you have talked about me supposedly burying my head in the sand before, so you know what my stance is; you know that I don't need to repeat myself or type out my response again.

Do you believe that your brain is evidence of some intelligence at work?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you believe that your brain is evidence of some intelligence at work?

Make some statements about what you believe. People can respond to them as they see fit. I have made loads of statements in the past - on threads where you were contributing - about the brain, about intelligence at work, about abstraction, human spirit, morality. I am not interested in your question here. And as for making some statements about what you believe, you don't actually have to do so at my behest if you don't want to.

Originally posted by @fmf
Make some statements about what you believe. People can respond to them as they see fit. I have made loads of statements in the past - on threads where you were contributing - about the brain, about intelligence at work, about abstraction, human spirit, morality. I am not interested in your question here. And as for making some statements about what you believe, you don't actually have to do so at my behest if you don't want to.

More deflection as predicted. Of course you are not interested in any questions that could compromise your beliefs. Do you think this is you exhibiting intellectual honesty?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
More deflection as predicted. Of course you are not interested in any questions that could compromise your beliefs. Do you think this is you exhibiting intellectual honesty?

Start a thread with the question "Do you believe that your brain is evidence of some intelligence at work?" and see if anyone wants to discuss it with you. If you believe that I am not exhibiting intellectual honesty, that's fine by me.

Originally posted by @fmf
Start a thread with the question "Do you believe that your brain is evidence of some intelligence at work?" and see if anyone wants to discuss it with you. If you believe that I am not exhibiting intellectual honesty, that's fine by me.

😴

Originally posted by @dj2becker
😴

If this emoticon means you're done running circles around me and are now going to desist, then thanks.

Originally posted by @fmf
If this emoticon means you're done running circles around me and are now going to desist, then thanks.

Feel free to talk to other people.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The evidence seems to suggest that the universe is not eternal and hence requires a cause. God by definition would be the uncaused first cause of the universe. If you believe God can't be eternal, why don't you apply the same logic to the universe?

That's not true. There is a scientific law that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. This means that matter always existed in some form. The Big Bang states that the Universe came from a singularity that had always existed prior to the Big Bang.

So if you claim that the universe needed to have a Creator when science says matter always existed, why not question why God didn't needed a creator?

Originally posted by @vivify
That's not true. There is a scientific law that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. This means that matter always existed in some form. The Big Bang states that the Universe came from a singularity that had always existed prior to the Big Bang.

So if you question that the Big Bang needed to have a Creator when science says matter always existed, why do you not question that your God needed a creator?

The singularity was supposedly so small that it was in fact nothing. So according to the Big Bang ‘nothing’ exploded and created everything. I prefer the theory that God spoke, and bang, it happened. The Big Bang required a vast amount of energy to have occurred. The existence of God certainly provides an explanation of where that energy came from.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The singularity was supposedly so small that it was in fact nothing. So according to the Big Bang ‘nothing’ exploded and created everything. I prefer the theory that God spoke, and bang, it happened. The Big Bang requires a vast amount of energy to happen. The existence of God certainly provides an explanation of where God came from.

That's a definition that you made up. No scientist believes the Big Bang came from nothing. A singularity is not "nothing".

You're using an incorrect definition of the word in order to make your point. This makes your point invalid.

Originally posted by @vivify
That's a definition that you made up. No scientist believes the Big Bang came from nothing. A singularity is not "nothing".

You're using an incorrect definition of the word in order to make your point. This makes your point invalid.

All the matter in the universe was compressed into a singularity that was infinitely small. At some point something that is infinitely small must be so small that it is immeasurable and amounts to nothing. Either that or you can't argue that the universe is infinitely old. Take your pick.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
All the matter in the universe was compressed into a singularity that was infinitely small. At some point something that is infinitely small must be so small that it is immeasurable and amounts to nothing. Either that or you can't argue that the universe is infinitely old. Take your pick.

Immeasurable by human standards does not amount to "nothing".

Humans were once unaware of microbial life; does that mean that they were "nothing" because they were too small for humans to detect? Where atoms "nothing" because at one time they were too small for human beings to be aware of?

Inmeasurable by human standards doesn't amount to "nothing". Again, you're using a definition of singularity that is incorrect to make your point.

Originally posted by @vivify
Immeasurable by human standards does not amount to "nothing".

Humans were once unaware of microbial life; does that mean that they were "nothing" because they were too small for humans to detect? Where atoms "nothing" because at one time they were too small for human beings to be aware of?

Inmeasurable by human standards doesn't amount to "nothing". Again, you're using a definition of singularity that is incorrect to make your point.

Immeasurable by human standards doesn't amount to "nothing". Again, you're using a definition of singularity that is incorrect to make your point.

Would you use that logic on not being able to measure God by human standards not meaning He's not there?