I'm curious, do you atheists have support that your stance is more rational, other than your incessant repetition of the "fact"?
I don't know about other theists, but I'm getting quite nauseated when I see your arrogance displayed so proudly and with no evidence to validate it. For example, this would be like calling myself the best chess champion in the world and then not ever playing a game of chess.
Atheists spout this nonsense about atheism being 'rational' and then fail to prove it.
It is NOT rational to believe something came from nothing. You can invent 'string theory', but then you do what Christians have been doing all along, presenting something to you which can't be proven.
However, 'string theory' has NO evidence, whereas all of the evidence that we CURRENTLY have points to an Intelligent Designer. I would be well within my rights to call all of YOU irrational, because you believe in something for which there is no evidence.
There is no objective proof for God. Ok. So? There's no objective proof for macroevolution, either, but that sure doesn't stop you gentlemen. I can't help but notice your gross display of double standards. Why do you believe macroevolution is true based on the 'evidence', but not Intelligent Design?
Let's face the facts. I'm tired of you pulling stuff out of thin air and pretending like it's probably true when there's NO evidence. The Cambrian explosion CANNOT be explained in current day evolutionary theory. Just can't. Can and not. Can and subtraction sign. Opposite of able. Negative. No. Nope. (In Spanish--No). Maybe...wait, nope. The best Darwinists can offer is "The Cambrian explosion can be explained by conditions, that we have no proof existed, existing, and the transitionary fossils got 'swallowed up', and there you go, evolutionm is true because evolution is true."
Am I the only one that catches the circular logic? Listen, Darwin himself said that if we didn't find transitionary fossils to explain the Cambrian explosion, his theory is FALSE. Not "in danger", but FALSE. As in the OPPOSITE of TRUTH. It's been almost a century and a half, and we actually have LESS transitionary fossils than since Darwin's time.
But why waste time questioning evolution, right? You're after the truth--as long as the truth doesn't point to God, naturally--so you stand proudly on the bedrock of SCIENCE. That is, all science where the Creator is not necessary (naturally).
Let's go to another inexplicable mystery. Origin of life. Now--just like the Cambrian explosion--all we have from the world's brightest minds are unfalisfiable theories. "Abiogenesis is correct because abiogenesis is correct." Face it, we've been at it for decades, boys, and--just like evolution--abiogenesis has LESS proof and is being more DISPROVED as we study it more.
So tell me, you rational demi-gods you, where do you get off calling Christianity 'outdated'? You cling to theories that have been falsified. As in, opposite of truth.
Let's get a summary of what atheists DO NOT know:
1) Origin of universe
2) Origin of life
Let's get a summary of a THEORY the Bible offers:
1) Origin of the universe
2) Origin of life
Let's get an example of what goes on in the atheist's mind when offered this theory:
1) Intelligent Design can't be true because Intelligent Design can't be true.
2) Intelligent Design isn't a theory because it introduces something new.
I'd like you to especially note number 2. Is that not the definition of science? Proposing theories that can be tested as true or false?
What would we expect to find if Intelligent Design were true?
1) Something coming from nothing. The Big Bang states that the universe began. Science states everything which begins to exist has a cause. God never began to exist, so He could have been the cause, we should INVESTIGATE HIS CLAIM BASED ON HIS PREMISES, not ones we project onto Him (strawmen).
2) The universe being fine-tuned. In other words, if you were hiking in the mountains, and came across rocks that spelled "Hello and welcome to this mountain, <insert name>." would you assume an earthquake had made the formation? Of course you wouldn't. Now, how would you explain it then? By an intelligent designer, of course! Such is LOGIC. Do you have PROOF this intelligent designer exists? Of course not. You're making a decision based on EVIDENCE (not bias).
Let's check out the evidence for #2. These numbers represent the MAXIMUM deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life:
Ratio of Electrons
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:10^40
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:10^55
Mass of Universe 1:10^59
Cosmological Constant 1:10^120
Let me show you how much change in the Cosmological Constant would be required (either way) for us NOT to be here:
One part IN
1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000
Let me refer to a post I made in another thread:
"[The cosmological costant is] remarkably well adjusted in our favor. From first principles one would guess that this constant should be very large
. If large and positive, the cosmological constant would act as a repulsive force that increases with distance, a force that would prevent matter from clumping together in the early universe, the process that was the first step in forming galaxies and stars and planets and people. If large and negative, the cosmological constant would act as an attractive force increasing with distance, a force that would almost immediately reverse the expansion of the universe and cause it to recollapse. In fact, astronomical observations show that the cosmological constant is quite small, very much smaller than would have been guessed from first principles
- Nobel-winning physicist Steven Weinberg
So to say "It appears fine-tuned, but it just had to be that way." is false, as the Nobel-winning physicist explains to us. You must then provide a reason WHY it is fine-tuned to such a ridiculous degree. If you do not, you are NOT being "logical" or "rational". You are being a simpleton who locks arms with other simpletons in the hope that if you SAY you're logical and rational enough, we will believe you.
I would like to know, right now, WHY Intelligent Design is an implausible theory to you. Why would it be plausible on earth (with the rocks), but not on a larger scale? Well, if you were a scientist, it WOULD be plausible, nay, LOGICAL to say an Intelligent Designer designed the universe. When you dismiss the idea, you are being bias for no reason. None. You clearly have no scientific basis for dismissing it, so quit saying you do.
So far, the evidence WE WOULD EXPECT to find to prove Intelligent Design is WHAT we find. Hmm. Seems like a theory that is being supported by evidence (unlike Darwinism). I, and other logical people, would agree that if it is supported by evidence, it is right and proper to embrace it. Any disagreements?
3) If this Intelligent Designer designed the universe for the intelligent life within it (logical deduction), then we would expect that He makes sure that intelligent life is likely to live, otherwise His purpose would be foiled. In other words, it is MORE LOGICAL to say that He made the universe for the intelligent life and not that intelligent life was a byproduct. But do we find evidence?
A. Our solar system is the ONLY one we've found with Jupiter (a gas giant) orbiting its star from such a vast distance away. Jupiter's placement makes it perfect for protecting Earth from fatal impacts from asteroids and comets ever 10,000 years.
B. Our moon SHOULD NOT exist the way it does. The requirements for it to have occurred naturally are astronomical. First, an EXACTLY right sized object would have had to hit the early Earth (I guess Jupiter chose to let this one slide). Then, the material jettising from the Earth has to coalesce at EXACTLY the right distance away or it would never form a moon. Thirdly, without the moon, life on Earth WOULD NOT be possible.
C. Earth is in THE most safest place in the universe. First, it is in a spiral galaxy (the only type of galaxy where life is PLAUSIBLE). Second, it is in between spiral arms and FAR away from the center of the galaxy. This means it is in very little danger of collision or other effects from being crowded. It ALSO means the Earth is at the BEST position to be able to study the universe. Why? Why is Earth in such a position? Couldn't life have sprung up in another location suitable for life but bad for observing the universe?
Let me guess..."it just happened". Right, Mr. Scientist.
D. Without its magnetic shield, atmosphere, green house affect, earth system cycle, and water, life wouldn't be possible. Anyone know why we have these things? Don't give me an answer like "comets hit the earth and gave it water". That is the process, that is not the cause. Why, exactly, did all of these "coincidences" occur? That isn't science. It screams a Designer. Just like the rock formation would.
Now that we've pointed out that atheism has LITTLE to do with logic, let's get to why people are atheists. You don't like God. You find Him distasteful. Ok, fair enough. At least we're not hiding behind elementary statements like "There's no evidence He exists." anymore. God is a supreme mind. That's what He is. He's not a physical old man sitting on a throne. He is