Your tooth fairy not mine

@kellyjay said
Endless series of big bangs, do you have scientific certainty for those?

Do you have scientific certainty for God? What's the difference?

@kellyjay said
My big complaint is mind/mindlessness, something/nothing

You have indeed hit upon the problem. By fixating on 'mind/mindlessness' and 'something/nothing' you are limiting your own understanding and openness to different possibilities. For example, if matter has always existed, in one form or another, it can not be said that nothing has created something. (As matter has never been in a state of nothingness). And if matter has always existed, why does it require a mind of any persuasion? Does water require mindfulness when it navigates it's way and locates the best way to breach a dam? - Abandon the silly notion of a young Earth and anything becomes possible.

@kellyjay said
One last thought until you respond, isn't your eternal universe much like a one-ended stick, a logical impossibility?

No sir, that's religion.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Do you have scientific certainty for God? What's the difference?

I think evidentially there is more evidence for God than Atheism, for the sake of argument if there is no God and evolution is true, your brain is the end product of a mindless process that has no goals and you have to trust its conclusions. The notion you push as mindlessness does all of the building undermines your worldview.

Information that does complex written work comes from a mind not chaos and chance. There is information driving biological processes, mindlessly, this means all of the systems inside of information-driven systems would be products of chaos and chance, much like your stick with one end, this is a non-starter.

We know a mind can write code in a variety of ways, we can send it up in smoke signals, carve it into rocks or trees, write on paper, align rocks to spell out words, and type it out on our computers so seeing chemicals aligned to do work seems a little thing compared to chance and chaos with a mind responsible. The difference is what I accept as reasonable, we can see in the real-world comparisons, scientific certainty, your beliefs, not so much.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
No sir, that's religion.

Do you think a one-ended stick is a religious reality, seriously? Accepting that sounds more like a religion than not, just as X can give us Y, but X cannot give us X so the universe cannot create itself, it cannot go on forever in the past and not wind down completely and spring back there would be no energy to cause the spring back it would all be dissipated.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You have indeed hit upon the problem. By fixating on 'mind/mindlessness' and 'something/nothing' you are limiting your own understanding and openness to different possibilities. For example, if matter has always existed, in one form or another, it can not be said that nothing has created something. (As matter has never been in a state of nothingness). And if matter ha ...[text shortened]... best way to breach a dam? - Abandon the silly notion of a young Earth and anything becomes possible.

Reasons and causes instead of logical impossibilities.

@kellyjay said
I think evidentially there is more evidence for God than Atheism

Nonsense,...but which God exactly?

The evidence you use to validate the existence of your particular God, (creation for example) is the same evidence a Hindu uses to evidence their God.

And to stick to the theme of the thread, if an ancient document was discovered that alleged the Tooth Fairy was the creator of the universe, it would have no less credibility than the claims you make (both totally unsupported by science).

@kellyjay said

Information that does complex written work comes from a mind not chaos and chance. There is information driving biological processes, mindlessly, this means all of the systems inside of information-driven systems would be products of chaos and chance, much like your stick with one end, this is a non-starter.

Chaos and chance, given billions of years, might surprise you. (I appreciate that might not be the case in your young Earth guff). There are eternal forces at work in the universe. There are no gods.

And again, I reject your childlike use of 'mindless' as though that were the only other option to the God you are peddling.

@kellyjay said
much like your stick with one end, this is a non-starter.

You are the one frantically waving around a stick with the head of a deity on it, trying to bat away the mountain of scientific understanding that unpicks all the religious nonsense you are clinging to.

@kellyjay said
The difference is what I accept as reasonable, we can see in the real-world comparisons, scientific certainty, your beliefs, not so much.

Believing the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that we owe our origin to a pair of humans in a garden is NOT reasonable and is literally you covering your ears and eyes to modern science. The universe is billions of years old. The tangible evidence for this is enormous. And we absolutely did not begin our human journey in a garden.

@kellyjay said
Do you think a one-ended stick is a religious reality, seriously? Accepting that sounds more like a religion than not, just as X can give us Y, but X cannot give us X so the universe cannot create itself, it cannot go on forever in the past and not wind down completely and spring back there would be no energy to cause the spring back it would all be dissipated.

I don't even know where to begin trying to explain dark energy fluctuation to you.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Nonsense,...but which God exactly?

The evidence you use to validate the existence of your particular God, (creation for example) is the same evidence a Hindu uses to evidence their God.

And to stick to the theme of the thread, if an ancient document was discovered that alleged the Tooth Fairy was the creator of the universe, it would have no less credibility than the claims you make (both totally unsupported by science).

Which God hasn’t really been talked about only the need for a transcendent one. We have so far seen your one ended universe with respect to time, the narrative that the natural universe exists because it made itself when it wasn’t here to make itself, and a eternal uncaused cause the prime reality that transcends everything created it. Feel free to correct me, science deals with what is here understanding how the universe works it is limited.

@kellyjay said
Which God hasn’t really been talked about only the need for a transcendent one. We have so far seen your one ended universe with respect to time, the narrative that the natural universe exists because it made itself when it wasn’t here to make itself, and a eternal uncaused cause the prime reality that transcends everything created it. Feel free to correct me, science deals with what is here understanding how the universe works it is limited.

So, in other words, you are unable to explain why creation evidences your God and not Brahma?

@kellyjay said
We have so far seen your one ended universe with respect to time, the narrative that the natural universe exists because it made itself when it wasn’t here to make itself

No! For the last time no!

The universe does not exist because it made itself. (Why are you not hearing this? ) How could an eternal universe make itself if it has no beginning. Does your eternal God have a beginning. Did he makes himself?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
So, in other words, you are unable to explain why creation evidences your God and not Brahma?

Did not say that, maybe you should ask specific questions while making specific comparisons. What makes you think your Brahma has standing in this discussion?