Quote:

Yes, this would fit your view nicely I guess, but if it's so obvious and possible to derive from the scientific research that a creator would be likely, then why don't the scientist believe in God? Unlike you think, science isn't about finding proof to disprove your belief.



Science largely ignores God as a cause. That's great, until you start guessing how the universe and life came into existence. Its actually quite entertaining to watch scientists try and replace God for the origin of life, because they obviously must understand nothing about thermodynamics. Its also funny to watch them try and replace God for the origin of the universe. However, it starts becoming rather detrimental when their unverifiable guesses are paraded around as truth. Aren't religionists supposed to be idiots for believing something that can't be proved? The big bang effects our natural universe in no way, and we can't recreate it, or any of its effects on our universe in the lab. But it must be true, because red shift is possibly caused by space expansion. And there is no reason to think that this could have to do with something other than the big bang.

I'm not saying its wrong to believe the big bang is right, I'm just saying there isn't conclusive evidence that it is right, and in fact there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, why should I take their word on something that supposedly happened billions of years ago, when they won't even admit that life can't start on its own (which supposedly happened only a fraction of the time ago). I also find it hard to believe any age they tack on anything. The age of the earth has doubled on average every twenty years. Yet every time they come up with a new age, we're told it IS the age, not that its the assumed age. Because if they admit that they're making assumptions, then people won't fall for it. Furthermore, if they were wrong for each and every other age that they've given for the earth, why are they suddenly right now? Why should I believe them? The self-correcting nature of science argument doesn't work, because we were told these ages were fact. There was no guessing involved. That's my point.

Furthermore, with the current model of the big bang, they assume that stars came into existence at roughly the same time as the universe. Even according to them, this isn't possible. But I'm just supposed to take it on faith that they're right about everything? As soon as science left the realm of the directly, or even indirectly observable, its become a joke. I for one don't find the joke very funny, however.

Quote:

Yes, they start with a different point of view, however the lack of evidence in favor of a God as they would discover would make it hard for them to hold on to that belief.



According to this logic, I could say that the lack of evidence in favor of naturalism is what makes it hard for atheist scientists to stay atheists. Does that make sense? I think you'll agree that it doesn't, but that's because you missed my point. My point was that, you're sitting here taking these imaginative stories at face value, when these stories not only wouldn't exist if scientists were theists, but they would be radically different. In which case, it would be very difficult to believe that there is no God. In fact, the evidence for God is right there, but you never hear about it. I'm not about to scream conspiracy, but scientists are so dead set on showing how the universe could exist without God (and life), that they won't admit that there is no other alternative. We've made absolutely NO headway into discovering how life could have started without a designer. In fact, we've done the opposite, and we've figured out that its impossible for it to start without some creative power. Yet we're told as a fact that it didn't. Does this not bother you in any way? Doesn't it bother you that even the most basic understanding of thermodynamics shows why life cannot start on its own? If it takes a creator to make life, then maybe all of our assumptions about a lack of creator anywhere else are wrong. But that's exactly the problem. That will never be admitted to.

Quote:

since archaeological evidence proves it's not historical.



What evidence was this again?

Quote:

Infact if scientists would find proof that makes the existance of a God likely, then I probably would believe it. (Don't worry, the evidence should be very solid off course. )



Good. I want to discuss this further, because I've seen this come up in other atheist-theist discussions. What could scientists find in this universe that would convince you God exists? I don't think there's a single thing that could happen in this universe that you couldn't rationalize.

But I don't want to assume you're lying. Tell me what could happen within the natural realm (in other words something that isn't physically impossible like a square-circle) that would convince you. In other words, something we can comprehend.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/05/06 01:07.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."