@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Why is is reasonable to believe? Just because science doesn't rule out God (which it never will), doesn't mean that by lack of address, God is implied. Current scientific findings do not address the concept of God at all, and to the contrary, evidence continues to indicate that natural processes alone are capable of generating the structure of the Universe and the life within it.
It's reasonable to believe because the Big Bang is reasonable to believe, and because the idea that everything exploded from nothing (which was, supposedly, already something to begin with) isn't very reasonable to believe. What about the cosmological constants? The universe has been shown to be very fine-tuned. You can't explain that away by invoking random chance, because then you would need to subscribe to either cosmic rebound or the "multiverse" theory (the former has been more or less disproven, and the latter is totally unverifiable by science).
rosborne979 wrote:And maybe that's because "God", whatever that is, didn't create anything. You're jumping to conclusions right off the bat.
I didn't assume that he created anything--I was going off what I've already said in this thread and, admittedly, other threads as well.
rosborne979 wrote:Starting off with the assumption of natural cause is the very basis of science, it can't proceed from any other point or it wouldn't be science.
So you're saying that, right from the start, science assumes that God is never an explanation? "Assuming God isn't viable, this is a possible explanation for the evidence?" I'm not sure Einstein (or a good number of other well-known scientists) would agree with you.
How about, instead of, "everything has a natural cause," science is, "everything natural has a cause"?
rosborne979 wrote:Sure, but it can also be explained without an intelligent designer and that's the point. And that's what science has been doing for centuries now; demonstrating that the natural world is capable of evolving without assistance.
I think I could correct you here--science has been demonstrating that many aspects of the natural world are capable of evolving, and some others may also be capable of evolving. Evolution is an explanation, but not necessarily a good explanation.
rosborne979 wrote:There is no irreducible complexity. It's been theorized but never demonstrated. And the complexity is not evidence of intelligent design because we can explain the complexity without resorting to intelligent design (the supernatural).
It's been demonstrated as much as its refutations have been demonstrated (in that neither can directly support claims with, say, a laboratory example of complexity developing or not developing on its own). Have you read Michael Behe? Are you proposing that the first cell could come into being, fully capable of nourishing itself, defending itself, and reproducing, either through spontaneous generation or chemical evolution?
rosborne979 wrote:It's been demonstrated and proven in every way possible for over a hundred years now, and it required no leaps of faith at all. I don't know where you're getting your information, but it's simply incorrect.
As far as I know, we haven't even created a single cell under controlled conditions supervised by formidable intelligences (scientists). That demonstrates one particular leap of faith--the assumption that either chemical evolution or spontaneous generation is true, and that the very first cell can come into being completely through undirected natural processes.
rosborne979 wrote:That opinion is unsupported by the facts.
Facts...what are you referring to? Actual evidence, which has been presented for both theories, or the assertions of evolutionists, which may have been named "facts" for the sake of the theory's progress?
