Absolutely possible. If it's invisible, unmeasurable, and unobservable than it falls completely outside the walls of science. This doesn't make it any more or less true, but it does make it 100% unscientific. You're right in that the proposition of multiverses is not even close to being accepted as a supported theory. What's the point? No physicist would stake his/her life on the presence or absence of multiverses.
Are you trying to make a point here? For the third time, I'm not against science, only stupid pseudo-science that piles on theories in a desperate and futile attempt to eliminate the need for a Creator.
Why is it unscientific? It's only that we don't know; therefor we can't conclude. If science actually used some of the resource material and did scientific studies, focused on creation; we may find answers. Instead science has completely and arrogantly ignored to follow through with a very sound theory. This makes them no better than the charlatans that hunted scientists down in the early years as warlocks and witches. I thought science wasn't supposed to be discriminative. So far, modern science has proven it's extremely discriminative to creation. Okay how about the big bang; or any other theory for that matter? Are their inconclusive and undeniable evidence supporting those theories? How about recirculating universes? What about black holes making mini-verses? There are holes in everyone of those theories.
uprepared to respond to the specific arguments WLC makes, absolutely. hitchens didn't put much effort into this confrontation. a few of those names are generally considered to have beated WLC by neutral observers. a few of them are theists by the way. because he doesn't want to have to fight against all the rhetoric, not because he's afraid he can't refute WLC's arguments. no he's not lol. i don't think there is one. maybe sam harris, who debated craig over the origin of morality and won easily IMO. it has. the KCA is easily refuted, and considered silly nonsense by working cosmologists and by most modern philosophers. nobody but hardcore theists trying to sell books takes it seriously.
Great! Nope. Agreed. SO TRUE! Hence my lack of belief in an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent magic man in the sky. Science will almost certainly never answer the question "why are we here". The fact that your Good Book attempts to do so doesn't make it correct. I can understand why some need to have that unknown answered for them, but it's still just stories in a book. Cute, but I had no magical experience. I simply stopped trying to fool myself. Hence the wink. Did you catch that part? Atheists can joke too, you know. P.S. You are misusing the term "agnostic". Look up Thomas Huxley's original definition and get back to us. P.P.S. You are still using your computer! Stop it right now! What is this DNA stuff of which you speak? Sounds like scientific hogwash.
Did you not agree to "take that deal and run"? See post #435. And there's no need to eliminate what isn't there.
likewise. Yep. Might want to study up. Great! And for the same reason, I don't believe in a spontaneous, causeless, sourceless, purposeless, meaningless existence. Stories in a book to you, reality for billions of others. Neither did I. I don't even believe in magic. Lol, if you're trying to ruffle my feathers then keep trying. I'm not going to fall for your lame attempts. Yay, four strawmen and counting. I see you lack crucial reading comprehension.
Which explains "Arrogance". And did you see the video of Hitchens giving props to Craig? If Hitchens thought Craig was full of shit; he would have never candidly given Craig praise. You are too deep in your box; step out and see the forest. I have been doing a lot of digging and I haven't once seen any credit given by a neutral observer that gives a "win" to those that have debated him. Then why the arrogant ignorance to set aside scientific studies with the focus on creation? If it can be refuted, then it's obviously needing to be tested to prove it wrong. Isn't that science? Okay show me a neutral party that actually agreed more in favor of Harris over Craig. You aren't seeing the big picture. Craig has been around since the early 2000's debating the same theories. If there were just a few debates, then I could see your point. There has been ample time to prove Craig to be a Charlatan. I don't see any significant change in his theories for over 5 years. If you don't think a brilliant group of minds can't find holes in his arguments in 5 years; then that says a lot about Craig's iron clad ability.
If it came down to worshiping God or holding on to my material things I would worship God 8 days a week. Fortunately it's not. You are grasping at straws.
Who is this "science"? They sound like a bad bunch of people. Science is not an organization. It is not a shadow-government. It is a methodology of examining the world using objective and reproducible evidence. It can answer some questions very well, some others not so well, and others still it doesn't attempt to answer at all. Anything that is unmeasurable is BY DEFINITION unscientific. That includes "why are we here" questions, "what is morally right" questions, "who is my soulmate" questions, and tons of other stuff. That doesn't make these questions unimportant -- it just means that science is silent on their answers. However, when you start talking about a young earth, you are stepping into the realm of answers that do have evidence. And the evidence, overwhelmingly, is that young earth theories are total nonsense. There is quite a lot of evidence for the big bang, actually. And again, no scientist can possibly prove that God didn't cause the big bang -- it's totally possible. I mentioned before that I've known a fair number of scientists who also believed in a creator. Every single one of them also believed in the big bang. It's not some atheist trick -- it's a conclusion based on all available evidence.
I think it's cute how you use these rhetorical concepts (like "strawman") without understanding what they mean. That post up there was sarcasm, son. Hence the green font.
And you are taking advantage of the benefits of scientific knowledge every single day, dismissing it completely only where it tells you things you don't want to hear.
I honestly don't know where to begin. You are taking a gap in knowledge ("how did everything begin"), expanding it into a super-human being who writes in fire, floods evil people, and turns women into pillars of salt, and somehow calling that the reasonable answer.
But you are, actually. Not because you believe in god (that's unscientific, but not "against science"), but because you believe an old book gives a better description of the ancient world than actual evidence.
And you seem to try and put limits on what that superhuman being can do. God's greatest miracle for us is creating the universe, but I guess He's powerless to break the laws He created. If you don't believe in God or miracles fine, but that doesn't make me or billions of others "unreasonable".
