That isn't Craig's request or theory. It's to prove that the existence of God actually exists. And you are 100% accurate. Science isn't a conspiracy. It is supposed to be unbiased without prejudice. Anything is possible and everything should be tested if a plausible theory is presented. I think Craig has given a pretty iron clad theory. Do you not agree? Never said the "Big Bang" was an atheist trick. But it's a theory that is supported by atheists and creationists a like.
I’m of the opinion that science and God can coexist peacefully. “Science” and “secularism” don’t go hand in hand. Some of the greatest scientists in the history of the world believed in God, in fact most of them did. Maybe you should pick up that "ancient book" and read it sometime, it's extremely relevant for today. There's a reason it's both the greatest selling and shoplifted book in the history of the world, many times over.
LOL, I guess he played the "victim" card because he lost the debate because clearly Craig couldn't beat him in a fair fight. Now that's hilarious!
Be careful with this statement. You are seriously treading on Dogma. There are many historians that will attest that historically; many of the books in the Bible are accurate historical records. And Historians are a form of science too.
Have you ignored every single one of my posts? I've read the Bible. Cover to cover. Multiple times. Parts of it make great reading (I'm a big fan of the Song of Songs!), and other parts are pretty tedious (Book of Numbers, anyone?). I also just recently wrote several lengthy posts emphasizing that a belief in a god is not at all incompatible with scientific understanding.
Historical evidence does not equal scientific evidence. I accept the Old Testament as a fantastic record of the culture and perspectives of the Hebrew people. I think it's likely that many of the events described in it happened in some form or another (a great flood, for example). I do not believe Lot's wife was literally transformed from a human being into sodium chloride, and the fact that it is written that way in the Bible does not constitute anything resembling scientific evidence.
Really? You think Dawkins agrees with you? So the work of Pluto isn't scientific either? There were some grand metaphors used in his description of historical events.
Read it again -- I said unscientific, but NOT "against science". There is no measurable evidence for your God's mass, volume, temperature, specific heat, or any other physical variable. (And not for lack of trying! Early scientists spent ages trying to determine the mass of the soul as it departed a body...) This doesn't mean that scientific evidence proves there is no god -- it only means that science is completely silent on the question of whether there is a god. And as I said before, I agree that there are TONS of important questions that are completely unscientific -- it's not a derogatory term.
Huh? In what way? You mean Plato? What does his writing have to do with scientific evidence? I haven't read his stuff since my undergrad days -- what experiments did he claim to have performed?
Well, I disagree there. I think there is plenty of scientific evidence for a designer. Enough so that the majority of scientists throughout history believed in God.
Scientific evidence? What physical property of God's are you proposing to measure, either directly or indirectly? Because I'd like to repeat your experiment on my own to see if my results match up with yours, since that's the foundation of the scientific method.
There is no physical evidence to observe of God because He's not a physical being, He's Spiritual. I think there's enough observable evidence in the universe to make a powerful case for a designer. There's a reason secular scientists scrambled to make up a multiverse theory.
http://www.crystalinks.com/platometaphors.html or I wonder why scientists don't discredit these wild metaphors like they do with the Bible? Instead they embrace the thinking and incorporate it with science. Why can't they use the philosophy; as crazy as the literal definition; for their motives in science? What's the difference?
Okay so you disagree with wikipedia then? and in terms of Historians; if you believe that their methods of explaining our past isn't respected on a scientific level; then we got problems here.
That infinity really isn't a probability. That even the "Big Bang" being slightly off 10 to the power of 600 can make or break life. That the solar systems we can see are constantly fixing themselves. Have you seen Craig's request on his theory? Do you really, with an open mind; believe it isn't called to be tested?
