Actually true. As you see, Denny can't deny what I said. You are the only one arguing because you aren't understanding.
http://sportstwo.com/threads/206481-Evidence-that-god-exists?p=2732628#post2732628 The underlined part is your straw man. The entire bolded part is the three questions. Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error, is a formal fallacy, committed by reasoning in the form: If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q.
If there were evidence of a creator, scientists would be all over it and someone would win the nobel prize for it. Didn't someone write that (almost) exact thing already?
It also answers why the galaxies, stars and planets are even here in the first place, and the precision the universe operates on.
Why is 186,000 miles/second, the speed of light, somehow precise? Why is 32 ft/sec/sec (gravity in many places on earth) somehow precise? They look like random numbers to me.
So? Yeah, if there were a creator, then odds of it is 1:1, I suppose. Because you just have to have faith it is so. That is not proof that it isn't the other way.
Oh but there is. But when you want badly enough for something not to be true you'll find ways around it, and there are plenty of people around with that sort of motivation.
Science doesn't want to make it a factor because they don't want to believe in the supernatural. Well at least the Atheist scientists.
You're the one who talks about some sort of precision in the universe, when all I see is randomness. In fact, why are some people 5' tall, and some people 7' tall?
And there are millions with the motivation to prove it, and get that nobel prize, etc. So the same could be said. there isn't evidence. but when you want so badly to believe something to be true, you find ways around it, and there are plenty(plenty more, according to you) with that sort of motivation.
Show me a photograph. Show me a painting of Jesus from the time he was alive. Show me a fossil of the burnt bush. You guys know what to look for, where is it?
You are seriously over simplifying things and you know it. We are talking about "life itself". The universe itself. And you know damn well the universe is "fine tuning". Even you believe in this because you gave me a link of the big bang. That has "fine tuning" written all over it.
Because it falls on a certain number does not mean it's not precise. If it fell on any other number you'd be using the exact same argument. And what does the height have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that if there were a God we'd all be the same height, weight, color etc. or something to that nature?
and again, mags, none of this is evidence, at all. Just faith. good for you. You have faith. you do not, unfortunately, have evidence.
if you think that is the case, faith isn't required and you don't have free will to genuinely NOT believe in god. just as i see no evidence whatsoever for god acting throughout history, or for intelligent design in the wasteful impractical structure of DNA, so i don't have the choice to believe in god (without brainwashing myself). this was my only point. i wasn't arguing about who's view of the evidence is correct. god revealing himself "throughout history" or in the code of DNA are overtly empirical claims. when you say those things you ARE STATING a scientific hypothesis.
