OK, Stu - let's work together to pinpoint exactly where it is you're going wrong.. Apparently you can't accept the metaphysical as a meaningful concept. The metaphysical is, at the very least, Kant's world of things-in-themselves. It's that which is subvenient to our idiosyncratic phenomenalities - being that is absolute rather than merely one interpretation or another. Being non-interpretational it must also be uninterpretable and therefore unknowable since the only way to worldly knowing is by way of interpretation. This, however, does not preclude divine knowing since divine knowing is knowing without interpretation; divine knowing is immediate but non-representational - for instance as in the immediate experience of the presence of God or Godness in the world. The divine may be metaphysical or even transmetaphysical; we can't know which. Yes, we must use understanding but must accept a limit to our understanding - especially understanding based on modelling since modelling is but a faint shadow of mere phenomenalisms and can't be more than that. Scienctific understanding is exclusively understanding through modelling. The knowing of God must, then, occur in an unscientific manner. There - that wasn't so hard now, was it?
let me ask you a question. exactly when did god cross over from the physical world to the metaphysical world? i ask this because there are many examples of god showing himself in the physical sense in the bible. now you claim he can not be detected by natural means. either the bible is wrong or you are wrong. Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from its readiness to fit in with our instinctual wishful impulses. (Sigmund Freud) Richard Dawkins: Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.
ok but i warn you. thinking is dangerous to faith: "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not -- struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God." father of modern Protestant christianity, Martin Luther
Outspoken evangelical geneticist Francis Collins revealed that combative atheist Richard Dawkins admitted to him during a conversation that the most troubling argument for nonbelievers to counter is the fine-tuning of the universe. http://www.christianpost.com/news/f...admits-universes-preciseness-a-problem-51416/ by the way don't accuse Mr. Collins of lying.. I saw (on tv) Dawkins say the same thing in speech he gave at UCSD... and he has been quoted to say the same in other places.
well sure its difficult to counter because science does not yet have all the answers. the best answer is it was not designed to fit life but life evolved to fit the conditions it found itself in. often things we dont yet have the answers for are difficult to rationalize. like this one for believers. if the universe needs a creator who created the creator? definitive take down of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baZUCc5m8sE&feature=feedwll&list=WL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-UIfkcgPY&feature=related
You've given 2nd and 3rd hand skewed opinionated interpretations from Bible websites, and misleading part quotes to form false impressions , not science. There is at least one of your Nobel prize scientists who has described how the universe would form without the need for multiverses. So yours is a false choice, made on ignorant limited and false unscientific information. Almost all top scientists might conclude the earth appears flat. But they'll soon tell you it isn't, just as they'll tell you there is no science and nothing scientific whatsoever to even remotely suggest the universe has or even needs an intelligent designer.
1. time formed after the big bang. a creator would be outside time. there may be no need for a before when there is no time. So who created a Creator may be a non issue. Its odd you would be discussing best answers when science best answer is currently to speculate about almost infinite other answers and we just happen to be in that universe. But even then science has still not observed any incidence of life evolving from non life. Or how even in one lucky universe all the parameters were tweaked just right. If you "believe" evolution is the best answer, fine, but there are lot of phds in science who now disagree with you. Many of them are now saying it looks like evolution was directed. It looks like the universe we live in was designed. Finally, your video addressed Genesis in the bible... why do you keep bringing the bible into this. we are talking physics and cosmology.
because without your indoctrination from the bible you would not need to go to such lengths and contortions to twist what scientists say to make it fit what your religion tells you. every objection you have ever posted boils down to this: i think its too complicated so it had to be god. you have never posted one piece of evidence that actually backs up what you believe.