The Return Of The God Hypothesis.

[Theland]

There appears no way that the universe arose from nothing, but came from a preexisting mind, that is God.

https://youtu.be/uInJoikDgpY

It seems the atheist scientists have hit a brick wall!
Can you rescue them?

[mibn2cweus]

This notion that the apparent complexity of highly evolved systems can only be explained by resorting to something inherently infinitely more complex for which no explanation for its existence can be imagined shots itself in the foot before exiting the gate. They'll need to reach much further down into their bag of tricks before anyone will ever be able to make any sense out of that one.

Everything we have discovered and know concerning the universe and everything in it has without exception been learned through our study of it. Not by abandoning the quest to that for which no explanation is possible. Until they learn to reason they will never understand the reason for anything. What is is what it is. You don't get to just make it up by invoking the inconceivable.

[andy-hughes]

For the umpteenth time Theland -

Your assumption that 'Because it appears not to be this, it must be that...' fails even basic logical analysis.

You believe it because you want to believe it, but that is wishful thinking, not logical analysis.

Believing something and shoehorning suppositions to fit it is human nature, but it's wishful thinking, which is neither logic or science.

[TheChair]

There appears no way that a God arose from nothing, but came from the preexisting minds of men. It seems religionists have hit a brick wall. Is it worth trying to rescue them?

[Theland]

The further back they drill, the atheist scientists invoke something, rather than nothing, and that something is a mind, the only known source of created information.

[naomi24]

If you think about it, Theland, you’ll find you’ve hit a brick wall - but you won’t think about it.

[THECORBYLOON]

In what way does that video support your assertion?

[naomi24]

It doesn’t. The man is advertising his book.

[Peter Pedant]

// Your assumption that 'Because it appears not to be this, it must be that...' fails even basic logical analysis.//
a very wise thinker indeed

excuse me - isnt exactly this - that is being used deliberately but still erroneously in the the Great God Plan debate ?

there exists gods plan - I dont like it esp the dead baby bit - and so there is no plan

this fraudulent argument is being used elsewhere on AB isnt it

tell me - dis-moi - dic ( latin ) - εἶπε
(the last one is an easy one) - if it is not true

[Peter Pedant]

// If you think about it, Theland, you’ll find you’ve hit a brick wall - but you won’t think about it.//
mystic Meg - she knows you know! (thx to Tommy handly)

Mystic Meg - the great logic analyst - Andee h that is!
Theologians - men who can google greek at will it seems -

they are all here you know

Didnt Hawking say the universe began as a singularity point and behind that was an imploding universe?

- He didnt? well Mystic Meg can make sure and ask him again.....

this is where Faith and Knowledge is welded into a single blade!

[Theland]

If you walk into a freshly painted room with the brushes still lieing about, your logic and reason would lead you to conclude that a painter and decorator had done it, unless the brushes were Harry Potters.
Similarly, a universe with about thirty odd finely tuned cosmic constants, DNA coding for ACGT, your logic and reason should lead you to conclude that a mind originated it all.

[pixie374]

Why theland? I've never known any mind that can do anything like that. Where would that "mind" come from?
But there is limitless science I don't know. Do you literally know all of it? How have you managed to rule it out?

[Atheist]

Theland, patterns and apparent order and design can come about quite naturally. Snowflakes; rainbows; the arrangement of seeds in a sunflower head; galactic discs; the list is endless.
So-called 'laws' are not necessarily ordained by a law-maker. The 50-50 spin of a coin, and so on. Things such as the laws of gravity or the law of evolution are really man-made descriptions of how the world around us operates.

[naomi24]

And there you’ve hit your first brick wall, theland. From happening upon an empty room you claim to know which company was contracted to paint it. That is entirely illogical. Even if you googled a list of local tradesmen you’d still be guessing.

[ToraToraTora]

alleluia!

[Theland]

Atheist - yes mankind has discovered laws of nature, but didn't create them.
Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravity, Einstein relativity etc, laws that are consistent and describe what's happening in nature.
As for him publishing a book, so what? Publishing papers, articles and books is the accepted way of getting discoveries to a wider audience.
Of course Naomi is biased against the very idea of the opposition publishing a book, rather than addressing the science contained within the book.
Her tradition of shooting the messenger and best ignored.

[Theland]

So you agree there was a painter?
Oops! Am ignoring you!

[naomi24]

Out of your depth, theland?

[Theland]

Pixie, instead of raising so many points in one post, that I have neither the time nor inclination to deal with, try just raising one at a time.
All of these necessary conditions depend on information.
There is only one source of information known to man, and that is a conscious thinking mind.

[Theland]

Atheist, the examples of what you describe as chaos and chance are nothing of the sort.
They are all governed by natural laws.

[Theland]

Not even got my toes wet!