And, you know this, HOW? You are wrong, and I suspect you know it, just trying to bluff with ideology. What about Junk schools like Liberty U or Oral Roberts U (or Trump U)??? The opposite is true there - try and teach evolution there...
Yes The claim is that god IS the root cause. You tell me data suggests god is not the root cause. Which data are you looking at to come to that conclusion? Science makes no claims about god one way or the other.
I have known a lot of chemical engineers.. My father was one with a masters from MIT.. His brothers were chemical engineers. Two of my brothers were engineers from GA Tech. I grew up around geologists, engineers, chemists, cartographers and more than a few CIA guys and former Navy Seals. They didn't confuse science with the supernatural or religious allegories.
"cause" would imply "before" which we've already concluded cannot be the case. >implying the only thing God can be attributed to is the creation of the universe
You know the the "multiverse" is nothing more than a scientific hypothesis, and since it cannot be observed, measured or tested, it isn't hard science at all. It is what could be classified as "natural philosophy" cadging the name of science before it became science. Dark matter is also a hypothesis, based on deduction from observable phenomena and various laws of physics. It's existence is not a scientific fact as yet. You seem to have a really distorted understanding of what science actually is, which is rather surprising for a chemeng. As for "censors what can be investigated" that is nonsense. For instance you can review any evenings television schedule and find at least a show or three that is exclusively about investigation the supernatural, including psychics, ghosts, spirits, etc. Of course such metaphysical "investigation" cannot be considered actual science. I'm sure there are all kinds of religious people out there attempting to definitively prove a connection to their version of god and the righteousness of their dogma. Science doesn't stop any of that, but it does reject unscientific methods and conclusions.
↑ You're not 20 years old yet, are you. Meaning? Meaning I hit the nail on the head. (What was going on before the "party" got started?)
I need a little more context. You have a bizarre approach to debate. It has been declared that the scientific data suggests that there is no god. All I'm asking for is what data shows there is no god. If the data is there, this should be a no-brainer.
Well, I'm not a liberal and also, I'm a member of AARP. "party started" was just my folksy charm way of asking what science he had to prove first cause wasn't god. That's it. Sheesh, dude.... chillax a bit, eh?
That long elegantly set table, was the result of chance. Given enough time, this table, with its fine dining wear, the expertly cooked bill o faire, would be created by chance, the roll of cosmic dice. So don't try to tell us an intelligence was involved in making it. The material universe is dumber than a bag of hammers, but when you have time and chance, you can dine very well. And then it only appears there is intelligence involved. For the universe is even dumber than a village idiot. Which means atheists, being a part of a dumb universe are just as dumb as the universe in which by happenchance they just appeared. So, please, pay no mind to the atheists. Their arrogance is the product of a dumb and stupid universe.
I thought it was going to be interesting but it was just another ontological argument. I think the idea was that if it was always there to be discovered then someone had to make it. That was followed up by a bit of snarkery when called out. Oh well, I live in hope of a decent discussion on these issues.
Do you have anything else to counter the ontological argument rather than your own ontological argument?
What's to counter? It's just dressing up a tired old argument for the existence of a creator. None of us can prove if there's a creator. Those who believe don't need to be persuaded and those who don't, won't or can't believe won't be convinced by any sort of mental gymnastics.
I have never thought of it in quite that manner before. You make an excellent point, you know. Finely tuned physical constants, the elegance of mathematics, atomic structure and reactions, reversibility of chemical reactions, correspondence among systems, cycles, beauty, all from the dumb and stupid universe which fabricated itself so stupidly from nothing at all. Your scientific acumen is above reproach, One Mind! May God bless you and increase your territory.
Ah, the sophistry of the well worn "possibility vs probability" logical fallacy. Outstanding piece of anthropomorphic nonsense. A "dumb" universe? A "stupid" universe? Boy are you nasty and obviously don't care you are hurting the stupid,dumb universe's feelings.
Do you have any proof for anything you said? I just noted that you refuse to submit any fact or argument for your statements, while attacking the argument of the OP. The fact is that there are logical arguments for existence of God based on empirical evidence. They were not designed to prove existence of God in the meaning of converting anybody. Not you, not I, but only God knows how, when and by what one can be persuaded or convinced. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (I can tell about my own experience. For all my life I was convinced that Theory of Evolution was a science. Then I went to an Internet forum, saw a few debates and started asking some questions. Answers of the believers in Evolution destroyed my life long conviction.)
Since you have no facts and no arguments to prove that what you say is true every words you say are just expressions of your blind fanatical beliefs.
