The Resurrection and the Death of Atheism

I think he was a pretty good science fiction author.

What you quote here isn't different from other stuff you've quoted.

I don't believe it's time to ignore nature. And, by nature I would include both this universe and whatever we might find out about its larger context.

 

Louis Pasteur, the famous scientist, said of our world: "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator." His logic convinced him that our complex, orderly creation requires a Creator.

 

You claim that is different. But, I don't see that as even mattering. Lots of religions have differences.

Being different doesn't mean it is "true" in any sense of the word.

You just resorted to preaching your religion.

 

Judaism teaches man reaching out to God, Christianity teaches God reaching out to man.

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isaiah 64:6)

Our sin has become a stench to God. We are all unclean. We could do millions of good deeds, but they do not have the power to wipe away one sin from our life.

 

That actually doesn't follow. You don't know there had to be a first cause. Reality/Time could be cyclical for all you know.

And to leap from a "first cause" to a sentient cause to a God etc, is a large series of steps I don't think we'll see you be proving to us any time soon.

 

We have tons of intermediate fossils. In fact, all fossils are intermediate fossils.

 

And of course a case of special pleading, there has to be a first cause, except for god, who is eternal!

 

This logic regresses infinitely. If you say the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't whatever caused it need a cause, and why doesn't that need a cause, etc.

 

Sir Isaac Newton stated, "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." You may find it hard to believe that God could make everything out of nothing, but the alternative is that nothing turned itself into everything. Which takes more faith to believe?

 

If Newton were born today he wouldn't be a creationist, he'd be a cosmologist.

 

That is because Newton was born hundreds of years ago and did not have the benefit of modern cosmology or quantum physics, what is your excuse for ignorance?

 

Archaeopteryx is not an intermediate fossil. It had features that most birds don't have, but so do other extinct birds like Ichthyornis and Hesperornis. https://creation.com/Archaeopteryx

 

Blind, random chance does not give rise to design. You will never hear of a tornado whipping through a junkyard and leaving a fully formed 747 jet, a Mercedes, and a skyscraper in its wake. Why? Blind chance cannot do that.

 

If you placed all the pieces of a watch into a shoebox and shook it for ten minutes, do you believe it would shake into a functioning watch? Of course not. What if you shook it for a year? Would a functioning watch then come out of the box? Say you were able to shake it for five billion years; would you then have a functioning watch? There is no possible way for that to happen.

 

Even Stephen Hawking concluded https://www.azquotes.com/quote/578001

The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been specifically designed for us. If any one of about 40 physical qualities had more than slightly different values, life as we know it could not exist: Either atoms would not be stable, or they wouldn't combine into molecules, or the stars wouldn't form the heavier elements, or the universe would collapse before life could develop, and so on.

 

"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
~Stephen Hawking~

 

Yes we know your like to show your ignorance, this time of what Stephen Hawkins means, but the question I asked was what is your excuse for being so ignorant?

 

“I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful.”
Stephen Hawkins, pretty clear what he thinks on God!

 

Many scientists have been willing to honestly, logically weigh the evidence and have determined that blind chance cannot be given credit for creating our highly ordered universe. Though he remains an evolutionist, Hawking admitted, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

 

This argument is a circular argument. It assumes that the universe, black holes, stars, planets, snowflakes, life etc are created. Actually physics, chaos theory and evolutionary theory tell us how most complex things in the world could have evolved on their own, without any help from any "watchmaker".

 

Consider the conclusion other scientists have reached about the universe's design:

Sir Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Hoyle.html

A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.

 

If it couldn't happen by chance to something relatively simple like a watch, it most certainly couldn't happen by chance to our magnificently complex universe.

 

I have and the vast majority do not think that the universe was created by a god and certainly not the Christian God, Hoyle as has been explained to you thought life began with aliens, so my question still remains, what is your excuse for ignorance?
Is it ignorance or deceit?

 

Argument from incredulity fallacy!

 

no one 'knows', now do they?

if that is supposed to be an argument to put down creationism all you have managed to do is agree that creation is a product of design. It does not prove it was not designed in the first place. LOL