Wow. That was a powerful reply. Not. Do you always resort to dishonest quoting when you struggle in a discussion?
The very absence of an observer makes the existence of anything moot. If it were not for humans, would the universe be here? The question is meaningless, and the existence of the universe without observers (and humans are the only known observers) would be/is equally meaningless. A creator of the universe would be so far from our capacity to understand that any and all speculation is fantasy.
That's similar to the question of "If a tree in the woods fell and no one was around to observe it would it still make a sound?" Sound is just waves that don't need ears to receive to be made. There would still be sound waves absent receptors.
Like the existence of wind is proven by its effects, so too is the existence of God. It's a matter of accepting the evidence from effects.
Thanks for the laugh. All attempts at proof by inference were also disproven... So not only do you not have a proof, any version of that has been proven impossible.
Scientific evidence is not a subjective concept. It isn't like right wing politics where it can be anything you imagine it to be. There are no alternative facts in science - only actual facts. What you mean is that a god exists in people's imaginations. There is no more "evidence" than that. Show me evidence for a god that can be measured, quantified, and reproduced by anyone in the world any time, as is required for actual evidence.
Therein lies your limitation in reasoning. You assume nothing exists other than the material world you can see and touch.
I don't assume anything. We were talking about evidence. But now your are changing the subject because you don't have a leg to stand on. Anything beyond the physical world by can ONLY exist in your imagination. By your own words, it doesn't exist in this world. And when I say this world, I mean the actual world.
There's no conclusive evidence of the origin of the Universe being uncaused. In fact, science doesn't even look for that evidence. It only looks at the how of what is observable.
That isn't even an argument. String Theory tells us the universe did not come from nothing. It has always existed. The big bang was just a change of state
Far more than mere speculation as with arguments attempting to defend religious nonsense. A theory comes from mathematics. It means we can model some aspect of reality mathematically and therefore predict its behavior.
We don't prove things in science. We falsify them. A theory is a model that can't be falsified. It might be falsified if new evidence emerges but unless that happens, it has stood the test of time and many thousands of verifications by independent scientists, so it stands as a theory. String theory isn't actually a theory. LOL! But it is a highly compelling model.
Well, I'm baffled as to why there isn't complete agreement in the scientific community over some theories and/or why new theories are postulated replacing old theories. Even the String Theory can be replaced.
