New solar system near by with 7 planets, three habitable.

[Sparko]

I think you are being "overly optimistic with absolutely no evidence" that "God created such a large universe for a purpose".

Obviously we Christians think there is plenty of evidence God created the universe for a purpose. We will love to discuss it with you, and have in the past.

[Tassman]

Obviously we Christians think there is plenty of evidence God created the universe for a purpose. We will love to discuss it with you, and have in the past.

[Kbertsche]

?!?!
Any god who could be threatened and superseded by modern physics would not be worth serving.
But this does not describe the God of the Bible, who created the universe and its laws, including the laws of modern physics.

[Tassman]

?!?!
Any god who could be threatened and superseded by modern physics would not be worth serving.

Correct, he's not.

[Sparko]

God isn't a concept. The truth matters. You don't just decide what is true. Truth is reality. You can believe in it or not, but it is still true. If you want to believe physics replaces God, then go right ahead. God is still true and real. God made physics. You are nothing but an idolator, worshiping the creation instead of the creator.

[Tassman]

God isn't a concept. The truth matters. You don't just decide what is true. Truth is reality. You can believe in it or not, but it is still true. If you want to believe physics replaces God, then go right ahead. God is still true and real. God made physics. You are nothing but an idolator, worshiping the creation instead of the creator.

The difference is that science is supported by verifiable evidence wheres God is not.

[oxmixmudd]

The difference is that science is supported by verifiable evidence wheres God is not.

Yes, science is supported by verifiable evidence, but much of what we must deal with in life is not. Whether God is a reality is one of those elements that is not subject to scientific investigation. But that does not mean He is merely a figment of people's imagination. We each gather and respond to the more or less subjective evidence of His reality in our lives*. For me, and I'm sure for many if not most believers, that evidence is just as solid as the evidence for true selfless love, or the evidence for true good and pure evil. Not things we can prove exist, but ideals most of us accept as real and true none the less.

Jim

* The reality of God can be tested individually. God interacts with us one on one. The tests are not repeatable, and thus can't be shown scientifically not to be simple coincidence. As such the can't be called ogjective, But the sum of them leads to faith in those with faith to believe.

[Roy]

God isn't a concept. The truth matters. You don't just decide what is true. Truth is reality. You can believe in it or not, but it is still true.

All too often the supposed evidence for god is said to be available only to those already willing to believe, and the arguments accompanying it are equally (in)valid for the existence of Winnie-the-Pooh.

This is indicative of entities that do not exist, such as ghosts/fairies/leprechauns, and is completely different from the nature of evidence available for entities that do exist, such as London/hedgehogs/DJTrump.

[oxmixmudd]

All too often the supposed evidence for god is said to be available only to those already willing to believe, and the arguments accompanying it are equally (in)valid for the existence of Winnie-the-Pooh.

This is indicative of entities that do not exist, such as ghosts/fairies/leprechauns, and is completely different from the nature of evidence available for entities that do exist, such as London/hedgehogs/DJTrump.

While I can conceive of why you (and most atheist non-believers) see things this way, I can tell you categorically there is a significant difference between what drives us to believe in God and the remainder of the list you've given. What drives my belief in God is not random or arbitrary. And the tendency to believe in God or some sort of supernatural deity is intrinsic to mankind. Our sense that He is out there, and of a nature beyond what we can't quite understand results in all sorts of characterisations across humanity. But this sense He (or something) bigger than us 'is there' is fairly ubiquitous. Christians believe God has to come to us to make some sort of real sense of that basic 'sense' there is a God out there somewhere. And we believe Christ is the promised one who would reveal Him to us. But independent of specific beliefs, when you (or anyone) tries to equate belief in God with things like 'winnie the pooh' or 'the flying spagetti monster' etc, I think you misunderstand both the source of such beliefs and its real motivation and cause. It is a trivialization of something deeply important and motivating the majority of humanity and thus becomes a mockery. Mockery rarely leads to understanding. And actually Roy, I am convinced you represent a much higher standard of thinking than that. Even if you don't believe, try to understand why others do and hold open the possibility it is something worthy of respect, at least in its more noble forms.

Jim

[Sparko]

The difference is that science is supported by verifiable evidence wheres God is not.

Evidence that keeps changing and changing the conclusions. In 1912, Wegener was a kook who went around claiming that the continents were moving. 50 years later he was a genius for the same evidence. In 1912 it was not true, in 1960 it was.

And "verifiable" is different for historical facts than scientific one. Can you verify scientifically that Caesar was the Roman Emperor? Or that he was murdered? Can you verify scientifically that George Washington was the president of the USA?

[Sparko]

All too often the supposed evidence for god is said to be available only to those already willing to believe, and the arguments accompanying it are equally (in)valid for the existence of Winnie-the-Pooh.

This is indicative of entities that do not exist, such as ghosts/fairies/leprechauns, and is completely different from the nature of evidence available for entities that do exist, such as London/hedgehogs/DJTrump.

If you are not willing to believe something, then no evidence will convince you otherwise. No matter what the subject.

[shunyadragon]

Evidence that keeps changing and changing the conclusions. In 1912, Wegener was a kook who went around claiming that the continents were moving. 50 years later he was a genius for the same evidence. In 1912 it was not true, in 1960 it was.

Obvious, and scientific and histroical knowledge will change as new information becomes available.

And "verifiable" is different for historical facts than scientific one. Can you verify scientifically that Caesar was the Roman Emperor? Or that he was murdered? Can you verify scientifically that George Washington was the president of the USA?

Another wrong headed example. Historical academics is based on objectively verifiable scientific, archeological and documentary evidence. Of course, it is not scientifically "verifiable,' because it is historically verifiable by academic historical methods, which like science may change when new evidence becomes known.

[Sparko]

[QUOTE=shunyadragon;421533]

Evidence that keeps changing and changing the conclusions. In 1912, Wegener was a kook who went around claiming that the continents were moving. 50 years later he was a genius for the same evidence. In 1912 it was not true, in 1960 it was.



Another wrong headed example. Historical academics is based on objectively verifiable scientific, archeological and documentary evidence. Of course, it is not scientifically "verifiable,' because it is historically verifiable by academic historical methods, which like science may change when new evidence becomes known.

And Christianity is based on history. We have verifiable archeological and documentary evidence. A heck of a lot more for Jesus than for Alexander the Great, for example.

[shunyadragon]

[QUOTE=Sparko;421535]

And Christianity is based on history. We have verifiable archeological and documentary evidence. A heck of a lot more for Jesus than for Alexander the Great, for example.

Your bias is showing, yes, Jesus Christ is considered a historical person by far most historians, but I disagree that we know more about him than Alexander the Great, whom we have coins, statues from his life time, accounts of battles by friend and foe alike. During the life of Jesus, we have no records nor outside witnesses.

Christianity is indeed based on history, but on historical records fifty or more years after the death of Jesus.

Neither the miraculous claims attributed to Caesar, Alexander the Great, nor Jesus Christ, such as virgin birth, are accepted as historically factual by secular academic historians.

This is decidedy off topic, and not related to the science of cosmology.

[Sparko]

Your bias is showing, yes, Jesus Christ is considered a historical person by far most historians, but I disagree that we know more about him than Alexander the Great, whom we have coins, statues from his life time, accounts of battles by friend and foe alike. During the life of Jesus, we have no records nor outside witnesses.

Christianity is indeed based on history, but on historical records fifty or more years after the death of Jesus.

Neither the miraculous claims attributed to Caesar, Alexander the Great, nor Jesus Christ, such as virgin birth, are accepted as historically factual by secular academic historians.

This is decidedy off topic, and not related to the science of cosmology.

We have coins and statues of Zeus but he isn't a historical person. And any writings about Alexander were from at least a 1000 years later. And not much at that. No eye witness accounts at all. Just legends.