One is useful and explanatory and the other isn't - That would be a reply lacking any objectivity. Perhaps it is useful to you but not to me. How can that validate your answer over anyone else's?
Matter can be created spontaneusly if there is sufficent energy. Yes, but where did the energy come from. The argument is circular unless you are positing the eternal existence of something, but so far you appear to want to deny that possibiity.
In science, we observe and make theories. Gravity is one such theory, and it is a good theory becuase it explains our observations. It does not mean that it is the only theory, or even that one day there will be a different theory based on more complete observation. (I am not denying gravity by the way, just trying to describe the limits of science).
As theory, I understand that science claims that the universe began with an explosion of an infinitely small volume having infinite mass. What does your scientific observation of explosions tell you about ensuing order?
I.m sorry, but your answer begs the question. You say 'one possible explanation...'. But at the same time you deny another possible explanation. Your explanation also poses another unanswered question: 'the lump came into being'. Why and how did the lump come into being? In logic, you cannot answer a question by posing another question, it does not fly. Maybe you should stop and ask yourself why it is that you want to deny the possibility that God does exist, and that he did create, rather than accepting illogical premises.
'Do you believe in absolutes?' 'No' 'Are you absolutely sure?' Francis Schaeffer
Actually the problem is no different from the problem of origins in science. So far science claims that the universe began when an infinitely small lump having infinite mass exploded. So, where did the mass come from? Or, as you put it, who created that mass? And . . . ummmmm who created the creator of that mass?
Hope this does not cause your stack to overflow again.
Slashdot Mirror
One is useful and explanatory and the other isn't - That would be a reply lacking any objectivity. Perhaps it is useful to you but not to me. How can that validate your answer over anyone else's? Matter can be created spontaneusly if there is sufficent energy. Yes, but where did the energy come from. The argument is circular unless you are positing the eternal existence of something, but so far you appear to want to deny that possibiity. In science, we observe and make theories. Gravity is one such theory, and it is a good theory becuase it explains our observations. It does not mean that it is the only theory, or even that one day there will be a different theory based on more complete observation. (I am not denying gravity by the way, just trying to describe the limits of science). As theory, I understand that science claims that the universe began with an explosion of an infinitely small volume having infinite mass. What does your scientific observation of explosions tell you about ensuing order?
I.m sorry, but your answer begs the question. You say 'one possible explanation ...'. But at the same time you deny another possible explanation. Your explanation also poses another unanswered question: 'the lump came into being'. Why and how did the lump come into being? In logic, you cannot answer a question by posing another question, it does not fly. Maybe you should stop and ask yourself why it is that you want to deny the possibility that God does exist, and that he did create, rather than accepting illogical premises.
'Do you believe in absolutes?'
'No'
'Are you absolutely sure?'
Francis Schaeffer
Actually the problem is no different from the problem of origins in science. So far science claims that the universe began when an infinitely small lump having infinite mass exploded. So, where did the mass come from? Or, as you put it, who created that mass? And . . . ummmmm who created the creator of that mass? Hope this does not cause your stack to overflow again.