Perry ponder this; What scienfic evidence do you have for the perfect Axis tilt?
Cosmic collision? Einstein Law r being Disproved as we speak, bouyancy weight. Engineer disputes the Law, look it up.
The Devil's 5 Favourite Strategies: Church Leader Edition - rancackreppera.gq
Not metion CERN by miliasecond speed of light, etc. Is it magic too that two of our planets spin in opposite directions? How does that affect laws of space and time? It is not GodDidIt. Why must there be a designer. Then is he really all powerful. It has zero to do with any magic sky kingdom for dead people. Sure, some religious people made scientific advances, but this has been despite religion NOT because of it.
Excommunicated astronomers and the like. Burnt women knowledgeable about herbal remedies. How does heaven even work anyway? Equally valid or not gods as far as I can see. What about the millions of South American natives killed by Christians, who were happily worshipping their particular jaguar gods etc?
- Conscience – A LARP about humanity?
- High Sparrow (episode) | Game of Thrones Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia;
- What do You See?!
- Slave Lord 2.
- Absolute Obedience.
- Adoption Separation - Then and now!
Them or you? What about people throughout a million or so years of probable human and human ancestor religious worship? Animism for example the worship of eg mountains. Im just fine. You have stated that matter cannot have existed for forever. Will you also acknowledge the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed? If so this does seem to purport the universe to be God designed, as there must have been a first un-caused cause.
However, why is it no more valid to suggest that matter has always been in existence than it is to suppose a God has always been in existence? This hypothesis would be entirely consistent with the First Law of Thermodynamics. The singularity, as it has been stated many times, was all matter condensed into something smaller than an eighth of an atom, and not as you assume to be the beginning of all matter.
Therefore there really is no need to jump to the conclusion that God started the Big Bang, because your assumption that the big bang was the point in which all matter began is false. Now on to your information theory.
Simply because there is a lack of an understanding of the information given does not mean that God is inferred. No knowledge of one thing does not prove the other. So here is my issue with your argument. You are stating that because information is not material, it can only be created by the mind. Firstly you are assuming that labeling DNA as information is completely correct. In fact the use of this word comes from our own biases as human beings. It is not as though, that DNA passes on thoughts and feelings.
This information perfectly reflects the person physically. Essentially it could be looked as like a photograph of a person, but with such immense detail that it covers all aspects of the person perfectly. Photographs do contain information, but in a different way than what is being written on this page. However even if you do look at it this way your argument still does not stand to reason. Most importantly however, it does not mean that it is proof of creation.
Simply because we cannot explain the mind, or how DNA originally came to be does not make the lack of knowledge evidence of a creator. Essentially what you are arguing is this: Person 1: I do not believe in the Easter bunny. Person 2: How do you explain the decorated eggs hidden around the house?
We were both asleep last night. Person 2: Well if you cannot provide me with the answer then the Easter bunny must exist. It could be very well that there is an alternative explanation, which would make more sense than a large rabbit hiding eggs around the house. The majority of the population knows that the Easter bunny is in fact a fictitious character. Is the Big Bang the beginning of time?
Because somewhere you have to have a finite starting point otherwise the energy of the universe is completely spent once you get to now. You can posit alternative explanations all you want, but what I am asking for is evidence. I assume that when you say eventually you have to find a finite starting point, you are saying this because you believe that an infinite regression of causes is impossible.
So you posit a creator in order to solve this. First let me ask you who created the creator? He is the first un-caused cause. So then I ask, if God can be thought to be un-caused then why can we not think of the big bang to be un-caused? That does not mean that I retract the idea I was trying to convey.
You are arguing fallaciously from ignorance. You state that because we do not have any evidence to the contrary, this lack of evidence proves the existence of your claim. Let me formalize a similar argument to yours. If God does not exist then we should have evidence that He does not exist.
We do not have evidence that He does not exist. Therefore God exists. If God does not exist then we should have evidence to support that He does not exist 2. God exists.
Let God not existing be represented by the annotation N. Let evidence to support that God does not exist be represented by the annotation E.
- Thunderbolt Strike.
- Slave Lord 2 - Free Adult Games;
- Recommended For Your Pleasure;
- Teaching Your Child About Children Who Sexually Abuse | Psychology Today?
We cannot think of the big bang as un-caused because of entropy. If the universe were infinitely old, it would be burned out by now. If the universe is not infinitely old then it has a cause. Which brings us back to the necessity of an uncaused cause. The uncaused cause has to be metaphysical.
There are thousands of codes we do know the origin of and all of them are designed. There are no codes that we have observed that were not designed. Yes there is always room for doubt. But I am arguing based on what we do know, not what we might find out someday. Based on the scientific method — which uses inference and induction — we have every reason to believe DNA is designed. There is some room to doubt it is designed but there is vastly more room to doubt that it is not designed.