Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you were to propose that the universe was created by a giant turtle some would believe that that is evidence of a brain fart. That it was created by an uncaused first cause aka God, sounds more compelling. To me at least.

So something is 'evidence' if it sound compelling? Sorry, but you are no more logical than Kelly. Neither of you get what the concept of 'evidence' is.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Which means that their own bias is showing big time!!
( Yet They will still claim to know the "
Absolute One Truth" )

If two people reach two different conclusions, one could still have made the right conclusion and the other the wrong conclusion.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Where did everything come from? If you cannot tell us, I think you are missing more
than a little evidence.

I can tell you! Really! Hang on...

ahem...

yesterday

Originally posted by apathist
I can tell you! Really! Hang on...

ahem...

yesterday

So what if the all the evidence points to the universe having a beginning?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So something is 'evidence' if it sound compelling? Sorry, but you are no more logical than Kelly. Neither of you get what the concept of 'evidence' is.

Is a painting not 'evidence' for the existence of a painter?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So what if the all the evidence points to the universe having a beginning?

You overthink my joke. But seriously, if we understand what 'evidence' means well enough to accept big bang theory, some other conclusions that must be drawn are:

> the 'yesterday' before the big bang is beyond the limits of our current science and is in the realm of philosophy, which does happen to be where theism resides;

> therefore science and religion are not necessarily contradicting each other;

> the types of evidence which we've accepted in order to understand the big bang theory also contradict the Biblical account of creation;

> therefore the Bible is relegated to being a mere entry in a huge stack of theistic musings which wander all over the map, and deserves no special place for the rational human

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So what if the all the evidence points to the universe having a beginning?

There is no evidence whatsoever as to whether or not the universe had a beginning.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is no evidence whatsoever as to whether or not the universe had a beginning.

So you say. Stephen Hawking tends to disagree.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Is a painting not 'evidence' for the existence of a painter?

Then, by your logic, god had to have had it's own creator also.

Originally posted by apathist
You overthink my joke. But seriously, if we understand what 'evidence' means well enough to accept big bang theory, some other conclusions that must be drawn are:

> the 'yesterday' before the big bang is beyond the limits of our current science and is in the realm of philosophy, which does happen to be where theism resides;

> therefore science and rel ...[text shortened]... stic musings which wander all over the map, and deserves no special place for the rational human

Evidence is in theeye of the beholder.

Your eye leads you to faith in something you have not seen and can't reproduce. Sirely in a thousand years knowledge will reach a state that your view of truth would be as a cave man's today.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Is a painting not 'evidence' for the existence of a painter?

Is that question in any way relevant to what was being discussed?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So you say. Stephen Hawking tends to disagree.

No, he doesn't. We just use the word 'universe' with different meanings depending on context.

Originally posted by Eladar
Evidence is in theeye of the beholder.

No, belief is in the eye of the beholder.
That's now three people (all theists) who don't know the difference between evidence and belief.

Originally posted by apathist
You overthink my joke. But seriously, if we understand what 'evidence' means well enough to accept big bang theory, some other conclusions that must be drawn are:

> the 'yesterday' before the big bang is beyond the limits of our current science and is in the realm of philosophy, which does happen to be where theism resides;

> therefore science and rel ...[text shortened]... stic musings which wander all over the map, and deserves no special place for the rational human

You almost have it, but you have yet to make the final leap. Don't get me wrong, I'm not holding my breath.

the 'yesterday' before the big bang is beyond the limits of our current science and is in the realm of philosophy, which does happen to be where theism resides;

Yes, but I wouldn't conflate religion with philosophy. Religion is more than some mere 'thought exercise'. In its proper place and scale, it can be the basis for a "life well lived", which Jesus described as life lived "more abundantly".

therefore science and religion are not necessarily contradicting each other;

I agree, but this is not a "therefore". The point stands on its own.

the types of evidence which we've accepted in order to understand the big bang theory also contradict the Biblical account of creation;

No, it contradicts a 'fundamentalist', 'literal' Biblical account of creation. Another view is that the Big Bang IS 'creation'.

therefore the Bible is relegated to being a mere entry in a huge stack of theistic musings which wander all over the map, and deserves no special place for the rational human

This doesn't necessarily follow at all. Depending on your definition of 'rational', faith is merely another type of knowledge, one not bending to evidentiary, logical 'musings'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, belief is in the eye of the beholder.
That's now three people (all theists) who don't know the difference between evidence and belief.

Yes, 'belief' is in the eye of the beholder.

But 'faith', like 'evidence', is not.