Originally posted by rwingett
The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. It's not up to me to disprove their unicorn story. It's up to them to prove it. Or provide some evidence to support it. And the greater the claim, the greater the burden of proof will be. As Carl Sagan famously said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
So our existence is not extraordinary? If I recall, this planet is the only one that we know of that contains life upon it. Therefore our very existence is exrtaordinary as well as the very existence of the universe itself. There is no evidence for the universe being eternal. We can look as far back as the Big Bang and that is it. Also, abiogenesis is not provable. So either matter and living organisms popped into existence on their own or matter and life itself is eternal.........but then what of the Big Bang? How could life be eternal in light of the Big Bang having occured? The only solution is that the source of life is not confined to the material universe or that life simply sprang from nonlife which is in itself unscientific in terms of what we observe.
I am sure you have heard of the fine tuning of the universe for life by Dr. Hugh Ross in 1998.
1. In terms of the Big Bang, had the strong nuclear force constant been larger, no hydrogen would have formed, atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable, thus no life chemistry. If smaller, no elements heavier than hydrogen would form; again, no life chemistry.
2. In terms of the gravitational force constant, had it been larger, stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry. If smaller, stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion for life chemstry.
3. In terms of the electromagnetic force constant, had it been greater chemical bonding would be disrupted, elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission. If lesser, chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemstry.
4. In terms of the expansion of the universe, if it were greater no large galaxies would form, and if smaller the universe would collapse.
There are 30 more of similiar observations about the "fine tuning" of the universe and I would continue if I had the time and patience. Then again, I am sure you are largely unimpressed by all of this and am sure you have heard it before. Nonetheless, it is evidence. 😀