It's an analogy. It basically says that God created things by what are effectively magical powers, not real, physical mechanisms.
Duh it was an analogy, but it was a such a condescending statement that it deserved a retort.
Actually, it hit the nail on the head. The bible ascribes God
literal magical powers, which in any terms is pretty much the same as witchcraft.
And there's scientific evidence that the universe was and always will be. It's called the First Law of Thermodynamics. God couldn't create something that, technically, can never be created nor destroyed.
First law of Thermodynamics: "The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."
Umn.. Yeah, not really. Again, you're using the faith part of your personal belief in science that you won't call a Religion.
Which
explicitly leads onto the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy cannot be destroyed or created, only changed in form.
Add to this the knowledge that matter is simply energy in a different form tells us
that the universe has always been there in some form.But it's a circular argument; He's God because he created the Universe, He can do anything because He's God, therefore, He must have the ability to create the universe.
Not wanting to sound immature, but I'll say it anyway: you wish. God is God because he's God. There is no reason He is or conclusion stated by people. Again, if you can't understand the concept of what a god is, I can't argue with you because it's above your head.
That's a circular argument. All evidence suggests that God doesn't exist, or at least, there is no evidence to suggest He exists. You can believe what you like, but in any scientific, legal or historical sense, there's no way you can prove God.
We can observe the universe moving outwards from a single point.
So it wasn't always there then? I guess I don't need to argue with you if you find my arguments for me.
No, the universe expanding from a single point
does not suggest it wasn't always there. It
suggests it's expanding from a single point. Look up the big bang and big crunch theories: that the universe is in a constant cycle of eploding and then contracting. The very nature of gravity suggests that a big crunch is inevitable, and Red Shift indicates that the big bang happened.
But we have nothing that suggests God.
I've never seen such a biased and baseless remark ever in a debate. Congratulations.
Occam's Razor: The simplest explaination that assumes the least (that is unprovable in itself) is the most likely.
The God explaination for the universe assumes a lot that is unprovable: That God exists, that He is all-powerful, that he had the knowledge, ability and desire to create the universe when He did, that it is actually physically possible for that to happen.
The scientific explaination assumes very little: We know the universe is expanding, we know nucleosynthesis is possible, that there are definite, observable mechanisms that very dfinitely could've led to the current state of things (and due to the nature of probability and the very large size and old age of the universe, it is likely to happen somewhere, and just happened to happen here). In the same vein, the fact that it seems only to have happened here - habitable planet, carbon-based life, etc,
actually seems to confirm the idea it happened by chance.The simplest explaination for the God theory is that He's a fictional character used by early people with no grasp of science to explain the world around them. The very large number of very different gods and creation myths throughout human history suggests that this is not an uncommon phenomen.
All science suggests that a lot of things posited by the bible - an all-seeing, all-powerful being is physical impossible. Archaeology and science suggest that the bible has no historical credibility.
Suggest
one thing that really, explicitly suggests God exists. Don't use the bible, because that's as credible as using the Harry Potter series as evidence for Voldemort really existing.
I completed the game, checked the credits; it's a very short credit list, as you'd expect.
If you couldn't understand the analogy, just say so.
Clearly you don't understand the analogy if you don't get what I'm on about.