The Universe - is it Created? or by Chance?

[LOLzZz]

1. Baseless assumption
2. Baseless assumption
3. Baseless assumption

nya asa man imong explanation or evidence nga ang argument ni redhorse1L rest on baseless assumption.

Please remember that my stand does not rely on God as NOT unfalsifiable.
On a theoretical point of view, I'm only comparing the Multiverse hypothesis and "God hypothesis", and I believe that the latter has the more plausible explanation.

What my stand is, that there are good reasons why I believe in a Creator that is beyond our natural world.
1. The beginning of the Universe from nothing points on a Creator that is beyond space and time.
2. The fine tuning of the Universe dictates an Intelligent Designer.
3. The presence of Life considering a lifeless Universe demands a Giver of Life.

Any naturalistic theories or hypotheses doesn't seem to provide a good explanation for all these.

And finally, I don't believe that the human being, the only rational species on the planet, was just a product of evolutionary accident.
Me, as a person, a self-conscious being, with the ability to do whatever I want on my own freewill, even gives a big question on where it came from. As we are not dictated by mere animal instinct.

For all of these, I believe that Theism is the more plausible world view.

bulls eye kaayo ang argument. yabo ang argument sa mga no-creator-created-the-universe

[LOLzZz]

Life points to life, intelligence points to intelligence. Nothing cannot give rise to something. Logical ba? a big YES.

[redhorse1L]

1. Baseless assumption
2. Baseless assumption
3. Baseless assumption

Does not rely on God as NOT unfalsifiable? Explain how your 3 assumptions can be falsified.

Sorry bro, double negation error.

Originally Posted by redhorse1L
Please remember that my stand does not rely on God as NOT falsifiable.
On a theoretical point of view, I'm only comparing the Multiverse hypothesis and "God hypothesis", and I believe that the latter has the more plausible explanation.

What my stand is, that there are good reasons why I believe in a Creator that is beyond our natural world.
1. The beginning of the Universe from nothing points on a Creator that is beyond space and time.
2. The fine tuning of the Universe dictates an Intelligent Designer.
3. The presence of Life considering a lifeless Universe demands a Giver of Life.

Any naturalistic theories or hypotheses doesn't seem to provide a good explanation for all these.

And finally, I don't believe that the human being, the only rational species on the planet, was just a product of evolutionary accident.
Me, as a person, a self-conscious being, with the ability to do whatever I want on my own freewill, even gives a big question on where it came from. As we are not dictated by mere animal instinct.

For all of these, I believe that Theism is the more plausible world view.

[schmuck]

Sorry bro, double negation error.

Please clarify. Is god falsifiable or not? Are your assumptions falsifiable or not? Can you prove* your assumptions or not?

*proof, not analogies

[LOLzZz]

the "falsifiable" defense is a poor defense. the "pointers or traces" can be falsified.

[schmuck]

the "falsifiable" defense is a poor defense. the "pointers or traces" can be falsified.

LOL WUT

[LOLzZz]

LOL WUT

hahaha...mao nay imong tubag?

the effects of God can be falsified. kabasa ka sa argument ni redhorse1L, iya konong argument wala mo depend sa FALSIFIABILITY sa Ginoo. kasabot ka ana? besides "FALSIFIABILITY" rest on empirical proof. but the argument is not about proofs but on evidence, hahayz. proof and evidence fyi my friend lahi na silang duha. and you are putting your own definition of what God is. God is beyond physics.

[schmuck]

hahaha...mao nay imong tubag?

the effects of God can be falsified. kabasa ka sa argument ni redhorse1L, iya konong argument wala mo depend sa FALSIFIABILITY sa Ginoo. kasabot ka ana? besides "FALSIFIABILITY" rest on empirical proof. but the argument is not about proofs but on evidence, hahayz. proof and evidence fyi my friend lahi na silang duha. and you are putting your own definition of what God is. God is beyond physics.

What "effects" of god are these? Elaborate.
And if nitubay ka, ingon siya nga not iyang argument does not depend on not being falsifiable. But, looking at his 3 assumptions, I asked if these were falsifiable(in connection to his previous claim) and if he is able to prove his assumptions. AND, dili ikaw si redhorse. soz..

[LOLzZz]

morag wa ni kasabot si schmuck aning "falsifiable"

the simplest definition ana is TESTABILITY. karon define God..Is God made of Matter? NO.

[LOLzZz]

What "effects" of god are these? Elaborate.
And if nitubay ka, ingon siya nga not iyang argument does not depend on not being falsifiable. But, looking at his 3 assumptions, I asked if these were falsifiable(in connection to his previous claim) and if he is able to prove his assumptions. AND, dili ikaw si redhorse. soz..

basaha og osab iyang argument dong schmuck para kasabot ka. ayaw iliko ang premise. sige kamo sa diha.