Question for believers in intelligent design

Originally posted by @dj2becker
[b]Immeasurable by human standards doesn't amount to "nothing". Again, you're using a definition of singularity that is incorrect to make your point.

Would you use that logic on not being able to measure God by human standards not meaning He's not there?[/b]

No. That would simply mean we currently have no reason to believe in God, unlike microbes or atoms.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
All the matter in the universe was compressed into a singularity that was infinitely small. At some point something that is infinitely small must be so small that it is immeasurable and amounts to nothing. Either that or you can't argue that the universe is infinitely old. Take your pick.

Actually, the current prevailing theory is that there is no Center of the universe; it was more like an infinite rubber sheet that got stretched out on all directions.

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/podcasts/transcripts/070523_universe.html

Originally posted by @vivify
No. That would simply mean we currently have no reason to believe in God, unlike microbes or atoms.

God is a belief system which guides the soul.

Originally posted by @vivify
If you believe that the universe couldn't have been created without a designer, why do you not apply that same logic to God?

God does not come from this dimension.

The dimension we live in now involves 4 dimensions with time being one of them. Once the material universe was made, time began.

We have no reference to understand other dimensions, even though science tells us there are many more.

Originally posted by @whodey
God does not come from this dimension.

The dimension we live in now involves 4 dimensions with time being one of them. Once the material universe was made, time began.

We have no reference to understand other dimensions, even though science tells us there are many more.

In other words, other dimensions exist and are mysterious; God is mysterious, too, so he must live in the other dimensions.

Your conclusion should have been: we have no frame of reference to understand other dimensions, therefore we have no idea what may or may not be in them.

Originally posted by @vivify
No. That would simply mean we currently have no reason to believe in God, unlike microbes or atoms.

No reason that you are willing to accept. The evidence of a creator is out there. You obviously have the choice to ignore it.

Originally posted by @bigdoggproblem
Actually, the current prevailing theory is that there is no Center of the universe; it was more like an infinite rubber sheet that got stretched out on all directions.

https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/podcasts/transcripts/070523_universe.html

Also based upon assumptions that can’t be proved.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
No reason that you are willing to accept. The evidence of a creator is out there. You obviously have the choice to ignore it.

According to the vast majority of scientists, there is zero evidence for a creator. Their findings why are out there. You're just unwilling to accept it.

Originally posted by @vivify
You're using an incorrect definition of the word in order to make your point. This makes your point invalid.

And that is a non sequitur.

Originally posted by @vivify
According to the vast majority of scientists, there is zero evidence for a creator. Their findings why are out there. You're just unwilling to accept it.

Of course there is zero evidence for a creator. And yet, here we are.

Another non sequitur. 'It does not follow'. Having no proof that something happened does not mean it did not happen.

Originally posted by @vivify
According to the vast majority of scientists, there is zero evidence for a creator. Their findings why are out there. You're just unwilling to accept it.

Argumentum ad populum. How on earth do you find out that there is no evidence for something without claiming to have absolute knowledge? 🙄 It would be more correct to claim that with the limited knowledge that they have, there is no evidence that they are willing to accept. There may well be ample evidence outside of their field of expertise.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Of course there is zero evidence for a creator. And yet, here we are.

Another non sequitur. 'It does not follow'. Having no proof that something happened does not mean it did not happen.

No one said it did. All I said was that there is no evidence for a creator, not that there definitely isn't one.

Originally posted by @vivify
No one said it did. All I said was that there is no evidence for a creator, not that there definitely isn't one.

Would you agree that we don't know everything there is to know?

Originally posted by @vivify
According to the vast majority of scientists, there is zero evidence for a creator. Their findings why are out there. You're just unwilling to accept it.

Yet there are scientists out there that believe there is evidence for a creator. Their findings are out there. You're just unwilling to accept it.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Argumentum ad populum. How on earth do you find out that there is no evidence for something without claiming to have absolute knowledge? 🙄 It would be more correct to claim that with the limited knowledge that they have, there is no evidence that they are willing to accept. There may well be ample evidence outside of their field of expertise.

Is it better to side with educated scientists who spent years receiving formal education and training in their respective fields, or is it better to side with ancient men who believed in talking snakes and stoned women to death for not being virgins?