I said SCIENTIFIC evidence. Any absurdity could be considered evidence!
But all those theist-believing scientist are looking at yes, SCIENTIFIC evidences from chemistry, biology, astronomy, physics that is driving a big part of their theism. Why? Because they know of the breathtaking array of countless systems and their components, in these many fields, that are so complex in their designs and there functionalities, that they conclude from that it is irrational to not see it takes an intelligence. Don't keep saying the same stupid stuff, Ken - they ARE looking at the scientific evidences - which have been detailed many times in this forum! They are look at things that, mathematically / statistically, clearly cannot be explained via non-intelligent origins, as they have never seen anything whatsoever that suggests that.
Ken: If I believe the Earth is flat, the fact that it looks flat to me could be considered evidence. If I believe Santa builds toys at the North Pole, the very existence of toys could be considered evidence that Santa is real. That’s why I said scientific evidence, because there are standards when it comes to scientific evidence...
Ken, you are so dishonest in what you argue against! You're comparing a flat earth, Santa, etc. to the incomprehensibly complex scientific evidences that drives all of these theist scientists belief in a superior Intelligence that is responsible for it all - scientist whom, by the way, understand the evidences on a far deeper level that we do. You just dismiss the same extraordinary things as not requiring an intelligence.
Ken: So as long as you continue to insist an intelligent being is responsible for the Big Bang, you are not holding yourself to the same standard you are holding me to.
As long as you lie to yourself that the evidences I speak of are like Santa and a flat earth, you'll have no credibility whatsoever!
Ken: Why don’t you hold yourself accountable and recognize there is zero evidence that an intelligent being could live eternally, and create stuff out of nothing?
I cite the very same evidences that believing scientists do - as they know that all that exists came from
something and that these many things could not create or design themselves, while also noting the staggering complexity observed requires an intelligent Designer. First place, pure logic tells us that SOMETHING had to be eternal - whether one thinks it is the universe itself (like Hawking) or some other thing or things, as if NOTHING is eternal, then nothing would exist. And what exists, even at building block levels, across all of these scientific disciplines, is inexplicable without an intelligence to create and drive them. And that is why so many scientists are theists! Only delusionists would say great complexity and self arrangement and intelligence can spring from non-intelligent sources.
