Audie: Maybe its because educated people know there is no 'gap theory". There is a guess, falling far short of even a hypothesis. And its a guess so thoroughly disproved in all details that it is a discredit and embarrassment to any religion that harbors such.
A church united behind such regressive anti intellectual nonsense is not one destined for a great future.
Philip's Response: Well, Gap Theory is one thing. But what atheists and agnostics believe is FAR greater intellectual nonsense. Such people either think it is either possible or definite that non-existing building blocks of the universe either always existed OR that they suddenly popped into existence uncaused, and THEN they were immediately organized in with breath-taking power, specificity, coordination, and with sophisticated, highly specific laws that - yep, you guessed it - also just popped into existence. To even believe this is possible or to entertain the notion that it COULD be possible is "intellectual nonsense!"
Audie's Response: There is nothing intelligent nor admirable about making up something stupid then claiming someone believes it.
Audie's further response: Plenty believe WHAT? The "gap theory" or the ridiculous caricature of what (all) atheists must believe, according to P?
It was a caricature, and the "gap theory" is what I said it is. Neither is a "just because I". Neither does that "lots" believe something have the least evidentiary value, else belief in Atlantis and astrology need be taken as significant.
Further, I commented on the "gap" theory for being what it is, and P jumped in with irrelevant insulting falsehoods, which I rightly said was neither intelligent nor admirable.
What I wanted to point out in my assertion about atheists and agnostics (which would seem to include Audie), is that while Audie is basically ridiculing the (mostly) theologically derived Gap Theory (which I reject, both scientifically and Scripturally) of AbelCainsBrother, how ironic, as to what anyone who doesn't believe in God MUST believe, as their parameters are locked, despite whatever personal nuances they might assert. Those choices for the reason the universe exists are ONLY:
1) A God or gods created, began and designed it;
2) Something not alive and uncreated, of great intelligence and power, that stands outside of the Creation, designed and guided it;
3)That the core essentials of what suddenly burst into existence at the beginning of the Big Bang have ETERNALLY existed, uncreated, and subsequently, and suddenly, popped into a physical existence, including time, space, matter, dimension, etc and that such essentials blindly organized themselves and all that came to physically exist with extraordinary power, complexity, awesome design, specificity, interactively, etc;
4) That from NOTHING previously existing, immediately and with unfathomable power, an incredible universe of immensely complex organization, design, order, function, and astounding mechanisms simply popped into existence without any cause or being created.
So, I would say that ANY theist, despite how their theories about the details of how some god, gods or GOD created might differ with ones I hold, are at least on a plane of reasonable conjecture and basic logic as to the core ORIGIN behind such unfolding of created things, their functions and mechanisms. Because logic shows nothing could eternally exist of great intelligence that is not akin to a thinking and intelligent being, beings or Being. And NOTHINGNESS does not create and design an awesome universe. EVERYTHING has an origin. Time and chance does not produce unguided, unacquired and immense intelligence. Time and chance have no power. Those scientific laws there at the Big Bang's beginning? They didn't CAUSE anything, as LAWS are only detailed observations about how things actually work. Laws don't explain the design or functionality of WHY things work or what causes them, they only are detailed observations of HOW things work.
So, despite the nuances of what Audie or any unbeliever might personally think, the parameters of what they might or must entertain can be found ONLY within the four possibilities above. And all except #1 above are totally illogical, unscientific and inexplicable. To see anyone believing premise numbers 2-4 as even possibilities or that perhaps assert premise #1 to be impossible while they make fun of those believing somewhere within the parameters of premise #1, are not to be taken seriously. Premises numbers 2-4 are not only impossible, unscientific, and illogical, but to even entertain that their parameters might contain the answers takes extraordinary faith in "pop metaphysics." Can you get a Ph.D in that?
Norman Geisler loves to rhetorically ask: "Do you know what 'nothing' is?
It's what ROCKS dream about!"
