Originally Posted by Vlerchan
I've no idea where you're getting this notion that because science is as of yet to prove or disprove certain phenomenon it gives a rational basis for an Intelligent Designer to exist. That, in its simplest form, is a non sequitur; and really - honestly - doesn't help in the slightest in proving your point - which is that there is some rational basis for the existence of God(?). I, in any case; having dropped most sciences by the age of sixteen, I don't even know where to begin in explaining those phenomenon, but the internet is a wide place; I'm sure you'll find experts who give you a much more satisfying answer that 'God did it'. Which brings me to my question: before Einstein published his theory on special relativity, did that make relativity any more to do with God, and any less to do with nature?
Some people also claim to have seen ghosts. Hearsay doesn't prove God at any rate.
I've no idea what you're trying to get across in the second part - the section I edited out. I'd appreciate if you dumbed it down a bit.
Creation Itself: You made the point that something can't come out of nothing - or at least science can't prove it can yet. Where did God come from?
Human Suffering: Why does God allow it go on?
Now, answer the questions or don't answer the questions. It's a pointless exercise, anyway. Neither of us - generalising from experience - are going to approach this conversation with open minds, and won't consider the others points longer than it takes to debunk them. It's why I don't like debating religion. I probably won't respond again unless I haven't seen something I've seen before.
You are assuming abiogenisis and evolution was an unguided process before we know it was an unguided process. This is common among atheists. I know that we actually don't know whether it was or wasn't actively guided but we pursue science as if it wasn't as is proper, therefore the possibility of direct indication of an intelligent "guider" is still possible. Once science can demonstrate it all can happen without active guidance then the reasonable possibility that it was actively guided becomes unnecessary, but not until then. Atheists seem to love the "non sequitur" claim, but I have never found them to use it appropriately. It is perfectly reasonable to suspect an intelligent designer given the complexity of our bodies, "non sequitur" is supposed to be a conclusion that does not follow from the premise, the premise here is that we have complex bodies that appear to be designed, it is not by any means a "non sequitur" to presume a designer for lack of definitive proof there wasn't.
What basis have you to reject so many people's similar claims of live review at temporary death out of hand like you have? There is no rational basis whatsoever to do this. This is another problem with atheists, unreasonably denying the evidence of spiritual experiences. Even criminal courts accept eye witness testimony, yes it needs to be considered objectively and rationally in light of all evidence, but it is not to be dismissed out of hand like atheists love to do for no good reason other than to preserve their (ignorant imho) non-belief. Everything is supposed to be "selected for" in biological evolution, so how, if the life review were just a biological cause, was it "selected for"? I can't dumb it down any more than that. But I think to say it was "selected for" is just outlandish, all the more reason to take the experiences at face value, that they left their body in spirit and it was a solely spiritual experience.
As far as your questions are concerned, the issue here is theism, not Christianity or the outright denial of evolution. Theism works just fine with unguided evolution. You did make a good point in bringing up where God came from, I have no answer for you except that my highest God is a panentheistic God, existing throughout all that is. Human suffering? I believe the world was created to self-evolve without any (or not much, we don't know yet) divine micromanagement, my God is a substantially Deistic one. I brought up science not being able to explain something instead of nothing to bring attention to the fact science can't answer everything. I feel I have an open mind, I was just questioning your view that the chances of there being a God are "so slim they're negligible", there are too many questions and eye witness testimonies for that.