Here is my tilting at the windmill.
Guybrush Threepwood, you seem to have missed this, so I'll repeat it.
I think the analogy also holds for your last point; many children feel a similar sense of injustice and persecution because they have to stay in and do homework instead of playing all day.
So you are equating the death of between 230 and 310 thousand
people in the tsunami on Sunday, December 26, 2004 to having to stay in and do homework? No. It's more like Daddy using a potato peeler to remove most of your foot by slowly shaving it away. Explain
how Daddy's actions are good
You do not need to quote someone's entire post. Edit it down to what you are addressing.
It is possible one could not have enough understanding of science to accept the SNPWGTU
(Spontaneous Natural Processes Which Generated The Universe) and be an "aspontaneist". But that is completely separate from being a theist and one can not
redefine "theism" as that lack of understanding of the SNPWGTU. I do agree that too many theists don't have that depth of understanding but that is not a guaranteed part of theism. So you are being deceptive when you attempt such redefinitions.
You have tried to use the scientist
Georges Lemaître as a champion of theism and you have falsely claimed that his theory was necessarily theistic. Please stop with that crap. Just because someone trying to throw dirt on his theory called it theistic doesn't make it so. Try reading up on the facts of his life which you like to misrepresent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
He received recognition in his lifetime (contrary to what you claim):
In 1933, when he resumed his theory of the expanding Universe and published a more detailed version in the Annals of the Scientific Society of Brussels, Lemaître would achieve his greatest glory. Newspapers around the world called him a famous Belgian scientist and described him as the leader of the new cosmological physics.
Also, it is his 'hypothesis of the primeval
atom'. Please try to get at least the occasional fact correct. Or if you dispute the Wiki article, provide a source that disputes it which we can access and which is not some questionable theist site.
Further, you speak glowingly of Lemaître's theory as if it was completely correct as he initially wrote it. Not quite. He was essential for the creation of the Big Bang Theory but his theory did need a few improvements.
Also, the current scientific theory of the origin of the universe is the Big bang Theory often mistakenly conflated with atheism. Referring to a now defunct cosmological theory as the atheistic theory makes you sound stupid. That is your prerogative of course but not advisable.
Theism (in general) makes no predictions (although a few denominations do predict some sort of armageddon).
Who claimed that tectonic activity was pointless destruction? None of us – that's just you falsely putting words in our mouths.
Clarifying definitions is not playing with them. We don't play with definitions, that's what you have been doing – by your own admission (post 125).
Lack of evidence for spontaneous mechanisms is exactly what made me become skeptical of atheism.
This is quite typical; a lack of understanding resulting in falling back upon the indoctrination of one's childhood.
That chance alone is not sufficient to ultimately account for the world we see around us.
Sigh. This is just another facet of your lack of understanding.
But obviously this is not true for the universe, it IS here, we're here, and the hole is explaining how it ultimately came to be. Can't we agree that the best starting point is a blank sheet, that there is no 'default' explanation, no 'usual' way we know of that universes come into existence?
Except you don't actually use a truly blank sheet do you? Otherwise you would not have gone back to theism.
But we do have a couple of clear falsifiable predictions made by the most general theory of theism, that the universe was in fact created in a specific event, and that being made primarily for us, we are the only species with intelligence enough to ponder it. The former was validated in clear contrast with atheist predictions of a static eternal universe, the 2nd still holds while monitoring an entire galaxy. That and power of explanation. Nowhere near proof of course, just a little more weight than the competition in my view.
Please provide the link to the site which clearly expounds upon this "general theory of theism". For example, Xianity does not match the "specific event" (singular) – it proposes a series of events (plural) over several days which results in the creation of the universe which clearly contradicts reality. "Made primarily for us" is very questionable as part of a general theism as many of the creation stories feature humans as a secondary aspect – some creatures made by the gods – and this also clearly contradicts reality. Most of the universe is deadly to us in addition to being (nearly) impossible to get to. As for "only species with intelligence enough to ponder it" – again, no – many theistic traditions contain at least one race of gods and often a race of demons who also have such intelligence. We have no definitive evidence on whether this matches reality.
Those weren't atheistic predictions; those were early scientific predictions. You continue to get so many things wrong.
By continuing our research, recreating conditions similar to the Big Bang etc. Andre Linde for one considers it 'feasible' that we could one day create our own universe, that this may even be how ours came to be. If we achieve this, creative intelligence will be the only demonstrable way we know of that a universe can be created.- accidentally, not so much. After all, the more we investigate, the more the creation of the universe appears to be a small scale operation involving perhaps very little actual matter, but plenty finely balanced math, information, rules necessary to make it functional, as opposed to vast quantities of blundering chaos.
I'm just saying don't shy away from anything because it appears to support an unfashionable conclusion, that's what lead us barking up many an empty tree already with static, eternal, big crunch, and has now moved the atheist goalposts entirely off the scientific pitch in the form of Multiverses, M theory, etc-
It may well be that the laws of nature can never be accounted for by those very same laws, that the only way to break this self generation paradox is with creative intelligence. At which point I think it becomes a little tricky to avoid something that looks very much like God in the broadest sense.
Except your own post refutes the idea of a god: "... the creation of the universe appears to be a small scale operation involving perhaps very little actual matter, but plenty finely balanced math, information, rules necessary to make it functional, ..." So, no god
needed to make a universe - just a competent scientist.