That appears to me to be a loose attempt at a mechanical conception of human beings, no more. I do not believe you can be absolutely sure of that and your worldview can't make sense of it (i.e., recreate how consciousness comes from something lacking it; how life stems from non-life).
No, I can't be absolutely sure of it because I wasn't present when it happened, but everything in my response is actually supported by research and evidence.
But you said, "I'll give you the answers we can absolutely be sure of..."
Yet you were not there. Thus, your answers conflict if "being there" is the criteria. As for research and evidence, it is interpreted. The evidence is built on paradigms.
It definitely makes sense, but you're not talking about making sense of something: you're talking about recreating something. Fair enough. I will consider your position once you recreate the process through which God created everything, or provide evidence of a similar caliber to that end. Me potentially being wrong lends no credence at all to your theory somehow being correct by default.
He spoke the physical realm into existence from His Mind.
For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast.
The evidence is the bible which has many verifiable and commonsense evidence.
Second, if you are wrong about science as your ultimate god and reason there are consequences.
Is there though?
Sure. If your wrong and the Bible is God's word then this life is not the end and you will be separated from God forever.
I guess you're a faith supersedes works person, in which case, your god can suck it because that's an idiotic system.
It depends, on what sense you are using the word faith? Are you questioning whether my belief relies on faith alone or on faith and works? If you mean my worldview on origins relies more on faith than on how things work, I would say no more than yours.
As for it being idiotic, it can make sense of existence. I challenge you to do the same with yours.
Guess I'll take my chances, seeing as my multiple blasphemies have not resulted in me being struck with boils or anything yet.
You are applying these standards to yourself, you who are a secondary audience of address. The primary audience no longer exists and the times have changed. Nevertheless, God promises to hold us responsible for our sin in one of two ways. Either we answer for our own merits and shortcomings or we rely on the work of another - Jesus Christ.
You know this is Pascal's wager. It's a terrible argument for any god, much less yours.
I rely on His word as my ultimate authority. What is your ultimate authority - yourself - science or some scientist(s)? Which one(s)? How well do they make sense of your existence? You are a biological bag of atoms that reacts to its environment in a determined way. There is no ultimate meaning for your existence yet you continually act as if there is.
Also, if we're BOTH wrong, then there's consequences for you too, right? What are the chances you're wrong? By numbers, they're not very much different from mine. You're one god away from me.
What consequences when I'm dead? No justice or accountability. Thus, do what you can get away with doing since it doesn't matter.
I've examined the Bible and worldviews for around forty years now. I keep probing others to make sense of a worldview devoid of God and I do not believe they can. So the question is whether you want to make sense of existence and origins or not? I think you constantly betray your worldview by borrowing from mine. You do this in morality and when you speak of qualitative values, for one. So your worldview is inconsistent. That spells trouble. You do it in another way also. You presume that random chance happenstance can produce what we see. You presume that something devoid of mind, devoid of intelligence, devoid of order, purpose, and sustainability can do the things you take for granted such as science. Why should we expect uniformity of nature? Why do we discover laws that explain this sustainability and uniformity? How can you say that what takes place yesterday and today will take place in the future if there is no intent behind the universe? You take it for granted that it will. You reason that because things have remained consistent in the past and present they will in the future too. Why? There is no reason or intent behind them doing so.yet they do.
