I not clear what you mean by 'beginning, and I could just be restating what you were saying. The prevailing cosmological science theory today is the 'Big Bang'. Some of the esoteric physics of the event are still unsettled but the crux of the theory is that at a specific point in time something happened. And whatever existed before that happened began evolving into what the universe is today. If that generally accepted theory is true then that point in time is either the moment our universe started, or the moment our universe was created, but either way it would be 'a beginning'. IMO, this is the farthest point back at which Theism and Atheism diverge. Together parties on both sides can agree on the science all the way back to this point. Then the Theists will say God did it, and the Atheists will say it just happened. It's the cosmological equivilent of the 'first cell'.
It would seem that many rational people accept the existence of things they cannot see. In January 1997, the Discovery magazine reported that astronomers detected what they concluded were about a dozen planets orbiting distance stars. Notice their conclusion. "So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity perturbs the motion of the parent stars." So are these astronomers saying to us that the visible effects of gravity constitute a basis for believing in the existance of unseen heavenly bodies? In this case and numerous ones like it in the world of astronomy, related evidence, not direct observation, constitutes an adequate basis for scientist to accept what is yet invisible. Believing what you don't see, it's catching on.
yunno what that is called? "evidence". how did they see the effects of gravity? they saw it. yunno, observation. evidence. please, christians, look at how stupid your brothers are with logic. be aware that this is sort of thing that your superstitions are founded on. nonsense and misunderstanding, poor critical thinking skills. this point is about as smart as claiming that because you can hear your wife in the next room cooking dinner without seeing her, that somehow we should believe in god without seeing him. seriously, that is how ****ing stupid your point is. you just described the evidence for why scientists believe something and somehow think you have made a point because they didnt see it with their eyes, (even though the indirect evidence was in fact visual observation of the effects of gravity)
Before you sound the fire alarm and disturb the brethren, my argument would once again be my own. Which should once again, being the alarmist I depend on, put you at an extreme disadvantage, did I mention again? If you indeed "reap what you sow," that would indicate to all true believers that planting an apple seed would be met with the expectation that an apple tree would grow, thus producing little apples. Not oranges, or peanuts, or apricots, just apples. Now why such dynamic faith is this belief of mine? I grew up on a farm and planted stuff and watched it produce exactly what the seed told it to, not one mistake, ever. Therefore it is indeed my scienctific conclusion of faith, that if you sow apple seeds, it will only give you apples. I would like to share such faith with my brotherhood of astronomers.
inscrutable what if you were desperate for oranges, so you prayed really hard that the apple seeds would yield oranges. again, i call on you, religious folks, to take a look at how dumb you are. this guy thinks he is making a point because apple seeds grow apples. i guess he thinks it is a miracle or something that nothing miraculous happens. it embarrasses me a little that you say these things in public. i know it isnt me that is saying them, but i am kinda embarrassed on your behalf. embarrass is a tricky word to spell, which is kind of unexpected.
i am aware that you cant really grok the critical flaws in your logic, but i will make it simple. nobody ever said you have to see something for it to exist.
I'm well aware of your argument, I took the time to define mine. The process that makes a good scientist, is the same process that would be essential for a good creationist. Proof has always been a prerequisite for the facts. Strong circumstantial evidence would be equally critical on both sides of the issue in determining what we see and what we conclude.
