Your OP fails since it makes several baseless assumptions that were not addressed. The most glaring of which is the theist 'something from nothing" drivel. https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...d-by-Canadian-physicists-and-er-it-wasn-t-God Your theist beliefs do not negate scientific knowledge.
Scientific knowledge supports the OP. Of course I do not expect you to understand anything that is not accompanied by an emoji.
What debate? As I have stated, some will never accept evidence for God no matter how convincing it is. Your "debate argument" is an attempt to move the goal posts. You failed.
BZZZT Wrong! That is not "scientific knowledge" but as a theist I don't expect you to understand that it wasn't.
No I am simply asking how the "force" is a being. He defines god as supernatural invisible being, but just indicates a "force".
Your source is what's drivel! https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...d-by-Canadian-physicists-and-er-it-wasn-t-God You should contact the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.....and tell them, they ought to change their stance! Give your link as your source! You should also get in touch with NASA (you know - the space guys!) Tell them their faq, is outdated! https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html Show them your link - it's been published in 2015 - and yet, NASA still quote from the NAS!
That requires integrity on your part. You cherry picked the word "being" and wanted to debate some silly notion. Sorry but science does not work that way. Science follows the facts where they lead.
The problem with this whole series of nonsense is that yes the following definition is correct " 1) Evidence is anything which is measurable AND repeatable. " That said there is still no evidence presented to prove A supernatural invisible being. With of course the most important word in the phrase consisting of " being" nothing you have presented gives any evidence or proof of a " being.
Being is the key to your posted definition of god. Otherwise all you have is a supernatural invisible force. And of course the supernatural part is debatable unless your definition of supernatural is " not yet explained by science" su·per·nat·u·ral 1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. "a supernatural being" synonyms: paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical, superhuman, supernormal; More noun
Any universe with any set of laws will appear fine tuned when considered in isolation. If you flip a coin a thousand times and then pick out a string of heads in isolation, you can conclude thst the coin has two heads.
That? No. But you're looking from the wrong angle! Here is my post again: The news is that....... the NAS had admitted there are PHYSICAL evidences that reflect Theistic Evolution. The NAS had also named some of those sciences that revealed them.
Give me break as with no known limits on the numbers of possible universes with no know limit on the constants contain in those universes the argument is nonsense on it face.
Still a joke and as far as going to the opinions of scientists that is also nonsense without finding out what they mean by the term god as somehow when some of them used the term god they are not referring to a personal god. Let me see............