Evidence for God?

[abu afak]

There is clear evidence for a Spiritual Force greater than self...

Not all evidence is "equally subjective:", and just merely pointing out a degree of subjectivity of a bit of evidence does not throw any and all evidence in the wastebin of subjectivity.

Well it either IS or ISN'T subjective. You can't have it both ways.

I've talked to people who claim to have evidence of UFOs. My subjective analysis doesn't match theirs. I hear people talking about 9/11 being an inside job and they can show me the evidence. My subjective evaluation of their evidence doesn't match theirs. O.J. Simpson was acquitted by a jury who subjectively evaluated the evidence differently.

So I have to conclude evidence is subjective to the individual who values it as such. I can tell you all day long about MY evidence for God but you don't value my evidence as evidence.

Science deals in, and has, Hard Evidence. God/s have None.
Period.
This is not "subjective".

6000 year old earth/YEC is False.
Big Bang has lots of Evidence.
Evolution has lots of/overwhelming Evidence.
God has none.
That's why belief in god/s is called "Faith"/belief without Evidence.

Your blind man/sunset analogy ridiculous ambiguation/chicanery/lying-for-Jesus.
Blind men don't deny Sunsets, or Red Traffic Lights, they just have a handicap that doesn't allow them to see them.

You can't carry on this nonsense for 10 pages with me.
+

 

[Boss]

Boss, you should love this!

Last night I was surfing teevee and found this show on the special earth with scientific blurb as description. Before and after were religious shows, so I guessed it would be another Intelligent Design thingie.

Yep it was. Mostly about the Rare Earth Hypothesis and how the moon was REQUIRED for just about everything including chocolate milk. I enjoyed the show and ripping it apart was just an added bonus.

Anyhoo, since you also love to argue universal constants, they go along with the Rare Earth Hypothesis.

So I was thinking, why all the complexity? Why did your spirit God make the universe and life so complex so that the earth is the only planet with life? Should not he have been able to do his magic much more simply?

You argue that the complexity requires a magical God. I claim that the complexity is evidence of no God. Magic is simple, not complex.

I don't believe there is anything "magical" about God or His creation. You are pondering questions with the mind of an intellectually-advanced monkey. No disrespect, but you're no match for God. You weren't blessed with an incredible mind so that you could sit around second guessing God and coming up with a better plan. I realize things God has done, doesn't make sense to you but look... take a copy of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity by your local zoo and give it to a monkey and see what they make of it? Chances are, they'll just wipe their ass with it and look at you like... Where's my banana?

One of the things I think is hard to grasp for Atheists when it comes to God is that God doesn't reside in a physical reality and isn't confined by space and time. While our universe seems large to us, the dimensions are meaningless to God. While it seems far away to the nearest star, it means nothing to God. We look at 14.5 billion years as a very long time but it's nothing to God.

 

[Boss]

There is clear evidence for a Spiritual Force greater than self...

Not all evidence is "equally subjective:", and just merely pointing out a degree of subjectivity of a bit of evidence does not throw any and all evidence in the wastebin of subjectivity.

Well it either IS or ISN'T subjective. You can't have it both ways.

I've talked to people who claim to have evidence of UFOs. My subjective analysis doesn't match theirs. I hear people talking about 9/11 being an inside job and they can show me the evidence. My subjective evaluation of their evidence doesn't match theirs. O.J. Simpson was acquitted by a jury who subjectively evaluated the evidence differently.

So I have to conclude evidence is subjective to the individual who values it as such. I can tell you all day long about MY evidence for God but you don't value my evidence as evidence.

Science deals in, and has, Hard Evidence. God/s have None.
Period.
This is not "subjective".

6000 year old earth/YEC is False.
Big Bang has lots of Evidence.
Evolution has lots of/overwhelming Evidence.
God has none.
That's why belief in god/s is called "Faith"/belief without Evidence.

Your blind man/sunset analogy ridiculous ambiguation/chicanery/lying-for-Jesus.
Blind men don't deny Sunsets, or Red Traffic Lights, they just have a handicap that doesn't allow them to see them.

You can't carry on this nonsense for 10 pages with me.
+

Nope... Sorry... there is PLENTY of evidence for God. You refuse to accept the evidence as evidence. The only evidence you will accept is physical evidence and God isn't physical. If we could physically prove God, it would be physical. Therefore, the evidence for God is spiritual and you will not accept spiritual evidence. That doesn't negate the evidence.

The Big Bang is currently in question by major theoretical physicists and astrophysicists including Stephen Hawking. Evolution doesn't explain origin. And I'm sorry to inform you but "Faith" is belief without PROOF.... not evidence.

The blind man/sunset analogy is PERFECT because it's driving you nuts and you can't find a coherent way to contradict it. Therefore, you are on a mission to destroy it by ridicule and denunciation and you hope that no one notices you couldn't counter my argument in a meaningful way. And I don't need 10 pages with you... I took care of your punk ass in three paragraphs while scratching my balls and typing one handed.

 

[abu afak]

Nope... Sorry... there is PLENTY of evidence for God. You refuse to accept the evidence as evidence. The only evidence you will accept is physical evidence and God isn't physical. If we could physically prove God, it would be physical. Therefore, the evidence for God is spiritual and you will not accept spiritual evidence. That doesn't negate the evidence.

False.
Whatever 'evidence' you delude for god/dog, someone else has FAITH in a DIFFERENT and contradictory god/dog.
NOT so in Science, where results are discernible/duplicatable independly worldwide.

The Big Bang is currently in question by major theoretical physicists and astrophysicists including Stephen Hawking. Evolution doesn't explain origin. And I'm sorry to inform you but "Faith" is belief without PROOF.... not evidence.

There is plenty of Hard evdience for Big Bang.
Evolution doesn't claim to solve origin. Bad try.
'God/s' shrinks every year.
Tens of thousands of gods on the ash heap because your equally logic-challenged progenitors thought that Fire, Rain, Fertility, etc, etc. were "evidence of god".

The blind man/sunset analogy is PERFECT because it's driving you nuts and you can't find a coherent way to contradict it. Therefore, you are on a mission to destroy it by ridicule and denunciation and you hope that no one notices you couldn't counter my argument in a meaningful way. And I don't need 10 pages with you... I took care of your punk ass in three paragraphs while scratching my balls and typing one handed.

I already did bust the analogy.
Blind men DO acknowledge things they can't see: like Red Traffic Lights.
Not acknowledging real/hard/natural evidence is dangerous and deluded.
Your analogy was Disingenuous or blindingly obtuse.
`

 

[Boss]

Nope... Sorry... there is PLENTY of evidence for God. You refuse to accept the evidence as evidence. The only evidence you will accept is physical evidence and God isn't physical. If we could physically prove God, it would be physical. Therefore, the evidence for God is spiritual and you will not accept spiritual evidence. That doesn't negate the evidence.

False.
Whatever 'evidence' you delude you have for god/dog, someone else has FAITH in a DIFFERENT and contradictory god/dog.
NOT so in Science, where results are discernible/duplicatable independly worldwide.

First of all, "Science" is short for "Physical Science". Science only pertains to that which is physical. It has no power to evaluate or examine things outside the physical. The overwhelming evidence for God is not physical, it's spiritual. And yes, people do have faiths in different kinds of Gods but scientists have different theories on the same subject all the time. It's not an unusual characteristic for humans to disagree. As a matter of fact, there are 127 various theories surrounding abiogenesis. Only a small handful are considered "prevailing" theory but science is still FAR from conclusive. In fact, drawing conclusions is actually the antithesis of science and what science does. Once you've drawn conclusion on anything, you have stopped practicing science and have began practicing faith in your conclusions.

Finally, I resoundingly reject your "Science vs. God" proposition because God created every parameter and variable which enables science to function. Science exists because God allows it to.

The Big Bang is currently in question by major theoretical physicists and astrophysicists including Stephen Hawking. Evolution doesn't explain origin. And I'm sorry to inform you but "Faith" is belief without PROOF.... not evidence.

There is plenty of Hard evdience for Big Bang.
Evolution doesn't claim to solve origin. Dishonest reply.
'God/s' shrinks every year.
Tens of thousands of gods on the ash heap because your equally logic-challenged progenitors thought that Fire, Rain, Fertility, etc, etc. were "evidence of god".

And I can raise the exact same complaint of Science. The entire history of Science is one theory being replaced by another, over and over. As I said (and you couldn't contradict) even Stephen Hawking is now questioning if there was ever a "Big Bang" to start the universe. You can cling to your faith in a Big Bang and disagree but that's a fact.

I know evolution doesn't claim to explain origin. That's why I often wonder why so many of you seem to want to present it as some sort of refuting evidence of creation. Evolution is simply God's tool for expanding life forms. It doesn't refute God, its actually a testament to the wonder of God. The same can be said for DNA and the human genome. Which, incidentally, was first mapped by a devout Christian believer in God. And many fail to realize, arguably the greatest scientific mind in history (Isaac Newton) spent the later part of his life basically writing what would become the doctrine of the Protestant Church.

The blind man/sunset analogy is PERFECT because it's driving you nuts and you can't find a coherent way to contradict it. Therefore, you are on a mission to destroy it by ridicule and denunciation and you hope that no one notices you couldn't counter my argument in a meaningful way. And I don't need 10 pages with you... I took care of your punk ass in three paragraphs while scratching my balls and typing one handed.

I already did bust the analogy.
Blind men DO acknowledge things they can't see: like Red Traffic Lights.
Traffic Lights are hard evidence.
Your analogy was Disingenuous or blindingly stupid.
`

Again, you are not "busting" my analogy. I gave an example of a man who doesn't accept that sunsets have beauty because he is unable to see beauty. I challenged you to present some evidence to this man which he could accept, that sunsets are indeed beautiful. Not that sunsets exist... he understands physics. He realizes the earth rotates and the sun appears to set and rise. He may even understand dust and angles of the atmosphere create a visual effect. What he doesn't understand is beauty in something seen because he has no capability to understand sight or what it is like. It's a sense he doesn't have, therefore, he cannot relate to it.

In much the same way as our blind man, you lack spiritual sight. You can't see it or relate to it. That doesn't mean it isn't there. You simply lack the "sense" to comprehend it. You can explain to the blind man that sunsets are beautiful but you may as well be talking about pink dragons in the sky from his perspective.

 

[abu afak]

...

In much the same way as our blind man, you lack spiritual sight. You can't see it or relate to it. That doesn't mean it isn't there.You simply lack the "sense" to comprehend it. You can explain to the blind man that sunsets are beautiful but you may as well be talking about pink dragons in the sky from his perspective.

:^)
No, you lack "spiritual" insight.
If you had any, you'd realize I'm God and I created this message board and everything else.

See how easy "spirtual insight" is? Anyone can claim anything with whatever they want to BS is "evidence."
NOT so with science/reality/real evidence.
I already explained/Busted that BS in my last.
gameover III
`

 

[mamooth]

Oh by the way, I do not consider the moon the moon. I consider earth/moon a binary planet, cuz the moon is waaay too big to be a moon. If we can reject Pluto as a planet for being too small, then we need to reject the moon as a moon for being too big.

Technically, no.

To be considered a double planet system, the common center of mass of the system must be located in empty space between the two bodies.

However, the common center of mass of the earth-moon system is below the surface of the earth.

Hence, the moon is a moon, and not a planet itself. The moon would need about 40% more mass to be classified as a planet.

 

[mamooth]

Well that's where my analogy with the blind man comes in. To him, all your evidence for the beauty of a sunset is anecdotal because he doesn't have the ability to see. Much like him, you are spiritually blind. You simply can't see and we can't explain it to you in a way you can comprehend it. You keep demanding the type of evidence we don't have.

But we have seen. Some of us, like me, have felt what you felt in the past. We thought we felt God, but we know now it was just our minds deluding ourselves.

Moreover, I can now make myself feel 'spiritual' any time I want, on any topic I want. As you're more limited in that regard, that means I'm clearly much more spiritually mature than you are. Because I say so. You know, the same standard you use.

Everyone has warm fuzzy feelings about something. You're pretending your warm fuzzies are superior to ours, without any evidence backing that up. That is, you're giveing us a special pleading fallacy. The observable evidence says your warm fuzzies aren't anything special. They haven't made you smarter, or more moral, and they have made you arrogant and evasive.

If your warm fuzzies came from an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity, they would have inspired you in a positive manner. As they've inspired you the opposite way, they must not have come from such a deity.

 

[Boss]

...

In much the same way as our blind man, you lack spiritual sight. You can't see it or relate to it. That doesn't mean it isn't there.You simply lack the "sense" to comprehend it. You can explain to the blind man that sunsets are beautiful but you may as well be talking about pink dragons in the sky from his perspective.

:^)
No, you lack "spiritual" insight.
If you had any, you'd realize I'm God and I created this message board and everything else.

See how easy "spirtual insight" is? Anyone can claim anything with whatever they want to BS is "evidence."
NOT so with science/reality/real evidence.
I already explained/Busted that BS in my last.
gameover III
`

The thing is, I have zero faith that you are God and created this message board and everything else. And yes, you DO claim a lot of bullshit you can't support. I'm trying hard to overlook that.

You speak of "real evidence" as if evidence only you consider valid is real. Sorry... you don't get to decide that for me. What you are trying to say, in your most primitive neanderthal way, is that you find no physical evidence for a spiritual being. I would contend this concludes that spiritual beings are not physical. I don't think you'll win a Nobel Prize with that revelation.

And no... you've still not explained/busted anything. You keep squawking incoherent nonsense and renouncing everything you disagree with but that doesn't equate with winning an argument. It's not surprising you want to proclaim the game over. You're being beaten down so badly in a philosophical sense that it must be embarrassing for you. I would suggest you respond by squawking some more nonsense, toss out a few more insults and then proclaim yourself victorious so that you can move on to a topic you are better prepared to debate. That is your best option at this point.

 

[Boss]

Well that's where my analogy with the blind man comes in. To him, all your evidence for the beauty of a sunset is anecdotal because he doesn't have the ability to see. Much like him, you are spiritually blind. You simply can't see and we can't explain it to you in a way you can comprehend it. You keep demanding the type of evidence we don't have.

But we have seen. Some of us, like me, have felt what you felt in the past. We thought we felt God, but we know now it was just our minds deluding ourselves.

Moreover, I can now make myself feel 'spiritual' any time I want, on any topic I want. As you're more limited in that regard, that means I'm clearly much more spiritually mature than you are. Because I say so. You know, the same standard you use.

Everyone has warm fuzzy feelings about something. You're pretending your warm fuzzies are superior to ours, without any evidence backing that up. That is, you're giveing us a special pleading fallacy. The observable evidence says your warm fuzzies aren't anything special. They haven't made you smarter, or more moral, and they have made you arrogant and evasive.

If your warm fuzzies came from an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity, they would have inspired you in a positive manner. As they've inspired you the opposite way, they must not have come from such a deity.

I;'ve never said a thing about an "omnibenevolent" deity. Benevolence is a human attribute. The God I believe in doesn't have human characteristics because God doesn't need them. We need them and we need to believe in a God who has them because we can relate to that.

What I experience is more than a "warm fuzzy" as you call it. I have an intense connection to a spiritual energy force which is constantly producing a real and tangible benefit for me as a physical being. I'm not going to give that up because some yahoo on a message board made fun of it and said it wasn't real.

If you want to say this is all in my head, that's fine but I don't believe that. There have been too many instances where my spiritual guidance has led me in the opposite direction of what was in my head at the time. I've made decisions that I would've never considered without some spiritual guidance and it ended up being for the best. Subsequently, I used to always test this spiritual guidance by going with my head and it always turned out badly for me. Now, I don't expect this to mean a thing to you and I'm not trying to "convert" you. I'm just relating my own personal experience so you understand where I'm coming from.

 

[abu afak]

The thing is, I have zero faith that you are God and created this message board and everything else.

So spirituality is based on YOUR Beliefs.
You probably don't beleive in Santa Maria or Voodoo either you Hypocrite.

You're all arrogant idiots who don't see that at least 75% of the planet is wrong, even if one superstition stepped in it.

and yes, you DO claim a lot of bullshit you can't support. I'm trying hard to overlook that.

Really?
Please cite this "alot of BS"
You Lying POS.

You speak of "real evidence" as if evidence only you consider valid is real. Sorry... you don't get to decide that for me. What you are trying to say, in your most primitive neanderthal way, is that you find no physical evidence for a spiritual being. I would contend this concludes that spiritual beings are not physical. I don't think you'll win a Nobel Prize with that revelation.

What you're saying is you CANNOT demonstrate any real evidence for your claim/god/dog.

And no... you've still not explained/busted anything. You keep squawking incoherent nonsense and renouncing everything you disagree with but that doesn't equate with winning an argument. It's not surprising you want to proclaim the game over. .

And you have yet show ANY evidence of your god, or anyone else's.
You know, the people who believe in a diffrent and Contradictory god than you do.
Two oppoosing 'spirits'.

You're full of **** , you 12 IQ clown,
You have posted No evidence, because even you know it's a 'Nothing Burger'.
`

 

[Boss]

So spirituality is based on YOUR Beliefs.
You probably don't beleive in Santa Maria or Voodoo either you Hypocrite.

You're all arrogant idiots who don't see that at least 75% of the planet is wrong, even if one superstition stepped in it.

Well MY spirituality is based on MY beliefs, I can't speak for the perception of others. I do know that the human species has experienced some kind of spiritual belief for as long as humans have been civilized. That is proven through archeological discovery and not disputable. I don't know about voodoo and Santa Maria so I can't comment.

And your number is way off. It's more like 95% of the planet who believe in something as opposed to 5% who profess Nihilism. Also, that number has not diminished over time, it has remained relatively consistent for thousands and thousands of years, even before there were organized religions. Only about one in twenty humans believe in nothing.

 

[Boss]

And you have yet show ANY evidence of your god, or anyone else's.

And if I am ever able to show you physical proof of God then God becomes physical and negates any concept of a spiritual God. Again-- if that is what you are expecting, you'll be disappointed here. Apparently, you believe it makes you appear smart to cling to an argument you can never lose... that there is no physical proof of God. I can assure you, this doesn't make you appear smart at all. It really makes you look closed-minded and shallow. Most intellectual people will at least challenge themselves by engaging in arguments where there can be an opposing opinion. You are obviously too pathetically weak minded to do that and you continue to prove what an incurious dullard you are.

 

[Tankbda]

I find these questions and answers fascinating. I have been watching debates between atheist and theist and I can honestly say they have been educational to me in the way that BOTH make very reasonable arguments about how the universe began.

As an interested party I can say that for me I wont fall on either side of the argument but I would label myself as an ANTI- THEIST as I would say Christopher Hitchens described himself.

In this for me, it is as simple as this. How can I respect ANY God who sees all and chooses to allow such atrocities’ to occur in the world? What king of God is this? If there is a GOD he is not a very good GOD at all.

I get closer to believing we are living in a world like the SIMS game and we are watched simply by players who have no real interest in how things go or saving us . After all it is just a game.



Lastly I sometimes think God and his friend Satan have this whole experiment as part of a bet. One says I bet I can make them do this and the other says no way. We could be a BET.



I would personally hope the Big bang is the beginning of the universe because if it is not then WOW , what a nasty way to treat the people who you want to worship you .....or die.

 

[Boss]

What king of God is this?

I often hear this point being made by non-believers but it presupposes that our own physical existence and reality is the best. That's the flaw in that mentality. Why did the baby die of cancer? Well maybe the baby went on to a better plane of existence and reality than our own? You see, we don't know what God knows so we can't second guess God's actions. We can only have faith that it's God's will and God's plan.

 

[Divine Wind]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. There is not evidence of anything outside the Natural Universe nor is there any evidence of how the Universe came to be. There is plenty of solid evidence of the Big Bang, evolution and everything after the Big Bang, but not the "why?".

 

[Boss]

...what a nasty way to treat the people who you want to worship you .....or die.

Now see... I've always had a problem with this as well. I am a devout spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God but it's very much in the nature of Spinoza's God or God of Nature. God has no need for humanistic attributes.

IF God truly wanted humans to worship Him, he could have created us so that worship is like breathing, we would have no choice but to do it if we wanted to live. So, I have to conclude that God doesn't care if we worship Him or not. We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us. Most religious people will also tell you they don't worship God because God wants them to but because they want to show their appreciation to God.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Not all evidence is "equally subjective:", and just merely pointing out a degree of subjectivity of a bit of evidence does not throw any and all evidence in the wastebin of subjectivity.

Well it either IS or ISN'T subjective. You can't have it both ways.

I've talked to people who claim to have evidence of UFOs. My subjective analysis doesn't match theirs. I hear people talking about 9/11 being an inside job and they can show me the evidence. My subjective evaluation of their evidence doesn't match theirs. O.J. Simpson was acquitted by a jury who subjectively evaluated the evidence differently.

So I have to conclude evidence is subjective to the individual who values it as such. I can tell you all day long about MY evidence for God but you don't value my evidence as evidence.

In an evidence-based determination, you CAN have it both ways, in this way:

You can make a prediction, based on the evidence, and sometimes subjectivity enters the fray. (That's one of the reasons science repeats things over and over and over, to eliminate this subjectivity). For instance, you may consider the odds "not high enough" that your 1978 Datsun will start before the big meeting tomorrow, but make the subjective choice that those odds just aren't good enough and rent a car. what is important is that you don't consider them to be strong, no matter the number, and you have evidence to think this. what are the odds you are right that it would not start? Who knows. But you still had reason to believe it MIGHT not, and more so than a 2017 car right off the lot. where is the faith in that? There isn't any. yet, there is both an evidence-based determination (based on objective evidence), AND there is subjectivity.


And... MOST important of all ... the person who made this evidence-based determination knows he may have been wrong. Again, where's the faith? there isn't any, yet there is subjectivity.

Now, compare this to faith. in faith, there is NO evidence whatsoever. NO objectivity, by definition. Sop, try as you might, you are not going to skirt around the qualitative difference between an evidence d-based determination and one made on faith, even if the existential statement 'there is a degree of subjectivity involved " is always true. And that IS what you are attempting. That is the crux of your attempt to place faith on the same shelf as evidence-based determination

Again, the blind man would be more likely to believe there is a sunset in the sky than a pink dragon, and this is exactly why. If you you are trying to argue were true, this would not be the case.


No, not every belief is 'equally subjective", even if they are all subjective to a degree. Faith? No evidence, completely subjective. Else, it is not faith.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

...what a nasty way to treat the people who you want to worship you .....or die.

Now see... I've always had a problem with this as well. I am a devout spiritualist who believes in a Spiritual God but it's very much in the nature of Spinoza's God or God of Nature. God has no need for humanistic attributes.

IF God truly wanted humans to worship Him, he could have created us so that worship is like breathing, we would have no choice but to do it if we wanted to live. So, I have to conclude that God doesn't care if we worship Him or not. We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us. Most religious people will also tell you they don't worship God because God wants them to but because they want to show their appreciation to God.

"We're given free will to do as we please and it's entirely up to us.

Nah, that's an illusion. It's up to your environment, and your hard-wired tendency toward it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People bitch about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. There is not evidence of anything outside the Natural Universe nor is there any evidence of how the Universe came to be. There is plenty of solid evidence of the Big Bang, evolution and everything after the Big Bang, but not the "why?".

"God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.""

Exactly. i don't see the problem. If one believes in an all-powerful God, then they can just look at anything and say, "God did that!". Why trifle with the scientific explanation of how it happened?

Oh yeah.... dogma.