Considering many scientific theories have been proven false over time, i cant say i can trust 100% in alot of them
This right here shows your lack of understanding of the scientific method. Nothing in Science is meant to be 100% you always have to leave room for improvement or the possibility of being wrong.
Something in science not being 100% isn't a weakness of it but a strength.
Thus why its called a theory and not a scientific fact.
In some cases it's both. A theory in science is just the explanation for the facts we observe.
The theory of how the earth was flat. Soon changed to the theory of the earth is round, thus changing to the fact that the earth is round using technology to go into outerspace and finding out it truely is. Theories are basically a scientific version of faith.
As stated above a theory is an explanation for the facts. Faith is believing without proof. It's nothing like faith at all.
BTW, current evidence suggests the Earth is spheroidal, not actually round. This doesn't make the round Earth wrong just a refined way of looking at it.
For example can you count to 2. Well let's test this, 1 2. Okay so the answer is then yes we can count to two. but we then gain further evidence of fractions. We take this new evidence and try counting again, 1.000...1 1.000...2 1.000...3 etc. With the new evidence the answer is then no we can't. But we can't just through out our old evidence that we could. So we continue our research. a fraction isn't a whole number. So we can then refine the theory and say, when counting in whole numbers we can count to 2. the original statement wasn't exactly wrong just less refined.
Alright sure we could theoretically go with that. Why not. Alright so your saying God could've always been there, so technically speaking matter/ energy could've always been there. Alright. But you see, most athiests dont put God and science on the same page, due to the fact that your now saying you believe in something non scientific. Your putting your faith into something. Because God could've existed so could've matter/particles. But ok, they were just there, we will say that. But even so, these google amounts of matter particles, what caused the first motion in order to cause this matter to move? Outer space has no gravity, so technically speaking, a bunch of particles had to get together before hand, causing a gravitational pull to cause movement in space.
As I have explained when you have a lot of pressure you end up with heat which is basically just particles in motion. space as such time didn't exist until "after" the Big Bang (keep in mind I use terms like before and after loosely here). Everything existed in a quantum state, thus followed the rules of quantum physics.
Well what would the God be a a metaphor of though. Metaphors are generally inclined to be talking about one thing while meaning another. So if God was a mataphor it would only mean that we were talking about something else higher up that created this world and showed right from wrong. The only examples i can think of is a superior being (Alien life, or Aliens..) or another superior being.
Or perhaps it was just natural events anthropomorphized. For instance how God is described in the story of Moses sounds an awful like they were describing a volcano.
And i shouldnt have said fallacies... I shoulda just said far fetched.. Because I suppose, a big bang with all those perfect coincidences could happen...
You didn't say fallacy, I did. You started with the incurracy of something coming from nothing. Combined a number of theories as if it was all one theory, and even if we were to separate them would still be woefully misinterpreted. Added "
erfect" a lot. Claimed chemical processes were magic. Then basically said this is what science is saying and it's far fetched.
No that's not what science is saying and the way you were going I was almost expecting you to ask how do magnets work next. (cookie for the reference)
But metaphorical stories technically speaking can be proved wrong all the time... Which is why you can't defeat christianity by saying "well you cant live in a whale".
We can argue from this point when it isn't claimed to just be a metaphor. Of course this is then when the arguments of "it's just a metaphor" appear and usually not before. While a fictional story can defiantly teach a moral concept, we can then ask are the morals that are coming from all these stories really good morals to hold? It also raises the questing of what parts are to be considered fictional and what parts are not. This seems to often be rather open ended.
Majority of those threatened by the wraith of God has actually moved on to athiesm.
If someone felt threatened by such a being and that being was basically saying believe and follow me or else. Does it really make sense that those people would then turn away from that being out of fear?
There are reasons why people don't believe in any god, fear of a god isn't one of them.
Ignoring the facts you constantly state based on stories in the old testament on right and wrong moral judement, that you have so constantly tried to find loop holes around. Yes we have, because your arguing over fictional stories told to give the listeners moral lessons. Not so we can sit there and be amazed that someone actually got eaten by a whale and survived for 3 days.
Keep in mind these things weren't always regarded as just metaphorical stories. As the history of the religion goes it's only been the past couple hundred year or so that these things were not regarded as really accounts but metaphorical stories.
