Present Evidence Here II

[PickelledEggs]

Wait. Did somebody find actual evidence supporting the bibles claims?

Oh. No?

Ok... 

Sent from your mom.

[Odoital778412]

This is an common theistic talking point, that all sorts of stuff that exists in our world somehow points to a god, and specifically, whatever God they already believe in, and that atheists either deliberately ignore this connection or are blind to it.

However, these connections only really exist in the minds of theists.  To everyone who doesn't already believe in god, these sorts of arguments come across as non-sequiturs.  If you look up at the night sky and see a god, for example, that's only because you've been conditioned to think that.  If you were not raised as a theist, you wouldn't look at the night sky and conclude that a god had made it.

So yeah, these sorts of "evidences" for a god are about as effective as proving the existence of a god by reciting bible verses.

I understand what you're saying, though I obviously wouldn't agree.  These are the kinds of dismissals that Christians run into all of the time.  I do think that there is a need to provide good arguments and evidence, but that is not the only thing required.  My suspicion is that often, people are so hostile to the very idea of God, the supernatural, etc... that the other requirements simply aren't there in sufficient measure to make any evidence, even good evidence, sufficient.  Sometimes, that's not true, but it's a rare individual who would put themselves firmly into the atheist camp and also possess that which is necessary to make any evidence meaningful.

[Odoital778412]

Stop being an obtuse little cunt.

I didn't say you did and you know I didn't say you did. You are only going this route because you are dishonest.

No, you were addressing me with what you say you get in here all the time from other Christians, as if I were saying the same thing.  I was not.  I simply pointed out that I didn't say it.  In addition, there is a difference between the Bible and a book, at least from my perspective.  You can declare that my having pointed out that I didn't say that is somehow dishonest, but making such a declaration won't make it anymore true than it was before.  Nor will engaging in name calling change anything about the objective facts.

What you did was say, read this book. You didn't present any of the evidence given. You had just said go read this book and you were called on how inappropriate that is in this context.

Grow up and deal with your past mistakes.

I did in fact offer a book title, incase there was interest.  You may read it or not.  That's entirely up to you, but of course, we both know what your choice will be.  Regarding it's propriety, you'll forgive me if I don't trust that you have a corner on that market, given your behavior.  In any case, I wish you well.

In addition, to provide a little clarity, the thread started out:

So here we are. If you claim to have evidence that supports your god(s), please post it here:"

I then posted the following book recommendation.

I'd recommend "Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science" Edited by Michael Licona and William Dembski as a starting point.  I hope that helps.

As you can see, I neither told you to read it or had any significant expectation of your understanding it.  Truth be told, the only thing I expected in return were dismissals, rationalizations, and personal attacks either on me or my faith.  Interestingly enough, that's precisely what I received.  Again, you may read or not.  You may understand or not.  You're obviously and intelligent person, so whether what is required for any evidence to be meaningful is actually in your possession is really up to you.

[Hydra009]

I understand what you're saying, though I obviously wouldn't agree.  These are the kinds of dismissals that Christians run into all of the time.  I do think that there is a need to provide good arguments and evidence, but that is not the only thing required.

But that actually is the only thing required of you.  Providing anything at all that would substantiate any of your claims about god.  And doing exactly not that and counting it as evidence is unlikely to convince.

My suspicion is that often, people are so hostile to the very idea of God, the supernatural, etc... that the other requirements simply aren't there in sufficient measure to make any evidence, even good evidence, sufficient.

That's a common accusation, typically deployed when one is failing and needs some way to save face.  "My arguments didn't work because my opponent hates God!"  Or...maybe they could be horrible arguments we've all heard and dissected a thousand times over (and paired with assertions about the natural world that are actually demonstrably untrue) that aren't actually evidence of any sort and therefore fail to be evidence for a god.

I'll put it this way.  I have a pet dragon in my garage.  What would convince you that one is there?  If I claimed that dragons must be real because lots of people believe in dragons would that be convincing?  If I claimed that dragons are real because all fire has to come from somewhere and therefore, there has to be a creature that created the very first fire and that this creature must've been a dragon, would that be convincing?  If I claimed that if the earlier argument doesn't convince you to believe in dragons, then you must be hostile to the idea of dragons, would that be convincing?  I could go on all day, but you (hopefully) at least somewhat get the point.  The same sorts of arguments commonly used for god suddenly become a lot shakier when they point to conclusions you don't already agree with.  (Or to put it another way, your standards of evidence suddenly become a lot lower when the conclusion matches your own)

[Odoital778412]

But that actually is the only thing required of you.  Providing anything at all that would substantiate any of your claims about god.  And doing exactly not that and counting it as evidence is unlikely to convince.

Well, the comment I made was directed at a different person, but I’ll go ahead and provide you a response anyway.  I am not counting as any kind of evidence, the act of not providing evidence as positive evidence for God.  What I was doing in the previous comment was agreeing that providing evidence is an important thing to do, but pointing out that merely providing evidence does absolutely nothing meaningful unless the person reviewing that evidence brings when them, in sufficient measure, that thing which is necessary to make any evidence meaningful or relevant.  So that providing any particular piece of evidence, even good evidence, would not necessarily even count as evidence without this other element being present.  For example: A Piece of Evidence

That's a common accusation, typically deployed when one is failing and needs some way to save face.  "My arguments didn't work because my opponent hates God!"  Or...maybe they could be horrible arguments we've all heard and dissected a thousand times over (and paired with assertions about the natural world that are actually demonstrably untrue) that aren't actually evidence of any sort and therefore fail to be evidence for a god.

I think you’re right.  It’s possible that a person is providing terrible arguments, and it has nothing to do with the point of view or attitude of the other person.  But are you saying that it is impossible for one person to deny the veracity of another person’s evidential claim?  Are you saying, it’s impossible for someone to provide good evidence and still have another person not concede that good evidence was provided?  Now the ways in which they might go about that are myriad, but they could deny the evidence, couldn’t they?  Maybe they’d come up with an objection or what they believe is a refutation.  Maybe they’d engage in ad hominems and simply attack the person giving the evidence.  Who knows how the denial of good evidence would come.  But isn’t such a denial possible?  Is there any reason that the only option available is that the evidence given was simply terrible?

I'll put it this way.  I have a pet dragon in my garage.  What would convince you that one is there?  If I claimed that dragons must be real because lots of people believe in dragons would that be convincing?  If I claimed that dragons are real because all fire has to come from somewhere and therefore, there has to be a creature that created the very first fire and that this creature must've been a dragon, would that be convincing?  If I claimed that if the earlier argument doesn't convince you to believe in dragons, then you must be hostile to the idea of dragons, would that be convincing?  I could go on all day, but you (hopefully) at least somewhat get the point.  The same sorts of arguments commonly used for god suddenly become a lot shakier when they point to conclusions you don't already agree with.  (Or to put it another way, your standards of evidence suddenly become a lot lower when the conclusion matches your own)

So is there a reason for me to believe that fire only comes from dragons in the same way that I have reason to believe that effects only come from causes?  If so, I’d love to hear it?  “I could go on all day, but you (hopefully) at least somewhat get the point”???

[Mike Cl]

effects only come from causes?

Yeah, I can agree with that.  For me that leads away from the concept of a creator or a god.  Why does it lead you in the opposite direction?

[stromboli]

Ah the evidence. Jesus never existed
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2776194/Jesus-never-existed-Writer-finds-no-mention-Christ-126-historical-texts-says-mythical-character.html

'Jesus NEVER existed': Writer finds no mention of Christ in 126 historical texts and says he was a 'mythical character'
Writer Michael Paulkovich has claimed that there is little evidence for a person known as Jesus existing in history
Jesus is thought to have lived from about 7BC to 33AD in the Roman Empire
However Paulkovich says he found little to no mention of the supposed messiah in 126 texts written in the first to third centuries
Only one mention of Jesus was present, in a book by Roman historian Josephus Flavius, but he says this was added by later editors
He says this is surprising despite the ‘alleged worldwide fame’ of Jesus
And this has led him to believe that Jesus was a 'mythical character'

Historical researcher Michael Paulkovich has claimed that Jesus of Nazareth was a ‘mythical character’ and never existed.
The controversial discovery was apparently made after he found no verifiable mention of Christ from 126 writers during the ‘time of Jesus’ from the first to third centuries.
He says he is a fictional character invented by followers of Christianity to create a figure to worship.

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/01/5_reasons_to_suspect_that_jesus_never_existed/

Most antiquities scholars think that the New Testament gospels are “mythologized history.”  In other words, they think that around the start of the first century a controversial Jewish rabbi named Yeshua ben Yosef gathered a following and his life and teachings provided the seed that grew into Christianity.

At the same time, these scholars acknowledge that many Bible stories like the virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, and women at the tomb borrow and rework mythic themes that were common in the Ancient Near East, much the way that screenwriters base new movies on old familiar tropes or plot elements. In this view, a “historical Jesus” became mythologized.

For over 200 years, a wide ranging array of theologians and historiansâ€"most of them Christianâ€"analyzed ancient texts, both those that made it into the Bible and those that didn’t, in attempts to excavate the man behind the myth.  Several current or recent bestsellers take this approach, distilling the scholarship for a popular audience. Familiar titles include Zealotby Reza Aslan and  How Jesus Became Godby Bart Ehrman.

But other scholars believe that the gospel stories are actually “historicized mythology.”  In this view, those ancient mythic templates are themselves the kernel. They got filled in with names, places and other real world details as early sects of Jesus worship attempted to understand and defend the devotional traditions they had received.

The notion that Jesus never existed is a minority position.  Of course it is! says David Fitzgerald, author of Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All.For centuries all serious scholars of Christianity were Christians themselves, and modern secular scholars lean heavily on the groundwork that they laid in collecting, preserving, and analyzing ancient texts. Even today most secular scholars come out of a religious background, and many operate by default under historical presumptions of their former faith.

[stromboli]

The bible is bullshit
http://www.religionisbullshit.net/articles/contradictions.php

Biblical contradictions

Written by Dan Barker
This particular list was taken from an extract from Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher to Atheist  | source


Should we kill?

Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."
vs

Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."
For a discussion of the defense that the Commandments prohibit only murder, see "Murder, He Wrote", chapter 27 (Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist).

Should we tell lies?

Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."
vs

I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
Also, compare Joshua 2:4-6 with James 2:25.

Should we steal?

Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."
Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him."
vs

Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians."
Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians."
Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."
I was taught as a child that when you take something without asking for it, that is stealing.

Shall we keep the sabbath?

Exodus 20:8 "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy."
Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
Numbers 15:32,36 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. . . . And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
vs

Isaiah 1:13 "The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity."
John 5:16 "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day."
Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."
Shall we make graven images?

Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water."
Leviticus 26:1 "Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone."
Deuteronomy 27:15 "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image."
vs

Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them."
I Kings 7:15,16,23,25 "For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass . . . and two chapiters of molten brass . . . And he made a molten sea . . . it stood upon twelve oxen . . . [and so on]"

[stromboli]

The bible is fiction
https://danielmiessler.com/writing/bible_fiction/

The similarities between the stories and characters in the Bible and those from previous mythologies are both undeniable and well-documented. It is only due to extreme the extreme religious bias that pervades our world today that people rarely get exposed to this information.

In this short piece I’ll attempt to show blatant similarities with regard to two of the most important Biblical narratives: the Genesis story and the character of Jesus Christ.

The Book of Genesis’s Flood Story Mirrors The Epic Of Gilgamesh From Hundreds Of Years Earlier

Here are a number of elements that both Gilgamesh and the flood story in Genesis share:

God decided to send a worldwide flood. This would drown men, women, children, babies and infants, as well as eliminate all of the land animals and birds.
God knew of one righteous man, Ut-Napishtim or Noah.
God ordered the hero to build a multi-story wooden ark (called a chest or box in the original Hebrew), and the hero initially complained about the assignment to build the boat.
The arc would have many compartments, a single door, be sealed with pitch and would house one of every animal species.
A great rain covered the land with water.
The arc landed on a mountain in the Middle East.
The first two birds returned to the ark. The third bird apparently found dry land because it did not return.
The hero and his family left the ark, ritually killed an animal, offered it as a sacrifice.
The Babylonian gods seemed genuinely sorry for the genocide that they had created. The God of Noah appears to have regretted his actions as well, because he promised never to do it again.
Keep in mind the level of detail in these similarities. It’s not a matter of just a flood, but specific details: three birds sent out, resisting the call to build the arc, and a single man being chosen by God to build the arc. Then consider that the first story (Gilgamesh) came from Babylon â€" hundreds of years before the Bible was even written.

Do you honestly think, based on the similarities above, that those who wrote the Genesis story had not heard the Gilgamesh story? And if they had heard it, and they were simply rehashing an old, very popular tale, what does that say about the Bible?

Jesus’s Story Is An Obvious Rehashing Of Numerous Previous Characters

Perhaps even more compelling is the story of Christ himself. As it turns out it’s not even remotely original. It is instead nothing more than a collection of bits and pieces from dozens of other stories that came long before. Here are some examples.

Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead, and was known as the savior and redeemer.

Hercules was born of a divine father and mortal mother and was known as the savior of the world. Prophets foretold his birth and claimed he would be a king, which started a search by a leader who wanted to kill him. He walked on water and told his mother, “Don’t cry, I’m going to heaven.” when he died. As he passed he said, “It is finished.“

Dionysus was literally the “Son of God”, was born of a virgin mother, and was commonly depicted riding a donkey. He healed the sick and turned water to wine. He was killed but was resurrected and became immortal. His greatest accomplishment was his own death, which delivers humanity itself.

Osiris did the same things. He was born of a virgin, was considered the first true king of the people, and when he died he rose from the grave and went to heaven.

Osiris’s son, Horus, was known as the “light of the world”, “The good shepherd”, and “the lamb”. He was also referred to as, “The way, the truth, and the life.” His symbol was a cross.

Mithra‘s birthday was celebrated on the 25th of December, his birth was witnessed by local shepherds who brought him gifts, had 12 disciples, and when he was done on earth he had a final meal before going up to heaven. On judgment day he’ll return to pass judgment on the living and the dead. The good will go to heaven, and the evil will die in a giant fire. His holiday is on Sunday (he’s the Sun God). His followers called themselves “brothers”, and their leaders “fathers”. They had baptism and a meal ritual where symbolic flesh and blood were eaten. Heaven was in the sky, and hell was below with demons and sinners.

Krishna had a miraculous conception that wise men were able to come to because they were guided by a star. After he was born an area ruler tried to have him found and killed. His parents were warned by a divine messenger, however, and they escaped and was met by shepherds. The boy grew up to be the mediator between God and man.

Buddha‘s mother was told by an angel that she’d give birth to a holy child destined to be a savior. As a child he teaches the priests in his temple about religion while his parents look for him. He starts his religious career at roughly 30 years of age and is said to have spoken to 12 disciples on his deathbed. One of the disciples is his favorite, and another is a traitor. He and his disciples abstain from wealth and travel around speaking in parables and metaphors. He called himself “the son of man” and was referred to as, “prophet”, “master”, and “Lord”. He healed the sick, cured the blind and deaf, and he walked on water. One of his disciples tried to walk on water as well but sunk because his faith wasn’t strong enough.

Apollonius of Tyana (a contemporary of Jesus) performed countless miracles (healing sick and crippled, restored sight, casted out demons, etc.) His birth was of a virgin, foretold by an angel. He knew scripture really well as a child. He was crucified, rose from the dead and appeared to his disciples to prove his power before going to heaven to sit at the right hand of the father. He was known as, “The Son of God”.

I can do this all day. Please to present your counter evidence.

[Odoital778412]

The bible is bullshit
http://www.religionisbullshit.net/articles/contradictions.php

If I thought that this post was an honest one rather than a rhetorical one meant only for show, I might be tempted to take the time to clear up some of this confusion.  However, at this point, I don't really have reason to believe that.  What I can point out readily is that every single one of these supposed problems have been addressed, and most have been address many many times and in a thorough manner.  That fact has not kept people from displaying the same objections and supposed or apparent contradictions, based mostly on the objector's ignorance and/or misunderstanding rather than on any genuine problems.  I'll just illustrate quickly with the 1 Kings 22:23 issue that these things have been successfully addressed, but I will point out that the most thorough treatments will usually end up coming from books that are not available to post.  Having said that, if you're interested in clearing up all of these issues, you'd need to familiarize yourself with the field of Hermeneutics.  It would be immensely helpful in providing you with the tools to understand various genres of literature from thousands of years ago, including those in the Bible.  I hope this helps?

[Odoital778412]

Yeah, I can agree with that.  For me that leads away from the concept of a creator or a god.  Why does it lead you in the opposite direction?

Well, I'd have to start by asking you the very same question.  My understanding is that the Universe and everything in it is essentially finite in nature, in they've all come into being at some point in the finite past.  As such, I see the universe and everything in it as an effect.  If effects come from causes, then the Universe and everything in it must have had a cause.  I would personally identify that cause with God.  The question may then arise, who or what caused God?  My answer would be, nothing caused God, as He never came into being but has always existed.

[DeathandGrim]

Given that God is timeless, spaceless and immaterial comparing physical proof of the Eiffel Tower to something like physical proof of God isn't quite the same thing.  Having said that, the physical effects of a creator can be seen, but typically there is always a rationalization to close the eyes.  Without getting into that for the time being though, what is your problem with the KCA?  Just curious...

Unsubstantiated. How do you have attributes that only consist of negative attributes?

timeless, spaceless and immaterial. How do you exist without these?

And the KCA doesn't narrow the topic well enough and remains nebulous in order to flex to several different meanings. But neither of these meanings nail down the conclusion that a god is either existing or needed.

[SGOS]

Without getting into that for the time being though, what is your problem with the KCA?  Just curious...

For the Kalam Cosmological Argument to fail there must be a logical fallacy committed in the argument.

Here are 14 fallacies in the KCA.  Take your pick:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam

Well, I'd have to start by asking you the very same question.  My understanding is that the Universe and everything in it is essentially finite in nature, in they've all come into being at some point in the finite past.  As such, I see the universe and everything in it as an effect.  If effects come from causes, then the Universe and everything in it must have had a cause. 

That specific part of the Kalam is refuted by sections 3.2 and 3.4 in my above link and those two refutations are expanded and explained in greater detail here:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/03/kalam-cosmological-argument-premise.html

I would personally identify that cause with God.  The question may then arise, who or what caused God?  My answer would be, nothing caused God, as He never came into being but has always existed.

This is refuted by section 3.9 in the first link above "Why only one cause?"  And in response to your first question, it summarizes my main problem with the KCA.  Although the other sections are very tempting also.  Simply put "Why only one cause?" identifies a special pleading for one thing which does not need a cause.  Furthermore tacking on, "and that has to be God," is totally unwarranted as it could be anything else, either unknown at this time, or any other concept mankind is capable of creating.

[Gerard]

The universe was created by God

God simply exists.

Occam's razor at work!

Gerard

[Mike Cl]

Well, I'd have to start by asking you the very same question.  My understanding is that the Universe and everything in it is essentially finite in nature, in they've all come into being at some point in the finite past.  As such, I see the universe and everything in it as an effect.  If effects come from causes, then the Universe and everything in it must have had a cause.  I would personally identify that cause with God.  The question may then arise, who or what caused God?  My answer would be, nothing caused God, as He never came into being but has always existed.

Exactly--what caused God?  He always was.  Okay, for me the process that created the universe always was and always will be.  Yes, I see this universe as finite.  It will end.  But the system that caused it to happen still is.  I understand that black holes siphon off energy from this universe--it must go somewhere.  When a black hole has gathered enough energy, it then balloons up and breaks away from the parent black hole and creates a new universe.  Hence, the big bang.  All that is contained in this universe came from that which was present when this universe broke away from the parent black hole.  So, the cause of earth was a random happening.  It was not planned.  That life grew on this planet was random, not planned.  Human life evolved based on the laws of the universe, not the laws of god.  I don't feel a need to search for any intelligent entity--it is not needed for me to grasp the universe and my place in it.  Did this universe start from nothing?  No, it is part of a system.  Did your god start from nothing?  You say he always existed.  I say the system of the universe always existed.  I am closer to having the mystery of my thinking solved than you are of having the mystery of your belief solved.  But that is not why I think the way I do--it makes sense to me, and I have to run with that. 

So, we each reach a point where we claim 'it always was'.  You go for an immortal creator god.  I go for a universe creating natural system.  Neither can prove or even imagine what came before.  Our minds cannot grasp what possibly could have existed prior to god or the universal system--All we have experienced, all that we can see, all that we can comprehend has a beginning and an end.  So, that ultimate mystery leads you one way, and me another. 

I see proofs about the physical universe being the way I think it is--I see no proof that a creator god is necessary to explain anything.  In fact, I look at nature and see proof against a creator god.  All life, and life of any size, requires energy.  Plants get that energy from either the sun or chemical compounds (creatures under the sea that have never seen light, yet thrive there).  Animal life needs energy, too, but must kill to get it.  Even people who only eat vegs have to kill to live--plants are alive.  Why would a creator god create animals that had to kill to live?  There is a much more efficient source of energy that can be used--stars that emit light.  Light could be gathered as a source of energy.  But no, god created a very cruel system, and for no apparent reason other than that cruelty.  I see evolution as a creator of such a system.  Nature is simply a set of natural laws.  It is totally neutral--the chemicals available in the universe either combine in a certain way, under certain conditions on this planet to produce life, or it doesn't.  The universe is so vast that the right situation must arise someplace.  And so it goes--everywhere I turn I see things that leads me to think that the best answer to my questions is that it is the laws of nature and of the physical universe and not a creator god.   Every solution to a question that is offered by your creator god produces another string of 'but why??' in me.  Not so with nature--it answers the immediate question and I may think of 'well, why that?', but there is a natural progression of answers; yes, some lead to 'we don't know yet', but that is legit to me, in that all knowledge builds upon itself and we, as a species, are young and still learning.  For me, the answer of 'because God can, or that God works in mysterious ways, or that we cannot fathom the mind of God' does not satisfy; for you it does.

And so this is where I see the dividing line with us--the mysteries of life and nature are answered for you in God; for me the mysteries of life and nature are answered in nature.  The dividing line of ' always was and always will be' is where we branch off.  You go your way, and I go mine.