Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "What's Wrong with Atheism? — Science and God | 5 Minute Video" video.

We needed nothing but the Bible in the sense that those who believed the Bible got the right answer to "Did the material universe have a beginning?", and materialists who needed matter to be ground of being got the wrong answer. The Big Bang discovery confirmed the correctness of the Biblical assumption over the materialist one. Maybe this discussion is over your head.
3
@Maxwell_Twist "the bible points to the big bang." You've got it backwards. The Big Bang points to the Bible.
3
"We always arrive at the 'then who created God?' question in the end." Every world view arrives at a GROUND OF BEING in the end. God, as described by the Bible and theologins, is a logically consistent candidate for such a ground. Matter as investigated by science, is not. It is science that tells us the latter.
1
@2l84me8 "No, there is no reason to assume a god exists, and there literally would be no time nor space to create said universe. Your answer does not make sense to an already nonsensical question." Time and space WERE CREATED, that's what PHYSICS tells us. The only question is by what or whom.
1
@2l84me8 " Existence is necessarily temporal and dependent on both time and existence within space time." An interesting philosophical claim. Defend it.
1
@2l84me8 "Morality is a mental tool we can use to come to a choice in a most practical way." Morality's claim to authority is linked to its claim to objectivity and transcendence. There is no place in materialism for transcendence, and under materialism there is no rational for morality's objectivity, so on that assumption moral notions have no authority. Moral notions on materialist grounds are either arbitrary social constructs, or arbitrary genetic accidents which can no more claim authority than other genetic accidents like the color of our eyes.
1
@Maxwell_Twist "This is how bad your argument is." If my argument is bad, you should be able to pick it apart. Positing something absurd, and saying it is the equivalent of what I said is not an argument against what I said.
1
@2l84me8 "Science operates on reasonable hypothesis’s facts and credible evidence." Ideally, science does this. Not all that is called "science" does this. " makes accurate predictions via biology and paleontology." This is precisely where evolutionary theory breaks down. The theory predicts unbroken lines of gradual change from the most ancient life forms to current ones. The fossil ALWAYS shows new kinds appearing SUDDENLY, without immediate predecessor forms, then changing gradually within the genetic limits of the type. That is the opposite of what the theory predicts.
1