That the universe has a beginning is a fact that has been
established beyond reasonable doubt. The question is, what is its
cause? It cannot not have a cause, despite the difficulties in
understanding how a cause can bring about the existence of time
space and matter.
How something can come from nothing (creation ex nihilo) is a
problem for naturalism/atheism, but not theism. Another problem for
atheism is how life can come from nonlife. Before one can talk
about evolution from a common ancestor, one has to explain or
account for the origins of life. As of now, it is a matter of FAITH
on the part of atheists that abiogenesis occured. And it is
also a matter of FAITH to hold the view that simple life can evolve
into complex lifeforms like human beings.
Creationists also believe that humans "evolved" from a common
ancestor, namely Adam and Eve. We do not subscribe to the belief
that simple life can evolve to complex life. The issue is
INFORMATION. Where does it come from? Creationists believe that
kind begat kind. Human beings will always reproduce after their
kind. You don't get humans from apes nor apes from fish, regardless
of how much time you put in. I think it takes greater faith and a
bigger miracle to believe in the grand scheme of evolution.
You have misunderstood me. I am not saying that we can know
nothing about the past. I am saying that the past cannot
be proven, not by the scientific method. What you have access would
be legal-historical evidences. And what you have is an
inference to the best explanation. Forensic science is historical
science, it gathers data that exists in the PRESENT and tries to
piece them together to make up a plausible story about the PAST.
Assumptions are being made in such cases. You may wish to read up
more about it here http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner
The issue is not whether you personally see a point in believing
in something, the issue is whether there are good reasons for
believing in it. Atheists will say what's the point, theists will
say got lots of point. But the point is not whether you think
there's a point, but whether there are reasons for it. Yes, there
are things we do not believe in because we have no good reason
to, e.g. Zeus, elves etc. And no one defends their
existence anyway. But God is not so easily cast away.
It is a fact that the universe has a beginning? Where did you
get that premise from? How odd then, to see many physicists and
philosophers who do not think that time can be caused. I think you
meant "the universe began to exist?" That would be true, and is
accepted by almost everyone. Abiogenesis is not a matter of faith,
abiogenesis is a result derived from the Urey-Miller experiment. If
thinking something which has been verified again and again is
called faith, then I propose that you are implicitly defining faith
in a question begging manner. Furthermore, the letter to letter
correspondences in the DNA between any group of animals, if plotted
out, form a perfect hierarchy - a family tree. Not to mention,
there is the record in the nucleic acids which is obtained by DNA
sequencing. In which we can trace the evolutionary past of animals.
So to say that evolution is a form of faith is simply non sequitur.
I define faith as "belief in the absence of evidence".
But the past can be proven. In view of the techniques available
to know facts about the past, the epistemic skeptic has to show
that acquisition of past knowledge is unachievable. Just because
one isn't there is no reason to think otherwise. Could you give me
a scenario where epistemic claims aren't possible?
No doubt, we have to access the reasons for it. So what reasons
are there to think that time can be caused?