steve, whatever science has discovered, you cannot know that it will explain what it has'nt as yet. you just believe that based on your a priori assumption that there are only naturalistic explanations to be found.
lighter, that is a clever argument , but just because the simplest explanation involves belief in a deity encompassing multiple attributes, does not mean that infinite regression is more viable. do you think that stacks up in observational science, better than , everything [that has a beginning] must have a sufficient cause ?
yes, as a biblical Christian, I do believe original sin is the reason and outcome of all that is evil and disastrous. why should zorastrianism be considered a better explanation.
mrrzy, whether or not I misuse word- hypothesis- does not alter the fact that , if you think about it at all, you must believe in self creation, or steady state of some description .
you posit nothing to start with [I presume ] ,I posit God.
despite claims that there is no evidence for him, it is at least logical that if there is a deity/creator , creation follows.
if there was absolutely nothing, where is the logic in anything from that [ except that "that" implies something when actually there is [         ....       ]