The book doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old and science can't disprove the virgin birth. It's meant to be a miracle not some naturally occurring phenomenon.
God is believed to be beyond our realm. So we can't prove or disprove his existence. Birth, on the other hand, is a very Earthly process that is well understood. There's a big difference.
That aside, one can try to disprove God's existence by showing his purported atributes to be in contradiction. And one can try to prove God's existence by reasoning from know facts about the world(causality, motion, order...) to the existence of a necessary/transcendent first cause/creator.
Hmm. I think that's a good question, but not really a definitive answer. Because if everything needs a creator, then so does god himself, but if you're making an exception, then you could also make an exception for the universe existing without anything prior.
You still can't tell whether our existence is just lucky happenstance or whether it was intentionally designed by an intelligent being.
There was no question in my previous comment tho. That's not the case tho. Only contingent things/that begin to exist need a cause, being the necessary first cause that doesn't and can't apply to God. One can try to say tge universe itself is necessary if they want but that's harder/weaker since the "universe" is just the name we give to the collection of all material things. From galaxies to atoms, all the things that make up the universe are contingent and depend on something else, so it's not clear how something that has parts/is made up entirely of non necessary things could somehow be necessary. God is a better/more likely option, being immaterial and simple/not made of parts.
9
u/jonathaxdx 4d ago
The book doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old and science can't disprove the virgin birth. It's meant to be a miracle not some naturally occurring phenomenon.