The evidence against it is greater than the evidence for it.
Do you believe in miracles?
- Thread starter Why?
- Start date
What evidence against it? Oh I know "well you know I don't believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, and even though this has nothing do with the existence of God, I can pretend it does, and claim it as evidence"
The evidence that we evolved from simpler forms.
The evidence is far more compelling than anything theism has to offer.
No, it isn't. The complexity you see is misleading, having accumulated from simpler forms over time by the simple mechanism of either living, and spreading it's form with variations, or dying.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
If it's difficult for you 'to see it as anything else other than an advanced piece of sophisticated technology' how does that make it wrong ? Just that you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't so.
When the subject of evolution is brought up, theists seem perfectly willing to use the tools if science to try and discount it, but when the same tool is applied to theism, they say it's beyond such investigation. Why is that?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Because they are actively and willingly deluding themselves, however improbable it sounds lol
Complexity isn't misleading.
If it were a lack of understanding then you would be right. That not being the case it is thus difficult to attribute complexity with non complex and random processes.
That is a belief and an assumption. It's also just as convienent as a creationist not knowing why creation is more likely but merely accepting church and reverend hearsay.
Last edited:
On the contrary, Wolfram's recent mathematical explorations have proven that relatively simply rules can create complex and unpredictable behavior.
For God to create man, he would only need an IQ of 1. Evolution is just slightly more orderly than randomness, therefore complexity accumulates.
For God to create man, he would only need an IQ of 1. Evolution is just slightly more orderly than randomness, therefore complexity accumulates.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
It can be, you can't deny that.
Again, the fact that it's difficult doesn't make it wrong. Rather it implies it's correct, although I understand you don't mean to say that.
True, I have no way of knowing if it's true. But it sure seems like it, in fact I can't come up with another explanation.
Well, isn't that like what I just said ?
I think I did. People mislead the facts do not.
difficult is a perception and observance if you will.
From our own perspectives then there seems to be a commonality. The differences that we perceive shouldn't be a reason for strife and boasting nor superiority.
I certainly hope so...
Yeah...so how does that discredit the existence of God? We have lots of evidence for fine-tuning, design, cosmological arguments, etc...
What? Can you give an example? Its the exact opposite, when it comes to things like abiogenesis atheists are willing to say "yeah well it doesn't matter if there's no evidence, we know it COULD be true" but when it comes to God "oh know, we NEED evidence" and after evidence is provided "oh no this isn't good enough, its a "god of the gaps"" then after providing massive amounts of evidence when someone asks an atheist "can you give me an example of what can be considered evidence of God that can't be considered a 'god of the gaps'" atheists are speechless, get upset, go home and ignore the whole situation
You're talking about atheists ROFL, they're willing to deny and reject any evidence in order to preserve atheistic faith and never consider that God can exist
God becomes unnecessary as an explanatory tool. The anthropic principle explains any appearance of fine-tuning.
So, if I cannot explain everything about abiogenesis, then God exists? That is the God of the gaps argument, a gap which is ever shrinking. I don't even know what you mean by the word God. If you could define it, I could possibly suggest what would be evidence of it.
Actually, its the opposite God becomes necessary, the anthropic principle shows it...tell me why if reality is causeless and meaningless with no Creator should it matter if we change any of the constants by 0.1%? Why should only intelligent life then cease to exist? Fine-tuning is an argument for design
I never said it showed God exists (putting words in my mouth again), I said atheists don't need evidence to believe in certain things that favor naturalism, yet anything that favors theism "oh NO it just can't be true, now we need massive amounts of evidence, but we can NEVER EVER tell you what can be considered real evidence to us, but if you really had some evidence of which we can never ever possibly name, we would believe you"spidergoat said:
Why is it that you consider that abiogenesis can be true or is true but not God?
Last edited:
You don't understand the anthropic principle, as I explained previously. It means the exact opposite of what you are saying it means. It means that obviously the universe is suitable for our lives, since only a suitable environment for life will cause life to exist, and therefore lead to an observer that can observe it. Therefore, the universe only seems fine-tuned for our kind of life.
That means that there could be other places in the universe or other universes, but if they are not suitable for the development of life, then no one will observe it.
That means that there could be other places in the universe or other universes, but if they are not suitable for the development of life, then no one will observe it.