re-EVOL-ve


Lol....

There are many things science cannot disprove, but that doesn't mean they are useful concepts. Not being able to be disproven is no basis for a belief.

Usefulness of something is determined by the user- if something is not useful to science- it doesn't meant it is not useful for something/someone else.

Belief is a personal judgment- as long as something is not disproved it liable to be believed in logically... To say that a belief is wrong is failing to realize that you don't have the evidence to make such a claim.

Have a good day :D
 
We do have evidence to reject the claim of a creator God. The universe has no markers of design, which should be there if it were designed (presumably just for people). Life has no markers of something that is designed. There are no events which look like god intervened in violation of natural laws. Natural laws can be extrapolated from point of view invariance, and no not appear fine-tuned. Also, no prayer effect has been shown. From these and other logically deduced premises, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no God that is involved in our personal lives.

Beliefs can be useful in the context of human lives, which is why I believe religion was invented. The existence or non-existence of a God was irrelevent to the purpose of religion. It acted as primitive law, enforced by fear, and reinforced by ignorance.
 
'Evil' as a choice yes- but the evil you witness is our choosing that evil.

But God also created us, choice, etc. So it's all still on his plate, no? Why couldn't he have created us such that we never choose evil? Or such that evil doesn't exist in the first place? If he's omnipotent, a perfect world full of perfect humans is within his power to create, right? If he's good, why didn't he?

Hmm... I never said he created evil people....

Then who did? Somebody had to have created them, right?

he created the choice but the choice to choose evil is humans only.

Didn't God create humans, and "choice?"

Or is evil a creation of humanity?

In which case, what other aspects of the universe are our own creation? Good? God?

He did create Angels which can't do evil- the difference between Humans is that they can with full control do the right things- for which reason they are placed higher than Angels-

Why not just create humans who don't do evil?

God doesn't create natural disasters (although he could/ and has in some instances) - they are 'natural' as natural would imply.

Didn't God create nature? Is his omnipotence limited in some way that prevented him from knowing the inevitable consequences of nature? Regardless, isn't God powerful enough to avert natural disasters, and their associated unjust suffering? Why doesn't he? Why does he stand idly by as thousands of innocent families are destroyed by tsunamis or earthquakes or hurricanes?

You might as well ask why God created 'death'-

Indeed, why did God create death? Doesn't seem like a nice thing to do.

as for the 'just God'- you are assuming that you actually exist. Another assumption is that God has to be 'just' in this world while it could be that he does not interfere here and is 'just' on "judgment day'

Sure. But that's a very cruel God, and almost all religious people I've encountered are unequivocable on the point that God does intercede in the here-and-now. And in response to prayer, at that.

Why should he? If he is the creator then he can choose the purpose and the conditions.

Because he is held to be a good, just creator.

If he's just doing this as a cosmic joke, to see what we'll make of it... well, that's a relatively consistent view, but not the one I hear from people who believe in God.

God is neither good nor evil-

Not according to the vast majority of religious people I've encountered. Why would we worship a god that isn't good?

I see.... Yes the word is ill-defined.... You could re-define to mean: the ability to do everything that doesn't exceed His own self. In which case even we are omnipotent- but he is the Ultimate one as in being able to do everything that anything else can do and being able to do everything he Himself can do.

So he's not omnipotent, as such. He's simply more powerful than anyone else.

Sort of like an advanced race of aliens would be, from our perspective.

I think the reason the word 'omnipotent' is used is so that you don't have to list down everything he can do (as you would have to do with my definition)- so it is a matter of convenience just take it to mean the 'ultimate power' that can do basically everything.

Most religious people I've met take the omnipotent part literally. They'd just say "ultimate power" if that's what they had in mind. It isn't any less convenient than "omnipotent."

That being the assumption that they truly were saints-

And the assumption that there truly is a God, etc. If you're going to start pointing out that we have no way of knowing any of this stuff, then I'll happily agree with you. But most religious people don't hold that position. The Church is the instrument of God on Earth, let's recall, and its anointed saints are exactly that.

Can you name a study of prayer that has been on-going for a thousand years- I would love to read their thousand year finding. And perhaps none of them were righteous enough to have had that specific prayer accepted. Anyways there are too many uncontrollable variables to take any such experiments seriously.

How many righteous people do you imagine have prayed for world peace, over the millenia? Yet where is it? Why did God even create a world full of strife and injustice and war in the first place?
 
The universe has no markers of design, which should be there if it were designed (presumably just for people).

Perhaps God created the Laws of Nature which was coded/created in a way that could lead to everything else. You can't prove how the laws of nature came about except that they are which they are. No detectable markers- but still not proof against God.


Life has no markers of something that is designed.

Can be a result of initial designing of the law, which leads everything that follows to be designed. Again no detectable markers- so not proof against God.

There are no events which look like god intervened in violation of natural laws.

God can manipulate nature to cause something- still not proof against God.


Natural laws can be extrapolated from point of view invariance, and no not appear fine-tuned.

Can be a result of design and was intentional- still not proof against God.

Also, no prayer effect has been shown.

No experiment can control all the variables that are in the 'prayer effect'- still not proof against God.

From these and other logically deduced premises, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no God that is involved in our personal lives.

All of your logical deductions can be logically dismissed.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
Perhaps God created the Laws of Nature which was coded/created in a way that could lead to everything else. You can't prove how the laws of nature came about except that they are which they are. No detectable markers- but still not proof against God.

Yes, what a brilliant move by god to create the laws of nature. He did so that at any time he may enter our realm and break those laws, as has been claimed by theists time and again.

It was in fact shortly after the Big Bang (creation for theists) the known forces separated, hence he would have created the laws of nature with the big bang.

It's true, there are no detectable markers of god, none whatsoever, not even a "Made in Heaven" sticker anywhere to be seen.

When we study the evidence, we see no indication whatsoever a god ever having intervened in the process. No discernible indications at all. Nothing, nada, ziltch.

And, with all this lack of indication of gods anywhere at anytime, 786 is here to tell us that this isn't proof of his nonexistence. (What would be proof?) He may very well be right. The problem is that if there isn't any evidence of gods intervention, nothing at all to give rise to such a hypothesis, why does 786 believe, with every fiber of his being that a god does exist and did in fact create the laws of nature?

Maybe someone else told him or he read it in a book? :shrug:

Can be a result of initial designing of the law, which leads everything that follows to be designed. Again no detectable markers- so not proof against God.

God can manipulate nature to cause something- still not proof against God.

Can be a result of design and was intentional- still not proof against God.

No experiment can control all the variables that are in the 'prayer effect'- still not proof against God.

All of your logical deductions can be logically dismissed.

So, here we have 786 attempting to rationalize logically that there is simply nothing his god can't do, won't do or already hasn't done, regardless of the fact no indication of his deeds are present. It is all merely swept under the carpet and dismissed in favor of believing a god is there pulling all the strings.

His god can "manipulate nature" but can't stop a tsunami from killing 250 million of his own worshipers. He can intentionally "design" and make it appear it wasn't designed, to what ends is still a question to be answered.

Then, there's the "prayer effect" which reminds me of the woman who was buried for several days in rubble and was elated to be found alive claiming it was Jesus that saved her, because she prayed. She conveniently forgot about the several thousand who also prayed but lay dead in the rubble.

Peace be unto you ;)

Logic is not in you.
 
Logic is not in you.

Until and unless you make a response that is worthy to respond to I think I will just ignore you because by responding to you I would be giving you respect that you don't deserve.

Have fun believing in your cult :cool:

Peace be unto you ;)
 
God can manipulate nature to cause something- still not proof against God.
Where has God ever manipulated nature? There is no sign anywhere that he has, which would be required for a God that intervenes in human events.
 
Where has God ever manipulated nature? There is no sign anywhere that he has, which would be required for a God that intervenes in human events.

And you have been taking note of which events God has specifically chose to intervene in? By the way can you list a few of them...

Peace be unto you ;)
 
He is said to interfere all the time, and yet there is no evidence of this. If he creates things by setting up natural laws, then the result is still rather arbitrary, due to the inherent uncertainty of matter at the quantum level.
 
He is said to interfere all the time, and yet there is no evidence of this. If he creates things by setting up natural laws, then the result is still rather arbitrary, due to the inherent uncertainty of matter at the quantum level.

Lol, you can not know if he is interfering with the very initial conditions (laws) in the universe that cascade down to something real. You can't detect this interference.

The inherent uncertainity is only your limitation, God can know all of that- this is going back to the 'God of Science' thing- just read this over there.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
The outcome is still necessarily unpredictable. You cannot control specific events by controlling basic laws of physics. Ever heard of the butterfly effect?

Even if God did set the universe up, that means he cannot change events, which means we have no free will, and that prayer cannot work.
 
786 said:
Lol, you can not know if he is interfering with the very initial conditions (laws) in the universe that cascade down to something real. You can't detect this interference.
Then no problem. If we can't detect any interference by your deity, our science can proceed normally without taking your deity into account - saves a lot of paperwork.
786 said:
You can't prove how the laws of nature came about except that they are which they are. No detectable markers- but still not proof against God.
And whenever more progress is made in determining how the laws of nature came about - such as the statistical mechanics and other advances in determining how the laws of heat production and flow came about, or the quantum electrodynamics theory that explained how the laws of optics and light and magnetism came about, that will still be no "proof" against the new sort of God that will be proposed to fit the new knowledge.
 
Last edited:
Ok don't play with words- If you want to say that I am an 'atheist' to the japanese gods- sure-

But I'm not an overall atheist- I do believe in God- If atheism is 'lack of belief in God' then I am not an Atheist. If Atheism means 'lack of belief in japanese gods' then under this definition I am an Atheist- but as far as I know the definition of Atheism is not specific to a god of any religion- it is general to include any and all gods- in which case I am not an Atheist.

Peace be unto you ;)
That's not a play on words. It's using the words carefully and correctly.

You are atheist for a Japanese mountain river God. Do you agree that is is possible there may really be a Japanese mountain river God?
 
The outcome is still necessarily unpredictable. You cannot control specific events by controlling basic laws of physics. Ever heard of the butterfly effect?

This is an assumption based upon the knowledge we have about how some things are uncertain and appear to act 'randomly'- if the truth is contrary because God does not have the same limitations and that everything is controlled and that 'apparent' randomness can also be controlled then this argument is meaningless. You're comparing God with Humans- they're different things.

Even if God did set the universe up, that means he cannot change events, which means we have no free will, and that prayer cannot work.

I don't follow the logic- if God created the universe and can manipulate it then he can change events- and the last part of your is coming from a deterministic perspective- there are inherent flaws with determinism- Laws can be deterministic but Humans can choose to determine and outcome using the laws to direct an outcome.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
Last edited:
Then no problem. If we can't detect any interference by your deity, our science can proceed normally without taking your deity into account - saves a lot of paperwork.

God doesn't contradict science so you never needed the paper from the beginning.

And whenever more progress is made in determining how the laws of nature came about - such as the statistical mechanics and other advances in determining how the laws of heat production and flow came about, or the quantum electrodynamics theory that explained how the laws of optics and light and magnetism came about, that will still be no "proof" against the new sort of God that will be proposed to fit the new knowledge.

I'm talking about the very basic of basic things- why does everything- however minute (quanta?) it is work the way it does can never be explained because you can only explain to the point of the beginning, not before it because it practically and principally impossible.

Our understanding of God may be wrong which almost all theists claim that God can not be completely understood- But even if we change it it is just as you have changed your theory of evolution so many times.

Peace be unto you ;)
 
That's not a play on words. It's using the words carefully and correctly.

You are atheist for a Japanese mountain river God. Do you agree that is is possible there may really be a Japanese mountain river God?

You already had a thread on this type of 'possibilities'- lets leave this out-

Peace be unto you ;)
 
786 said:
I'm talking about the very basic of basic things- why does everything- however minute (quanta?) it is work the way it does can never be explained
Since you have no idea what they are, you have no idea whether they might ever be explained by some clever researcher or mathematician.

Meanwhile, we are nowhere near that on this thread. The level we are at here - emergence and development of life on earth - is easily and obviously within the realm of scientific investigation.
 
Back
Top