Provide Proof God Does Not Exist & Proof of Evolution Theory (Catholic, believer)

[Vansdad]

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

It depends totally on the individual atheist and has nothing to do with atheism per se. It's good that you're curious, but it's not really a question that's able to be answered in any concrete way other than by listing a whole lot of varying opinions and a bunch of "i dunno"s.

No offense and I didn't mean to exclude anyone but that reply was in response to Nozzferrahhtoo. But I like how you can say I don't know. It's the same for believers, like myself. I can't say I know or anything other than, "This is what I believe".

[Vansdad]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

The problem is that there IS no one "atheist position" on this question. Atheism is simply the position of having considered the god claim and found it unsubstantiated and thus they do not believe it. That is all that atheists have in common.

And so it is true of believers. We do not all believe in the "bible" or a "religion" We are all individual and have our own intepretations. We don't like to be painted with the same brush, as they say. At least I don't because I do not subscribe to those genres anyways.

[Vansdad]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Oh puh-leeeeze! Come on now. The "art requires an artist" and "cars require a designer" arguments are straw-men all the way! There's absolutely NO logical connect between something that bio-logicallyâ„¢ evolved (small "e" this time...) in it's abilities and an engineered car, which is indeed designed to meet some rather obtuse criteria.

Like, for example, race-car handling or a high top speed or unusually low fuel consumption. But let's not forget, as Christian apologists always purposefully do, that a car has absolutely no way or means of trial-and-error testing and development on it's own and then modifying itself to improve it's design.

A bucket full of nuts and bolts are quite unlike the RNA/DNA situation, in which mutations always occur (or do you deny those?) and then on on to replicate, but obviously if that mutation was worthless or bad-a$$, it is dropped like a bad egg! On the other hand, if it's good, then obviously it will be successful all on it's own.

This silly argument is right up there in disfunctional absurdity with that old try-on: "imagine a tornado pausing over a junk yard and a Boeing 747 magically assembling itself as a result!" The necessary component parts are not in that junkyard, and the "desire" for a functioning plane to self-assemble is simply not there. And the mechanism for assembly is also missing, nor are there any guiding plans such as a previous and functional genome.

What a patently ludicrous comparison, and one that inevitably demos the lack of clear and logical thinking on the part of anyone who ever proposes it. As well, it's simply a cut & paste from AiG et al , absent any clear and critical thinking process.

As well, realize that a carbon-based RNA/DNA-moderated organism has all the necessary precursors floating around it to make literally anything within it's potential sphere, and it also replicates offspring at a phenomenal rate. As well, the sameprocess is happening with all the surrounding bacteria or whatever, simultaneously, with lots of diversification and branching out of functionalities obviously coincidentally happening. Car design is, by comparison, "serial".

Fact: There's more bacterial replicants created in a single liter of ocean water in a single 24 h period than there are ALL the cars, trucks, planes and trains that have EVER been built. EVER.

Now expand that to all the mega-liters of nice tepid-warm primordial amino-acid and other useful chemically-filled water in the entire global ocean, and allow for a nice slow 24 - 36h reproduction period. Oh but then.... then we multiply that by, ohhhh let's give it...uhmmmm... ±10 million years of non-stop trial and error Evolution (big E this time..).

Do you not think it's just possible that some useful and positive bio-logicalâ„¢ "design" adaptations might occur in that vastly productive period? And that indeed, improved and more complex organisms do build on their "lesser" or not as well adapted previous DNA genomes?

Can you grasp that idea? And so will you now drop the "they say it ll just poofed into existence!!, out of nothing" accustation, at least as something coming from the scientific community? Because frankly, that's entirely the Christian purvue, never ours, as I have just proven.

And logically and demonstrably, in fact, that's exactly how we all got here. From bacteria [which mutate hourly to remain hard to treat...], to bats to bullfrogs to apes... to us. Simple, huh?

If you want to keep believing that there is no purpose than that is your belief. I cannot see life that way. That's all. And most of your rebuttal is pure speculation.

"And logically and demonstrably, in fact, that's exactly how we all got here. From bacteria [which mutate hourly to remain hard to treat...], to bats to bullfrogs to apes... to us"

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Vansdad

And so it is true of believers. We do not all believe in the "bible" or a "religion"

Nor did I claim they did. So I rather fear you have just ignored my entire post and then replied to something else that I never actually said. Good dodge.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Vansdad

I am quite familiar thank you. But as you know it says nothing about how it got here to expand. It sounds like you are saying the universe had a beginning? So the next question is how it all began...

OK. Now at least we're making headway here! I don't recall anyone claiming to "know" what was out there BEFORE this likely event, but obviously something was, even if your God assembled the unassembled sub-atomic particle Lego™ set that it perhaps was.

But nonetheless, some sort of formative event, "catastrophic" if we want to use an insufficient English word (because, in fact, it was more accurately "formative", "creative" or coagulative") did indeed happen, with the resulting hard technical evidence now being accurately measured and built into an ever-more-believable model.

This versus the biblical verison, all fairy-tale-like ,with happy dancing unicorns and a pair of pure white hominids, a talking snake and a really bad apple. Individuals that did not evolve, and thus all of us should be clones with no genetic differences or, better yet, defects...

All of this was, oh my god, it was all SO FRICKING OBVIOUS aimed at a vastly technically illiterate peonry, that to think otherwise, that Noah built an Ark, that the animals, all 1500+ types of them () [ignoring for now the 100M+ species we now know to now be on, or to have once inhabited this earth, times about 100 of each to guarantee any possibility of reproductive success... YIKES... that's a lot of individuals to house or keep in your massive fresh and salt-water aquaria, Mr. Noah! HowdGjahDoIttt??] crowded on for a nice warm smooth 18 month sea voyage/deluge, with spiffy aperitifs served each day promptly @ 4:00pm...

"Tea time on the Ark, as it were ewlde chep!";

...and all the other obviously wildly mis-informed stuff, Wow! That's just total purposeful silliness, and for a supposedly informed new-age 21st century person, one who has at the very least seen at the very least the end of their Grade 6 education, they should have turfed that sort of mythology out their intellectual window many years ago.

And yet... persist they do, right down to actually believing (My God!) stories of angels hanging mirrors out in space (i.e.: the sun!) to make God's heavenly light shine down lovingly upon us all! Blah blah blah.

Well, sorry guys. 1) some sort of formative event did indeed happen. Yup! Either by God (highly unlikely, and unsupported by any residual evidence, and as well, HE has NEVER shown His face before or since...), or by some now-being-considered but increasingly evidence-supported and oh btw, logical, alternate event horizon formats.

2) As a result of this event, forgetting how it happened for a moment, we've also had the resulting creation of replicatable molecules in the form of precursors to RNA, then RNA, then DNA. This is not technically "unlikely" as the braying apologists love to snearingly yowl, since some Brit scientists have achieved it for the most part, and then of course there's Dr. Venter's work, which I won't discuss here.

Then we saw growing bio-logical complexity as a direct result of DNA's abilities, which has so obviously and observably resulted in Evolution, ergo: us. Nope; sorry to tell you, we're not "better," "greater" or in any Godly image. Just little old primate-based us, now slowly and genetically en-route (yes, as "transitionals"! missing links, as it were...) to whatever later genetic format and destiny we'll arrive at. This is all vedry easily shown now, via the inescapable fact of DNA genome mapping. And "naturally" prompted on by the utterly inescapable logic of interaction with our environment (that which we don't now modify of course...) .

This is all so very easily shown now that to outright deny it is to deny, well, that you or I are even here at this moment. Be my guest; see if anyone believes that one!

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Vansdad

If you want to keep believing that there is no purpose than that is your belief. I cannot see life that way. That's all. And most of your rebuttal is pure speculation.

"And logically and demonstrably, in fact, that's exactly how we all got here. From bacteria [which mutate hourly to remain hard to treat...], to bats to bullfrogs to apes... to us"

So after all that discussion, we come down to lack of 'purpose' (by which a supposed God's plan for us is meant) which Vansdad cannot 'see' (e.g cannot bear to contemplate -in fact it isn't hard to live with at all). It is in fact, undeniably, quite usually and not unexpectedly Faith -based denial of unwelcome facts (which are dismissed on NO valid basis as 'speculation') and rejection of the conclusions arising from them and a preference for an indoctrinated religious belief.

I'd say that utterly discredits Vansdad as having anything serious or worthwhile to contribute to the debate.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

While it may seem a bit too obvious and theists have had centuries to explain why for God to put right anything wrong would abrogate free will unless it is done in ways that work just as well if there wasn't a God and that at the same time as claiming that God does put things right in a sort of selective way though limited to things like bad legs and cancers rather than something obvious like growing a new leg, the sheer failure of anything that doesn't rely on appeal to unknown causes or uncheckable anecdotes should reasonably be taken as very strong proof that the purported deity known as 'God' does not in fact exist in any way that materially matters to us.

????. Proper punctuation is our friend.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

????. Proper punctuation is our friend.

The sentence is extended and convoluted but correctly punctuated, I believe. I suggest reading it slowly and carefully and concentrating.

[Heathen Hammer]

Originally Posted by Vansdad

I am quite familiar thank you. But as you know it says nothing about how it got here to expand. It sounds like you are saying the universe had a beginning? So the next question is how it all began...

Im sure that's what it sounds like to you. If you wish to know what came 'before' the tiny spec of Time past which we cannot view towards the Big Bang's initial moment, Im afraid you'll have to wait for some crazy/brilliant scientist team to come up with the method.. just like the rest of us are waiting

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

Im sure that's what it sounds like to you. If you wish to know what came 'before' the tiny spec of Time past which we cannot view towards the Big Bang's initial moment, Im afraid you'll have to wait for some crazy/brilliant scientist team to come up with the method.. just like the rest of us are waiting

Quite so. The point is of course to use what theists see as an irrefutable argument for God's existence - something (read 'someone') had to have started it all off and that something had itself to be uncreated and yet fully knowing and powerful - exactly what God is supposed to be. They understandably see 'something came from nothing' as impossible and 'well, we don't know either way' as a weak evasion.

Having proven God it is no great leap to the Bible via 'surely the god that made us would want to talk to us'. It is a persuasive and simple explanation and no wonder they get annoyed at denialist quibbles such as 'Which god?' 'we weren't created, but evolved'.

But the fact is that 'always existed' is an unproven and irrational assumption at least as regards fully developed entities which apparently needed no development. That IS illogical. And 'Nobody knows for sure' is a perfectly true and logical answer. There is no logical or scientific case for assuming that a cosmic Mind of some kind must have done it - that is merely a myth arising from 'common sense' (as it is called) speculation.

Which God is a perfectly valid point too, and one which is not answered by 'it is all the same God'. That just moves the argument along to which of the various gods on offer is that then? The answer will of course be 'The one I believe in - the others worship the same God - but just do it wrong'.

That again is an unjustified assumption and so of course anecdotes of personal talks with God, unexplained miracles, good fortune or healings are trotted out as evidence that this particular God is real and of course the Bible is used as first hand evidence.

The Bible has surely been shown to be quite inadequate as evidence, even though one has to admit that it looks more factual that the other Holy books and the personal experience stuff, though it may seem utterly convincing to the person who experienced it, is still not properly investigated nor understood and is thus unexplained, not explained as proving God.

Thus none of this really is a sound case for God, though believers are quite sure that it is as good evidence as science should require and if it says it isn't, that is just a lot of atheist professors in denial.