Provide Proof God Does Not Exist & Proof of Evolution Theory (Christians, belief)

[Heathen Hammer]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

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.

I have occasionally tried making the point that no scientific elimination has ever been done by anyone for that part of the problem; the immediate leap is always that any creator identified will always be the God of the individual in question. They cannot grasp the idea it might be someone/thing[s] else.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer

I have occasionally tried making the point that no scientific elimination has ever been done by anyone for that part of the problem; the immediate leap is always that any creator identified will always be the God of the individual in question. They cannot grasp the idea it might be someone/thing[s] else.

Indeed. 'Which God' is actually the logical basis for the agnosticism knowledge position which is the logical basis of the atheist (dis) belief position. Atheism is actually tolerantly non -committal about speculative possible universe creating entities.

It is regarding the claims about specific personal gods and the religions that go with them where we start saying 'does not exist'.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Indeed. 'Which God' is actually the logical basis for the agnosticism knowledge position which is the logical basis of the atheist (dis) belief position. Atheism is actually tolerantly non -committal about speculative possible universe creating entities.

It is regarding the claims about specific personal gods and the religions that go with them where we start saying 'does not exist'.

That needed to be repeated.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

That needed to be repeated.

in fact, it was I have several times argued that the god we say 'does not exist' is more the personal god of the Bible - religions because that is the one theists have in mind when they ddiscuss with us.

Sortagod - the possible 'It' that we can't disprove but neither do we have any sound evidence for it - is one which (I suggest) we don't claim does not exist or I argue that logically we cannot claim that.

It is an important point as theists often argue that atheists often say 'God does not exist'. I tried to ague that we don't (or atheism as a logical rationale doesn't) but in the end had to admit that we often do and I actually do think so myself - but only in respect of personal gods.

I am much more cautious about some postulated cosmic entity or mind for which I have no persuasive evidence (despite Mystic Phd's very well argued case) and can only say 'I don't believe in it- yet'. And one can say that is technically disbelief -so long as that is not taken as a claim that it definitely does not exist, because as theists argue, I cannot possibly know or prove that.

About Biblegod I reckon I do know and can prove it - at least to the same degree of my being able to say that Santa, fiery dragons and leprechauns do not exist. And nobody says that we are illogical for claiming that.

[Vansdad]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

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.

I'm sure there are even atheists who see a purpose to life.

[Vansdad]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

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.

This is what you said. I never ignored anything. I answered to what you actually said.

The problem is that there IS no one "atheist position" on this question.

[Vansdad]

Originally Posted by rifleman

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 Legoâ„¢ 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!

Do you actually read what people post?

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Vansdad

[color=black]This is what you said. I never ignored anything.

Except the entire content of post #115 which was a lot longer than one line. And what you did reply to in that one line was not implied in the line. You responded to something I never claimed or espoused. As I said, nice dodge.

Which just makes THIS post by you all the funnier really:

Originally Posted by Vansdad

Do you actually read what people post?

Pot, meet kettle, you are going to get on great.

[Vansdad]

Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo

Except the entire content of post #115 which was a lot longer than one line. And what you did reply to in that one line was not implied in the line. You responded to something I never claimed or espoused. As I said, nice dodge.

Which just makes THIS post by you all the funnier really:



Pot, meet kettle, you are going to get on great.

I'm still waiting for your reply...

[chielgirl]

Originally Posted by seattlenextyear

Can you imagine if they instead interviewed every Catholic that converted to Atheism? Infinite interview material!

You can interview me, I'm was one, all the way through 12 years of catholic school.
Now, atheist.