• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What would "god" need to do in order to prove that she really existed?

mikegriffith1 said:
How? Perhaps by arranging for mankind to discover that biochemical life, contrary to what all scientists believed for over a century, is unbelievably complex and requires staggering amounts of information.

When atheists arrive at the judgment bar and complain they had no evidence of God's existence, God may well say, "Hey, it's not my fault you were silly enough to believe that 'natural selection' could magically create complex information, that 'natural selection' could then use this information to 'select' components for functions that did not even exist and for which there was therefore no known 'need,' and that random processes then magically assembled those components in just the right order to form sophisticated biochemical machines."
Click to expand...
It's all about the revenge fantasy. I'm sure God will smite all us meanies who were unkind to you in the Shroud threads, too.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
My post was "designed" to illustrate the fact that macroevolution is the most nonsensical pile of hokum ever foisted on mankind. It starts with some kind of explosion that miraculously produced order (never mind the issue of where/how the matter and energy required for such an explosion originated). Then, it assumes that somehow, someway, via a process that has yet to be even remotely duplicated, living organisms developed from non-living matter ("primordial soup"). Then, it assumes that over and over again "natural selection"
magically selected components to perform functions that did not even exist, after which untold numbers of random processes magically assembled those components in just the right order to create complex functioning living beings, along with the staggering amounts of information to enable those beings to function.
FYI, I used to ardently believe in evolution. And, yes, I've read several pro-evolution books and many pro-evolution articles.
Click to expand...

Did not demonstrate what you intended then.

See that is what makes it seem like a parody. Certainly, doesn't sound like someone that actually understands what modern biological scientific consensus on evolution.

As for life starting from non-life, I'm fine with "I don't know" but energy plus chemistry makes a lot more sense than, god did it.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
My post was "designed" to illustrate the fact that macroevolution is the most nonsensical pile of hokum ever foisted on mankind. It starts with some kind of explosion that miraculously produced order
Click to expand...

As opposed to an explosion (or other event) that miraculously produced a super-being..?

(Note to self: Walk away, Pi.)
 
3point14 said:
As opposed to an explosion (or other event) that miraculously produced a super-being..?

(Note to self: Walk away, Pi.)
Click to expand...
A thing I realized as a child. If life is so complicated it could not have just come from time, energy, and chemistry how could something complicated enough to create life have been created first?
 
If there were a god, and if that god spake unto its followers, and if it did wish its existence to be provable to all, doing so would have been very, very easy. Just have miracles eventually distinguishable from advanced technology.

"Before thou cleanest a wound, wash thy damn hands and keep thy tools as clean as thou can get them."

A weird command that would fit right into any number of holy books. Untold millions of lives would have been saved. You don't need germ theory to follow it and see that it works, only to understand why it works. Your believers looking backward and seeing there was no way to know back when it was written... that's where you get the miracle.

Of course that common sense advice wasn't given to any of our ancestors, making a pretty solid argument against both gods and time travel.
 
ahhell said:
A thing I realized as a child. If life is so complicated it could not have just come from time, energy, and chemistry how could something complicated enough to create life have been created first?
Click to expand...

Dawkins calls this the Boeing 747 fallacy, or something like that, in his God Delusion.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
If there were a god, and if that god spake unto its followers, and if it did wish its existence to be provable to all, doing so would have been very, very easy. Just have miracles eventually distinguishable from advanced technology.

"Before thou cleanest a wound, wash thy damn hands and keep thy tools as clean as thou can get them."

A weird command that would fit right into any number of holy books. Untold millions of lives would have been saved. You don't need germ theory to follow it and see that it works, only to understand why it works. Your believers looking backward and seeing there was no way to know back when it was written... that's where you get the miracle.

Of course that common sense advice wasn't given to any of our ancestors, making a pretty solid argument against both gods and time travel.
Click to expand...
Yep - its strange that god can give detailed directions on many topics even how to make a live sacrifice down to how many drops of blood to use at the sanctuary but he couldn't let people know about clean hands... It's almost as if the bible reflected what people at the time knew about the world rather than what god is meant to know.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
FYI, I used to ardently believe in evolution. And, yes, I've read several pro-evolution books and many pro-evolution articles.
Click to expand...

"Pro-evolution"? How many pro-gravity books and articles have you read?

"Believe" is a dead giveaway too. People who understand scientific theories don't "believe" them, least of all "ardently", they provisionally accept each one until and unless new evidence emerges which contradicts it. Then a new theory, which explains as much as the previous one plus the new observations, is developed which supercedes it, and which then becomes the generally accepted theory.

If you had ever really understood the theory of evolution by natural selection you would not be using such words, or describing what it says as inaccurately as you do.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
My post was "designed" to illustrate the fact that macroevolution is the most nonsensical pile of hokum ever foisted on mankind. It starts with some kind of explosion that miraculously produced order (never mind the issue of where/how the matter and energy required for such an explosion originated). Then, it assumes that somehow, someway, via a process that has yet to be even remotely duplicated, living organisms developed from non-living matter ("primordial soup"). Then, it assumes that over and over again "natural selection" magically selected components to perform functions that did not even exist, after which untold numbers of random processes magically assembled those components in just the right order to create complex functioning living beings, along with the staggering amounts of information to enable those beings to function.

FYI, I used to ardently believe in evolution. And, yes, I've read several pro-evolution books and many pro-evolution articles.
Click to expand...
What Pixel said, you use words that make it sound like you are writing a parody, or haven't been paying attention to anything this forum is dedicated to. Magic, as the late great James Randi demonstrated, is an illusion, so when you talk about magic and miracles, you are proclaiming that you are falling for the trick. There is methodology behind magic, and until you honestly have a grasp of it, the magic will always deceive you. I'm a born-again atheist, but even at age 6 I recognized the inherent illogical elements of your reasoning. Maybe read up on the many advances we have made in the study of abiogenesis. We've come a long way, though much is to be learned. Falling back on the tired 'we don't know, ergo God' is lazy. It also ironically demonstrates a weakness of people to comprehend things bigger than themselves, like throwing up you hands and saying "well I can't even conceive of what billions of years is like, therefore it could not exist."
 
mikegriffith1 said:
My post was "designed" to illustrate the fact that macroevolution is the most nonsensical pile of hokum ever foisted on mankind. It starts with some kind of explosion that miraculously produced order (never mind the issue of where/how the matter and energy required for such an explosion originated).
Click to expand...
I used to believe that creationists, once they review the facts, would get embarrassed at such basic errors, like mixing up the big bang and biology.

Then I learned the distinct level of shamelessness and disinterest in being informed that one must possess in order to think that Ray Comfort has it all figured out.
 
I Am The Scum said:
I used to believe that creationists, once they review the facts, would get embarrassed at such basic errors, like mixing up the big bang and biology.

Then I learned the distinct level of shamelessness and disinterest in being informed that one must possess in order to think that Ray Comfort has it all figured out.
Click to expand...
I remember hearing James Dobson claim, around 1980 or so, that evolutionary biology was already dead at the academic research level, but its death just hadn't filtered down to the public schools yet. He assured his listeners that evolution would be just a memory by the end of the decade.
 
Olmstead said:
What God? Definitely not the Christian God.

Are you worshipping the vague God of vaguely making stuff happen, hoping he will vaguely reward you in all his vague glory?

Because the vague God of vaguely making stuff happen might not appreciate your belief in whatever specific God of specific specificity you have chosen.
Click to expand...
Just don't pick the wrong one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/mythology/comments/1byz10t/every_chief_deity_of_every_religion_ever

(Not a definitive list) ;)
 
Pixel42 said:
"Pro-evolution"? How many pro-gravity books and articles have you read?

"Believe" is a dead giveaway too. People who understand scientific theories don't "believe" them, least of all "ardently", they provisionally accept each one until and unless new evidence emerges which contradicts it. Then a new theory, which explains as much as the previous one plus the new observations, is developed which supercedes it, and which then becomes the generally accepted theory.

If you had ever really understood the theory of evolution by natural selection you would not be using such words, or describing what it says as inaccurately as you do.
Click to expand...
Game hasn't been called that in yonks, it's eFootball now.
 
mikegriffith1 said:
How? Perhaps by arranging for mankind to discover that biochemical life, contrary to what all scientists believed for over a century, is unbelievably complex and requires staggering amounts of information.

When atheists arrive at the judgment bar and complain they had no evidence of God's existence, God may well say, "Hey, it's not my fault you were silly enough to believe that 'natural selection' could magically create complex information, that 'natural selection' could then use this information to 'select' components for functions that did not even exist and for which there was therefore no known 'need,' and that random processes then magically assembled those components in just the right order to form sophisticated biochemical machines."
Click to expand...
Why don't you head off and educate yourself? Then you could try thinking for yourself rather than abdicating responsibility to a non-existent sky daddy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom