I don't need moves, this is all about you making assertions without evidence and the rest of us pointing that out. That is an unknown, both to you and to me. Similar to God, dragons are a construct of the imagination, we would expect to see a dragon as evidence for a dragon, therefore we would expect to see God as evidence for God. God is the evidence for God. We are the same in that regard, we both don't accept theistic philosophy. You accept something, but that hasn't been defined as yet. The ID lot have not shown that what they accept as evidence for God is evidence for God. Their argument is from ignorance and incredulity. If God made Himself apparent to the world and everyone accepted that evidence for God, we would all understand that God exists. Of course, the possibility and probability that God is anything humans have conjured from their imaginations is probably slim to none. God is evidence for God just like a dragon is evidence for dragons. It's not that complicated.
I posit that you are incapable of recognising evidence for God, on account of your atheism. We are not in the same position, you cannot account for me. There is absolutely no evidence that God is a construct of the mind. That is something atheists say to validate their worldview. How would you know that It was God, if He showed Himself? That’s the point of the thread. So you would seem the evidence to be evidence of God, not that it would be evidence. Sounds very familiar. From someone who is in denial. You see we could do this all day. I’m prepared to accept both our positions, but you’re not. For you, there is no God. Your only reason is that you have convinced yourself of such ideas like God is a man-made concept. Some fairytale for grown ups (not mainstream science) renders God unnecessary. Nothing of any real value. Theists simply accept and believe in God. No need for bells and whistles. Blah blah blah!!! Don’t you get tired of pitching the same old propaganda. Why don’t you try rebutting ID claims. Just for a change. Yeah we know. You’re in denial, and you reject anything and everything to do with God.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! *yawn*
Of course not, that is absurd. Evidence is evidence, it is not based on what someone believes or doesn't believe. Yes, I can, you are a human being, aren't you? Unfortunately, there is no evidence of God outside of one's mind. It also accounts for the fact there are hundreds of different gods produced from the mind. Your is no different. If God were God, then He would find a way. That's not what I said, you're doing it again, putting words in my mouth. I am not in denial. Yes, you could put words in my mouth all day. Putting words in my mouth again. I haven't convinced myself of anything and neither have you. If you were honest, you would admit your acceptance of God is entirely on faith, not evidence. I have no reason to rebut their claims, others have already accomplished that. Once again, you have your hand up my ass making my lips move, putting words in my mouth that are clearly not there. Too bad you can't be honest, Jan. Is that how good, upstanding Christians behave?
Nope. It would just mean there was no evidence for God. It would mean that there's evidence for God. Exactly. It is more likely a myth than reality - like God. I am being quite serious. Religion is full of such miracles. St. Francis of Assisi was claimed to be "suspended above the earth, often to a height of three, and often to a height of four cubits." Repeat that, and that's evidence that God is real.
If you read what was in the link, and if you have subsequently believed it, then the justification, the rationale, the argument, must surely be something you can communicate? I mean, if you could provide even the basic line of the rational argument that this link would detail? No? Without any link, however, or other support, your claim can be ignored for the appeal to personal incredulity it obviously is.
Atheism - a lack of belief, a disbelief, in God. Your worldview dictates, just as mine does. Theism - a belief in God. Physiologically yes. But that’s where the similarity ends. Even if we shared the same worldview. 1. You cannot know that 2. You say that because you are atheist. 3. A theist would never say that. No it doesn’t. Those are “gods”, not God. If you weren’t in denial, you would understand that. But you need to maintain that idea to validate your position. More denial. The definition of God, ‘the transcendental origin of everything’, can only be one. Just like Truth. But you will continue to obfuscate, because it validates your position. I’ll remember that. Ewwww! Again creating this characterisation, to avoid answering questions, or properly discussing. Again, to validate your position.
So you would accept something as evidence for God, if matched your particular criteria? I can see a pattern. Same as above. Nice cozy logic, that only applies to atheists who are in denial. So the only way you’re going to even consider evidence of God to be legit, is by way of a miracle that you witness with your own eyes. What will you tell people who didn’t see it, who say there is no evidence for God?
What is the importance of that information, in this thread. I’m choosing my back and forths, and mathematics is not high on my list, as I don’t find it enjoyable. But if I come across, and my interest is raised, I will definitely tag you.
Good! The pattern is called "science." It applies to all sciences. Nope. I don't need to see it with my own eyes. If a lab at Stanford did it and documented it well - and it could be confirmed by Scripps - that would be "legit evidence." Read the paper.
What, exactly, am I in denial about? (This should be good.) Because people have been trying for thousands of years to accurately test the supernatural. They have always failed. (Fun story - Harry Houdini spent much of his life outing religious and spiritual scammers.) Maybe they will succeed in the future. Until they do - there is no evidence. You can call it miraculous if you like. It is certainly cool.
You would have been denying the truth all along. You don’t know that. You’re denying the evidence until it is presented in a way that suits you. You more or less said so earlier. So because there are people who believe can’t prove their own claims, there is no evidence for God? Why wouldn’t you call it miraculous? We know that minds perform similar tasks of providing complex, specified, algorithmic information, without batting an eyelid. But the universe doing that? Are you trying to tell me it’s just another day at the office? Wouldn’t that be big news? Do you really not think that could have been put in place by an intelligent mind? Based how understand the expression of such a specific type of information? Not saying you should accept it as such. Do you think the chances of the universe performing such a task, is outranked by an intelligent mind performing such a task, based on what you know?
The body does not build proteins, it uses them. https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/howgeneswork/protein There is no irreducible complexity, no magical pattern unrelated to the naturally evolved universe's geometry and biology. 14 billion years of trial and error from an unimaginable number of naturally occurring electro-chemical interactions slowly evolving ever more complex patterns. There is nothing that contradicts the mathematics of bio-chemistry.
Again, what am I denying? Yes, I do. I have seen several attempts to do just that. They have all failed. For example, 17 studies of intercessional prayer revealed no effect - going all the way back to 1872. Because it's not evidence. Your hunch that God is real is not evidence; it is a hunch, no more real than a flat Earther who declares that the Earth is flat because it seems like that to him. If they can provide no valid evidence then you are correct - there is no evidence. Because the more you study it the more you realize it's a result of biological processes, which are based on chemical processes, which in turn are based on physics. No miracle required. But again, if you want to call it that, feel free. Not at all. Neither is a supernova. But again, the result of physical processes, and not a miracle. This is the anthropic principle. The odds of life arising randomly are one in a billion. The odds of life arising given that we can look for it are 100%.
The truth that there is a God. If Stanford released a paper, documenting evidence of God, today. It would only confirm what theists have been saying all along. How do you know that there is no evidence for God now, as theists have been saying all along, but has yet to be discovered, documented, and spoon-fed in a way that suits your sensibilities. You don’t know that, because it is not presented in a way that satisfies you. If that’s what your waiting for, you could have not seen the forest for the trees. So to speak. What if there is evidence, but you choose not to accept it, based on your personal preference of distribution? I’m just talking about God, by the way. How does biological processes, encode instructions? Isn’t that the task of an intelligent mind? At least according to your experience of such tasks. One in a billion? Are you sure about that?
A "necessary" result of the combinatory chemical richness of the earth and the enormous time span of natural evolutionary trend to greater complexity. Life had to emerge on earth, eventually. Just as life elsewhere in the universe is just a matter of probability. Given the chemistry of the trillions of stars and planets, the probability for some form of life evolving on other suitable planets is probably 99+%. Causal bio-chemical and environmental potentials make it necessary for some physical phenomena becoming expressed in reality. The term is ; Large number of rare events https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_number_of_rare_events
Nope. That's your assumption. There may be no God. There may be one God. There may be a dozen Gods. There may be 7.9 billion. There is equal evidence for all those possibilities. It might. It might disprove what they have been saying. It might demonstrate something that no one ever expected (i.e. only prayers to Poseidon work.) There might be. There also might be evidence that the only true God is Poseidon, which you of course would deny. Basically yes. Woo does not satisfy me. I'd accept it. How about you? What if there was hard evidence that there was no God? Or that the one true god is Poseidon? Nope. Take a look at Giant's Causeway. Who "wrote the instructions" to create a pathway out of perfect hexagonal tiles? If you didn't know better you might say it was a divine intelligence - when in fact it is just simple physical and chemical processes, the same processes that drive crystal and snowflake formations. At least!
Good, I'm anyone. Actually near everything you say...your claims that we have evidence for god when we don't...your claims we have a soul when we have no evidence... If you want to help me understand, then offer me some evidence...stop redefining, stop lying, stop being obtuse. Show me some real empirical evidence of your claims. Otherwise it is simply unsupported rhetoric. Oh, and in line with the thread subject, you have my answer on that also. Or you are lying....again! Let me rephrase, since again you have redefined.Man invented the myth that you call god/s: God/s did not invent man or the universe. Yes, you can add trolling to those questionable qualities you have. This is a public forum Jan, open to any Tom, Dick, or Harry...or even Jan and paddoboy, caprice?
But are they "necessary"? It's not a matter of possibility, it's a matter of probability. And we have abundant chemical evidence to support the notion that life was an inevitability given the 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical interactions in a hospitable dynamic biosphere, which will give rise to macro and micro-biomes and made it necessary that life must appear (Bohm's Implicate Order).
