What would you consider to be evidence for God?

[Foxaèr]

I hope that you are at least on medication, unlike the one who goes off it all the time.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I'm glad you fixed it.

One is never really cured of schizophrenia.

Can you tickle yourself?  If you can't then you don't have schizophrenia.

[Cyberman]

Actually, you can tickle yourself. Just brush the tip of your tongue over the roof of your mouth. Better yet, get someone else to do it.

Then get someone to do it to me.

[Blueyedlion]

FatAndFaithlessI have no idea what would convince me that God exists.  But if he does exist, he would know exactly what it would take to convince me.  I'm just waiting to be presented with said evidence.

Or, he knows you arent ready for the evidence to know he exists, because you decided coming into this life to believe as you do, to know what it's like to be on your own, completely detached. So when you do come upon the evidence that is all too convincing, you can have the aesthetic experience as a contrast of knowing what's it's like to be one with all. For you can't know what goodness is without the bad, you can't have light without the darkness. You can't know what love is, without a broken heart, nor true depth of who you are in relation to the cosmos and god without the complete reverse side of being whole with the vastness of all, without the mindset and experience of being utterly separate from it all and not even believing that it's there.

[Cyberman]

That is quite literally insane.

[downbeatplumb]

FatAndFaithlessI have no idea what would convince me that God exists.  But if he does exist, he would know exactly what it would take to convince me.  I'm just waiting to be presented with said evidence.

Or, he knows you arent ready for the evidence to know he exists, because you decided coming into this life to believe as you do, to know what it's like to be on your own, completely detached. So when you do come upon the evidence that is all too convincing, you can have the aesthetic experience as a contrast of knowing what's it's like to be one with all. For you can't know what goodness is without the bad, you can't have light without the darkness. You can't know what love is, without a broken heart, nor true depth of who you are in relation to the cosmos and god without the complete reverse side of being whole with the vastness of all, without the mindset and experience of being utterly separate from it all and not even believing that it's there.

So just saying there is evidence but you aren't going to say what is not convincing in the slightest bit you know.

[Blueyedlion]

That is quite literally insane.

Can you expand on that and explain why it's insane?

[snowtracks]

Can you hear yourself? "My book says ... so it must be true." Can you seriously not see a problem with such a statement?

No, it's possible Darwin could be right about some things and wrong about others. If he "had enough evidence" for whatever God, it has not been preserved for us to examine. A quote from him, in context or otherwise, is not evidence of anything but his state of mind.

We don't believe (some of) his ideas just because he said them. We believe them because they have passed scrutiny. And I should note that his models of evolution have been significantly improved upon in the mean time. Again, by scientific testing. Not by appeals to authority.

Well, just no other way to say this: Abiogenesis has been dealt a death blow. It turns out the DNA module is not stable as formerly thought but is in need of continuously repair and maintenance which is performed by the cell itself. This means that the DNA and the cell couldn’t have arisen independent of each other; the cell repairs the DNA, and the DNA preserves the cell’s genetics by copying the original (after repairs, if needed) via cell division.
“The reason our genetic material does not disintegrate into complete chemical chaos is that a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and repair DNA. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2015 awards three pioneering scientists who have mapped how several of these repair systems function at a detailed molecular level”.* C'est la vie evolution, you been found wanting.

*http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/c...press.html

[Redbeard The Pink]

Can you hear yourself? "My book says ... so it must be true." Can you seriously not see a problem with such a statement?

No, it's possible Darwin could be right about some things and wrong about others. If he "had enough evidence" for whatever God, it has not been preserved for us to examine. A quote from him, in context or otherwise, is not evidence of anything but his state of mind.

We don't believe (some of) his ideas just because he said them. We believe them because they have passed scrutiny. And I should note that his models of evolution have been significantly improved upon in the mean time. Again, by scientific testing. Not by appeals to authority.

Well, just no other way to say this: Abiogenesis has been dealt a death blow. It turns out the DNA module is not stable as formerly thought but is in need of continuously repair and maintenance which is performed by the cell itself. This means that the DNA and the cell couldn’t have arisen independent of each other; the cell repairs the DNA, and the DNA preserves the cell’s genetics by copying the original (after repairs, if needed) via cell division.
“The reason our genetic material does not disintegrate into complete chemical chaos is that a host of molecular systems continuously monitor and repair DNA. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2015 awards three pioneering scientists who have mapped how several of these repair systems function at a detailed molecular level”.* C'est la vie evolution, you been found wanting.

*http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/c...press.html

Please tell me you're not that dumb...


Abiogenesis and Evolution are not the same process. Demonstrating a problem with the previously conceived hypotheses about Abiogenesis does exactly fuck-all toward disproving the Theory of Evolution.


Also, Abiogenesis does not have to start at DNA. In fact, I'm pretty sure that when I was in highschool (over 10 years ago) they were already telling us that RNA most likely came before DNA, seeing as how it's more common, single-stranded, and is sometimes used to build and repair DNA. DNA is comprised of naturally occurring materials and is formed and replicated by naturally occurring processes. The fact that it is maintained by a bunch of (also natural) cellular activity does not even begin to prove that it requires supernatural intervention to exist.

[robvalue]

Abiogenesis is not evolution...

How many times can we say it I wonder?