(March 20, 2014 at 12:04 am)snowtracks Wrote: God is revealed thru nature and revelation; God's attributes and identity are not discovered by the 5 senses since He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere-present --- "whom no one has seen or can see".

Unless I misunderstand your beliefs, people saw him all the time. He spoke to them, wandered in the garden that he'd created for them, sat down to a meal with one of them, took on human form and spoke to them, touched them, healed them, fed them, got them drunk with water (to the extent that they saw him walk on it!), raised them from the dead, filmed a torture porn film for Mel Gibson, and finally raised himself from the dead before floating away on a cloud.

But apparently, at some point people said "we really should start writing this stuff down as it happens" and he decided that he'd had it with the media and stormed off into his new heavenly estate, the one that didn't stretch out over the dome of the sky. He'd miss having the Earth as his footstool, but the Greta Garbo Suite in the Great Universal Hotel of Can't-See-Me was just too attractive to pass up!

"God" is not only undetectable by our senses - and we have many more than five - it must be undetectable by any detection method we care to use. Right through the electromagnetic spectrum, no instrument has ever caught even a glimpse of the old fart.

Nature existing demonstrates nature existing, it doesn't prove god at all.

.. unless it turns out that the only meaning of god is nature existing, in which case I suppose I must 'believe in god'. But no, why relabel nature?

(March 20, 2014 at 5:12 pm)whateverist Wrote: .. unless it turns out that the only meaning of god is nature existing, in which case I suppose I must 'believe in god'. But no, why relabel nature?

Also, I think, depends on which god we're talking about.

EDIT: Somehow posted to the wrong thread. Someone delete this for me please. Cheers.

(March 20, 2014 at 5:12 pm)whateverist Wrote: .. unless it turns out that the only meaning of god is nature existing, in which case I suppose I must 'believe in god'. But no, why relabel nature?

So that I can imagine Mother Nature as a MILF.

(March 20, 2014 at 7:58 am)LostLocke Wrote:

(March 19, 2014 at 1:44 am)snowtracks Wrote:

---

brandon carter pretty much put the kibosh on naturalistic evolution when he calculated the odds that other intelligent being exist in the U.
"In a very interesting research paper published in 1983, physicist Brandon Carter calculated the probability for a species as technically advanced as human beings to have developed from a microbial species in ten billion years or less. The odds are 10^-24,000,000. This result completely rules out the possibility of any extraterrestrial intelligence arising anywhere in the Universe but also the impossibility of human life arising from any naturalistic means." Source: Carter, Brandon, “The Anthropic Principle and its implications for Biological Evolution”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, A 310, pp- 347-60. (1983).

these odds demonstrate improbability that intelligent life arouse on

---

So, this universe that couldn't have happened on it's own and must have been created by a deity because it is so fine tuned for life.....
...can't generate, life.

no reason to chafe at the probabilities, follow the data where it leads. If the universe appears to be designed precisely in order to support life, the most logical conclusion is that it was designed precisely to support life.

(March 21, 2014 at 1:31 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(March 20, 2014 at 7:58 am)LostLocke Wrote: So, this universe that couldn't have happened on it's own and must have been created by a deity because it is so fine tuned for life.....
...can't generate, life.

no reason to chafe at the probabilities, follow the data where it leads. If the universe appears to be designed precisely in order to support life, the most logical conclusion is that it was designed precisely to support life.

Because every inevitability most flow from an intention? You must also believe that God sat down with ultra fine micrometers to determine the exact spacing of atomic rings. Do you have any idea how absurd this all sounds?

(March 21, 2014 at 1:31 am)snowtracks Wrote: no reason to chafe at the probabilities, follow the data where it leads. If the universe appears to be designed precisely in order to support life, the most logical conclusion is that it was designed precisely to support life.

Selection bias, no capability of determining probabilities, argument from ignorance, confirmation bias...

I could go on.