RE: How much pain can atheists withstand ?
May 2, 2023 at 5:46 pm
(This post was last modified: May 2, 2023 at 5:49 pm by Simon Moon.)
(May 2, 2023 at 5:36 pm)The End of Atheism Wrote:(May 2, 2023 at 5:24 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote: So share your "evidence" if it's convincing I will convert in an instant (that's what convincing means!)
OK for now let's use an analogy, let's say you have 10000 years of free time to design a human being or a fly, you have all the resources of nature and the latest technology. Odds are you're going to fail (not certain but very very probable). Since a reasonablly intelligent being (you) can't create things like human beings, the origin of human beings is likely a much more intelligent agent.
You may say nature or evolution, but nature doesn't do anything because it's not a personal agent, it doesn't have a will.
I can think of more examples to clarify this, generally it takes work and finesse to design things, you don't wait for your laptop to turn on by itself and write smart programs, you should take action and intervene. Likewise, some agent should take action and intervene in order to start life and nature, etc. So it's vanishingly unlikely that we came out of something blind like nature
Analogies are not evidence. And flawed analogies are worse.
What does not being a personal agent have to do with what evolution is, or is not, capable of? That sounds like you are making the claim that a personal agent is necessary to explain the variety of life, got any evidence for that claim?
You do understand, that claims are not evidence, right?
And, lets say even if you were able to prove that evolution is not capable for accounting for the existence of humans, that alone does not offer a shred of evidence that a god exists. The claim that a god exists, is a claim that needs to be supported, disproving evolution does not get close to proving a god exists. And of course, you are not even close to disproving evolution.
More examples of the type you posted, are not evidence. We asked for evidence.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.