Battleground God

[In This Mind]

That is not an explanation; it is a question.

Yes, it is.

I was waiting for your answer before continuing the explanation. But to continue, I shall assume you provided some sort of answer.

I will now offer several additional bits of information.

1 - I hate onions, even in Chinese cooking
2 - I hate peas, except in Chinese cooking
3 - At the store, we bought a Chinese BBQ sauce that was so horrible I started believing in god again just so I could have someone to curse for it's existence.
4 - We cook more Italian food than Chinese food
5 - I wear a pair of driving gloves that were purchased at Wal-Mart and required no modification to be used

I have given you a lot of information there. I have in fact, given you enough information to prove beyond doubt that one of my statements is untrue, but not enough information to make a full judgment on the veracity of the other statement.

Evolution is far more abstract than god. Evolution is an idea. God is an entity. The methods of proving the truth of an idea and the existence of an entity are different. An idea can never be absolutely proven. The existence of an entity can.

My love/hate of Chinese food is an idea. Evidence can be provided that demonstrate how likely it is to be true, but no actual proof can be determined if you are not willing to simply take my word. Evolution is an idea, a process, a method. We have determined that it is not false, and thus can conclude that it is most likely true. But absolute proof? We can't get there.

The number of fingers on my hand? That can be proven absolutely. It can be measured, quantified, observed without a need for deduction. I don't need to infer the number of fingers on my hand from evidence, I can simply count them. The same with god. It's existence can be proven absolutely, all god needs to do is present itself. Because god is an entity and can be directly observed, not inferred, that is the requirement.


Here is yet another explanation:

Evolution works. We have plenty of evidence for that. While the evidence is incomplete, there is enough evidence that the likelihood of evolution being false is close enough to zero to be ignored. Thus for all intents and purposes, evolution is true even if no absolute proof to it's existence can be provided.

God is a different story. There is a preponderance of evidence against god, enough that the likelihood of god's existence being true is close enough to zero that it can be ignored. Thus for all intents and purposes, god does not exist even if no absolute proof of god's non-existence can be provided. Because the proof for god's existence must overcome all that existing evidence against the existence of god, that evidence must be substantial and irrevocable.

If I had an alibi, no opportunity, no motive, no proof I was at the crime scene, and didn't even know the victim, could you say that I committed the crime?

But if I had no alibi, plenty of opportunity, had spoken publicly about killing the bastard, was observed at the crime scene, my fingerprints were on the weapon, it would take one hell of a piece of counter evidence to say I didn't commit the crime.

Evolution has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Minor niggling inconsistencies may show we don't have the full picture, but since I was dancing naked on a security camera at the Louvre when the Santa Claus was murdered, the fact that you never figured out the serial numbers on the gun is irrelevant to the statement that I was not the one who pulled the trigger on the aforementioned gun.

But if the situation was reversed, as it is with god who has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to not exist, well, quite frankly it would take a security video showing Boy George jumping out of the closet to shoot Santa before I'd start believing god didn't do it.

Your argument was that evolution is complicated and therefore should be proved differently than the existence of god because the existence (or nonexistence) of god is an absolute. Both are absolutes. They do or do not exist or occur. The fact that the existence of one or both is complicated does not change anything.

The reason for the difference is your above statement is incorrect.

Suppose I proved to you that the Grizzly Bear did not evolve. It was created in a lab by an alien creature who didn't think we had enough variety in bears on this planet. Does the existence of a single creature that can be proven not to have evolved change the veracity of evolution?

No, it really doesn't. Because evolution is not an actual absolute. Or, if you want to claim it is, it has already been proven to be an absolute truth by the same standard of proof demanded for the existence of god. It's been observed. I personally have used evolution to get specific end results in the breeding of both plants and animals. Evolution has thus already met the same criteria I demand for the existence of god. The fact that certain aspects of the process are not understood does not change that it stands as proven. Moving the goalposts and thus claiming that no, evolution is not proven, is the logical fallacy here.

And god does not.