Okay, say we accept your assertion that our existence is evidence of God. Why God? Why not a metaphysical interdimensional unicorn-rabbit hybrid? He created everything, my book tells me so.
Honestly all you are doing is ...regurgitated theist drabble...Why can't you guys see the science here?
The problem is of course that you have to make the foundational assumptions that first, such creatures are possible, second, that the existence of what is observable are traits attributable only to a specific God, and third, that said specific God is as defined by the rockbangers who wrote your precious holy book, which just so happens to be the right one.
Science does not require foundational assumptions. I don't have to assume that sharks exist to believe that sometimes people get attacked by them in the ocean. I don't have to assume that supernovae occur to believe that they contain the power to create new stars and solar systems. Do you see the difference?
Tell me how you can deduce that human beings can only existence under the circumstances of being created by a deity? Tell me what processes you used to formulate this hypothesis, tell me how you tested it to insure that creation wasn't an attribute shared by leprechauns, ogres, or fairies as well. Tell me, please, we are indulging your ignorance, it's quid pro quo.
Now after you have shown that gods exist, and that creation itself can only be attributed to a deity, then we will have to further exercise scientific methodology to determine which deity is responsible for our existence.
Honestly all you are doing is ...regurgitated theist drabble...Why can't you guys see the science here?
The problem is of course that you have to make the foundational assumptions that first, such creatures are possible, second, that the existence of what is observable are traits attributable only to a specific God, and third, that said specific God is as defined by the rockbangers who wrote your precious holy book, which just so happens to be the right one.
Science does not require foundational assumptions. I don't have to assume that sharks exist to believe that sometimes people get attacked by them in the ocean. I don't have to assume that supernovae occur to believe that they contain the power to create new stars and solar systems. Do you see the difference?
Tell me how you can deduce that human beings can only existence under the circumstances of being created by a deity? Tell me what processes you used to formulate this hypothesis, tell me how you tested it to insure that creation wasn't an attribute shared by leprechauns, ogres, or fairies as well. Tell me, please, we are indulging your ignorance, it's quid pro quo.
Now after you have shown that gods exist, and that creation itself can only be attributed to a deity, then we will have to further exercise scientific methodology to determine which deity is responsible for our existence.
"In our youth, we lacked the maturity, the decency to create gods better than ourselves so that we might have something to aspire to. Instead we are left with a host of deities who were violent, narcissistic, vengeful bullies who reflected our own values. Our gods could have been anything we could imagine, and all we were capable of manifesting were gods who shared the worst of our natures."-Me
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon
"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation; all of which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, even if religion vanished; but religious superstition dismounts all these and erects an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." – Francis Bacon
