Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Peebothuhlu]

Well... if you're just going to post around and be a d!ck, M4X...

 

Not at work.

[Amarok]

Always hearing the time excuse. "Takes too much time to happen, so it can't be observed, but take our word for it anyway."

It's not an excuse it's how it works sorry the universe is inconveniencing you . And evolution has been observed and there is tons of evidence for it . And no scientists don't demand you take there word for it . And lastly evolution isn't about origins .

---

No it doesn't. Do you accept the fact that evolution accounts for all of the diversity of life on this earth? 

Observed rate of evolution is too low to explain existing biodiversity.

No it's not

[unfogged]

No;the existence of a thing is not evidence for the cause of that thing. The cause must be shown to exist and be capable of the effect to be taken seriously.  Simply claiming that it exists doesn't cut it.

So you're saying things just mysteriously created themselves then? Not possible. And don't try to claim science can explain how things can exist, because I know science cannot really do that to any great extent.

I didn't say anything like that. I said that a thing is not itself evidence for what caused it. Science can't currently explain the beginning of the universe or if the assumption that there was one is even meaningful. We find ourselves in a universe and have no examples of things creating universes to compare ours to. We do not know what can possibly create universes. Papering over ignorance with "god did it" is not an answer; it is just a way to pretend you have an answer.

Do you think an incredibly complex, powerful, intelligent consciousness could have just materialized out of nothing on its own?  If so, how do you justify this belief?  Claiming "god" doesn't resolve any questions, it just pushes them back one level and sets up a different infinite regress.  

If you claim that the god always existed then you have to explain why that's possible but it isn't possible that the energy that makes up the universe could not have always existed.

God is eternal, with no beginning and no end. Energy did always exist, but it required God in order for it to exist for us in it's current forms.

Bare assertion with no supporting evidence at all. If the energy of the universe always existed then there is no apparent need for your god and you ignored the main point of the question. If the energy f the universe required a god to order it then why doesn't your god require an even bigger god to order him? The evidence within the universe shows it developing over time with no guidance required. The evidence for a fully-formed intelligent agent is null.

Abiogenesis and evolution are fascinating processes and provide plausible frameworks for all of the diversity of life.  It is personally much more satisfying to have an actual explanation than to just give up and claim it was a magical being.

God is not magical, God is all knowing. Abiogenesis is an unproven hypothesis and evolution does not explain the beauty of flowers at all.

You may not like calling it magic but that's what it equates to and simply asserting attributes is worthless. We have a number of paths for abiogenesis and, while I agree that the picture is far from complete, there is nothing so far that makes it impossible. God does not explain anything, it's simply a way of wrapping up everything you don't understand into one little box and putting a bow on it so that you don't have to admit to yourself that you don't know everything.

The only cop out is to throw in the towel and say "god did it" because you don't know something.  Saying it was god actually doesn't mean anything as "god" is reduced to a word that means "unknown" but lets people pretend they have an answer.

God is the only plausible option.

You have to demonstrate that something is even possible before you get to call it probable. The terms "god" and "plausible" do not go together.

Exactly.  The thing is not evidence of the cause of the thing.  The existence of the universe is not evidence for the cause of the universe.  You have to provide evidence for the proposed cause itself.

No, the enormity, beauty and complexity is definitely evidence of a cause.

It may be evidence that there was a cause. It is not evidence of any of the attributes of that cause. That's the point you consistently miss.

That is an equivocation of the word "living".  Being in motion doesn't make something alive and plenty of things exert force on other things without any part being alive.

I don't agree with you. Nothing exerts force without a cause. You just don't believe in God so you pretend all the forces just happen out of nothing I guess.

My objection was to the equivocation of 'living' when applied to anything in motion. The wind is caused by uneven heating of the atmosphere but the wind it not living; neither is the sun or the geothermal energy that causes that uneven heating. These are natural processes driven by the flow of energy from one point to another. I don't for a second pretend that they "happen out of nothing" but I also don't pretend there's an invisible genie behind everything. I look for actual causes, I don't just stop thinking and say "must be a god" because I can't think of anything better.

[Amarok]

Pretty sure there's been 'real time' observation of things like 'Stickleback fish' speciating.

If you are talking about this
https://www.newscientist.com/article/207...same-lake/
then it's not speciation event.

“We could be glimpsing the beginnings of two species,”

You can't put evolution a precise rates nor is it a few paltry years

---

I don't agree with you. Nothing exerts force without a cause. You just don't believe in God so you pretend all the forces just happen out of nothing I guess.

There is so much wrong with this statement I don't know were to begin

[Dmitry1983]

If you are talking about this
https://www.newscientist.com/article/207...same-lake/
then it's not speciation event.

You can't put evolution a precise rates nor is it a few paltry years

Difference between observed and predicted speciation rate is two orders of magnitude.
According to definition of species speciation is easily observed.

[Amarok]

You can't put evolution a precise rates nor is it a few paltry years

Difference between observed and predicted speciation rate is two orders of magnitude.
According to definition of species speciation is easily observed.

No it isn't 
Yes speciation is and has been observed but that's not the point

[Dmitry1983]

Difference between observed and predicted speciation rate is two orders of magnitude.
According to definition of species speciation is easily observed.

No it isn't 

Do you have different method to calculate speciation rate?

[Amarok]

No it isn't 

Do you have different method to calculate speciation rate?

Well one rate we can definitely dismiss is yours as it doesn't remotely work as a generalization of how evolution works . Speciation can happen fast but again that's aside the point .

[Deesse23]

You can't put evolution a precise rates nor is it a few paltry years

Difference between observed and predicted speciation rate is two orders of magnitude.
According to definition of species speciation is easily observed.

...and all that "evolution is wrong" is relevant how wrt to the original thread thitle?
Lets assume for a second that evolution is 100% not true, including all details, that is evidence for a god how exactly?

[Dmitry1983]

Difference between observed and predicted speciation rate is two orders of magnitude.
According to definition of species speciation is easily observed.

...and all that "evolution is wrong" is relevant how wrt to the original thread thitle?
Lets assume for a second that evolution is 100% not true, including all details, that is evidence for a god how exactly?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument