Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Calling something "science" doesn't make it science.  On that note, we might as well assume the Lemmings to be scientists.

Yep that's how it is, just follow what the one in front of me said, next one in line, same thought because it would be "foolish" not to listen to the first two.  Next one, well it would even make sense in light of the first three, and four, and five, and...  Oh look, there's a cliff.  "They're so smart, so if they fall off it must be cool."

Unfortunately for the poor lemmings, they didn't have the luxury of millions or billions of years to become sufficient.  Just a product of the environment.  RIP.

Same thing you here frequently from atheists.  "We're just a product of the environment."  Yep, that's what the Lemmings thought too.

Ironically, for the Lemmings to survive their environment, there needs to be an external source intelligent enough to ensure their environment is sufficient.

What the heck is this post?

So... scientific journals and other publications.... Aren't 'Science'?

Or... they're not people reporting on the science that they are doing?

Or something?

As for lemmings (Fun Amiga computer game for those who remember) please show some evidence, some inkling that there's 'Intelignce' in the world around them. Not we humans but an explanation for what ever it is you mean by;

"Ironically, for the Lemmings to survive their environment, there needs to be an external source intelligent enough to ensure their environment is sufficient."

Not at work.

Scientific Journals aren't always accurate.  That is why you'll often see subsequent studies to check or expand on things.  That is one of the reasons why we use the scientific method.  It allows us to proof things even once there are claims about something.

But you know, like a lot of atheists say, we are a product of the environment.  Yep, how did that work out for the Lemmings?   If that were true, even scientists and journals would be a product of the environment.

---

Calling something "science" doesn't make it science.

That is correct and is why creationism and intelligent design does not count as science. Nether have reached the required standards to be regarded as such.

  On that note, we might as well assume the Lemmings to be scientists.

Yep that's how it is, just follow what the one in front of me said, next one in line, same thought because it would be "foolish" not to listen to the first two.  Next one, well it would even make sense in light of the first three, and four, and five, and...  Oh look, there's a cliff.  "They're so smart, so if they fall off it must be cool."

Unfortunately for the poor lemmings, they didn't have the luxury of millions or billions of years to become sufficient.  Just a product of the environment.  RIP.

Same thing you here frequently from atheists.  "We're just a product of the environment."  Yep, that's what the Lemmings thought too.

Ironically, for the Lemmings to survive their environment, there needs to be an external source intelligent enough to ensure their environment is sufficient.

Did you know that lemmings do not jump off cliffs.

Of course they don't jump off cliffs.  They just walk. lol

But really, it does determine how you define them since they are a real animal similar to a prairie dog, but I'm sure you already know that based on the picture you posted.

[polymath257]

No. Why would it be evidence of a God? Remember that God is supposed to be a supernatural being that is able to create universes, dictate morality, etc.

How is the existence of physical things evidence of a supernatural?

Because if God created the universe, that means God created everything in the universe.

Right, so if a supernatural exists, it *might* be a cause for physical things. But this is the opposite direction: it goes from supernatural to physical.

But that isn't the question I asked. I asked how the existence of something physical is evidence of something supernatural. To be evidence, it has to change the probabilities of the existence of a supernatural. How does it do so?

[Peebothuhlu]

What the heck is this post?

So... scientific journals and other publications.... Aren't 'Science'?

Or... they're not people reporting on the science that they are doing?

Or something?

As for lemmings (Fun Amiga computer game for those who remember) please show some evidence, some inkling that there's 'Intelignce' in the world around them. Not we humans but an explanation for what ever it is you mean by;

"Ironically, for the Lemmings to survive their environment, there needs to be an external source intelligent enough to ensure their environment is sufficient."

Not at work.

Scientific Journals aren't always accurate.  That is why you'll often see subsequent studies to check or expand on things.  That is one of the reasons why we use the scientific method.  It allows us to proof things even once there are claims about something.

But you know, like a lot of atheists say, we are a product of the environment.  Yep, how did that work out for the Lemmings?   If that were true, even scientists and journals would be a product of the environment.

 That... is just such a huge amount of fallacious twaddle...
So, you're just posting for the giggles, right?
Helping people get their smiles on for the day?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Scientific Journals aren't always accurate.  That is why you'll often see subsequent studies to check or expand on things.  That is one of the reasons why we use the scientific method.  It allows us to proof things even once there are claims about something.

But you know, like a lot of atheists say, we are a product of the environment.  Yep, how did that work out for the Lemmings?   If that were true, even scientists and journals would be a product of the environment.

 That... is just such a huge amount of fallacious twaddle...
So, you're just posting for the giggles, right?
Helping people get their smiles on for the day?

Not at all.  Scientific studies aren't meant to be exhaustive and are open to correction.  Part of the reason for peer review is we can look at potential problems with the research or maybe even how to expand on it.  Peer review is limited in scope though.  Once you make information public, you have more eyes on it that may see an angle that wasn't accounted for or implications for future studies. We always have to assume that there is more, because there probably is.  That's why we use old research to build on new research.

Anyway, you had no choice but to ask, because of being a product of the environment and all, just like you will have to respond to this since nature demands it.

[Peebothuhlu]

Not at all.  Scientific studies aren't meant to be exhaustive and are open to correction.  Part of the reason for peer review is we can look at potential problems with the research or maybe even how to expand on it.  Peer review is limited in scope though.  Once you make information public, you have more eyes on it that may see an angle that wasn't accounted for or implications for future studies. We always have to assume that there is more, because there probably is.  That's why we use old research to build on new research.

Anyway, you had no choice but to ask, because of being a  product of the environment and all, just like you will have to respond to this since nature demands it.

  Okay...

 So.. how does the scientific method make it 'Wrong', then?

So what if I am a product of my environment?

You seem to be indicating that this leads to 'Deity' by fiat... some how?

Must admit your posting style leaves me more often puzzled than not.

Not at work.

[bennyboy]

I think quantum mechanics might be taken as evidence for a god.

The way superpositions of states work, with resolutions permeating back through time or spooky actions at a distance, might be taken as evidence that the Universe knows something about the unfolding of events that we do not have access to. That combined with our absolute inability to describe consciousness in terms of matter, its properties, and its processes, leaves a pretty big gap for a god of the gaps.


We could argue about whether we'd use the word "God" for any of that, but I'd argue that if reality is closely bound to mind, then using that word to remind ourselves of that fact would be fair enough. . . so long as we don't start using the speculative ramblings of ancient desert-dwellers as science texts or choosing who to kill based on some asshole's religious visions.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Not at all.  Scientific studies aren't meant to be exhaustive and are open to correction.  Part of the reason for peer review is we can look at potential problems with the research or maybe even how to expand on it.  Peer review is limited in scope though.  Once you make information public, you have more eyes on it that may see an angle that wasn't accounted for or implications for future studies. We always have to assume that there is more, because there probably is.  That's why we use old research to build on new research.

Anyway, you had no choice but to ask, because of being a  product of the environment and all, just like you will have to respond to this since nature demands it.

  Okay...

 So.. how does the scientific method make it 'Wrong', then?

So what if I am a product of my environment?

You seem to be indicating that this leads to 'Deity' by fiat... some how?

Must admit your posting style leaves me more often puzzled than not.

Not at work.

It doesn't necessarily make anything wrong.  But it doesn't guarantee that everything within a study is conclusive.  Even when we're mostly certain of something, there is still room for error or adding new variables.  We may also see journal articles that conflict.  In which case, often you'll see additional studies that attempt to clarify the relationship(s).

[Peebothuhlu]

It doesn't necessarily make anything wrong.  But it doesn't guarantee that everything within a study is conclusive.  Even when we're mostly certain of something, there is still room for error or adding new variables.  We may also see journal articles that conflict.  In which case, often you'll see additional studies that attempt to clarify the relationship(s).

 So... The information/whatever is not wrong... Just not 'Right' enough for you, then?

So... what does something need/take for it to be 'Right' by yourself?

Just curious as to where the bar height is.

Not at work.

[Angrboda]

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.

---

...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

The failure of evolution as an explanation is not in itself evidence for design. That would be an argument from ignorance. Try again.

[Deesse23]

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

---

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

The failure of evolution as an explanation is not in itself evidence for design.  That would be an argument from ignorance.  Try again.

You are the one claiming that evolution is wrong and therefore god, not me. Stop ridiculing your own arguments, its.........ridiculous.  
Why do theists bring up evolution even as topic in a thread about evidence for a god, mhm? Evolution could be wrong with or without a god. Gods can be real with or without evolution.

Troll harder.