Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Jal]

"Trust me, bro.  I met God in college."

You're a joke.

Trust me? Where did say that? I nowhere urged anyone here to believe that Christians have a legitimate vision of God.

[Angrboda]

Please explain why God makes it look like Einstein's theory of relativity and theory of gravity are correct?

"Massive objects warp the fabric of space and time around them." Why don't you explain that.  Oh that's right you can't, because it's mumbo jumbo.

Just because the number add up, doesn't prove that the language objectively represents reality. Right? For example I could argue:

"Heat attracts demons. If you turn up the burner to 212 degrees, the demons will agitate the water. That's the real reason water boils."  I can prove it in a laboratory, because every time I turn up the burner, the water boils. The numbers add up perfectly.


OR, I could think it through, and realize that demons are probably not involved. In the same way, if you think it through, you'll realize it doesn't make sense to postulate mumbo jumbo such as curved space, dilated time,  massless particles, and the relativity of simultaneity.  KISS - keep it simple stupid.

You cannot create a consistent picture of tangible reality without the positing of intangibles.  You are not advocating a simpler answer.  You are advocating one that is internally inconsistent.  And positing a god of the gaps.

Please explain why the stars tangibly appeared where they did?

[Jal]

No contact? That's even worse. Now I don't even have to swing the intangible golf club to move the ball. It's all magic - really it is.

Come back to when you start making sense.

Here's the sense.  You proposed a principle.  You were asked to support it.  You provided an analogy.  Your analogy was invalid.  Therefore your principle is unsupported.

Since your principle was the only thing that made your objections valid, once support for the principle vanished, the principle was dismissed.  Your objections are just bollocks.

Your incredulity about invisible forces isn't a logical objection.  That's just you being a whackjob.

Obviously, the real problem is that you are demanding the analogy correspond perfectly to the reality. When I fail to do that, you cry out, "Invalid analogy!"
What you don't seem to realize is that if the correspondence is absolute, it's an exact replication, which is not an analogy.  Even scientists rely on partial, imperfect extrapolations and analogies.

Case in point: has anyone literally divided the area under a curve into an infinite number of segments and summed them up?

Nope. In essence, it's just an analogy that seems to extrapolate fairly well as a foundation for integral calculus and applied science.

[Angrboda]

Intangibles move a lot more than an invisible god you have no evidence for.

Yeah keep telling yourself that. Except only one of those two options makes good logical sense.  (Hint: It's not the one where the intangible pushes the tangible).

Actually, when you imagine things for which you lack evidence, you can postulate an infinity of whackjob explanations. But they remain unevidenced.

[Angrboda]

At the end of the day, the truth is plain. The world looks exactly like it would if there were no god. Sticking God into every crack and crevice you can find doesn't fix that.

[Jal]

"Massive objects warp the fabric of space and time around them." Why don't you explain that.  Oh that's right you can't, because it's mumbo jumbo.

Just because the number add up, doesn't prove that the language objectively represents reality. Right? For example I could argue:

"Heat attracts demons. If you turn up the burner to 212 degrees, the demons will agitate the water. That's the real reason water boils."  I can prove it in a laboratory, because every time I turn up the burner, the water boils. The numbers add up perfectly.


OR, I could think it through, and realize that demons are probably not involved. In the same way, if you think it through, you'll realize it doesn't make sense to postulate mumbo jumbo such as curved space, dilated time,  massless particles, and the relativity of simultaneity.  KISS - keep it simple stupid.

You cannot create a consistent picture of tangible reality without the positing of intangibles.  You are not advocating a simpler answer.  You are advocating one that is internally inconsistent.  And positing a god of the gaps.

Please explain why the stars tangibly appeared where they did?

So now I need a degree in astronomy to be qualified to justify my common-sense claim that intangibles won't impact the tangible?

That's like saying I need a PHD in math or science to back my claim that circles are not square. The truth is, I reach such conclusions by common-sense tautology.

[Jal]

At the end of the day, the truth is plain.  The world looks exactly like it would if there were no god.  Sticking God into every crack and crevice you can find doesn't fix that.

Every crack and crevice? Who's lying now?

[Paleophyte]

The problem with Atheists is their definitions of Atheism.  It makes no sense.

What part of "I don't believe you" did you find confusing?

Deep Science is not their strong suit.

This explains why the church has such an excellent record on disease prevention and rocket launches.

Atheists are just stuck in fake reality that their own mind perceive.

Is this the reality without your imaginary friend? Have you ever heard of projection?

[Jal]

At the end of the day, the truth is plain.  The world looks exactly like it would if there were no god.  Sticking God into every crack and crevice you can find doesn't fix that.

Except it would lack gravity.  

[Paleophyte]

At the end of the day, the truth is plain.  The world looks exactly like it would if there were no god.  Sticking God into every crack and crevice you can find doesn't fix that.

Every crack and crevice? Who's lying now?

You are...? I mean, it really looks like you are. Perhaps you have some evidence of your deity of choice...? Something that hasn't been done to death a billion times over by cheap hacks calling themselves apologists. Right now I'd be thrilled to see something new and not the same regurgitated rubbish. Hoping against hope here.