God: Misinterpreted as an extraterrestrial?

[Epimethean]

"There is no evidence that God is unnecessary."

There is no evidence that you have evidence.

And that is what is necessary at this juncture.

[The Grand Nudger]

It was necessary as soon as he got on the ramp. Long before he ever arrived at any juncture.

[lucent]

Evidence certainly does require belief. For empiricism to be true, you have to believe that truth can only be derived through the five senses. That it only comes from observation, and that the mind, primarily, simply organizes and categorizes that information.

Evolution is metaphysics, it is not real science. It is the sacred cow of the secular world. This isn't projecting..you have faith for example that life came from non-life even though there is no evidence what so ever supporting that conclusion. Here's a good article on it:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html

Not only do I understand the evidence, but I understand why it doesn't measure up to being real evidence, and why it isn't real science. It is because my standard for evidence that I don't accept it, not because I lack one. I was perfectly willing to believe evolution if that was what the truth was, but it isn't the truth, and I've seen the people who dogmatically believe it as infallable have a religious faith in it.

Don't talk to me about evidence. You're obviously not interested in it. When you define your standard of evidence, instead of shifting goal posts every post, then we can talk about evidence.

There is no evidence that God is unnecessary. To prove that, you would have to prove the Universe created itself from nothing. That anyone would actually believe that the Universe spontaneously generated itself is amazing in itself. You actually have a lot more faith than I do to believe that kind of nonsense.

I know all about the evidence, because I used to believe it. I believed it because that is what I learned in school, and what the secular world states as factual without argument. It was when I actually investigated whether it had any validity that I found that evolution, for example, is predicated upon a bunch of highly dubious conclusions for which there isn't an actual shred of real evidence in sight. It is your sacred cow. It is the alter the you bow down and worship at while you mutter to yourself "there is no god there is no god".

He would have to prove no such thing. Figure out why for yourself.

You clearly do not, and evidence does not require belief. You obviously did not "learn it in school". You may have "heard it in school", but your posts indicate that you learned exactly nothing about the subject. You investigated nothing, you simply swallowed the koolaid. Your description of evolution is the most solid evidence for the statements I've just made that could possibly be asked for. Sacred cows, altars, this is projection. Leave your faith out of areas it does not belong.

What's the ETA on that evidence you made claims to?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm sorry, did you say that you had evidence against empiricism? I was under the impression that you claimed evidence for something else entirely.

[Shell B]

you dismiss all evidence from logic and philosophy

Statler, is that you?

---

Lucent, could you do me a favor? When you write your responses, could you put your response underneath the post you quoted rather than on top of it? It just helps the flow. I appreciate it.

[Minimalist]

I know all about the evidence, because I used to believe it.

Too bad you got stupid.

It happens I guess.

[lucent]

Again, you show your intellectual dishonesty, or what I am starting to suspect is your total inability to follow your own logic. I provided evidence, you rejected it on the basis that creation journals are "garbage" and they're not "real" scientists. Now you're saying credentials don't matter and all that is important is evidence. Incredible. You seem to be becoming a caricature of yourself before my very eyes. Are you some kind of atheist chat robot stuck in a loop? Could you pass a turing test?

Could you pass a politeness test? Calling people robots isn't very nice.

You're right, it was rude. Ryhthm, I apologize.

If mainstream science is wrong and the Universe is young, evolution didn't happen and there was a global flood, that's pretty compelling evidence that the bible is true, isn't it?

Indeed, but can you prove that?

I think instead of trying to argue it here I'll start another thread on good evidences for all three. Probably in the next day or so.

---

you dismiss all evidence from logic and philosophy

Statler, is that you?

---

Lucent, could you do me a favor? When you write your responses, could you put your response underneath the post you quoted rather than on top of it? It just helps the flow. I appreciate it.

Sorry, I'll make an effort to do the quoting correctly..I'm used to different BBs. And no, I'm not statler nor do I know who that is.

[The Grand Nudger]

No need to apologize to me amigo, it's not like I'm not rude, foul mouthed, and any other number of derogatory adjectives. Plenty of evidence for that. Besides, "atheist chat robot" kind of came off as a compliment to me. My atheism is an effect, not a cause. What else would I do other than repeat the objections that have led to it until they are resolved? I've never been presented with a convincing, valid, and sound argument for the existence of god. Similarly I've never been presented with any evidence for the existence of god. The thought that there is something out there that I may not know is unbearable to me (even though it is painfully obvious that there is a great deal of such), so I have a considerable amount of motivation to search for exactly this sort of thing. I have the same sorts of wishes and desires and hopes as anyone else, religious or magical thinking appeals to me as much as the next guy. I understand, however, that there is a potential trap, a long list of pitfalls to this sort of thinking. As such I exert some discipline to be certain that I'm not misleading myself into potentially harmful or "incorrect" behaviors and opinions.

[Erinome]

No need to apologize to me amigo, it's not like I'm not rude, foul mouthed, and any other number of derogatory adjectives. Plenty of evidence for that.

I am sometimes rude, foul mouthed, derogatory, etc. I would apologize, but I'm not a liar. I'm not even sorry that I'm not sorry.



I get frustrated by foolishness, and it just comes out. If I offend someone who isn't stupid, I will wholeheartedly feel sorry, and apologize expediently.

Deal?

[lucent]

A tiny morsel of heavily scrutinized evidence and I will consider it. There is a wealth of evidence that a god is unnecessary for the world to be, and yet you ignore it, remaining glued to your belief for which you have no valid evidence whatsoever.

There is no evidence that God is unnecessary. To prove that, you would have to prove the Universe created itself from nothing. That anyone would actually believe that the Universe spontaneously generated itself is amazing in itself. You actually have a lot more faith than I do to believe that kind of nonsense.

The evidence is basically knocking at your door and extending it's hand toward you, and you just shut your eyes, cover your ears, and sing "LA LA LA LA LA There has to be a god, fuck evidence.. LA LA LA". There is no bolt on our door. We're begging you to prove the existence of a supernatural being, afterlife, etc, but you can't, so why should we believe a word of it?

I know all about the evidence, because I used to believe it. I believed it because that is what I learned in school, and what the secular world states as factual without argument. It was when I actually investigated whether it had any validity that I found that evolution, for example, is predicated upon a bunch of highly dubious conclusions for which there isn't an actual shred of real evidence in sight. It is your sacred cow. It is the alter the you bow down and worship at while you mutter to yourself "there is no god there is no god".

Without argument? You have no right to call us ignorant sir. Evolution has been desperately argued, but the facts remain.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...opic_id=46

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

As for the universe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFjwXe-pXvM

The smartest man on earth doesn't subscribe to your nonsense, so what does that tell you.

There is still so much we don't know, but at least we admit it. There is enough evidence, however, to effectively conclude that gods aren't necessary for the universe and life as we know it to be.

I can understand your perspective. I used to think along the same lines. I have a lot of respect for science..I used to want to be an astronomer personally, but found out im terrible at math. I know from your perspective that although science hasn't explained everything, that what it has explained seems sufficient to rule out the supernatural. That's where you and I must disagree, however, because I don't think science has the right to claim all of this territory. It's not just that science hasn't explained everything, it's that it hasn't explained how to get from point a. to point b. without major leaps of faith.

It isn't a God of the gaps argument when there isn't a mechanism or theory which satisfactorly explains any of the major mechanisms for existence, life or consciousness. Humanity has always believed in God before skeptics gained traction and then claimed the territory for themselves. Now, God is unnecessary..why? There's no proof the Universe wasn't deliberately created, and certainly no proof that an explosion creates order instead of disorder. There's no proof of life from non-life. There's no proof the mechanisms for evolution actually work. No theory for consciousness. We can't observe or test any of these things. That's not a gap, that's a grand canyon. In light of that, God certainly seems very necessary to me.

I think it is easy to explain away things which are philosophically hard to prove, to attribute things to mere chemicals because the worldview demands this perspective..but when you think about the deeper things of life, what and how we love..about morality, meaning and purpose. How things are valued, how truth is derived..do chemicals appreciate beauty? Do chemical sacrifice their lives for others? There is no satisfactory explanation for why chemicals should do any of those things. There is no unifying principle to anything without God...it's just a gobbledegook of just so explanations.

There is plenty of evidence as to why evolution is a bogus theory..and I will provide that by starting another thread in the next day or so..I would continue on with you but at the moment, my cat is missing and I am worried about him..so I am going to go look for him. I'll be back in a bit.