Perfectly clear. Though I do enjoy it whatever atheists play this sleight of hand.

I find it very hard to believe that you really understood evolution at 12 years old to make a decent argument for it when your father confronted you about it. — Harry Hindu

You're right. I might have been 13. But seriously, I'm not here to debate religion. Religion is more about people controlling other people through rituals, promises and threats then anything else. It has its upsides, like bringing people together at Christmas - that's always nice, but any thinking person has to shut one eye and raise one eyebrow when they read through the Bible stories or other stories.

We have repeatedly observed the expansion of the universe and the background radiation that is evidence of the Big Bang. — Harry Hindu

I can repeatedly watch the pendulum of a grandfather clock swing back and forth that that gives me no more insight into harmonic motion then I had at the first sight of it. Besides, I don't think we have repeatedly watched the universe expand. Expansion is only a theory based on some doppler observations in this limited tiny tiny spec of space we can measure.

When asked how God came into existence, the answer is, "He has always existed." How is that any different than saying the universe, or the multiverse has always existed? — Harry Hindu

- Good, so we agree that both scenarios are equally plausible.

It's even more simpler, as it doesn't need that extra step of adding God as the final cause. If God doesn't need a creator, then why does the universe need one? No theist has ever been able to answer that question. — Harry Hindu

I don't need sugar with my coffee, but that doesn't mean I don't have sugar with my coffee. I think Lisa Simpson over popularised Occam's razor.

If you want a definition of God, then why don't we say, it is the sentience of the universe. It is in everything. It is everything. The sentient atom. Perhaps a sentient universe is passing through a universe of a different energy - like Time - causing little bubbles of interference to pop up like the bubbles that pop up when you run your hands through the water. Maybe those bubbles are our physical universe. Who knows? Its good to wonder though.

Yeah, to say that a God created man in his own image is a bit of a stretch. To ascribe the qualities of man to God is even more of a stretch. Nonetheless in this game called our lifetime you have to look up into the night sky and think "Holy Cow".

That a rock given enough time and pressure can change into another rock type is fine. That atoms given enough time self-assemble into living sentient beings is absolutely amazing. The inanimate has become animated. Just a fluke? All Darwin's theory tried to explain was how the lifeforms evolved after the process was started.

Scientists are not in the business of proving the non-existence of supernatural entities. If a scientist attempts to do so, they've crossed over from science and into transcendental metaphysics. Even if they don't realize it. — darthbarracuda

Hi Darthbarracude, Richard Dawkins doesn't agree. He is the one bringing the fight. Check on YouTube.

There is science's designer. Calling it natural is cute, but a keen observer will catch the sleight of hand. As a matter of observation, such a term had no meaning other than to replace the more commonly used word God. — Rich

I have no idea what you are talking about. You seem unacquainted with what "natural selection" even means. And reading your other comments on this thread about the topic only reinforce that impression.

Yeah, to say that a God created man in his own image is a bit of a stretch. To ascribe the qualities of man to God is even more of a stretch. Nonetheless in this game called our lifetime you have to look up into the night sky and think "Holy Cow".

That a rock given enough time and pressure can change into another rock type is fine. That atoms given enough time self-assemble into living sentient beings is absolutely amazing. The inanimate has become animated. Just a fluke? All Darwin's theory tried to explain was how the lifeforms evolved after the process was started. — MikeL

I agree: Darwin described the origin of species, and not the origin of life (his speculations about a "warm little pond" notwithstanding, its safe to say that Darwin's primary area of interest was not abiogenesis, which is a good thing, given how he would have had no hope of solving the problem with the state of biochemistry and molecular genetics in the mid-late 19th century).

However, if a theistic evolutionist wishes to claim that God in some way intended or planned that humans (or something like humans, in terms of sentience, self-awareness, moral sense, etc) would arise as an outcome of the evolutionary process, that view is difficult to square with the apparently random and meandering path taken by evolution, with several mass extinctions in the 4 billion year history of life on Earth, including the most recent, the K-T extinction event, which removed dinosaurs as the dominant animals, setting the stage for the mammals to flourish in their absence.

So, in order for these apparent contingencies to have been built into the evolutionary process from the start, we now must posit God not only seeding life in that "warm little pond," but also have Him moving asteroids around the solar system in order to strike the Earth at just the right time, have him manipulating the Earth's orbital parameters and/or solar output in order to tweak the climate just so at certain stages in the history of life, have Him decide when animals would colonize land from the oceans (it's probably difficult, if not impossible to have sentience or civilization without fire, and it's hard to build fires in aquatic environments), etc. Very quickly, we come to see that there is nothing "natural" about natural selection, and we must ask again why it would be that God chose to create humans through one of the few pathways which makes him seem unnecessary to the process.

Natural selection is science's designer. It is a made up term. No evidence other than the world as it exists. Atheists need to believe in something as that is what they believe in, and they give themselves a part in the back for believing in Natural Selection as opposed to God. Cute.

As for creating a God in the image of man, what the heck do you think scientist 's do when they create a Gene and Brain in the image of man? All biology does is stuff every possible attribute of humans in the Brain/Gene, without any evidence whatsoever. They see color, OK, there it is right in the those neurons. They see recognition of sound. There it is, stuffed into that gene.

All biology/neurology is is pulling whatever science wants out of a hat, and ram it down the throats of students and makes sure it sticks. If you want an A, you better learn to parrot this story exactly.

All biology/neurology is is pulling whatever science wants out of a hat. — Rich

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume that you are breathtakingly ignorant and not just trolling. Either way, I'm done with your bullshit.

Please. It's a silly story for those who are looking for religion. Believe in the story if you wish, but my own preference is for something more entertaining, though I do get a laugh whenever someone recites the parable of "How a human was created by the Natural Selection". The big difference being if course, the scientific designer is natural.

You know, atheists have every bit of that religious tone they accuse theists of. All of that righteous anger and proselytization of their dogma. They even excommunicate from their hallow halls of academia. Quite a dogmatic group these atheists are. Of course, not to question their faith that the Big Bang created it all.

Scientists are not in the business of proving the non-existence of supernatural entities. If a scientist attempts to do so, they've crossed over from science and into transcendental metaphysics. Even if they don't realize it. — darthbarracuda

If one posits the existence of a God who interacts with nature in some way (i.e. is not wholly "transcendental"), then it is perfectly legitimate to investigate God's existence by means of historical or scientific investigation. Some scientists and natural theologians who were in the business of proving the existence of God (including modern-day "scientific" creationists, intelligent design theorists, etc) have likewise employed such methods.

IMO, saying that the existence of God is not a subject for empirical investigation is simply a canard meant to shield certain claims from rational inquiry.

Very quickly, we come to see that there is nothing "natural" about natural selection, — Arkady

So now it is "unnatural selection"? I wonder how that would look in the textbooks?

and we must ask again why it would be that God chose to create humans through one of the few pathways which makes him seem unnecessary to the process.

For the same reason Natural Selection chose it.

I wasn't joking when I said I was done with your nonsense. If you wish to continue to respond my posts "for the eyes of God," please feel free to do so, just know that I'm not reading them. I just don't want you waste your time (time which could be better spent actually learning about some of the things of which you speak).

You mean, I should study "How the Big Bang created Natural Selection via Natural Laws in Unnatural Ways". I always thought this was a matter of faith? The short hand, of course, would be "It just Happened". Or the alternative would be, "God created it all".

Just by making up some new phases doesn't make atheism any less religious.

So, in order for these apparent contingencies to have been built into the evolutionary process from the start, we now must posit God not only seeding life in that "warm little pond," but also have Him moving asteroids around the solar system in order to strike the Earth at just the right time, have him manipulating the Earth's orbital parameters and/or solar output in order to tweak the climate just so at certain stages in the history of life, have Him decide when animals would colonize land from the oceans (it's probably difficult, if not impossible to have sentience or civilization without fire, and it's hard to build fires in aquatic environments), etc. Very quickly, we come to see that there is nothing "natural" about natural selection, and we must ask again why it would be that God chose to create humans through one of the few pathways which makes him seem unnecessary to the process. — Arkady

Hi Arkady, I agree, that God created Man and said bah to every other lifeform is nuts. Rather than God created the universe I propose that God is the universe. It is a sentient level of energy that science has no clue exists but permeates everything right down to the atom and beyond, right up to the galaxies and beyond. Do you really believe in a big, dumb universe? It's teaming with sentience at all levels in all manifestations in all quadrants. Natural Selection says B went to C went to D, and is only a theory as there is no proof - a requisite of science or so I'm told in this thread. So both views can be accommodated, no?

Science has its God Creator and it is called the Big Bang that created everything in approximately the same amount of time. When choosing between religious stories of creation, I always go for the one that is most entertaining, which in this case is the Bible. — Rich

THAT is the primary problem - that you, and every other believer in a god, do so as a result because it feels good and gives you purpose. This is the primary symptom of a delusion - beliefs in things that cover up reality to make you feel better. Religion is an adaptation for handling stress.

Hi Arkady, I agree, that God created Man and said bah to every other lifeform is nuts. Rather than God created the universe I propose that God is the universe. It is a sentient level of energy that science has no clue exists but permeates everything right down to the atom and beyond, right up to the galaxies and beyond. Do you really believe in a big, dumb universe? It's teaming with sentience at all levels in all manifestations in all quadrants. Natural Selection says B went to C went to D, and is only a theory as there is no proof - a requisite of science or so I'm told in this thread. So both views can be accommodated, no? — MikeL

Natural selection is a theory, you are right. It is a scientific theory, which (in a slight deviation from the term's meaning in normal parlance) is a set of propositions which have withstood empirical testing, and, somewhat more controversially, at least for those philosophers who are Popperians, has been confirmed to some degree. Saying there is no "proof" of natural selection is simply not true. The selection of particular traits in populations of organisms in response to particular environmental pressures is well-documented (though the degree to which natural selection, as opposed to other modalities such as neutralism, genetic drift, etc drives the evolutionary process is a matter of some contention among experts, of which I'm admittedly not one).

As for the universe "teaming [sic] with sentience" at all levels, I'm not sure what that means. Perhaps the universe is God, or perhaps it's just an electron orbiting an atom in some greater universe. But without any way in principle to test these claims, they must remain forever speculative.

You're right. I might have been 13. But seriously, I'm not here to debate religion. Religion is more about people controlling other people through rituals, promises and threats then anything else. It has its upsides, like bringing people together at Christmas - that's always nice, but any thinking person has to shut one eye and raise one eyebrow when they read through the Bible stories or other stories. — MikeL

Yet, where else did you get the idea of God from? You are right in that you were born an atheist. It is only after hearing about god and had it reinforced by those around you, that you developed the belief and hold it as true. Do you feel that you need God to exist to give your purpose and a belief in the afterlife?

If you want a definition of God, then why don't we say, it is the sentience of the universe. It is in everything. It is everything. The sentient atom. Perhaps a sentient universe is passing through a universe of a different energy - like Time - causing little bubbles of interference to pop up like the bubbles that pop up when you run your hands through the water. Maybe those bubbles are our physical universe. Who knows? Its good to wonder though. — MikeL

But the universe is mostly a vacuum and lifeless.

The selection of particular traits in populations of organisms in response to particular environmental pressures is well-documented — Arkady

Nonsense, any environment will nurture an endless number of variations that come and go. A cockroach can survive as well as a Zebra in a jungle as can bird. They survive by learning as does a human when confronted with new environments. It is the mind that is evolving, and thank goodness for that. I would be dead if I waited for the next miracle of spontaneous mutation.

What science offers it's one miracle after another and then declares it a product of some manufactured phrase called Natural Selection (the Designer). I prefer the simpler story that the mind is learning and evolving.

It comes down to this: did Natural Selection manufacture mind by some miracle or did mind manufacture the creation story of Natural Selection. Given the mind's proclivity toward creative stories and myths, particularly when it comes to Genesis, I am inclined toward the latter.

But the universe is mostly a vacuum and lifeless. — Harry Hindu

Myth or fact?

http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-universe-is-mostly-empty-space/

"The universe and everything in it, including humans, is mostly “empty space”. However, space is not actually “empty”, it’s filled with quantum fields and dark energy.[1]

In other words, even though the universe and everything in it is mostly empty (to the extent that the human race could fit in a very heavy sugar cube with the space removed), true empty space (a perfect stable vacuum) can’t actually exist in nature.

Phenomena like quark and gluon field fluctuations, and other types of cosmic radiation permeate what we consider empty space. Even if all matter and energy could be removed from a section of space to create a perfect vacuum, the space could not remain “empty” due to vacuum fluctuations, transiting gamma rays, cosmic rays, neutrinos, and other phenomena in quantum physics.[1][6]"

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/physicists-observe-weird-quantum-fluctuations-empty-space-maybe

"Empty space is anything but, according to quantum mechanics: Instead, it roils with quantum particles flitting in and out of existence. "

I think 17th century physics should be expunged from all curriculums. Instead, it is forced fed because of "agendas". There are industrial advantages to maintaining the myth of materialism.

THAT is the primary problem - that you, and every other believer in a god, do so as a result because it feels good and gives you purpose. This is the primary symptom of a delusion - beliefs in things that cover up reality to make you feel better. Religion is an adaptation for handling stress. — Harry Hindu

Hi Harry, I think we have two issues here that are often conflated here by science. Firstly is an innate sense of a God in a lot of people from all walks of life. The second is religion, which has latched onto this idea and ran about claiming it had all the info and all the answers on the subject. If there wasn't the initial sense of a God, religion would not have persisted, but just like us, people sought answers to the question and religions seized the opportunity. Nowadays we can look at religion and go, "Yeah, I don't think so," but for thousands of years they were the only one who had set up shop in the space.

Saying there is no "proof" of natural selection is simply not true. The selection of particular traits in populations of organisms in response to particular environmental pressures is well-documented — Arkady

Hi Arkady, that's not proof. That's some collated samples that have been admitted into evidence. The burden of proof as required by science has not been met. Evolution and God, neither has been accepted by science at true, only by scientists.

Hi Arkady, that's not proof. That's some collated samples that have been admitted into evidence. The burden of proof as required by science has not been met. Evolution and God, neither has been accepted by science at true, only by scientists. — MikeL

You may be using the word "proof" in an idiosyncratic way. Generally, one speaks only loosely of "proof" in empirical disciplines: true "proofs" only exist in mathematics and logic. Perhaps something can be said to have been "proven" if it is so well-attested to by empirical inquiry that it is a rock-solid finding, with little chance that it will be overturned, but this is all rather loose talk.

So, I'm not sure what "proof" of natural selection you have in mind. Evolution (with or without natural selection) most certainly has met the burden of proof to any reasonable inquirer. No one can reasonably doubt the common descent of all life on Earth, that species transition into new and different species over time, etc. These facts are simply too well-attested to by the fossil record and evidence from molecular genetics. And, as I said, the proliferation of advantageous traits in populations of organisms in response to environmental pressures has been well-documented (though, as I said above, there is some debate among experts, at least as far as this layman can tell, as to how big a role natural selection plays in evolution as compared to other processes).

If your standard of "proof" is pitched so high as to exclude evolution, I would wonder whether you are generally a skeptic about knowledge claims, or if you reserve undue skepticism for evolution because it does not comport with your pre-established ideological or religious views. That is a rather common view: people who happily accept results from other areas of science will all of a sudden fulminate that evolution is "just a theory" (as you have done above), "not proven," or even that there is evidence against it because they find it distasteful to their religious (or moral or whatever) sensibilities.

I have no idea what your last sentence is saying, as it is ungrammatical.

So, I'm not sure what "proof" of natural selection you have in mind. Evolution (with or without natural selection) most certainly has met the burden of proof to any reasonable inquirer. — Arkady

Do this is the big claim of science: " That things change". Some due out. Some continue. It comes and it goes. Fine. I think this goes back to Heraclitus and Daoism. But science needs a Designer and so Natural Selection is invented. The designer selects for survival so naturally only the fittest survive except for Stephen Hawkins who is the exception that proves the rule.

Now for evidence of Natural Selection (the Designer) what we have is: well they survived didn't they? Which works of course because it is goal directed. The Designer designs for survival and is near perfect except where it fails. Now how does a man caught in a desert survive: by his wits maybe or must the man for what amounts to the miracle of some mutation that somehow actually works?

What is evolving is the human mind and it is evolving all the time, continuously and is adapting based upon circumstances and experiences. Goal directed science is worthless. And I believe natural selection, whole still a favorite of atheists, had become somewhat of an embarrassment which biologists would rather just pretend isn't there.

https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

Of course, if you're willing to take the creation myth of Christianity — Michael

Sure, because "everything came from nothing and then organized itself, into complex inter-dependent systems" isn't a mythical at all. *eye-roll*.

All the (atheist) scientist will do is ask you what evidence you have of such a thing. Absent any evidence they will argue that such a belief is unfounded, and like any unfounded belief will refuse to accept it as true. — Michael

I think most atheist have no idea what they're talking about when they demand evidence, as though they have some kind of special right to the concept of evidence. In a courtroom, both sides will often examine the same evidence and still come to radically different conclusions. It's not that the evidence for a God isn't there; it's that you are choosing to interpret the evidence in a different way.

Probably the most amazing thing about atheistic science is that they've come to the conclusion that the more complex we discover the universe and everything to be, the less need there is for any intelligence behind it. The complexity becomes an argument for why the complexity exists in the first place. It makes no sense.

The argument is not really between science and religion, so much as between scientific materialism and religious fundamentalism. — Wayfarer

Nope. There can be only 2 options; either random or designed. If there is no creator, no intelligence, no intent or design behind why we are here, then you are talking about random processes. Even, 'the laws of physics" becomes a misnomer if there is no designer, because a law is, by definition, something which acts or influences in a planned way with a specific, intended goal. The best you can say is that there are "consistent physics". Calling them "laws" implies some kind of purpose which the theory itself does not support. This kind of language appears all throughout atheistic theory; they say there is no God but they use language which implies meaning, because no matter how much a proud person may want to believe that they are the master of their own life, deep down they cannot accept that their life is the result of random, purposeless processes.

So come on scientists, prove to me there is no God and let me see how strong your arguments really are. Pile on. — MikeL

Nobody can prove or disprove the existence of god.

Science especially; the scientific method excludes positive proofs. It can negate (if the thing is falsifiable) things, and that is one tenet of scientific claims, that everything science claims has to be falsifiable. Therefore when you ask that a scientist prove to you that there is no god, you ask a scientist something he never claimed he could do.

Now let me ask you: show me a member of the clergy, or of any religious organization or congregation, or anyone else, indeed, who can prove the existence of god. I bet you that you can show me no one.

There can be only 2 options; either random or designed. — John Days

I said 'The argument is not really between science and religion, so much as between scientific materialism and religious fundamentalism'. Your point plays directly into that. I am not atheist, but at the same time, I think it's misleading to demand of science that it supports theistic beliefs. So I'm sticking with my argument.

Here's something to consider. In the Old Testament, when Moses asked God, who are you, God answered "I am that I am". "I am" commonly refers to being at the present. Further, many people interpret Einstein's special theory of relativity as stipulating that there is no such thing as the present. These people, if they hold and believe in the truth of special relativity, deny the possibility of God under this fundamental definition of God. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nah, you've misunderstood the point. The answer was "I am that I am" and it was given in an unpronounceable series of letters (i.e. no vowels). The vowels were added later to make it pronounceable. The point was that God can be who or whatever he wants to be. We humans like special titles and designations because they help us to quickly organize information, but invariably we end up giving the titles special meaning which go beyond organizational utility.

We come to enjoy the respect that often comes with special titles. Try calling a doctor by his first name (instead of "Doctor Bob"). Try calling your parents by their names, instead of "mom" and "dad" . Try calling your boss by his name, instead of "sir" or "Mr", and you'll quickly see that we humans love the respect and prominence that comes from special titles. Most of these people will become irrationally angry at being denied their special title and they will argue that they deserve the respect implied in the title. Do you see it? The title is no longer about communicating general information quickly, but rather about demanding the respect which we feel we deserve, and when respect is demanded, we're not even talking about respect anymore.

God wanted to make it clear to both Moses and pharaoh that he was not just another name on the long list of Gods to be trotted out and categorized into his appropriate box. He didn't need a special title to prove anything to pharaoh.

OK, now compare this with what is said about God in the OT, "I am that I am". How can it be true that the present is relative, unless God is relative. If God is relative, then relative to what? — Metaphysician Undercover

Even if your suggestion that "I am that I am" is correct in the sense of an eternal present, we're talking about the creator of time/space/matter in this context. How can you suggest that a being who is able to exist outside of time/space/matter is somehow contradicting itself by saying, "I exist right now"?

I said 'The argument is not really between science and religion, so much as between scientific materialism and religious fundamentalism'. Your point plays directly into that. — Wayfarer

Sorry, can you give an explanation for how my point plays directly into that? I'm not sure I understand what "plays directly into that" even means. I suggested that if there is no designer, then the only option left is randomness. That's not religious fundamentalism. That's a valid observation based on what the two concepts actually mean.

I suggested that if there is no designer, then the only option left is randomness. That's not religious fundamentalism. That's a valid observation based on what the two concepts actually mean. — John Days

I don't agree, and here's the reason why. I think that dichotomy between 'God or nothing' is very much an historical phenomenon. It's much more an historical matter than a philosophical one. It comes from, among other things, a number of popular books in the 19th Century which were about the 'conflict thesis' between science and religion. Typically the proponents of that were evangelical atheists, rather like today's Richard Dawkins; John Tyndall was one of them, but there were others ('Darwin's bulldog, T H H Huxley, and Herbert Spencer among them).

So the master narrative is actually rather like that of 'historical positivism' - the society evolves from primitive myth and superstition, to religion, then to the 'metaphysical age' (i.e. classical culture) and finally the 'scientific age' (in accordance with the general outlines proposed by Auguste Comte, founder of sociology). The same basic narrative underwrites Dawkins view:

Dawkins's message is basically that we are social animals on an evolutionary trajectory to ever more rational and therefore higher moral standards, but that the process has been derailed somewhere along the line by the appearance of religion. It had looked until recently as though we were shaking off religion and entering an Age of Reason. But now, with the rise of religious fundamentalism, there is a relapse which accounts for the world's present troubles. Nevertheless, thanks to the enlightenment Science brings, we can root out religion and get back on track. 1

What this doesn't come to terms with, however, is that it's possible to be both scientific and religious. There are many eminent scientists who still have a religious outlook. But if the 'conflict thesis' were correct, it wouldn't be possible; you would have to make a choice between one or the other.

So I see the scientific materialism of Dawkins and others as trying to prove the non-reality of God on the basis of science; whereas some intelligent design theorists, and creationists generally, make the opposite case, that science can prove that God exists. But as several other people have noted, you can't prove it one way or the other.

I myself am generally sympathetic to the design arguments. But, the same argument will do nothing to sway someone who hasn't got a predisposition to believe it.