I am not the one playing with imaginary friends. — Jeremiah

Correct. You are playing with imaginary knowings, whom you seem to have become quite friendly with. Hey, welcome to the club. :smile:

But you were the first to compare us to animals - namely squirrels. So, I'm not suppose to take you seriously now? — Harry Hindu

Don't take me seriously. That will save me a lot of typing.

I agree with all that but I'm arguing from the POV of the alternative against your arguments because they have some issues.

So, from the POV of God, there's no reason to not compare us to animals.

What does it even mean to say that the "scale of gods" is beyond our understanding? — Harry Hindu

We are a single half insane species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies. This is very small scale, in comparison to....

The god proposal, which concerns itself with the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

BTW, I'm not trying to prove there is a God. I'm trying to prove that it's absurd that any of us could answer such a question. Yes, theists too.

We don't understand why that is for reasons that we don't understand, but can infer are the same reasons for which squirrels don't understand those things. — BlueBanana

Yes. Human beings are limited, like every other creature. It's logical to assume there are aspects of reality which are beyond our ability to grasp.

So, from the POV of God, there's no reason to not compare us to animals. — BlueBanana

That is very strange being that we are made of the same stuff and share many features, and even share parts of our genes. Humans ARE animals.

We just exist. There is no "why". — Harry Hindu

This is a common widespread belief....

...which requires as much speculation as the God idea.

How could you possibly know "there is no why"? Are you a god? Do you have extensive knowledge of all properties of reality?

I think what you're really saying is that nobody has provided a "why" which you personally find to be credible. I have no argument with that.

BTW, I'm not trying to prove there is a God. I'm trying to prove that it's absurd that any of us could answer such a question. Yes, theists too. — Jake

It used to be absurd to think that humans could land on the moon. It seems to me that we are simply talking about how we see the glass as half-empty or half-full.

That is very strange being that we are made of the same stuff and share many features, and even share parts of our genes. Humans ARE animals. — Harry Hindu

Yes, humans are animals. But the proper comparison is to compare human ability to the scale of the question being investigated.

I think what you're really saying is that nobody has provided a "why" which you personally find to be credible. I have no argument with that. — Jake

Evolution by natural selection is one theory, and one I believe is accurate.

The problem with the god idea is that
1) there is no evidence like there is evidence of evolution by natural selection.
2) there are so many other ideas that would be just as likely as the god idea
3) most of those ideas could contradict the existence of god, so which one do you believe and for what reason since they all have the same amount of evidence - none?

There is the same amount of evidence for the existence of unicorns as there is for the existence of gods. Why do you believe in the existence of gods, but not unicorns?

If you really want to go down the road of questioning our ability to understand, then it is more likely that no one has ever had the right idea about why we exist, which means that gods are probably not the right idea.

Evolution by natural selection is one theory, and one I believe is accurate. — Harry Hindu

Me too, but evolution neither confirms nor denies the possible existence of gods.

Sure it does. It shows that there is no intelligent design. We are not intelligently designed. We are a hacked attempt at surviving in our environment.

So, from the POV of God, there's no reason to not compare us to animals. — BlueBanana

We used to think that we were separate from nature, and not animals. It is only when we took a more objective look at ourselves and nature did we realize that we are animals too. So from the POV of god (the most objective POV there is), we are animals.

Sure it does. It shows that there is no intelligent design. We are not intelligently designed. — Harry Hindu

I'm sorry, but evolution proves no such thing. As example, if there is some highly intelligent agent operating over our heads, evolution would be a highly intelligent way to manage life. Instead of trying to intervene in every particular situation, a system is implemented which automates the management.

Again, not trying to prove there is such an agent. I'm just trying to challenge atheism with the same enthusiasm that others reasonably challenge theism. This process is called....

Reason.

I'm sorry, but evolution proves no such thing. As example, if there is some highly intelligent agent operating over our heads, evolution would be a highly intelligent way to manage life. — Jake

Manage life? Most of the species ever to exist are now extinct. If what you claim is the case, then humans are just fodder for other species. It seems like God likes cockroaches more than humans being that they have survived longer than most other species, and maybe cockroaches are the reason why "god" created the universe. What reason would "God" have to do this? Is "God" a scientist doing experiments? If so, then it really isn't a "God" is it?

This is why the nature of "god" is so important.

Most of the species ever to exist are now extinct. — Harry Hindu

Yes, those species no longer well suited to the current environment are removed, to be replaced by other better adapted species. And god, should there be one, doesn't have to lift a finger because the system is automated. Intelligent.

Hopefully none. Can't we talk about a more interesting topic?

That is not evolution. Evolution is not progressive, it is not designed, it is a random process. You are talking about something entirely different.

Yes, those species no longer well suited to the current environment are removed, to be replaced by other better adapted species. And god, should there be one, doesn't have to lift a finger because the system is automated. Intelligent. — Jake

Not. The fact that species are no longer suited is because the environment changes, and continues to change. Environments come and go, the same environments coming about again - warm age to ice age and back again, so why not re-evolve those same animals, or why cause some species to go extinct when you end up bringing that environment back millions of years later? It would be considered inconsistent behavior if performed by an intelligent hand with a purpose. It is what is expected, however, if there is no intelligent hand guiding things.

What use does a god have for an automated system? Automated systems are for limited beings, like us, who aren't all powerful and need automated systems to do our work, because we are limited. An all-powerful being wouldn't need automated systems.

The fact that species are no longer suited is because the environment changes, and continues to change. — Harry Hindu

That can be the case, but it is not always the case. A random variation which gives any advantage over the existing population will be preserved by natural selection, and this can happen even if no changes in the environment occurred.

That can be the case, but is not always the case. A random variation which gives any advantage over the existing population will be preserved by natural selection, and this can happen even if no changes in the environment occurred. — Jeremiah

Yet we have environments that haven't changed and species that haven't evolved for millions of years because they are already the pinnacle of evolution for their environment. Sharks are a great example of this. So God created the universe for sharks, then?

Variation in species occurs due to random mutation, when a mutation results in an advantage then natural selection preserves that advantage. The speed in which this process moves will depend on the breeding cycle of the species in question, for some species this could take millions of years, while others, like bacteria, we can see it happening before our eyes.

I am not disagreeing that a shift in environment could create advantages and disadvantages, in fact, I completely agree with that and it has been proven factually true.

WHAT I AM SAYING, is that a change in environment is not the only relevant factor here. Ecosystems are a delicate balance and if a variation happens into an advantage that did not currently exist than that sub-species via natural selection will become the dominant species.

It is only when we took a more objective look at ourselves — Harry Hindu

The good old "religion contradicts science and objectivity and is therefore false" straw man.

That is not evolution. Evolution is not progressive, it is not designed, it is a random process. You are talking about something entirely different. — Jeremiah

Throwing dice is random. The result is not designed. The dice and the system of throwing them are.

It seems like God likes cockroaches more than humans — Harry Hindu

That'd be one of the best conclusions in this thread, were you not stating it sarcastically.

The fact that species are no longer suited is because the environment changes, and continues to change. — Harry Hindu

Agreed. And this proves exactly nothing about gods.

So God created the universe for sharks, then? — Harry Hindu

You should be looking for theists to aim these arguments at.

That is not evolution. Evolution is not progressive, it is not designed, it is a random process. You are talking about something entirely different. — Jeremiah

All I'm saying is that the reality of evolution, which we all agree on, says nothing at all about the possible existence of gods. Evolution neither proves or disproves gods. At the best it only debunks primitive stories about God's little workshop etc.

I don't care about that, just because I think all your gods are fake, that does not mean I actually believe I will be able to change your mind on such a topic. I have little desire to actually convince believers that their gods are not real. I understand how fruitless that task is.

However, there is far too much misunderstanding of evolution floating around on this site. It is because people receive a horrible education in evolution (especially in the USA) then they never bother to go out and correct this on their own. Even if someone borrows some element of Darwin's ideas, it is not evolution if it includes some type of design or direction, such ideas are not congruent with the totality of the process of natural selection. If you claim it is a divine process then you are really talking about special creation, but people don't like being associated with creationism they rather be associated with evolution.

They are all made up and none of them are real — Jeremiah

As you can't justify this opinion, I wonder why you assert it as though it was a proven fact? :chin: Oh, yes. You're human. We often assert the truth of things we can't prove, to make our unjustified and unfounded opinions sound more convincing. That would be it, then. :roll: