I also don't think unicorns, faeries, leprechauns, etc... are real. However, no one seems to care about that.

I also don't think unicorns, faeries, leprechauns, etc... are real. However, no one seems to care about that. — Jeremiah

I care. :smile: :up: I am a little worried about you, though. You are alarmingly willing to dismiss things without evidence. I thought you were a scientist? :chin:

I am 40 years old, you have no clue how "willingly" I reached these conclusions.

I gave theists decades to prove their case, they never did.

We are god. You cant find the truth unless you have a clear mind. A clear mind is created by alleviating yourself of all of your worries and becoming externally and internally independent. All of the religions have elements of a truth which is real within them. The flame is invisible to all who cant feel its heat though, so, what you get is a bunch of materialists walking around talking about how they cant feel the presence of something greater when its like, no duh. Your mind never stops. When your mind is never clear, you cant come to the realizations that come to those who are in the right state see the truth.

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

I wasn't being satcastic.

Agreed. And this proves exactly nothing about gods. — Jake

Sure it does. It shows that God would be indecisive or inconsistent.

I wish I could be there when you die and find out that God is actually a woman.

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

But I'm throwing them at you because you were taking their position. Now you're faced with a difficult question and don't want to play anymore?

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

That wasn't the point I was trying to make in the post that you just cherry picked.

thats the history of mankind, if you can see clearly youll understand it, if you cant, you wont. Good luck.

Ah, I misread your comment, not noticing you had misread mine. I said

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

while you seemed to reply to

So, from the POV of God, there's no reason to compare us to animals. — BlueBanana

which I didn't notice.

I gave theists decades to prove their case, they never did. — Jeremiah

Of course they didn't! Their beliefs cannot be proven any more than yours can. I'm surprised you didn't/don't know that. :chin:

I wasn't being satcastic. — Harry Hindu

I was wondering whether someone would point out that wasn't 100% correct term for the context, but my point was that you don't seem to believe the conclusion that God created the world and the cockroaches as its greatest being.

Ya they tried those false equivalences for decades as well. I have heard it all.

I'm using my phone to reply, so sometimes the autocomplete doesn't work right.

I also argued that sharks could be god's reason for creation, or maybe some alien species that has been around for billions of years. If "god" has favorites, then is it really a "god"?

If God created the world to experience life in various creatures the human being would surely be the most fascinating with its complex kaleidoscope of conflicting emotions.

there is no "proof" that God is or is not as a matter of fact. There is a reasonable case that God is, and there is a reasonable case that God is not.

What is unreasonable, is believing that your reasonable belief is any better or worse than another reasonable belief.

it is not evolution if it includes some type of design or direction — Jeremiah

Evolution happens according to the laws of physics and thus could be argued to be deterministic. Therefore a god could change some minor details before the creation of life to start a butterfly effect.

Sure it does. It shows that God would be indecisive or inconsistent. — Harry Hindu

*Nothing about the existence of gods.

Which laws in physics?

All of them.

Ya they tried those false equivalences for decades as well. I have heard it all. — Jeremiah

"False equivalences"? Fair enough. Then you will be able to prove your belief, that God does not exist? :roll:

I'm waiting....

I see you are eager to engage your straw-man by calling it a "belief". I have been around that boat more times than I can count, so you keep spinning if you like, but I am not playing those games anymore.

Not believing in something that has no supporting evidence is not the same as believing something that has no supporting evidence. They are two very different things, despite your sad attempt to treat them as equals, furthermore the idea that humans have such special knowledge is not compatible with the Law of Parsimony and is in fact multiplying entities beyond necessity. The more plausible explanation is that these notions arise from human imagination. And, as it is demonstrated with Russell’s Teapot example, the burden of proof is not on me to prove that God does not exist, the burden of proof is to prove that God exist, as it would be the norm with any such similar mundane case.

Let me know when you actually give this God concept some real thought, instead of just spitting up the same tired old arguments, that clearly have failed to convince me in the past.

In other-words you have no clue.

I'm having difficulty understanding just what you mean. Are you claiming that evolution defies the laws of physics?

Did you hear me make that claim? In fact it was you who made such a claim.

Did you are me make that claim? — Jeremiah

After I said that evolution works according to the laws of physics, you expressed disagreement. What other conclusion am I to draw?

In fact it was you who made such a claim. — Jeremiah

Where?

Evolution happens according to the laws of physics — BlueBanana

All of them. — BlueBanana

There are too many God arguments without proper definition of the identity of the God in question. If someone is referring to the Christian God, Islam God, Hindu God(s), etc., then please say so — BrianW

That won't necessarily help, you know, at least as far as the Christian God is concerned (I don't know much about the others, though I suppose I have the knowledge of the Hebrew God many who were brought up Catholic have, via what Christians call the Old Testament).

The reason it won't necessarily help is that Christians don't necessarily agree on God. For example, in talking or writing about God, certain Christians of a theological or philosophical bent came to describe him as being more or less like what Plato or a Neo-Platonist would describe as God, or as Aristotle would (Aquinas, for example), or as something else again, but in any case something vastly more than what one reads in the Bible. Jesus of the Gospels can become something of a starting point from which a "God of the philosophers" sort of being awkwardly emerges. Perhaps the early Christian Fathers were so intimidated by pagan philosophy that they felt it necessary to take on all its trappings but attempt to retain the Jesus story and the Old Testament through the careful and I think exceedingly liberal interpretation of Scripture. But Jesus has taken on many characteristics throughout history. Some thought or think him a revolutionary, a communist. It may not be possible to describe an acceptable Christian God.

It's not a perfect method but my hope is it could prevent from a lot of misunderstandings and unnecessary deviations in the arguments.