The evidence against religon won with just one argument until...

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The reason I'm doing this is because you made a claim that "science tells us" that God did not create the earth. Therefore I am asking for evidence to back up your extraordinary claim.

This has been presented to you. Though I'm not sure why you consider it an extraordinary claim.

Is the idea that the Earth was produced by a natural process that happens billions of other places around the universe "extraordinary"?

I would consider it the exact opposite. It is ordinary. The Earth, and how it was made, is ordinary. Very ordinary in fact. It is likely that there are billions of very similar planets through out the universe.

Picking a random object, say my PC's CPU chip, is it an extraordinary claim that God did not make the CPU in my computer chip?

I know pretty well how it was made, and at no point that I'm aware of, did God do anything.

It was manufactured in the AMD processing plant, which I think is in Asia.

It was designed by the very smart people at AMD, no of which, I'm pretty sure, are God.

It was created out of a manufacturing process known as semiconductor device fabrication. While not a natural process, there has never been any hint that God is involved at any stage of the process.

So, did God make my computer chip? No.

Is that an extra-ordinary claim? I certain wouldn't think so.

Can I "prove" God did not create my computer chip and made it look like he didn't. No. That is impossible because of the way God has been defined in the first place.

PDN wrote:

I don't believe that science tells us anything as to the question of whether God made the earth or not.

I know. Hence my long post above.

No matter what process is presented to you, no matter how natural looking it appears to be, no matter how unlikely it is that God actually did anything, you will choose to believe that God must have been involved in the production of Earth in some way, even if you have no clue as to what that involvement actually was.

It would be like you saying you refuse to accept that God did not make my CPU. I can't prove he didn't, because if I demonstrate that a human or natural process is responsibly you will just say that could have been God behind the scenes.

Is that possible. Yes.
Is it likely. No.
Would someone believe it because it is likely? No.

PDN wrote:

Let's use an illustration. Imagine that tomorrow's newspaper carries a headline reading "POLICE PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT MCCANNS DID NOT KILL MADELEINE". However, when you read the article you discover that all the police have said is that they don't have any evidence that the McCanns did kill their daughter. Would you think the headline was accurate?

Well a slightly more accurate headline would be "POLICE PRODUCE STRONG EVIDENCE THAT A HOMELESS SPANISH MAN KILLED MADELEINE"

Now people could claim that this does not prove that the McCanns were not involved in some way. But that is not what the evidence tells us. The evidence tells us someone else killed Madeleine and that the McCanns were not involved. .

But of course if someone has already convinced themselves that the McCanns must be involved, some how, even if they don't know how, that won't convince them they weren't

You can say to that person "But the evidence says they weren't involved", and they will just say "You haven't proved they weren't, I don't accept that evidence, I choose to interpret it differently, I know the McCanns were involved some how".

And there will probably be very little talking to that person.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I'm happy to go along with your game of substituting non-analogous words in each other's posts, but I'm not sure what it can contribute to intelligent debate. Is this an atheist parlour game?

Why is a unicorn not analogous to a god?

They seem very similar to me. And I can't prove either didn't create the universe, or Earth.

Son Goku

I don't get this. Wouldn't it have to be that God made the universe and the universe took care of Earth. I mean it was literally the tidal forces from the Sun that made the Earth, nothing else.
If the Sun made the Earth, then surely nothing else did.

I mean if we know what made the Earth, then we know what didn't.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

I don't get this. Wouldn't it have to be that God made the universe and the universe took care of Earth. I mean it was literally the tidal forces from the Sun that made the Earth, nothing else.
If the Sun made the Earth, then surely nothing else did.

I mean if we know what made the Earth, then we know what didn't.

I don't think that holds at all. If an arsonist starts a fire that, due to high winds, spreads quickly, and kills many, is the arsonist not a murderer? Should the wind be in court? The flame?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't think that holds at all. If an arsonist starts a fire that, due to high winds, spreads quickly, and kills many, is the arsonist not a murderer? Should the wind be in court? The flame?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I get what you mean. I was thinking along the lines that if I make a robotic arm and program it to make cars, then it makes the car. Even though I'm ultimately responsible for the chain of events that leads to the car being made, it's actually the arm that did the making. The same with God, the Sun and the Earth.

Should I take what is being said to be "The chain of events which lead to the Earth began with God". I just think it would be clearer to say God made existence/the universe rather than God made the Earth. It's a very confusing way of describing events, like saying "Hurricane Katrina formed due process which created a sizeable atmosphere on Earth 4 billion years ago".

Fanny Cradock

Son Goku wrote:

I get what you mean. I was thinking along the lines that if I make a robotic arm and program it to make cars, then it makes the car. Even though I'm ultimately responsible for the chain of events that leads to the car being made, it's actually the arm that did the making. The same with God, the Sun and the Earth.

Should I take what is being said to be "The chain of events which lead to the Earth began with God". I just think it would be clearer to say God made existence/the universe rather than God made the Earth. It's a very confusing way of describing events, like saying "Hurricane Katrina formed due process which created a sizeable atmosphere on Earth 4 billion years ago".

Yes, but what if God's intention was to create earth? Whereas your analogy implies that a hurricane is a by-product of something, it would be argued by a Christian that the creation of the earth was a specific, intended goal. Sticking with the analogies - who gets the strike: the bowler or the bowling ball?

Son Goku

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Yes, but what if God's intention was to create earth? Whereas your analogy implies that a hurricane is a by-product of something, it would be argued by a Christian that the creation of the earth was a specific, intended goal. Sticking with the analogies - who gets the strike: the bowler or the bowling ball?

Ah, of course. Sorry I was a bit slow there. Thanks Fanny. I see what you meant now Scofflaw. The arsonist has specific intent to cause the fire, as God has specific intent to create the Earth. So the creation of Earth is ultimately his business.

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Ah, of course. Sorry I was a bit slow there. Thanks Fanny. I see what you meant now Scofflaw. The arsonist has specific intent to cause the fire, as God has specific intent to create the Earth. So the creation of Earth is ultimately his business.

Yes - I worry about this kind of thing sometimes, but on the whole I like to think my comprehension of theism makes me a better atheist!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Yes, but what if God's intention was to create earth?

But of course that is the issue, why think that?

The Earth doesn't look at all like it was created by God for any purpose.

One would imagine that he would have just created the Earth, as it says in the Bible (and as I imagine the ancient Hebrews believed, when the world did look like it was created for a purpose).

What is the reason to continue to believe that God's intention was actually to create the Earth when the Earth appears to be completely the result of a natural process, as are hundreds of billion other planets.

To a theist the assumption that God created the Earth is the starting point, reached before the evidence is looked at.

People aren't looking at the evidence and reaching that conclusion, they are starting with the conclusion and trying to figure out some way (plausible to them) that the evidence can fit it. And through out history this way is constantly changing.

Using the example above, it would be like strongly believing that the McCann's must be guilty, and then attempting to view any evidence in that light. So if the evidence points to a homeless Spanish man (just making that up) then the person who believes it must have been the McCanns will start to search for ways that the homeless man may have been working for the McCanns

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote:

The Earth doesn't look at all like it was created by God for any purpose.

Here's one: Life.

Wicknight wrote:

What is the reason to continue to believe that God's intention was actually to create the Earth when the Earth appears to be completely the result of a natural process, as are hundreds of billion other planets.

I've never argued that it wasn't part of a natural process. I'm fairly sure I've made it clear that I don't disagree with the current thinking on the creation of the universe. The difference between us appears to be that I believe God started it all, whereas you believe it was some by some still unknown process that was entirely devoid of any divine interaction.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

This has been presented to you. Though I'm not sure why you consider it an extraordinary claim.

Is the idea that the Earth was produced by a natural process that happens billions of other places around the universe "extraordinary"?

I would consider it the exact opposite. It is ordinary. The Earth, and how it was made, is ordinary. Very ordinary in fact. It is likely that there are billions of very similar planets through out the universe.

So, of these billions of 'very similar' planets, how many do we actually know that exist? How many such planets have actually been discovered? 1 billion? 1 million? 1000? 100? 10? 1? or none? Not exactly central to our discussion, I admit, but indulge me since I'm a such a skeptic.

Now, your claim was not "science tells us that the earth was produced by a natural process". Your claim was that science tells us that God did not make the earth. Those claims are very far from being synonymous. It would hardly be impossible for an omnipotent God to make the earth by an apparently natural process. Now, you may not believe that He did so, but science does not tell us that He didn't.

Picking a random object, say my PC's CPU chip, is it an extraordinary claim that God did not make the CPU in my computer chip?

I know pretty well how it was made, and at no point that I'm aware of, did God do anything.

It was manufactured in the AMD processing plant, which I think is in Asia.

It was designed by the very smart people at AMD, no of which, I'm pretty sure, are God.

It was created out of a manufacturing process known as semiconductor device fabrication. While not a natural process, there has never been any hint that God is involved at any stage of the process.

So, did God make my computer chip? No.

Is that an extra-ordinary claim? I certain wouldn't think so.

There is evidence that your computer chip was created by someone, namely AMD. That would be evidence (although apparently not cast-iron proof to you) that it was not created directly by God.

However, there is no evidence that the world was created by AMD. Nor is there scientific evidence that the world was created by God. Nor is there evidence that the world was created by no-one. As far as 'who', if anyone, made the world, science is silent. It tells us nothing.

Your AMD illustration would be much more analogous if your computer chip bore no marks or identifying features to help you know who made it. Then you could say that there was no evidence that AMD made it. Indeed, it is not necessary to assume that AMD was involved at all, since Intel or some other unknown company may have produced it. That, however, is a far cry from claiming that you have evidence that AMD definitely did not produce it. If you said, "Science tells me that AMD did not produce this chip" purely because an unproven possible alternative (Intel) exists, then you would quite rightly be dismissed as a nincompoop.

Well a slightly more accurate headline would be "POLICE PRODUCE STRONG EVIDENCE THAT A HOMELESS SPANISH MAN KILLED MADELEINE"

Now people could claim that this does not prove that the McCanns were not involved in some way. But that is not what the evidence tells us. The evidence tells us someone else killed Madeleine and that the McCanns were not involved. .

But of course if someone has already convinced themselves that the McCanns must be involved, some how, even if they don't know how, that won't convince them they weren't

No, it wouldn't be more accurate, because there is no strong evidence to suggest who made the earth. This analogy is fatally flawed for the same reason as your computer chip analogy.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

The Earth doesn't look at all like it was created by God for any purpose.

There are 3 fairly obvious logical flaws in this line of reasoning.

1. Lots of things don't 'look' like they are what they are. A stubby caterpillar does not look like it is connected in any way with a graceful butterfly.

2. Who is to decide whether Earth looks like it was created by God for a purpose. Most people actually think it does look that way, hence one of the reasons for the popularity of religion. You would have to change your argument to "The Earth doesn't, in Wicknight's opinion, look like it was created by God for any purpose." You must forgive me, but I hardly find that to be a convincing argument.

3. There is only one way one could know if the earth looks like it was created by God for any purpose. You would need to know all the possible purposes for which a God could create a planet, which would imply omniscience.

Scofflaw

Only 11 pages in, and this thread is...reminiscent...of a certain other thread, mirrored.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Why is a unicorn not analogous to a god?

They seem very similar to me. And I can't prove either didn't create the universe, or Earth.

The second part of your post is correct. You can't prove that a unicorn didn't create the universe. You would be an idiot if you said you could prove such a thing. Nor can science tell you that a unicorn didn't create the universe. You can make an assumption, based on 'common sense', but your assumption may very well be wrong.

Why is a unicorn not analogous to a god?

Because a unicorn, as the term is normally understood, refers to a beast of similar size to a horse. Our scientific knowledge has advanced to a sufficient degree that it is extremely unlikely (but not impossible) that an animal of such a size could have escaped being photographed or otherwise documented. Therefore there is considerable evidence (but not actual proof) to suggest that unicorns do not exist.

However, no sane scientist would claim that we have attained a sufficient degree of scientific proficiency to ensure that we can photograph or otherwise document the presence of a God as He is described in the Bible.

Therefore a better analogy would be as follows:

pH wrote:

The reason I'm doing this is because you made a claim that "science told us prior to 1901" that okapis didn't exist. Therefore I am asking for evidence to back up your extraordinary claim.

If you had said "science did not tell us prior to 1901 that okapis existed" then all you have said would be evidence to support your claim.

I don't believe that science told us anything prior to 1901 as to the question of whether okapis existed or not.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Only 11 pages in, and this thread is...reminiscent...of a certain other thread, mirrored.

cordially,
Scofflaw

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." (Charles Caleb Colton)

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

I don't think that holds at all. If an arsonist starts a fire that, due to high winds, spreads quickly, and kills many, is the arsonist not a murderer? Should the wind be in court? The flame?

cordially,
Scofflaw

A better example would be if an arsonist starts a fire ... and that fire went on to create the universe, space and time could you call him God?

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

A better example would be if an arsonist starts a fire ... and that fire went on to create the universe, space and time could you call him God?

Assuming the arsonist knew that a Universe would result, it doesn't seem any more peculiar than the next creation myth. Good deal less messy than many, in fact.

If the Big Bang required, for the sake of argument, some agency to set up the conditions for it, why would one not call that agent "God"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Here's one: Life.

It doesn't look like the Earth was created for life.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

The difference between us appears to be that I believe God started it all

Why?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

So, of these billions of 'very similar' planets, how many do we actually know that exist? How many such planets have actually been discovered? 1 billion? 1 million? 1000? 100? 10? 1? or none? Not exactly central to our discussion, I admit, but indulge me since I'm a such a skeptic.

Ones that we have actually detected? Hundreds (not sure of the exact figure, it is constantly being updated).

The billions comes from the scientific models and the size of the universe.

PDN wrote:

Now, your claim was not "science tells us that the earth was produced by a natural process". Your claim was that science tells us that God did not make the earth.

Well I would consider the two to be the same.

PDN wrote:

It would hardly be impossible for an omnipotent God to make the earth by an apparently natural process.

I never said it would, since when you are dealing with an omnipotent being nothing is impossible.

That is the "advantage" (if you could call it that) that you have PDN, you have defined as part of your religion a divine being that can pretty much do anything, no matter how ridiculous.

No matter what I say to you if you want to you can say "God could have done that"

God could have made the CPU in my computer, despite the fact that it looks entirely man made.

Which is why I keep asking you what would proof that God didn't make the Earth actually look like. And you keep not answering, probably because you realise that such a concept is impossible.

PDN wrote:

Now, you may not believe that He did so, but science does not tell us that He didn't.

It does. Science could be wrong, but that is what it tells us.

As I asked, is there any theory in science that invokes God in its model?

PDN wrote:

There is evidence that your computer chip was created by someone, namely AMD. That would be evidence (although apparently not cast-iron proof to you) that it was not created directly by God.

:eek:

Are you saying that if something is created by someone (ie a human) that means it cannot be created by God?

That doesn't hold up at all.

PDN wrote:

If you said, "Science tells me that AMD did not produce this chip" purely because an unproven possible alternative (Intel) exists, then you would quite rightly be dismissed as a nincompoop.

You seem to be avoiding the point (surprisingly)

Is the statement "God did not make my CPU" and extra-ordinary claim?

You appear to be saying it isn't because we have evidence someone else created it, as if human interaction is valid to claim God wasn't involved, where as natural processes isn't.

Are you claiming it is safe to say (ie not extraordinary) that God wasn't involved if there is evidence something was done by a human, but it is extraordinary to say God wasn't involved if there is evidence something was done by a natural process?

Seems a rather bizarre thing to claim.

PDN wrote:

1. Lots of things don't 'look' like they are what they are. A stubby caterpillar does not look like it is connected in any way with a graceful butterfly.

Actually it does, you just have to study it properly.

There are very few things in the universe that are actually completely different than how they appear on close examination. You have to get down to the quantum level to get that weird.

PDN wrote:

You must forgive me, but I hardly find that to be a convincing argument.

I don't expect you to find any of this convincing PDN (see my earlier posts)

I asked before what you believe would convince you that God did not create the Earth (or heck doesn't exist) and I didn't get a reply. I would imagine you don't have an answer because nothing would ever convince you otherwise because the belief that it must be true is too fundamental to you.

But then this thread isn't really about you, its about the blonde girl.

Just because you don't find something convincing doesn't mean it isn't convincing.

PDN wrote:

Because a unicorn, as the term is normally understood, refers to a beast of similar size to a horse. Our scientific knowledge has advanced to a sufficient degree that it is extremely unlikely (but not impossible) that an animal of such a size could have escaped being photographed or otherwise documented.

You seem to be forgetting that a unicorn is magical. It can do what ever it wants to avoid being detected (sound familiar)

See how interesting things get when you define something as magical, thus making it completely untestable.

PDN wrote:

No, it wouldn't be more accurate, because there is no strong evidence to suggest who made the earth.

Ok, I see what is going on here. You are trapped in the initial assumption that someone must have made the Earth.

So the only way to convince you that God didn't make the Earth would be evidence that some other intelligence made the Earth.

That would apparently be a valid (to you) claim that God wasn't involved, in the same way that evidence that AMD made my CPU is valid evidence that God didn't

For some reason the claim that no one made the Earth, that it was done as part of natural process is not valid to you.

To me that is of course ridiculous. The idea that someone else made the Earth is no more or less valid evidence that God wasn't involved that the idea that it was done by a natural process

Oh how fascinating the theist mind

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

Nope.

Let's assume for a moment that I am an omnipotent being, and I'm going to inspire you (and a couple of others) to write down how the Universe came to be. First, I'm going to show you the nothing that existed before spacetime - darkness, and void. Then I will show you the moment of the Big Bang, the blossoming of everything into existence. Then, because you live here on Earth, I'm going to show you the formation of the Earth, and the ripping out of it of the Moon. I'll fast forward through the long aeons of bugger all, and show you the life that teems in the sea. I'll show you the greening of the land, and the things that crawl onto it. Once again we fast forward through a whole load of things living and dying, while the seas rise and fall, and finally I get to show you the first in your species that you recognise as human - standing, wearing clothes, talking.

What I've just done is sent you on a 'trip' of literally cosmic proportions - and now you take that jumble of vast impressions and write it down. Compare it with what the others have written, and summarise the result in the length of an essay. How 'factual' and 'historic' is your account? Now let's assume that not only do you have no scientific training, but in fact come from a Bronze Age culture. How much will be 'factual' and 'historic' in your account? How much of what you saw did you even understand?

How will you write it down in a few thousand words? Will you write an exact, step-by-step, blow-by-blow account? I don't think you will.

How will you summarise it? First, you'll have to try and put a framework on it - give it some kind of narrative. You'll probably divide it into phases - and if you're modern, you'll use the term 'phase', too. If you're not modern, you'll use the only 'phase' type words you know about - days, or weeks, or years, whatever. You'll probably wind up with days, because otherwise people will be asking "what happened on the second day of the third week, then?".

I'm also prepared to bet that your opening lines will wind up looking surprisingly like the opening lines of Genesis - maybe something like this:

1 In the beginning was created the universe.

2 And the universe was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the void.

3 And there was light.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Finally a chance to reply to this.
Ok, firstly that was a very clever post. But I think you are missing some important aspects in your synopsis of how God may of let his creation be recorded.
Firstly you say that God may have merely 'inspired' these primitive people to record their accounts of creation. And furthermore that these accounts of creation, that took eons of time, were naturiscially condensed becasue a specific recounting was beyond the comprehension of the people of this time. I have a couple of problems with this.

A divine being of infintie power, after all, if he created the universe it is almost beyond doubt that controls everything in it, matter, space, time, energy etc., therefore why chose these early primitive people as the recorders of his creation in the knowledge, presumably, that these records would be passed on to future generations that would find them confusing? Why make these first people primitive at all if in fact that he had a plan for them to undertake the recording of such an important part of the history of the planet? In short why allow anything but a perfect recording of his work?

Otherwise your assumptions seem placed on the popular gambit of chrsitian theory that he created humans and then allowed them to do whatever they pleased. This is problematic becasue this idea outlays a situation where each of us is judged by how we behved in realtion, and this is very important, to his commandments and our fatih in him. Now if our opening gambit is true then this system allows older generations to corrupt newer generations becasue they have the power to record details in whichever way they please so the following generation instantly inherits a climate where making up their mind about God is more difficult becasue they are mulling over the supposed histories of their ancestors. The fist generation, who may have had first hand experience of Jesus Christ for example, can more easily believe in God becasue they have witnessed miracles etc. so people have a strong faith and lead christian lives becasue they are essentialy sure about their belief - yet many generations later the people of the earth who are still being judged by the same criteria face a much more daunting prospect. This is an unfair system all because of how the creator allowd his creation to be recorded.
The first generation to record Gods creation had the most power but we're to assume that he gave them free will to record it and possibly scramble it all up? Otherwise we're claiming that he inspired them but only very lighltly i.e not specifically so again we have the same outcome an imperfect recording of history of his creation. The only way that his history could have been recorded properly is if he dictated himslef to someone, like the claim in Islam. So the only possible logical progression is that if he (GOD) is real, then the records of creation are literal, otherwise we are claiming that he allowed systems of confusion which would corrupt future generations and cause them great difficulty in believing in him and we have seen that this is an unfair system (either for them to be judged or for him to be judging them) becasue the people closer to the initial history had a far better chance of assimilating a christian belief (because of first hand experience etc.) and the further we go from the intial recording the more jumbled up things become making 'faith' in god more and more difficult not becasue the people are less moral but becasue they have more histories to decipher. The fairest system would be, if he was going to judge us all by the same criteria, is to oversee a literal recording of his creation that reamins unchanging. Even with this provisions in place however, future generations are still left with a more difficult task merely as a result of becoming more intelligent/enlightened.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Ones that we have actually detected? Hundreds (not sure of the exact figure, it is constantly being updated).

The billions comes from the scientific models and the size of the universe.

Hmm, may I suggest that you get in touch with NASA? David, Imel, the poor fool who coordinates their planet-finding programme says that no very similar planets have been detected yet. However, he does express the hope that he will find one. http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/news/DrDavidImel.cfm

The planet issue is actually relevant to our discussion. Since science has been unable to produce any hard evidence that earthlike planets actually do exist, then would not your logic so far lead you to say that "science tells us that earthlike planets do not exist"?

I never said it would, since when you are dealing with an omnipotent being nothing is impossible.

That is the "advantage" (if you could call it that) that you have PDN, you have defined as part of your religion a divine being that can pretty much do anything, no matter how ridiculous.

No matter what I say to you if you want to you can say "God could have done that"

God could have made the CPU in my computer, despite the fact that it looks entirely man made.

Well that's your problem, not mine. If you want to make the statement "science tells us that God didn't make the earth" then you are presumably aware that God, as He is usually defined, is omnipotent. Therefore it is not unreasonable for me to invoke his omnipotence as a counter to any point you make. It seems to me that there is only one way in which you could justifiably object to me using God's omnipotence in debate. You could amend your claim to, "science tells us that a god of limited powers did not make the earth".

I find it extremely funny how some atheists (I'm being restrained with the tar brush) want to produce arguments against the notion of an omnipotent God but seem to get outraged as if theists are doing something wrong or intellectually dishonest by referring to the omnipotence of said omnipotent God.

It is like arguing against the existence of an invisible object on the grounds that no-one has seen it. Then, if someone quite reasonably points out that you wouldn't see an invisible object because it is, er, invisible, you get the response, "How dare you use invisibility as a deus ex machina? That's not fair!"

Which is why I keep asking you what would proof that God didn't make the Earth actually look like. And you keep not answering, probably because you realise that such a concept is impossible.

Now we're getting somewhere! Yes, of course the concept is impossible. That is the point I have been making all along. You cannot prove that God did not make the earth, not because of my intellectual intransigence, but because such a proposition lies outside the competence of science. That is why your claim, that science tells us that God did not make the earth, is nonsensical (I use the word strictly literally, not pejoratively). It is like saying, "Haematology tells us that Canberra is the capital of Australia."

PDN wrote:

Now, your claim was not "science tells us that the earth was produced by a natural process". Your claim was that science tells us that God did not make the earth.

Wicknight wrote:

Well I would consider the two to be the same.

Unfortunately that reveals more about you than it does about the origins of the earth, or indeed whether God was involved or not.

Logically, so long as there exists a theoretical possibility that God created the earth through natural processes, the two are obviously not the same.

Science could be wrong, but that is what it tells us.

As I asked, is there any theory in science that invokes God in its model?

Sigh! Your claim was not "science gives us no model or theory that invokes God". The absence of a theory

for

God does not equate to a consensus against God.

I am intrigued by your notion that science tells us things that are wrong, but I suspect it will deflect us from the main issue at hand. I will put that one in my back pocket for future use.

PDN wrote:

There is evidence that your computer chip was created by someone, namely AMD. That would be evidence (although apparently not cast-iron proof to you) that it was not created directly by God.

Wicknight wrote:

Are you saying that if something is created by someone (ie a human) that means it cannot be created by God?

That doesn't hold up at all.

di·rect·ly (dĭ-rěkt'lē, dī-) adv.

1. In a direct line or manner; straight: The road runs directly north.
2. Without anyone or anything intervening

(dictionary.com)

PDN wrote:

Lots of things don't 'look' like they are what they are. A stubby caterpillar does not look like it is connected in any way with a graceful butterfly.

Wicknight wrote:

Actually it does, you just have to study it properly.

That's a fair point. So, in order to say that this world doesn't look like it was made by God for any purpose, you would need to study the world properly (geology, biology etc.) and you would need to study the purposes of God properly (theology). That, I suggest, disqualifies both of us. I am obviously not proficient in science and you are obviously not proficient in theology.

I don't expect you to find any of this convincing PDN (see my earlier posts)

I asked before what you believe would convince you that God did not create the Earth (or heck doesn't exist) and I didn't get a reply. I would imagine you don't have an answer because nothing would ever convince you otherwise because the belief that it must be true is too fundamental to you.

But then this thread isn't really about you, its about the blonde girl.

Just because you don't find something convincing doesn't mean it isn't convincing.

I see, so the aim of this thread is not to engage in serious discussion but rather to simply produce arguments that we presume will be convincing to a dumb (and possibly drunk) blonde girl in a pub? That explains a lot of the peculiar logic.

Maybe you could amend your claim so it reads "Science tells us, at least to the satisfaction of a stupid blonde girl in a pub, that God didn't make the earth." Then I will happily agree with you.

You appear to think that my intellectual intransigence is the problem here. However, if that were so then I would expect to be overwhelmed by the volume of posts from other atheists saying, "Come on, PDN, you're talking nonsense. Of course the absence of scientific evidence for God is exactly the same as evidence against God." After all, this is the Atheist and Agnostic forum, and the posters here are not backward in coming forward when they disagree with someone. Both myself and Tim Robbins have, in the past, had to answer hosts of objections from many posters at once.

Yet, even though this thread is being viewed more than any other on any of the Religion & Spirituality boards, there appears to be little support for your position. This despite the fact that, as a Christian posting in the lions' den (and, I may add, a Christian who has, at one time or another, managed to piss just about everybody off) I must be a very tempting target. I can't see that happening if the problem here was simply my pig-headed refusal to listen to your superior logic. In fact, the silence is strangely reminiscent of the lack of support that JC receives on the Christianity board. I wonder why that is?

You seem to be forgetting that a unicorn is magical. It can do what ever it wants to avoid being detected (sound familiar)

See how interesting things get when you define something as magical, thus making it completely untestable.

That might be a good reason to avoid making sweeping and unverifiable statements about magic.

Ok, I see what is going on here. You are trapped in the initial assumption that someone must have made the Earth.

So the only way to convince you that God didn't make the Earth would be evidence that some other intelligence made the Earth.

That would apparently be a valid (to you) claim that God wasn't involved, in the same way that evidence that AMD made my CPU is valid evidence that God didn't

For some reason the claim that no one made the Earth, that it was done as part of natural process is not valid to you.

To me that is of course ridiculous. The idea that someone else made the Earth is no more or less valid evidence that God wasn't involved that the idea that it was done by a natural process

Oh how fascinating the theist mind

No, I am not trapped in any initial assumption. I am, however, constrained by the limits of the analogy that you chose.

You chose an analogy that centred on the fact that AMD made your computer chip, therefore that carries implications about whether God made it or not.

So, in discussing the issue as to whether the earth was made by somebody else, I am simply addressing the central plank of your analogy. That would be quite natural to any mind, not just the theist mind.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Hmm, may I suggest that you get in touch with NASA? David, Imel, the poor fool who coordinates their planet-finding programme says that no very similar planets have been detected yet.

Oh sorry, I didn't read properly you were talking about "very similar" planets.

Though I think we have discovered planets that are similar to Earth, or at least have to potential to be similar in that they are roughly the same size and position to the stars or that contain water vapor.

http://exoplanet.eu/

Just to clarify are you skeptical that these planets don't exist?

PDN wrote:

Since science has been unable to produce any hard evidence that earthlike planets actually do exist, then would not your logic so far lead you to say that "science tells us that earthlike planets do not exist"?

Well no, because we have detailed models of how these planets would emerge.

And given the vastness of space it is very unlikely that no planet any where has ever reached the initial parameters required for these models.

Science (as in the scientific models of solar systems) tells us that these planets should exist and should actually be relatively common throughout the universe.

And we have started to find planets that match these various parameters of Earth. And we haven't been looking that long, or that far out into space.

PDN wrote:

Well that's your problem, not mine. If you want to make the statement "science tells us that God didn't make the earth" then you are presumably aware that God, as He is usually defined, is omnipotent.

Yes, but then why isn't the claim "God didn't make my CPU" an extraordinary claim?

Is it simply that it doesn't fit within your theological reasoning of what God concerns himself with?

PDN wrote:

I find it extremely funny how some atheists (I'm being restrained with the tar brush) want to produce arguments against the notion of an omnipotent God but seem to get outraged as if theists are doing something wrong or intellectually dishonest by referring to the omnipotence of said omnipotent God.

"Outraged" my be the wrong word there PDN. You seem to be the only one getting upset over claims of what science tells us.

PDN wrote:

It is like arguing against the existence of an invisible object on the grounds that no-one has seen it. Then, if someone quite reasonably points out that you wouldn't see an invisible object because it is, er, invisible, you get the response, "How dare you use invisibility as a deus ex machina? That's not fair!"

Well that is actually exactly what it is like, because if the object is invisible and no one can see it in the first place then why are some people insisting it exists in the first place.

There is absolutely no evidence that God did anything in the production of the Earth, and we have a perfectly fine model that in no way requires God to do anything.

So why do you think God was involved in the creation of the Earth? Science tells us that it was a natural process.

PDN wrote:

You cannot prove that God did not make the earth, not because of my intellectual intransigence, but because such a proposition lies outside the competence of science.

I seem to remember saying that a long time ago. But the point you seem to be failing to grasp is that science cannot, nor does it attempt to, prove anything

Science can no more prove God didn't create the Earth than it can prove God did not create my CPU.

PDN wrote:

That is why your claim, that science tells us that God did not make the earth, is nonsensical (I use the word strictly literally, not pejoratively).

"Science tells us..." is not the same as "Science proves..."

Science never proves anything, so how could they mean the same thing. If they meant the same thing then science could never tell us anything.

PDN wrote:

Unfortunately that reveals more about you than it does about the origins of the earth, or indeed whether God was involved or not.

Probably, since I don't start from the initial position that God must exists and must have been involved with the creation of the Earth.

It is the same as I don't start off from the position that God made my computer.

I of course understand you do, but I would hope you realise that you don't start from this position for a rational reason.

PDN wrote:

Logically, so long as there exists a theoretical possibility that God created the earth through natural processes, the two are obviously not the same.

There is a theoretical possibility that God does an infinite number of things (including making my CPU).

There is a theoretical possibility that an infinite number of imaginary omnipotent beings does an infinite number of different things.

But then there is no reason to believe this. And without any reason to believe it, why would some one?

PDN wrote:

Sigh! Your claim was not "science gives us no model or theory that invokes God". The absence of a theory God does not equate to a consensus against God.

Yes it does. Have you never heard of Occum's Razor

If something can work without God (or any imaginary being), and there is no evidence that God (or any imaginary being) was involved in any way, there is no reason to attribute the process to said God (or any imaginary being)

It makes little sense, and one would have to question the motivation of someone who does say there is reason to attribute it to said god.

PDN wrote:

di·rect·ly (dĭ-rěkt'lē, dī-) adv.

1. In a direct line or manner; straight: The road runs directly north.
2. Without anyone or anything intervening

(dictionary.com)

But we have already established that if God created the Earth he made it look like he didn't, it would look like it was created by the Sun in a natural process. Would the same not hold for my CPU? That if God produced it it would look like he didn't

So again, is it an extra ordinary claim to say that God did not create my CPU?

You seem to be simply deflecting because you realise how ridiculous it would be for someone to get upset over someone else claiming that God did not make his computer.

PDN wrote:

So, in order to say that this world doesn't look like it was made by God for any purpose, you would need to study the world properly (geology, biology etc.) and you would need to study the purposes of God properly (theology).

You will excuse me if I don't accept that theology is the study of how God works :rolleyes:

To me it is like saying that people who watch Star Wars hundreds of times are studying how the Jedi work. It is an imaginary subject, the produce of a over fruitful human imagination.

PDN wrote:

Maybe you could amend your claim so it reads "Science tells us, at least to the satisfaction of a stupid blonde girl in a pub, that God didn't make the earth." Then I will happily agree with you.

But the point you seem to be missing is that what science tells us is irrelevant to you, because you have already made your mind up that it is a logical impossibility for science to tell you anything that contradicts your faith.

Ultimately you have already decided to detach yourself from science because you are closed off to the idea that what you have faith in can be wrong.

PDN wrote:

You appear to think that my intellectual intransigence is the problem here.

No, your unquestioning faith is the problem here, your unwillingness to accept the most simple explanation for events such as the creation of the Earth on religious grounds.

As I've asked before, what evidence would convince you that God doesn't exist, or didn't create the Earth?

PDN wrote:

Yet, even though this thread is being viewed more than any other on any of the Religion & Spirituality boards, there appears to be little support for your position.

Well that is probably because what you think my position is (Science "proves" God didn't create the Earth) isn't actually my position.

PDN wrote:

That might be a good reason to avoid making sweeping and unverifiable statements about magic.

If it is magic it cannot be verifiable. That is the point.

PDN wrote:

You chose an analogy that centred on the fact that AMD made your computer chip, therefore that carries implications about whether God made it or not.

I did, and I asked you is it an extra-ordinary claim to say that God did not create my CPU?

Its a simple question PDN.

You seem to be saying that no it wouldn't be an extra-ordinary claim because we know that AMD made it, and there is evidence as such.

The implication being that if we know AMD made it there is little reason to believe that God did. A study (science) of the chip tells us that AMD made it.

What you seem to be failing to realise is that the same holds for Earth. We know that a natural process created Earth. So what reason is there to believe that God was involved?

Why is there any more reason to believe that God created the Earth than there is to believe that God created my Computer?