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

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

However, this raises another interesting issue. If we don't have a definition of human, then all statements contrasting humans with animals must therefore be nonsense.

I understand that Richard Dawkins argues in The Selfish Gene that humans have an adaptive mechanism (a meme) that other species lack. Therefore, if we do not have a definition of 'human', then Dawkins must be talking crap (assuming we have a definition for 'crap').

You can make statements about how modern humans (post Cro-Magnon) can be contrasted with animals. This is because we are well after our speciation period and very distinct qualities have long since immerged. Such as the increased importance of the information properties of the brain as opposed to its physical hard-wiring.
However that doesn't mean you can clearly distinguish the earliest humans. Genetically speaking humans didn't come from a single lineage, but a large collection of genetically distinct individuals.

It is similar to the dinosaur issue in paleontology. You can contrast Dinosaurs with their reptilian ancestors, but it would be very difficult to single out the first dinosaurs.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I'm not completely sure what you mean by an 'abstract God'.

Some people think that the kind of God needed to create the universe we see today would be an Aristotlean God.
It's fine though my question has basically been answered.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I would also not have any objections to some of the more speculative physics I'm aware of (however cursory my understanding) that attempt to explain what happened before the Big Bang.

Some? Would there be some you have issue with? Which ones?

Fanny Cradock

Son Goku wrote:

Some? Would there be some you have issue with? Which ones?

Admittedly I could have phrased it better. But I underlined 'some' simply because I am not familiar with all the theories.

Son Goku

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Admittedly I could have phrased it better. But I underlined 'some' simply because I am not familiar with all the theories.

Ah, grand. Question answered.

Zillah

PDN wrote:

In that case, we should all find something better to do - so I'm off to Church!

LMAO!

There's still lots of questions above for you to answer ^_^

PDN

PDN wrote:

"Death, pain and suffering?" I am obviously missing something here. What death, pain or suffering has been caused by discussions about whether creation occurred in 6 literal days or not?

stevejazzx wrote:

Perhaps you are missing something and there I was assuming that you had read about christian history...

Church history is a particular interest of mine. I have read hundreds of books and journal articles, a number of them written by opponents of Christianity, but I can honestly say that I don't recall any instances of anyone being tortured or killed over the issue of whether the creation accounts in Genesis were literal or metaphorical. Now, I make no claims to omniscience, nor do I claim to have read everything published on a subject , but I think you should produce some evidence to back up your claim.

So, Steve, what "death, pain and suffering" has been caused by people discussing whether creation occurred in 6 literal days? (Unless, of course, you are talking about all the trees that have been butchered in producing all the books and papers on the subject?)

If you can produce such evidence then I will gladly hold up my hands and admit my error. If you can't produce any evidence then maybe you should do the same?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

1. I quoted Tigay, not because I agree with him, but in response to your request for me to provide evidence that there are both liberal and evangelical biblical scholars who, on the basis of evidence, believe the Genesis creation accounts to be intended as metaphorical rather than scientifically accurate.

But my point was that Tigay appears to believe that Genesis is an attempt to explain an actual event, the creation of the Earth by God to be a perfect place for humans to live. The details are not important, but it still attempts to explain something real.

The example I contrasted it with is the Resurrection. The details for the various accounts of the Resurrection are all wrong, they flatly contradict each other. But Christians would say that that isn't important the purpose of the story is to explain the importance of the Resurrection, not be a police report as to what exactly happened.

The point though is that the Resurrection actually happened and we are expected to understand that it happened in some way that is suggested by the various accounts, even if the accounts don't match up.

Tigay appears to be saying the same thing about Genesis. The details might be all wrong, but there is an actual event behind this, that the details dance around.

PDN wrote:

This was in response to your erroneous statement that an academic consensus existed on the matter.

Fair enough, and I've concede that point as you clearly know a lot more about it that me. I was just a little puzzled why you chose this example from Tigay as he seems to be more agreeing with myself and Steve than with the idea that Genesis is not attempting to describe an actual event.

PDN wrote:

3. Since you have now made the claim that "science tells us" that God did not make the earth, I am entitled to ask you for proof or evidence.

Certainly, there is a ton of evidence that the Earth was created from the remains of an exploded start approx 5 billion years ago. In fact no other theory, strong or weak, even exists in science as far as I know.

PDN wrote:

Your argument so far appears to be that there is no evidence that God did create the earth.

No, my argument is that all the evidence of how the Earth was created points to a natural event (exploding star, gravity pull, formation of liquid planets, cooling of outer crust, formation of atmosphere).

All the evidence demonstrates that it was a natural event that is repeated billions of times through out the galaxy.

PDN wrote:

4. Even a blind half-wit on drugs should be able to grasp the difference between "There is no proof or evidence that X is true" and "There is proof or evidence that X is not true."

I'm pretty sure I have never used the word "proof"

That is your word PDN because you know (or should know by now) that science cannot proved proof for anything, since it is a mathematical/logic concept, so you can demand it all you like and no one will ever be able to provide it to you.

There is no "proof" God created the Earth, and there is certain no "proof" that he didn't (I can't even imagine what that proof could even be).

PDN wrote:

I personally do not believe that there is definitive evidence that God did not create the earth.

Fair enough. But then I don't think you would ever classify an evidence as "definitive", because ultimately the conclusion is not one that you are prepared to make in the first place.

You are calling for "proof" safe in the knowledge that you can simply disregard anything that is presented to you as not being definitive enough for you.

Ultimately it is a pointless exercise.

Which is why I asked to you explain what exactly you think this proof or "definitive evidence" would constitute? What exactly would convince you that God didn't create the Earth?

I would suspect that answer is "nothing"

PDN wrote:

You, however, have made the extraordinary claim that "science tells us" (implying evidence) that God did not make the earth.

Science does tell us that God did not make the Earth as was once believed, that instead the Earth was created by a star exploding and the remains of this explosion gathering together under the weight of its own gravity. There is no theory in science that has the Earth being created in anything other than a natural event, an event that is repeated billions of times across the galaxy.

But as ever, science does not "prove" this, since science doesn't prove anything, which is the point you seem to be missing.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Fair enough, and I've concede that point as you clearly know a lot more about it that me. I was just a little puzzled why you chose this example from Tigay as he seems to be more agreeing with myself and Steve than with the idea that Genesis is not attempting to describe an actual event.

The reason why I chose that example was because it demonstrated my point, that there is no consensus among scholars on the subject at hand, and that there are both liberal and conservative scholars who believe that the creation accounts in Genesis were intended to be understood metaphorically rather than as scientifically accurate.

Let me stress again that I am not endorsing Tigay's views. Indeed, at no stage in this thread (or indeed, anywhere on these boards) have I indicated what my own views are on the creation of the world. My own opinion, whether evolutionist or creationist, is absolutely irrelevant to this entire thread. My sole purpose has been to address the OP and highlight its most obvious fallacy - that Steve cannot claim to have discovered the definitive argument against the existence of the biblical God when, in fact, he is simply arguing against a minority strand of opinion (creationism) within Christianity. For that reason I have avoided following the many rabbit trails offered to me and have concentrated on demonstrating that theistic evolution (and the belief that the world is billions of years old) is consistent with belief in the biblical God. Tigay was a useful witness to support my point, irrespective of whether I personally agree with him or not.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

My sole purpose has been to address the OP and highlight its most obvious fallacy - that Steve cannot claim to have discovered the definitive argument against the existence of the biblical God when, in fact, he is simply arguing against a minority strand of opinion (creationism) within Christianity.

But the two aren't connected, which seems to be the point you are missing. (and in fairness I too have been discussing a lot of stuff off topic and irrelevant to the actual OP)

In fact the fact that Creationism is a minority opinion now when it was in fact the default position for a Christian a few hundred years ago, simply highlights Steve's point, that this is actually evidence or argument that this stuff isn't real, because it has already forced believers to frame shift their beliefs and any time that happens the likely conclusion is that its just people kidding themselves to start with.

The blonde girl in the story could have been one of two people

1 - Someone who open to the idea that the Biblical God might not actually exist.

2 - Someone who is not open to the idea that the Biblical God might not actually exist

While in the story isn't that clear, it seems like she was No. 1.

The issue is that a lot of people aren't, and will simply change what they originally though God was when presented with an argument or evidence that he didn't do or isn't what was originally thought, rather than entertain the idea that he actually isn't real.

Therefore it is impossible for any evidence or argument to "definitively" (there is that word again) convince a person like this that God doesn't exist, because when it is put that God isn't what was originally said, or didn't do what the person, or the religion, claimed he did this is no seen as evidence against the God, but instead it is absorbed by the admission that the person or the religion where wrong about what they thought God was.

The religion itself frame-shifts while holding on to the basic idea that the god still must exists, because the alternative is literally not acceptable.

So, for example, God created the Earth in 6 days, with man and woman in a garden some where in the middle east.

When we discover (either Aquanis or now, I don't mean to suggest that we are only just discovering this, Christians who took this seriously were ridiculed in the 2nd century, as were Jews), through proper study, that that didn't happen.

To the believers that isn't evidence that the story is wrong, but that we have miss interpreted at some point it. So they go back and look at it again and come up with theories that show that yes we were misinterpreting it.

They (the original believers) were wrong, because the story itself cannot be wrong That is a given.

So of course you don't see it as convincing, you have already convinced yourself that God must exist, the Bible must in some way be inspired by him.

You see the fact that this girl accepted that argument as evidence she is an idiot. Now it isn't a particularly iron proof argument, but to accept that argument one simply has to be open to the idea God might not exist.

It only seems completely idiotic to you because you are so heavily invest in the opposite conclusion that any argument to convince you is on such a high pedistile that it would have to be the most iron clad argument ever in existence (and as such probably doesn't exist).

Which is why I keep asking you for examples of arguments or evidence that you believe would convince you that the Biblical God doesn't exist.

I honestly believe, and I admit this is presumptuous of me, that there is no argument or evidence that would ever convince you that God doesn't exist. At least not at the moment. Presented with such evidence you would simply re-evaluate what you originally thought God was while still holding on to the basic idea that he exists, loves you, and will save you because the alternative is simply not an acceptable conclusion.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Science does tell us that God did not make the Earth as was once believed, that instead the Earth was created by a star exploding and the remains of this explosion gathering together under the weight of its own gravity. There is no theory in science that has the Earth being created in anything other than a natural event, an event that is repeated billions of times across the galaxy.

But as ever, science does not "prove" this, since science doesn't prove anything, which is the point you seem to be missing.

Just to clarify that - the Sun is thought to have coalesced out of a relatively dense dusty cloud of gas, and the rest of the Solar System to have coalesced out of the thicker disc of dusty gas that circled the newborn Sun. The material in that dusty gas is partly the remains of an earlier generation of stars, since all the elements above hydrogen are thought to have been formed by stellar fusion.

All the current evidence we have is compatible with this model. Circumstantially, we also observe that stars are born in 'stellar nurseries' of dense dusty clouds of gas, that when young they can have circumstellar discs of material, and that there can be gaps in these circumstellar discs as predicted by the formation of planets within them (nascent planets sweep a lane through the disc).

Now, personally, if I were going for a single theory that suggests the Judeo-Christian view of the Universe is entirely false, I would go for a very recent, and rather elegant, piece of work. You'd need a New Scientist subscription (or the current copy of New Scientist) to view the rest, but I'll quote the start of the article:

New Scientist wrote:

If you think of yourself as unique, think again. The days when physicists could ignore the concept of parallel universes may have come to an end. If that doesn't send a shudder down your spine, think of it this way: our world is just one of many. You are just one version of many.

David Deutsch at the University of Oxford and colleagues have shown that key equations of quantum mechanics arise from the mathematics of parallel universes. "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science," says Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California at Davis. In one parallel universe, at least, it will - whether it does in our one remains to be seen.

The "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics was proposed 50 years ago by Hugh Everett, a graduate student at Princeton University

David Deutsch is one of the founders of quantum computing - the speed of quantum computing is thought to derive from the way that a quantum computer literally uses multiple universes to do its calculations.

This latest research results from a consideration of something called the Born calculations, which can be used to give the probability of indeterminate quantum states collapsing into any particular state on observation. The distribution of states has never been found to match any model, but it turns out that it matches exactly what you'd get if the branching multiple-universe model is true.

It may not be immediately obvious what the theological ramifications of this are, but they are as follows:

In a single linear Universe, every decision you make can be totted up at the end of your life, and you can be saved or condemned according to this life.

In a multiverse that branches for every possible quantum state, there are millions or billions of you. Somewhere, an atheist PDN argues with an evangelical Wicknight. Looked at across all the multiple universes, for any given individual there will almost certainly always be a path where they made all the right decisions to be saved - that is, we should always be able to pick a perfectly Christian PDN, a perfectly Christian Scofflaw, and a perfectly Christian Wicknight, merely by following the right series of branches. Not only that, but those perfect Christians will share common branches with imperfect Christians, and perhaps even with the downright damned - that is, before some particular point, they were the same person.

It therefore becomes necessary, in order to condemn the atheist Scofflaw, to also condemn part of the perfectly Christian Scofflaw, because at one point they were the same person.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

All the current evidence we have is compatible with this model.

Which was my point with "science tells us"

As far as any observations are concerned the Earth looks like a perfectly natural body, created through a perfectly natural processes, with no evidence of any purpose to, or manipulation of, that creation.

If God did actually created the Earth using magic (and I stress it is impossible to prove either way) he did so in such a way that the Earth looks exactly the same as if it was created naturally, because the Earth appears to look like it was created by the same process that created all the other planets we have observed.

Which makes it very unlikely in the same way that it is very unlikely I am God pretending to be a good looking Irish man in my mid to late 20s.

But then it gets down to what someone is prepared to consider. The blonde woman was prepared to consider that God didn't exist. I would imagine that most of the Christian posters aren't, or at least not to any serious degree.

To someone who is not prepared to consider that the Earth was not created by God for some purpose, then the argument is pointless, because no matter how it turns out the Earth was created those who need to believe will attribute that to God, no matter how far fetched the explanation is.

Which is why we get the theist idea that the entire universe (which we now know is very big), not just Earth, was created by God so that we could exist.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

But the two aren't connected, which seems to be the point you are missing. (and in fairness I too have been discussing a lot of stuff off topic and irrelevant to the actual OP)

In fact the fact that Creationism is a minority opinion now when it was in fact the default position for a Christian a few hundred years ago, simply highlights Steve's point, that this is actually evidence or argument that this stuff isn't real, because it has already forced believers to frame shift their beliefs and any time that happens the likely conclusion is that its just people kidding themselves to start with.

Not at all. The fact that creationism was the default position for Christians 200 years ago demonstrates only that beliefs have changed within Christendom over the years. For example, belief in papal authority was not a majority Christian belief in the 1st and 2nd centuries, nor is it a majority belief now. The fact that it was a majority belief for a period in history in no way leads to the conclusion that the central tenets of Christianity are untrue.

Adherence to a 6-day Creation was not required of believers in the Christian Church in the earliest days of the faith, as is well attested by the writings of many Church Fathers (Origen, Augustine etc.). The fact that it became a default belief for a portion of the Church's history, but is no longer so, is no argument at all against the existence of God.

Even if Christians re-examine certain interpretations of the Bible in the light of new knowledge, how does this imply that all their beliefs are false?

Science does tell us that God did not make the Earth as was once believed, that instead the Earth was created by a star exploding and the remains of this explosion gathering together under the weight of its own gravity. There is no theory in science that has the Earth being created in anything other than a natural event, an event that is repeated billions of times across the galaxy.

Please don't change the subject. We are not disagreeing about whether science tells us that God did not make the earth as was once believed. My question, which you have not answered, is how does science tell us that God did not make the earth?

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

My question, which you have not answered, is how does science tell us that God did not make the earth?

Well it makes the Creation of the Earth, in a certain sense more indirect. The Earth did form as a result of rocky hydrogen eddies given off by the Sun after its birth. So the Earth's actual creation is a natural event. However God could still have made all of nature itself, it's just that it is now fairly clear that the creation of Earth was an event that occured within nature under nature's laws.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

The fact that it was a majority belief for a period in history in no way leads to the conclusion that the central tenets of Christianity are untrue.

No, it leads to the conclusion that belief is not based on rational conclusion, but on the hope that something is true.

The actual beliefs will change, often dramatically, but the central core of the belief will remain. Which suggests that the core beliefs are not based on what is real, but based on a hope that people have that something like this exists.

Using a self-deprecating example, I stated that historians and Biblical scholars all agree that those who wrote the Bible wanted people to believe that Genesis is attempting to record an actual event.

And you came back and said "that isn't actually true, lots don't agree with that"

Now the central premises that they do is easier for my argument, so there is strong motivation for me to attempt to argue that actually it does. Which I rather foolishly did.

And this obviously annoyed you because it looks like I am shifting the goal posts. I initially claim one thing and I'm now shifting the goal posts to try and make sure the central premise still fits, because it is more important to me that the premise fits than if it is actually true or not.

But the very fact that I'm doing this strongly suggests that I don't actually have a bloody clue whether or not the premise is true. The question everyone should ask when they see this is why am I so determined to try and make my original premise look true?

The same holds for the history of Christianity, and all religion including the shift from Judaism to Christianity.

The details change all the time. But when people look back over this, or even when they are in the middle of it themselves, very few actually abandon the original premise and convert of become atheists/agnostics.

Why?

Well the strong suggestion is that they need the central premise to be true.

If it is said that God did X and it turns out he didn't do X, the believers simple shift to saying God did Y, because the central premise that God is real and exists is actually the only important bit.

PDN wrote:

The fact that it became a default belief for a portion of the Church's history, but is no longer so, is no argument at all against the existence of God.

It is an argument that the religion is made up, because no matter how the religion changes people still hold to the core belief, in the say I might (if I could get away with it) hold to the core idea that I original put forward

This is not an exercise in science PDN, it is an exercise in humanity, why we continue to hold to ideas even if all the details of the ideas turn out to be false.

PDN wrote:

Even if Christians re-examine certain interpretations of the Bible in the light of new knowledge, how does this imply that all their beliefs are false?

Because it strongly suggests that they are not believers based on evidence but simply because they need the belief to be real, for some reason, to the point that they will be prepared to re-evaluate till the end of time holding on to the core belief that must be true.

PDN wrote:

Please don't change the subject. We are not disagreeing about whether science tells us that God did not make the earth as was once believed.

Actually we are.

The point is that when science reveals more of the universe that contradicts what people once believed, that is absorbed by the religion. People find ways around the older contradictions yet keep the central tenant.

As science has revealed huge amounts about the universe religion has this down to a fine art form. God has retreated so much from reality that the people living in the middle east 6000 years ago would barely recognize him.

What do you think someone from that era would say if you tried to explain to him that Earth is simply one of billions of planets, and that God had so little to do with the creation of the Earth at the very must he simply set the ball rolling 10 billion years ago with the Big Bang.

He would look at you as if you were nuts.

The very fact that this religious frame-shift process exists suggests strongly that none of this is real, in the same way that my shifting of the discussion on Hebrew text suggested that I really didn't have a clue what I was talking about.

PDN wrote:

My question, which you have not answered, is how does science tell us that God did not make the earth?

I've answered this already 4 times, and Scofflaw has given a detailed account of how the Earth was actually created.

Do you see "God did X" in any of that?

Of course you don't. Because God wasn't involved, nor required.

Now of course you are going to say "Just because there is no evidence God did anything doesn't mean he didn't do something"

And you are right.

And you are going to say "You can't prove God wasn't involved and just made it look like a natural process"

Again, you are right

And you are going to say "God could have set up the Big Bang specifically for this to happen, you can't prove he didn't"

Again, you are right.

But then why are you doing this?

The very fact that you are putting it like that demonstrates my point.

You are attempting to retreat God up to a place where the central premise (he exists, he loves you, you are saved) cannot be touched. It cannot be contradicted. It cannot be harmed.

If science tells you that God didn't do something you simply shift God to a position where science cannot interfere

Did God created the Earth? No, the Earth was created due to a rather simple natural process of gas exploding from a star?

Does that mean God isn't real? Of course not!

We simply move God to a further out position. Could God have started or been involved in the natural process that caused the Earth to form. Lets check with science ... nope nothing yet.

Ok that is where God gets involve now, because God must exists and must get involved at some point.

People who want to believe in this stuff will always move God to the safety of exploration and contradiction, because they don't want that exploration to determine it isn't real.

Which strongly suggests that in fact it isn't real.

The blonde girl understood that ... and she is an idiot

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

I've answered this already 4 times, and Scofflaw has given a detailed account of how the Earth was actually created.

Do you see "God did X" in any of that?

Of course you don't. Because God wasn't involved, nor required.

Now of course you are going to say "Just because there is no evidence God did anything doesn't mean he didn't do something"

And you are right.

And you are going to say "You can't prove God wasn't involved and just made it look like a natural process"

Again, you are right

And you are going to say "God could have set up the Big Bang specifically for this to happen, you can't prove he didn't"

Again, you are right.

But then why are you doing this?

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.

If you had said "science does not tell us that God made the earth" then all you have said would be evidence to support your claim.

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

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?

Dades

How would you feel about the headline "Science debunks evidence that God made the earth"?

The "evidence" being the process described in the bible.

indough

It should read 'science debunks the process of creation described in the bible'

PDN

The Atheist wrote:

How would you feel about the headline "Science debunks evidence that God made the earth"?

The "evidence" being the process described in the bible.

I would feel pity for any headline writer who thinks the details of the Genesis creation accounts amount to evidence that God made the earth.

pH

PDN wrote:

The reason I'm doing this is because you made a claim that "science tells us" that Unicorns don't exist. Therefore I am asking for evidence to back up your extraordinary claim.

If you had said "science does not tell us that unicorns exist" then all you have said would be evidence to support your claim.

I don't believe that science tells us anything as to the question of whether unicorns exist or not.

I edited your post a bit PDN, made it a little clearer, now I see what you're getting at!

PDN

pH wrote:

I kissed your dog a bit PDN, made it a little uglier, now I see what you're getting at!

I returned the favour by editing your post also. 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?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

I returned the favour by editing your post also. 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?

Is tarring everyone with the same brush a Christian parlour game?

cordially,
Scofflaw

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.