ADN

deepsepia wrote:We merely know that there is no evidence of God

deep, you failed to define that statement, and furthermore, "We do not know there is no God" seems to contradict that...If I were to tell you my heartbeat is evidence of a God, you could not say with reason that I was wrong, case and point, you don't know why my heart is beating...Shit, you don't know why your heart beats...What of God feels it needs to be evidenced..? Your issue is with what you think God is, and to that I say, your connection to this conversation is a loose one...

If I walk into a simple, plain white room and say, "There is no evidence of a crime here," does that mean just that, or does that mean I already have a preset definition in my own mind of what that crime is..? What if things that are beyond the scope of your human senses reveal the DNA of a murder that had taken place..? If you've walked into the room and said there is no crime, then you have walked into the room looking for something you feel is appropriate to a crime...Doesn't mean its not there, just that you can't sense it...

So again, the evidence of God could be all around you, or in the filling spaces of the period behind the sentences I type...

deepsepia wrote:The statement "bees make honey" is a factual statement, based on repeatable real world observations.

Do bees actually 'Make' honey, or do they possess the tools to bring it forth..?

Kumicho wrote:

deepsepia wrote:We merely know that there is no evidence of God

deep, you failed to define that statement, and furthermore, "We do not know there is no God" seems to contradict that

The key here is what "know" means. "Know", when used by a person with scientific or legal training, is a much stronger statement than it is when used by a lay person.

To say "I know that there is no God" requires proving a negative -- and a negative where the proponents have no falsifiable proposition (eg because God is claimed to be supernatural, the people who say there is one have no testable proposition)

What I say is "I know that there is no logical or scientific basis for a belief in God". That is a slightly different statement than this thread title -- but I didn't write the thread title

Kumicho wrote: ...If I were to tell you my heartbeat is evidence of a God, you could not say with reason that I was wrong, case and point, you don't know why my heart is beating.

Yes, reason and logic are quite clear that you're wrong. Your logic would apply equally to the statement "my heart beats because invisible leprechauns inside my chest cavity make them beat" -- you may believe it, but there's no evidence that its true.

I can take a stethoscope and hear your heart beating. I can see your living heart beating on a fast MRI scan. I can measure the electrical impulses in your myocardium with an EKG.

I can walk you through the evolutionary history of the heart, and show you how the human heart evolved, how it resembles and differs from other animal hearts. And I can show you the small design flaws in the human heart which lead to heart attacks, and make it somewhat less than "perfect". There is no evidence for God in a pump made of muscle, even a very good one.

You may want to believe that God causes your heart to beat, and I can't tell you what to "believe".

But I can tell for what statements there is a scientific and logical basis, and there is no scientific or logical basis for the statement "God makes your heart beat".

Do you think he causes heart attacks?

Hmm, we're still missing the point here, its fundamental to the convo...

You keep using the word 'evidence' and I'm more or less trying to ask you where you get the notion that you do or don't have evidence...Based upon your understanding of what you think God is, you have developed this...If you're gonna say there is no evidence that God exists, them I'll ask you plainly, what kind of evidence must be present for you to make that deduction..? To say there is or is not evidence of something means you already know what you're looking for...If you have the answers I'd love to read them, but I think its safe to say that you're human, and to assume you have evidence or workings of what you've called 'supernatural' would be a bit of a stretch...

My logic and reason says that since you don't know what God is, you can't say there isn't evidence of the existence of a God...Point out the flaw in that statement and I'll buy you a lifetime supply of Dr. Pepper...

deepsepia wrote:Your logic would apply equally to the statement "my heart beats because invisible leprechauns inside my chest cavity make them beat"

Again, the problem is that you have a definition of a leprechauns, and I think its safe to say that you've never met one...I could say my heart beats because of leprechauns that would disappear if you tried to examine them...You could say, 'Well, that just doesn't make sense,' but you couldn't say I was wrong...

deepsepia wrote:I can walk you through the evolutionary history of the heart, and show you how the human heart evolved

...and still not tell me why exactly it beats...All the modern science in the world can't even explain the process, else we would all opt to get heart transplants so our heart would beat forever...The truth is that we have ideas, but not explanations...

deepsepia wrote:You may want to believe that God causes your heart to beat, and I can't tell you what to "believe".

But I can tell for what statements there is a scientific and logical basis, and there is no scientific or logical basis for the statement "God makes your heart beat".

Yeah, but if you don't know, then don't you "believe" what you believe..? How can you say one makes sense, and one doesn't..? It makes as much sense to me, to say that I'm the product of intelligent design as it is to say I evolved from something else...

If you don't know for certain, how can you ascertain one from the other...Logic says that either possibility could be correct, or better yet, there is always the possibility of the unknown unknowns...

deepsepia wrote:And I can show you the small design flaws in the human heart which lead to heart attacks, and make it somewhat less than "perfect"

If you can show me small design flaws in the human heart, then by any acclimation, you should be able to build one w/o the flaws, right..?

Kumicho wrote: You keep using the word 'evidence' and I'm more or less trying to ask you where you get the notion that you do or don't have evidence...

Its not a "notion". Show me a verified piece of data that suggests that any supernatural force is at work in our world. I have never seen any such data.

Kumicho wrote: Again, the problem is that you have a definition of a leprechauns, and I think its safe to say that you've never met one...I could say my heart beats because of leprechauns that would disappear if you tried to examine them...You could say, 'Well, that just doesn't make sense,' but you couldn't say I was wrong...

I can say that there is no logical or scientific reason to believe such. The "disappearing leprechaun" is a good proxy for all arguments of god's existence.

By definition, if you believe in a supernatural being who uses his supernatural powers in such a way that you can't see him ever, then no he can't be seen.

But that is not consistent with reason. For a statement to be scientifically valid, it must be falsifiable (testable). A statement which is not testable is not a scientific or logical statement. It still could be true-- but you cannot claim that there is any evidence for it.

In the leprechaun example, we can point to another difference: reasoned, logical statements yield statistically useful predictions. Lets say your heart has a dangerous arrhythmia. Group A tries to "pacify the leprechauns" with gifts of four leaf clovers. Group B gets pacemakers. Which group do you think dies of arrhythmia?

Science and reason yield useful predictions: supernatural belief and religion don't.

You can pray to Buddha, Jesus, Muhammed, or the leprechauns, and while it may make you feel better, it won't affect cardiovascular disease. On the other hand, if you get a pacemaker, it will.

Bro...This is going nowhere...So, let me make this as simple a question as possible, and you return the same type of answer...

deepsepia wrote:supernatural force is at work in our world.

Where, when, why, how, did you get the notion that God is Supernatural, and do you not see how that if you feel God or Gods must be supernatural in nature that this is of your cognition that these problems exist..? In YOUR mind, God is supernatural...Me or nobody else that I read said anything about God being supernatural...If you have issues w/God being Supernatural, its your own reasoning that needs a tune up...You say I don't have evidence, but neither do you, but the thing is, I'm not the one arguing God's existence...

deepsepia wrote:By definition, if you believe in a supernatural being who uses his supernatural powers in such a way that you can't see him ever, then no he can't be seen.

By whose definition..? Who in this thread has attempted to define God..? And why must supernatural be seen only to exist..? Again, your problem with this conversation is that you are going on some sort of tangent by only which you know...Even if someone were to present some proof of the existence of an unknown force that must be accounted for, you seem to already have decided that it must not be God for whatever reason...I don't get what you're getting at to be honest...

This is true: If I say I pray to a God that exists, you can not disprove it...And you can only question it, because YOU have an idea of what you think God is...If I am the one with the God, and you are not, that God can exist through me and you have to accept you are unaware of it...

Who here said God was Supernatural..? Are you simply trying to say that the God mentioned in the bible or religious texts doesn't exist..? If so, you need to say that, and then even still, that only allows for closed ended thinking...If you are not all knowing, you cannot say without due something does or doesn't exist, period...Your thoughts are lost upon themselves...

If you could be so kind as to answer my first question, answer this one...

A Man w/20-15 vision looks at a billboard and says, "I see the words AYHJA on..." A man w/20-40 vision says, "I don't see the words AYHJA, I see 4 puzzle pieces..." Who is right..?

Kumicho wrote: Where, when, why, how, did you get the notion that God is Supernatural, and do you not see how that if you feel God or Gods must be supernatural in nature that this is of your cognition that these problems exist..? In YOUR mind, God is supernatural...Me or nobody else that I read said anything about God being supernatural

Your claims require a supernatural god. We cannot detect any god, with any instrumentation. Anything natural is necessarily detectable. Natural science is based on observation and measurement: what cannot be measured is not part of natural science. We can detect electricity. We can detect hemoglobin. We can analyse DNA. We can detect particles a billion times smaller than a hair, and galaxies a billion times larger than our sun. . . but among all these things we can detect:

Where do I find a "God" substance which I can analyze?

You didn't answer my question(s)...I think that more or less means you get the point...

And dude, what claims..?!? LoL...What claim have I made, in this tread or this forum, that would make that true..?

But since you seem to cling to the idea of a biblical God, I'll offer a simple proof...For the sake of conversation...

The bible lays down the law that God is everything, he is the Alpha and the Omega, the begging and the end...Right..? Lets say that we lay a mathematical value of 1 to God...Lets go basic binary baby...If God is 1 (to represent entirety) according the bible, then the opposite or directly proportional value to that 1 is 0...Therefore, if God is everything, then if no God exists, there is 0, or nothing...How can you go about disputing that..?

But to answer your question, if intelligent design was not evident in most, if not all things you can analyze, then SURELY you must know what the mathematical odds are that the events from the known start of the universe to spawn life on our planet is ridiculous (1 out of 10^92)..? To quote someone here, that's just like saying you can turn a keyboard over where you can't see the keys and produce an error free term paper...The probability of God existing vs him not is a little overwhelming, all things considered...Since you seem to like the analytical side of things, how can you muster the ability to debate the odds...

deepseipa wrote:Where do I find a "God" substance which I can analyze?

Try the equation for gravity, for starters...

deepsepia. it appears to me you are arguing aginst notions of a biblical god, no matter what example you give.

No one who believes in leprechauns would "pray" to them, nor would they petition them about a heart condition. You don't pray to buddha to heal you.

Also, no offense but this is the internet. You don't even know if we exist, and yet you contend with us in the kind of debate that lets you think we do. I could just be a program written to provoke a response from you to make you statistically adhere to certain different thought patterns to ultimately reach conclusions that make your behavior compliant with the desires of another. AYHJA could be a front for government surveillance or adult industry marketing.

The chick on the phone sex line is not always in line with the sensory evidence of her voice.

what religion calls 'belief', science calls 'assumption'. both in their true maturity have contigencies.

raum wrote:deepsepia. it appears to me you are arguing aginst notions of a biblical god, no matter what example you give.

No one who believes in leprechauns would "pray" to them, nor would they petition them about a heart condition. You don't pray to buddha to heal you.

I'm arguing against all supernatural belief and superstition-- and I contend that belief in a Biblical god is just one example of that. People in Ireland traditionally did make offerings to leprechauns, and people in other religions do pray for "miraculous" cures (and believe that they have happened.) A noted example from the Hindu religion is the belief in the "healing powers" of the Ganges river (which is in fact so polluted that its more likely to kill than cure).

raum wrote: Also, no offense but this is the internet. You don't even know if we exist, and yet you contend with us in the kind of debate that lets you think we do. I could just be a program written to provoke a response from you to make you statistically adhere to certain different thought patterns to ultimately reach conclusions that make your behavior compliant with the desires of another.

You're quite right about that. I treat forum discussions of contentious issues the way I'd chat over over a beer . . . its a diversion. Whether you're real or not is less important than that you write back . . . if you're a software program, you're a very satisfactory one!

deepsepia wrote:I'm arguing against all supernatural belief and superstition-- and I contend that belief in a Biblical god is just one example of that.

The truth of general statements is directly proportional to the number of subjects they describe, support, or attempt to establish the non-existence of.

People in Ireland traditionally did make offerings to leprechauns,

I would love to see what documented material proof you have to support that statement.

and people in other religions do pray for "miraculous" cures (and believe that they have happened.) A noted example from the Hindu religion is the belief in the "healing powers" of the Ganges river (which is in fact so polluted that its more likely to kill than cure).

What do you think the phenomenon of unanswered requests for healing *really* indicates?