Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[QuestioningMind]

no, I made one assumption.
1) a higher force that is somehow loving exists.
Loving in a sense of the actual love that someone can actually perceive.
as opposed to the theoretical love in a sense of the feeling that you have but nobody knows of.

Evidence a) the beauty on earth... even if the terrain is not productive.
Evidence b) the good scent in nature after the rain... even if the terrain is not productive. (It has to be the kind of nature that has vegetation, otherwise I think you don't smell anything, but I could be wrong here and rocks smell, too, after the rain).

However, since you hypothize 2 chemicals, you need an assumption for each, as I see it.
Chemical a exists.
Chemical b exists.

Except that I did NOT hypothesize 2 chemicals. It's the SAME chemical that has 2 different effects... JUST like your proposed god being.

And again, chemicals are something that we know DO exist and we also know that chemicals can change the way the brain functions. YOUR hypothesis insists that we accept some 'god being' for which there is ZERO evidence. That's your confirmation bias at work again.

 

[Audie]

That is about the silliest thing I ever read.

ETA,
1213, review rules on use of " funny" icon.

 

[1213]

All of these 'evidences' are laughable. They've all been thoroughly debunked.
....

Really, I have not seen that, and I don’t believe anyone can debunk them with reason and logic.

 

[Audie]

The ancestors of apes and people evolving from primordial DNA supports a change of kinds.

It takes many steps to get from fish to
amhinian, but, the fossil record shows it happened.

That would be a change of "kind".

It takes many steps with no sudden changes.

To the Bible, even domestic and wild sheep are different "kinds"

 

[1213]

I am sorry, you cannot have it both ways. Either God is a liar or there was no flood.

Sorry, I don’t see any intelligent reason to accept that claim.

… We know how the modern continents formed. ...

No you don’t. You believe so strongly that you imagine it is a fact.

 

[Audie]

Really, I have not seen that, and I don’t believe anyone can debunk them with reason and logic.

Nobody could to your satisfaction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I don’t see any intelligent reason to accept that claim.

That does not reflect well on you. Do you care to learn how we know that there was no flood?

No you don’t. You believe so strongly that you imagine it is a fact.

Wrong again. I do know. Mere belief is your sin. I will gladly explain how we know. But we might need to go over some basics first.

 

[Skywalker]

It takes many steps to get from fish to
amhinian, but, the fossil record shows it happened.

That would be a change of "kind".

It takes many steps with no sudden changes.

To the Bible, even domestic and wild sheep are different "kinds"

Even gradual things function in an instant way in a certain sense. For example, even though i gradually changed from a little kid to an adolescent, there were absolute changes that were too minute to notice.

If we were created by chance, by random acts of the planet or were we created by a creator. think about it, does a tornado pick up scraps of metal and when it is over a complete brand new shiny automobile appear by chance? Where did all the plastics and electronics come from that make up the dashboard? the belts in the tires? All of that came together by chance, NO, the automobile has a creator, a builder, US, humans. Why in the world could anyone think that something as complex as the human body just show up by chance or evolve from an ape?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even gradual things function in an instant way in a certain sense. For example, even though i gradually changed from a little kid to an adolescent, there were absolute changes that were too minute to notice.

If we were created by chance, by random acts of the planet or were we created by a creator. think about it, does a tornado pick up scraps of metal and when it is over a complete brand new shiny automobile appear by chance? Where did all the plastics and electronics come from that make up the dashboard? the belts in the tires? All of that came together by chance, NO, the automobile has a creator, a builder, US, humans. Why in the world could anyone think that something as complex as the human body just show up by chance or evolve from an ape?

If you think that evolution is "by chance" you do not understand evolution.

 

[Skywalker]

If you think that evolution is "by chance" you do not understand evolution.

How does gradualness explain how macroevolution can happen without a change of kinds?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How does gradualness explain how macroevolution can happen without a change of kinds?

You keep losing when you use nonsense terms. Try again.

 

[Audie]

Even gradual things function in an instant way in a certain sense. For example, even though i gradually changed from a little kid to an adolescent, there were absolute changes that were too minute to notice.

If we were created by chance, by random acts of the planet or were we created by a creator. think about it, does a tornado pick up scraps of metal and when it is over a complete brand new shiny automobile appear by chance? Where did all the plastics and electronics come from that make up the dashboard? the belts in the tires? All of that came together by chance, NO, the automobile has a creator, a builder, US, humans. Why in the world could anyone think that something as complex as the human body just show up by chance or evolve from an ape?

Since all your "questions" are rhetorical ,
your arguments from ignorance and your
determination is not to learn anything, I will
leave you to it.

I will be glad to help you out if you ever
develop a more mature approach.

 

[Skywalker]

You keep losing when you use nonsense terms. Try again.

People say that there isn't a change of kinds, things change gradually. How could that happen? What sounds like is the changes are too small to notice, but there are changes occurring on the micro level that are not gradual that we can't notice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

People say that there isn't a change of kinds, things change gradually. How could that happen? What sounds like is the changes are too small to notice, but there are changes occurring on the micro level that are not gradual that we can't notice.

Small changes add up.

The changes from you as a baby to you as today were all small. They added up.

You are currently arguing that a person could walk to the corner store, but he could never walk across the continent. Guess what? People have walked across the continent. You should be focused on learning instead of constantly demonstrating your lack of education.

 

[Skywalker]

Small changes add up.

The changes from you as a baby to you as today were all small. They added up.

You are currently arguing that a person could walk to the corner store, but he could never walk across the continent. Guess what? People have walked across the continent. You should be focused on learning instead of constantly demonstrating your lack of education.

Those small changes themselves are instant even if they are impossible to notice.

A person walking across the continent takes time but it doesn't go against the laws of monopoly and the laws of changes of kinds. Travelers traveled that far throughout history. That doesn't explain macroevolution not existing beyond the species level. This article doesn't explain fossils that are evidence of macroevolution. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Those small changes themselves are instant even if they are impossible to notice.

A person walking across the continent takes time but it doesn't go against the laws of monopoly and the laws of changes of kinds. Travelers traveled that far throughout history. That doesn't explain macroevolution not existing beyond the species level. This article doesn't explain fossils that are evidence of macroevolution. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_48

There are no "laws of changes of kinds". And monopoly does not have much to say about either walking across the continent or of evolution:

 

[thomas t]

Except that I did NOT hypothesize 2 chemicals. It's the SAME chemical that has 2 different effects... JUST like your proposed god being.

ah ok, but there are two assumptions involved.
1) the chemical x can favor the perception of beauty.
2) the chemical x can favor the perception of a good smell.
... or...
1) the chemical favoring the perception of beauty exists
2) favoring the perception of beauty and the perception of a good smell are interrelated.
So again, principle of parsimony.

However, if we assume the presence of a loving higher force...
why restrict it to share his ("its") love in one way only?

And again, chemicals are something that we know DO exist and we also know that chemicals can change the way the brain functions. YOUR hypothesis insists that we accept some 'god being' for which there is ZERO evidence. That's your confirmation bias at work again.

the perception of beautiful yet unproductive landscapes would constitute the evidence, the evidence.
If you discount this evidence just because God is unknown to you and most people... then you would possibly discount every bit of evidence once it points to an unknown entity, I think.

 

[QuestioningMind]

ah ok, but there are two assumptions involved.
1) the chemical x can favor the perception of beauty.
2) the chemical x can favor the perception of a good smell.
... or...
1) the chemical favoring the perception of beauty exists
2) favoring the perception of beauty and the perception of a good smell are interrelated.
So again, principle of parsimony.

However, if we assume the presence of a loving higher force...
why restrict it to share his ("its") love in one way only?

the perception of beautiful yet unproductive landscapes would constitute the evidence, the evidence.
If you discount this evidence just because God is unknown to you and most people... then you would possibly discount every bit of evidence once it points to an unknown entity, I think.

That's just it though, I am NOT discounting the POSSIBILITY that your god being MIGHT be the answer. I am also NOT discounting the POSSIBILITY that it MIGHT be a chemical. I'm NOT discounting the POSSIBILITY that it MIGHT be a product of evolution. And finally I am NOT discounting the POSSIBILITY that it MIGHT be something neither of us has even thought of.

You on the other hand have discounted ALL the other possibilities and decided that it MUST be your god being. That's called confirmation bias. I do NOT engage in confirmation bias, which is why your 'evidence for god' is not nearly sufficient to warrant my belief.

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

However, if we assume the presence of a loving higher force...
why restrict it to share his ("its") love in one way only?

If we assume there's a currently undefined chemical that affects us, why restrict the chemical to only affecting us in one way?

You see, I can make the exact same assumptions about my proposed chemical as you can make about your proposed god.

 

[Valjean]

People say that there isn't a change of kinds, things change gradually. How could that happen? What sounds like is the changes are too small to notice, but there are changes occurring on the micro level that are not gradual that we can't notice.

'People' don't say that. Fundamentalists who've never learned the rudiments of biology say that.
"Too small to notice" can add up over time.
Take a red pen and put a tiny spot on a white wall. Give the pen to your son and hive him put a spot on the wall on his 21st birthday, and pass the pen on to his son to do the same on his 21st, on and on over the generations. One speck per generation.
In geological/biological time the entire wall would soon be nothing but red. No white would be perceptible a new
kind' of wall.
The point where the wall would be described as red is arbitrary.

Maybe there'd be a pink 'intermediate' wall.

 

[Skywalker]

'People' don't say that. Fundamentalists who've never learned the rudiments of biology say that.
"Too small to notice" can add up over time.
Take a red pen and put a tiny spot on a white wall. Give the pen to your son and hive him put a spot on the wall on his 21st birthday, and pass the pen on to his son to do the same on his 21st, on and on over the generations. One speck per generation.
In geological/biological time the entire wall would soon be nothing but red. No white would be perceptible a new
kind' of wall.
The point where the wall would be described as red is arbitrary.

Maybe there'd be a pink 'intermediate' wall.

Too small to notice is not gradual on the micro level. Gradualness cannot explain evolution. How Did the Elephant Get Its Long Trunk?

The answer depends on whether we ask a biologist or a paleontologist. Evolutionary biologists claim evolution must happen gradually, with minute mutations occurring at the genetic level and accumulating over millions of years until a new creature imperceptibly emerges from an older one. Evolutionary paleontologists claim evolution happens quickly, with large changes occurring during embryonic development so that one generation produces offspring vastly different than itself.

Actually, neither biologists nor paleontologists have a mechanism for evolution. While biologists cannot fathom, let alone demonstrate, a series of mutations leading from lizard to bird, they are far more comfortable claiming the process occurred in small increments over vast eons. To them, this gradual change seems more probable than a lizard giving birth to a bird. On the other hand, while paleontologists cannot explain how a bird could hatch from a lizard’s egg, they know the fossil record does not indicate a continuous, gradual change from a lizard to a bird. Fossils are either distinctly bird or lizard. There are no in-betweens. In other words, biologists know quick change is impossible and paleontologists know slow change did not happen.