God is disproven by science? Really?

[Dan From Smithville]

Many people mostly atheists believe that God has been disproven or has being shown to be non-existent. But if you knew the definition and explanation of intelligence, or its variants, or synonyms, you will never claim such illogical claim. Thus, intelligence protects the existence of God from those non-intelligent persons.

I hope that before those who claim that God does not exist, let them define "intelligence" first in the usage of God = Intelligent Creator or Intelligent Designer.

Who is it that you are addressing as claiming God, gods, supernatural designers, etc. are proven not to exist by science?

Proof is not a standard of science. Science works with evidence and belief-based claims are without objective evidence and not within the scope of science. Science is not the means to determine whether God exists or does not.

I see a lot of claims from you but no evidence or coherent explanation for those claims. Your papers and books are not science literature. They are your essays about your beliefs with allusions to aspects of science.

Intelligent design is not science, since there is no objective evidence for supernatural intelligent agencies or the actions of such an agency in nature. Modern intelligent design as practiced in the United States was a mechanism to get religion (specifically Christianity) into public education under the authority of government and at taxpayer expense. Whatever you think you are doing, who can say. I assume you want to replace science with your version of religion. I have seen nothing that you have posted that I could reasonably call science and nothing that would make me conclude that intelligent design is supported.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Who is it that you are addressing as claiming God, gods, supernatural designers, etc. are proven not to exist by science?

Proof is not a standard of science. Science works with evidence and belief-based claims are without objective evidence and not within the scope of science. Science is not the means to determine whether God exists or does not.

I see a lot of claims from you but no evidence or coherent explanation for those claims. Your papers and books are not science literature. They are your essays about your beliefs with allusions to aspects of science.

Intelligent design is not science, since there is no objective evidence for supernatural intelligent agencies or the actions of such an agency in nature. Modern intelligent design as practiced in the United States was a mechanism to get religion (specifically Christianity) into public education under the authority of government and at taxpayer expense. Whatever you think you are doing, who can say. I assume you want to replace science with your version of religion. I have seen nothing that you have posted that I could reasonably call science and nothing that would make me conclude that intelligent design is supported.

An automobile, an engine, a bridge, a building, a house, a boat etc. are all evidence of intelligent design.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An automobile, an engine, a bridge, a building, a house, a boat etc. are all evidence of intelligent design.

I suppose. But that has noting to do with life. We know how those were designed. We also know how life evolved. The two are not related.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I suppose. But that has noting to do with life. We know how those were designed. We also know how life evolved. The two are not related.

We are talking intelligence and intelligent design, we all appreciate both in life especially when things are well designed in how they look and work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We are talking intelligence and intelligent design, we all appreciate both in life especially when things are well designed in how they look and work.

So once again, you have just refuted an Intelligent Designer when it comes to life.

 

[ElishaElijah]

So once again, you have just refuted an Intelligent Designer when it comes to life.

How so? Explain

 

[Subduction Zone]

How so? Explain

Life is far from being Intelligently Designed.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Life is far from being Intelligently Designed.

How so, what do you mean?

 

[blü 2]

Well, then you’ve lived a sinful lifestyle according to the Bible and if you’re going to judge the Creator who is the only one able to Judge His Creation then yes you’re living a sinful lifestyle by your own admission just like the rest of us.

I reject your definition of sin as immoral and merely authoritarian, and I justify my definition, though I would usually use the word 'bad' or 'wrong', because it aims to do no harm.

You meanwhile think it's moral to have invasive war, massacre of populations, mass rape, human sacrifice, all the things I mentioned and more. I reject your morality as cruel, unjustifiable, murderous ─ outright harmful.

Worse yet you believe you’re justified and can sit in judgement of God

I have no such belief. When I die, I'll be dead forever, like every other living thing that dies. And to address the point Plato says Socrates made, as I die I'll be comforted by the thought that I didn't leave the world a worse place than I found it.

So do you condone and support abortion as well seen as you’re concern for innocents is mentioned.

Yes, I have no argument with the rules of abortion as set out in Roe v Wade, which acknowledge that the fetus is not a human and not an independent life until after the first trimester.

Your god has a much more violent view of abortion and infanticide eg

Exodus 22:29-30 You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.​

(A later deal with God alters that rule, but it was God's idea in the first place.)

Hosea 13: 16 Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
​

The Flood story in the bible, although it's entirely unhistorical, also happily portrays God as violent, murderous and unjust, and on a colossal scale, trying to fix [his] own mistake.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I suppose. But that has noting to do with life. We know how those were designed. We also know how life evolved. The two are not related.

All this talk about intelligent design reminds me of Ray Comfort's argument that the fact that a banana fits into a human hand proves God's intelligent design. He called it an "ironclad argument." I always thought he was off his rocker, even when I was a Christian.

Ray Comfort's 2006 Hysterical Banana Argument Demonstrates What Creationists Mean By 'Proof'

 

[Dan From Smithville]

An automobile, an engine, a bridge, a building, a house, a boat etc. are all evidence of intelligent design.

Yes. Intelligent human design. I'm not saying there is no evidence for things humans design.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All this talk about intelligent design reminds me of Ray Comfort's argument that the fact that a banana fits into a human hand proves God's intelligent design. He called it an "ironclad argument." I always thought he was off his rocker, even when I was a Christian.

Ray Comfort's 2006 Hysterical Banana Argument Demonstrates What Creationists Mean By 'Proof'

As well as the fact that the varieties of bananas that we eat were bred to be the way they are by people.

 

[blü 2]

I'm glad to see you rejecting the guilt-trip tactics that are often used to push Christianity down the throats of unbelievers. Speaking as an ex-Christian, there's no more fear, guilt, and shame hanging over my head once I finally decided to abandon my Christian faith and belief in God. It was such a relief for me, and it still is. As far as I'm concerned, Christianity is nothing more than a religion of shame, guilt trips, and fearmongering. There's no amount of inane shaming, guilt trips, or fearmongering that Christians can hurl at me that will ever convince me to become a Christian again. My mental health is better and I'm much happier since I let go of my faith in God.

Christianity is a religion with many facets, and some versions play the guilt angle hard and some are more kind and inclusive. The idea of raising anxiety in order to make a sale has been with us through history, and is the technique of the snake-oil salesman ─ Dear friends, I am more sorry than I can say to tell you you're likely doomed and there's nothing you can do about it. But very very fortunately I have the cure here, and I've managed to bring the price down to a lousy [insert dollars here].

 

[Subduction Zone]

How so, what do you mean?

Because one has to be extremely ignorant to think that life is intelligently designed.

Do you know what a Kludge is? It is a computer engineer term. Life is as kludge. We have parts that were poorly repurposed. If we were intelligently designed parts would be tailor made for every animal. God would not have to go "ooh, I can make this work if I bend this part here, shove that part up there, and hope that it does not fall apart if the animal runs or anything?

Evolution works on "good enough". It does not work on "good". Good enough is not anywhere near good.

 

[osgart]

Because one has to be extremely ignorant to think that life is intelligently designed.

Do you know what a Kludge is? It is a computer engineer term. Life is as kludge. We have parts that were poorly repurposed. If we were intelligently designed parts would be tailor made for every animal. God would not have to go "ooh, I can make this work if I bend this part here, shove that part up there, and hope that it does not fall apart if the animal runs or anything?

Evolution works on "good enough". It does not work on "good". Good enough is not anywhere near good.

You've refuted intelligent design, a perfect intelligent design, and a perfect God. However anything poorly repurposed still requires conscious, or non conscious intellect. What process refutes that?

Given natural constraints life forms are still ingenious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've refuted intelligent design, a perfect intelligent design, and a perfect God. However anything poorly repurposed still requires conscious, or non conscious intellect. What process refutes that?

Given natural constraints life forms are still ingenious.

No, not "ingenious" evolved. There is no need for an intelligence with evolution. And it is rather obvious if one ever takes a deeper look into life.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I reject your definition of sin as immoral and merely authoritarian, and I justify my definition, though I would usually use the word 'bad' or 'wrong', because it aims to do no harm.

You meanwhile think it's moral to have invasive war, massacre of populations, mass rape, human sacrifice, all the things I mentioned and more. I reject your morality as cruel, unjustifiable, murderous ─ outright harmful. I have no such belief. When I die, I'll be dead forever, like every other living thing that dies. And to address the point Plato says Socrates made, as I die I'll be comforted by the thought that I didn't leave the world a worse place than I found it.
Yes, I have no argument with the rules of abortion as set out in Roe v Wade, which acknowledge that the fetus is not a human and not an independent life until after the first trimester.

Your god has a much more violent view of abortion and infanticide eg

Exodus 22:29-30 You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.​

(A later deal with God alters that rule, but it was God's idea in the first place.)

Hosea 13: 16 Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
​

The Flood story in the bible, although it's entirely unhistorical, also happily portrays God as violent, murderous and unjust, and on a colossal scale, trying to fix [his] own mistake.

Then don’t bother quoting Scripture and sin means missing the mark.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, not "ingenious" evolved. There is no need for an intelligence with evolution. And it is rather obvious if one ever takes a deeper look into life.

You did say you were a monkey in a previous post, are you now saying you’re an unintelligent one at that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You did say you were a monkey in a previous post, are you now saying you’re an unintelligent one at that?

No, though we may not be able to say the same for you. No intelligence was needed for our evolution. Why do you think that an intelligence is necessary?

 

[osgart]

No, not "ingenious" evolved. There is no need for an intelligence with evolution. And it is rather obvious if one ever takes a deeper look into life.

Replication, efficiency, and environmental pressures will give you structures, forms, but there's more to it.

Where exactly can I access this deeper look into life material that addresses my specific question?