Is God's existence necessary?

[prometheus11]

"Conceivable" does not mean "known." I imagine that is why Sunstone selected to use the word he used.

 

[KBC1963]

ben d,
Atheists say, "we don't know how it happened, but some process caused it to occur."
People who treat some myth or other as fact say something similar to, "invisible and undetected sky wizard did it with a spoken 'spell'."
Which person is using "magic?"

No atheist say they do know how it happened.... it just evolved. How it evolved is what they can't specify. So it is no different than a religious belief.
Unless a phenomena can be scientifically observed AND defined via the scientific method then it is simple religion by another name.

 

[KBC1963]

Would you consider higher intellect in conscious thought, an instinct. The natural ability to think and solve problems at a higher level an instinct ? It is a fixed action pattern is it not?

Can you scientifically define either higher intellect or conscious thought?

 

[prometheus11]

No atheist say they do know how it happened.... it just evolved. How it evolved is what they can't specify. So it is no different than a religious belief.
Unless a phenomena can be scientifically observed AND defined via the scientific method then it is simple religion by another name.

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution.

Rational people who have some education on the TOE, understand that evolution is fact as proved by many metrics and millions of data points. Because evolution does not explain how life began, rational people say that they don't know how life began.

Nobody is claiming mythology except for those claiming mythology. "Magic" is for those that claim a supernatural being used a magic spell of words and/or some sort of "hand waving."

 

[KBC1963]

I'm sorry but what do you actually know about human behavior, anthropology or biology????? There is plenty.

well lets see I know that it is human behavior to believe in their own or others concepts of causation without needing any scientific testing.

 

[prometheus11]

Unless a phenomena can be scientifically observed AND defined via the scientific method then it is simple religion by another name.

Is it "religion" to claim that Pluto orbits the sun? The only thing we've observed is it completing a tiny part of its "hypothetical orbit." It might be just lazily zig zagging and not orbiting the sun, right?

 

[ArtieE]

No atheist say they do know how it happened.... it just evolved. How it evolved is what they can't specify. So it is no different than a religious belief.
Unless a phenomena can be scientifically observed AND defined via the scientific method then it is simple religion by another name.

Unless you can show any evidence that god(s) exist and is/are responsible for something things have by default natural causes in the same way that unless you can show that Poseidon exists and is responsible for earthquakes earthquakes have natural causes. Nothing to do with "religious belief".

 

[KBC1963]

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. Rational people who have some education on the TOE, understand that evolution is fact as proved by many metrics and millions of data points. Because evolution does not explain how life began, rational people say that they don't know how life began. Nobody is claiming mythology except for those claiming mythology. "Magic" is for those that claim a supernatural being used a magic spell of words and/or some sort of "hand waving."

Atheism indeed does have everything to do with evolution. Atheism is a positive belief that there is no gods and if there is no gods then there must of necessity be a mechanism to explain all of existence. The mechanism they accept is evolution driven by the forces of nature. Without the nature god they would have absolutely nothing to found their belief system.

 

[prometheus11]

Atheism indeed does have everything to do with evolution. Atheism is a positive belief that there is no gods and if there is no gods then there must of necessity be a mechanism to explain all of existence. The mechanism they accept is evolution driven by the forces of nature. Without the nature god they would have absolutely nothing to found their belief system.

You are incorrect. Every sentence.

Educate yourself on what atheism is and what evolution does.

 

[ArtieE]

Atheism indeed does have everything to do with evolution. Atheism is a positive belief that there is no gods and if there is no gods then there must of necessity be a mechanism to explain all of existence. The mechanism they accept is evolution driven by the forces of nature. Without the nature god they would have absolutely nothing to found their belief system.

 

[KBC1963]

Is it "religion" to claim that Pluto orbits the sun? The only thing we've observed is it completing a tiny part of its "hypothetical orbit." It might be just lazily zig zagging and not orbiting the sun, right?

Have we observed Pluto and calculated its path mathematically? does it obey the laws of physics just as other planets do? can anyone repeat the test? the fact that an orbiting body has made a full revolution of another body of mass and has done so through our observable past does mean it will always do so right? maybe all the planets in this system revolve a million times and then reverse direction. Maybe they exchange paths every million years. Maybe there are forces in nature we are not aware of but for now all bodies in motion appear to be following paths that we can define mathematically and obey the mechanics of physics.
When you have as much definable and repeatable evidence for the evolution of instinct as we have for Pluto's path then you would indeed have something to discuss scientifically. Till then you have religion

 

[Reflex]

Gotya...I agree absolutely... It is so perfectly logical that it seems to me a miracle that atheists can't see it...they must be that they are missing a gene? ....

In all seriousness, that is something I do not understand. A missing gene is as good as any other explanation.

 

[prometheus11]

Have we observed Pluto and calculated its path mathematically? does it obey the laws of physics just as other planets do? can anyone repeat the test? the fact that an orbiting body has made a full revolution of another body of mass and has done so through our observable past does mean it will always do so right? maybe all the planets in this system revolve a million times and then reverse direction. Maybe they exchange paths every million years. Maybe there are forces in nature we are not aware of but for now all bodies in motion appear to be following paths that we can define mathematically and obey the mechanics of physics.
When you have as much definable and repeatable evidence for the evolution of instinct as we have for Pluto's path then you would indeed have something to discuss scientifically. Till then you have religion

Your remarks on Pluto are correct. Even though we have not directly observed it's orbit and repeated that observation, we understand that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that Pluto is doing something other than orbiting the sun.

We have MUCH more evidence for evolution than pluto's orbit.

Game over.

 

[KBC1963]

I notice atheists were left off the list..... I wonder why....
I wonder what % of peoples historic belief systems were later considered to be wrong.
What time in the future will a determination be made that this generations opinions were also wrong... its just a matter of time.

 

[ArtieE]

I notice atheists were left off the list..... I wonder why....

I wonder why you single out atheists as believers in evolution when for example 58% of Catholics (THEISTS) in the US "agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth"?

 

[prometheus11]

I notice atheists were left off the list..... I wonder why....
I wonder what % of peoples historic belief systems were later considered to be wrong.
What time in the future will a determination be made that this generations opinions were also wrong... its just a matter of time.

Because atheists are marginalized and oppressed. Social outcasts for the most part.

 

[KBC1963]

Your remarks on Pluto are correct. Even though we have not directly observed it's orbit and repeated that observation, we understand that it is EXTREMELY unlikely that Pluto is doing something other than orbiting the sun. We have MUCH more evidence for evolution than pluto's orbit. Game over.

Then you should be more than happy to provide the scientific evidence based on the scientific method that backs the concept that instinct evolved.

I believe you should be sure to say "full" orbit because every scientific observation we have made shows that Pluto's mass is "ORBITING" based on the evidence of its motion (mathematically definable) relative to another bodies mass. observable and repeatable.... all the things we expect from proper science. Can you provide me with minimally that much evidence from the observations of instinct by the scientific method to show that it is evolving currently?

 

[prometheus11]

Then you should be more than happy to provide the scientific evidence based on the scientific method that backs the concept that instinct evolved.

I believe you should be sure to say "full" orbit because every scientific observation we have made shows that Pluto's mass is "ORBITING" based on the evidence of its motion (mathematically definable) relative to another bodies mass. observable and repeatable.... all the things we expect from proper science. Can you provide me with minimally that much evidence from the observations of instinct by the scientific method to show that it is evolving currently?

An orbit IS a full orbit. That's what the word means. Like the word "circle" means "a whole circle."

No, I can't...not on an Internet forum with limited time. Evolutionary science can, though.

Are you going to learn the facts of evolutionary science so that you know what you are talking about or simply continue to ignore the evidence and oppose it?

 

[ArtieE]

Then you should be more than happy to provide the scientific evidence based on the scientific method that backs the concept that instinct evolved.

If you can't provide the scientific evidence based on the scientific method that backs the concept that gods/"intelligent designers" exist and are responsible for programming organisms with instincts I have no reason to have any other view than that instincts evolved naturally.

 

[KBC1963]

I wonder why you single out atheists as believers in evolution when for example 58% of Catholics (THEISTS) in the US "agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth"?

Because of all religious beliefs out there atheism is the most contradictory. It is the positive assertion for the absence of the unobserved.

Your attempted allegory between theistic evolution concept backers accepting evolution as it is conceived scientifically does not account for the fact that most of those people believe their gods controlled the formation and possibly continue to control the evolutionary system. We all know that evolution as defined in full context is believed to be entirely caused by the forces of nature which as should be understood even by the simple that people cannot hold a belief in both a causal intelligent god and a causal non-intelligent group of NATURAL forces at the same time.