Indeed 8 PAGES. Yours was regurgitated lacking specifics.
And you fail to take up the task, namely elaborate on one. How about that evolution one?
Want to tackle the evolution one first? Go for it.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Indeed 8 PAGES. Yours was regurgitated lacking specifics.
And you fail to take up the task, namely elaborate on one. How about that evolution one?
Want to tackle the evolution one first? Go for it.
What about evolution shows no God?
Who says that evolution shows no god?
I mean, other than you just now?
Are you even reading the posts? This was evidence of no God according to Pernumbra, which would mean it is atheistic in its philosophy, thus justifying its absurd conclusions.
The reason I put many of those reasons together is that each one invalidates a different aspect of claimed deities. Most of them don't individually refute a given god concept entirely.And you fail for the third time. What about evolution shows no God?
Pernumbra never said evolution was evidence of no god.
You created that strawman all on your own.
Post 79... now go away you add NOTHING.
The reason I put many of those reasons together is that each one invalidates a different aspect of claimed deities. Most of them don't individually refute a given god concept entirely.
For instance, the one about nature causing grievous suffering is not an argument against the existence of god, it's an argument against benevolence or intelligence of god (which are aspects that are often associated with claimed gods). If someone claimed to believe in an uncaring or malevolent god, then that argument wouldn't apply.
Likewise, evolution is an argument against purpose and necessity. Evolution by natural selection has no goals or desired outcomes. It shows no forethought. It is cruel. Humans are a tiny piece of the puzzle of life on this planet. We're not designed a certain way, to do certain things. Our bodies are not evidence of a creator, because in evolution by natural selection, each life form is derived from an earlier one down to very, very simple life forms.
It also invalidates certain religions or subsets of religions. For instance, if a Christian claims that suffering is due to sin, the history of this planet refutes that claim because suffering and death existed before humans ever existed on this planet. The process of creatures living, fighting, breeding, and dying was occurring long before we ever emerged.
However in other ways it does not apply in anyway, as it is not producing relevant context.
This in no way shows evidence of no God, in fact, it just shows the outcome of the design we are under.
Again, this in no way refutes the existence of God, The fact you posit it, mandates that it assume the existence of God.
This doesn't actually address almost any of what I said. I clearly wrote that the truth of evolution by natural selection is an argument against specific aspects of claimed gods, like all of the other arguments on my list.However in other ways it does not apply in anyway, as it is not producing relevant context.
This in no way shows evidence of no God, in fact, it just shows the outcome of the design we are under.
Again, this in no way refutes the existence of God, The fact you posit it, mandates that it assume the existence of God.
*knocks*
Hello?
Are you even here on planet Earth?
I think he's new to the internet.*knocks*
Hello?
Are you even here on planet Earth?
This doesn't actually address almost any of what I said. I clearly wrote that the truth of evolution by natural selection is an argument against specific aspects of claimed gods, like all of the other arguments on my list.
How about this- describe your god that can exist in harmony with my entire list of arguments against gods.
And nothing again. Is this all you have?
I think he's new to the internet.
I have much more than you.
The fact that I actually read and understand the posts BEFORE I reply puts me several steps ahead of you.
And nothing again.
Can't anybody articulate an argument that does not rely and thus refutes the existence of God?
Dunno. I don't make claims for things I don't know.Don't you get it? The fact there is natural laws, what created those?
I've listed several, but they were too numerous for you. They have gone unchallenged in this thread thus far, so I don't see much of a reason to continue posting in here unless they are all addressed and you can describe a god concept that can exist in harmony with all of those various arguments.How about articulate a dang argument that mandates/dictates logically that there is no God please...
I have challenged them, read my posts again.Dunno. I don't make claims for things I don't know.
What created your god?
I've listed several, but they were too numerous for you. They have gone unchallenged in this thread thus far, so I don't see much of a reason to continue posting in here unless they are all addressed and you can describe a god concept that can exist in harmony with all of those various arguments.
The ball's in your court.
(And I might advise that if you want to be taken seriously, you might want to use a more mature and reasonable tone. I'm not sure what your age is.)