Well, what you personally think is irrelevant to what actually is.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There is no evidence for a god.
- Thread starter YouOnlyScienceOnce
- Start date
Well, what you personally think is irrelevant to what actually is.
Not a fan of the cartoon. People can be YECs or Creationists and still be drawn to the beauty of the world, and I don't think it helpful to simply blame their beliefs on fear, when likely simple lack of knowledge and culture are probably greater factors.What evidence do you have that there is a god?
The adolescent let's-get-a-stick-and-poke-theists crowd rarely rise above the level of gutter ad hominem. 
Skwim
Veteran Member
Hey, one doesn't go to Alaska to hunt lions .The adolescent let's-get-a-stick-and-poke-theists crowd rarely rise above the level of gutter ad hominem.
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Hey, one doesn't go to Alaska to hunt lions .
True, but someone doesn't go to Africa to hunt lions for the sake of throwing feces at their mane.
Skwim
Veteran Member
No they don't. They go there because the lion challenges them to. "I'm King of the jungle and you're not. So bow down or suffer in silence."
Relax, no. Teachers are not allowed to give their religious affiliation, or lack thereof. At least they weren't at my school.
Last edited:
I'm inclined to agree with you for once.
The Gods call to me the same way the Cosmos calls to an astronomer, not because I'm afraid of the sciences. I fully embrace their findings and take most opportunities I can to learn about them when they're expressed in lay terms.
The comic strip also seems to imply that all religious people are young-earth creationists, as if the only options are being some form of scientist, or stupid, paranoid religious folk. I don't know if that was the intention, but it's what I saw.
And one more thing: what does the strip have to do with the existence or non-existence for God?
:thud:
Really? Even though it appears to depict the Large Hadron Collider (or some similar massive, underground particle accelerator), an incredibly elaborate device engineered by humans, in a structure engineered by humans, designed to test things we can't see, yet nonetheless the physicist in some underground tunnel of this massive human-made building is anthropomorphizing Nature and explaining that it was her call that led this physicist to a place practically as far removed from "Nature" as you can get. What a perfect blend of unintended irony. The romantic conceptualization of some scientific field depicted in the other frames is only linguistic, but here the illustration itself conflicts with this unscientific romanticism and thus the physicist is doubly contrasted against her or his scientific field.
Skwim
Veteran Member
That's interesting. Do you have any reference or link to this/
Only my memories. I remember that they weren't really allowed to go into such details.
Using your logic, a computer would have no maker, since an agent more complex created it. Watches, computer, or even a block with ABC on it don't just happen. Design begs a designer, or as the Bible puts it: "Every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." (Hebrews 3:4) Evolutionists just can't explain away all the complexity that surrounds us.
Skwim
Veteran Member
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Evolutionary biology does indeed explain perceived complexity.
But this does not "disprove" God. It only dismisses a weak argument for a creator.
Face it. There is no objective empirical evidence for God, nor is it feasible to use natural science to disprove a supernatural entity.
Of course evolutionary biologists can't explain such complexity; that's outside their field.
The ones who are tasked with explaining all the complexity around us are physicists.
I and many scientists disagree with you that the ToE explains the real complexity at the cellular level and higher. And the things created are empirical evidence of a Creator. Denying that a house has a builder will not change the fact that it did. Nor, I think, will denying the grand Creator of all life change the fact that he did create all things.
How many?
For those inclined to perceive them as such, sure they are.
Denial changes nothing, but then again statements that there is a Grand Creator do not make it so, either.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
now all you have to do is show that "all the complexity around us" was 'designed'.
Then you will have to show that this designer is your favorite deity.
Now since all you have done thus far is merely make the claim that "all the complexity around us" is designed...
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Really?
Name the scientists that disagree.
Except that you have not shown that they are created.
You have merely made the claim.
And no one is denying that a house has a builder.
That is nothing more than your strawman.
Nor does merely making the claim ad nauseum that a grand creator made it make it true that a creator, grand or otherwise, created anything.