There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Audie]

And another argument that can be refuted with a:

So what?

As if you can refute that which auto refutes

 

[Lekatt]

Seeing things, talking to the air etc is not love
and it's not normal, and I nor any still sane person
wants to go that road.

Yes, I agree, talking to the air is not profitable.

 

[Audie]

Yes, I agree, talking to the air is not profitable.

That's among the least unprofitable.

 

[Brian2]

Terrif.
And what does the existence of gravity support?

( do you understand that a waterfall is vastly more complex than dna? I'm wondering why you
choose DNA as your evidence, not waterfalls)

I suppose it is harder to understand what gravity is but I would say it is easier to see why genetic code supports the existence of a designer.

 

[Brian2]

the Projection is strong with thee.

I can see that @joelr does what I do. I however admit to a faith but joel is like most modern skeptics/atheists and do not like to think that they have faith.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose it is harder to understand what gravity is but I would say it is easier to see why genetic code supports the existence of a designer.

And yet.you cannot do so.

 

[Brian2]

You are merely declaring that something exclusively supports your claim as your personal fiat. "Because @Brian2 says so" may work with your young children. It doesn't fly with thinking adults. Or adolescents. Is that all you've got?

Since the only other thing out there that it can support is blind chance and it does not support that, then it exclusively supports a designer.
And even if you want the origins of genetic code to support just natural physical laws, we don't know that it does and so that is just a blind faith. We don't even know that natural physical laws are just natural. I would say that they also support a designer.
The problem is that adults have made up their mind and are not really open to new beliefs and ways of seeing things. The stubborness is becoming more solid each day.

 

[ppp]

Since the only other thing out there that it can support is blind chance a

define "blind chance"

 

[Brian2]

chemistry
non-intelligent patterns

Well it operates in a chemical environment and humans have eventually worked out the patterns that are used. Saying that chemistry is the how it came to be set up and do what it does is just a faith that there is no designer, because it points to a designer just as little computers inside each of us would point to a designer.

 

[ppp]

because it points to a designer just as little computers inside each of us would point to a designer.

@Brian2 says so, therefore it must be true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since the only other thing out there that it can support is blind chance and it does not support that, then it exclusively supports a designer.
And even if you want the origins of genetic code to support just natural physical laws, we don't know that it does and so that is just a blind faith. We don't even know that natural physical laws are just natural. I would say that they also support a designer.
The problem is that adults have made up their mind and are not really open to new beliefs and ways of seeing things. The stubborness is becoming more solid each day.

Blind chancer appears to be a creationist strawman. No scientist that I know of advocates for blind chance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Brian2 says so, therefore it must be true.

And happy birthday!!

 

[ppp]

And happy birthday!!

Thanks!

 

[Brian2]

How does it support the idea of a designer? You have only claimed that. You have never shown how that is to be the case. You only used more logical fallacies to support your position.

I just go done writing a post on the difference between your beliefs and those that oppose you. What is your model of DNA? What reasonable test could possibly refute your model?

It is a complex code that stores and uses data for the structure and functions of life forms. That makes it something that is probably disigned and did not just happen by chance.
You are still using scientific method and science knows nothing about how to detect God.

 

[Brian2]

How does it support the idea of a designer? You have only claimed that. You have never shown how that is to be the case. You only used more logical fallacies to support your position.

I just go done writing a post on the difference between your beliefs and those that oppose you. What is your model of DNA? What reasonable test could possibly refute your model?

It is a complex language that stores and uses data to copy and change and control the operations of living organisms.
You are still using your scientific method when it is lacking in ability to detect God.

 

[McBell]

I cannot help but wonder why gods go through so much trouble to hide their existence...

 

[ppp]

It is a complex language that stores and uses data to copy and change and control the operations of living organisms.

Because @Brian2 says so!

 

[Brian2]

I cannot help but wonder why gods go through so much trouble to hide their existence...

There is only one God and He wants us to seek Him in the midst of all the nothing gods.

 

[Brian2]

Because @Brian2 says so!

I thought that was common knowledge these days.
What do you say the genetic code is?

 

[Brian2]

Blind chancer appears to be a creationist strawman. No scientist that I know of advocates for blind chance.

Yes it probably is not the language of science. But so what? That is what it is.