Post Any Evidence For God Here

[2dimes]

This one isn't fully prepared but can become a lot of delicious menu items.

[AAFitz]

The poster said stuff about God as a pure statement, not "I believe this". Their comments totally ignored all the previous discussion as if it was not worthy of attention.
To reply with "God is an illusion" is a response in kind, sort of "No,u!"

Both posts are irrelevant to the rest of the discussion, and both ignore the question of "evidence".

No sir.

[AAFitz]

It at the very least Proves God is a Man.

In college we once nearly convinced a fellow student that women did not... defecate.

The evidence was similar: Can you even imagine Christy Brinkley taking a cruncher? Of course not. its just impossible.
He agreed.

[2dimes]

Depends what a guys into. Excellent story still.

I'm posting for my target audience for sure, also if I were posting nice things for women it would be a wealthy, sensitive guy, with excellent parenting skills like supreme diaper changing ability. Most guys are in perpetual minor danger of going broke in the divorce of the centery not realising how much we hurt our kids until years after we chased some dirty tramp that looks good.

I have to complain really, I don't know why he made us so interested in looking at women that are attractive to us. Seems like it would be better to shut that off while a guy is married. It got some of the guys noted for being the wisest kings ever in trouble in the old testament.

[AAFitz]

Depends what a guys into. Excellent story still.

I'm posting for my target audience for sure, also if I were posting nice things for women it would be a wealthy, sensitive guy, with excellent parenting skills like supreme diaper changing ability. Most guys are in perpetual minor danger of going broke in the divorce of the centery not realising how much we hurt our kids until years after we chased some dirty tramp that looks good.

I have to complain really, I don't know why he made us so interested in looking at women that are attractive to us. Seems like it would be better to shut that off while a guy is married. It got some of the guys noted for being the wisest kings ever in trouble in the old testament.

Some American "kings" had the same problem. Well, except for being the wisest(though ironically...the ones with undeniable proof, were JFK and Clinton, and both are still considered two of the more popular presidents. Among voters, and women, apparently.

At this point, I would almost think a little philandering might add to a candidates success. The thought would perhaps be, well, I sure wouldnt want to be married to the guy, but he will probably make a great leader.

There was never any question whether Bush was ever going to cheat on his wife...or more importantly...let the person live had he slipped. Its simply a given.

[notyou2]

She is evidence that she is man made. If she didn't have parents and wasn't a test tube baby, then I would agree that she was immaculately made, but I am sure she had a mother and a father, which makes her man made. Don't you even know where babies come from? Perhaps you are too young to be hanging out here...........

[2dimes]

She is evidence that she is man made. If she didn't have parents and wasn't a test tube baby, then I would agree that she was immaculately made, but I am sure she had a mother and a father, which makes her man made. Don't you even know where babies come from? Perhaps you are too young to be hanging out here...........

You should whip a couple of them up for us.

[jonesthecurl]

Depends what a guys into. Excellent story still.

I'm posting for my target audience for sure, also if I were posting nice things for women it would be a wealthy, sensitive guy, with excellent parenting skills like supreme diaper changing ability. Most guys are in perpetual minor danger of going broke in the divorce of the centery not realising how much we hurt our kids until years after we chased some dirty tramp that looks good.

I have to complain really, I don't know why he made us so interested in looking at women that are attractive to us. Seems like it would be better to shut that off while a guy is married. It got some of the guys noted for being the wisest kings ever in trouble in the old testament.

Some American "kings" had the same problem. Well, except for being the wisest(though ironically...the ones with undeniable proof, were JFK and Clinton, and both are still considered two of the more popular presidents. Among voters, and women, apparently.

At this point, I would almost think a little philandering might add to a candidates success. The thought would perhaps be, well, I sure wouldnt want to be married to the guy, but he will probably make a great leader.

There was never any question whether Bush was ever going to cheat on his wife...or more importantly...let the person live had he slipped. Its simply a given.

DId you notice, women are allowed to vote, now?

[MeDeFe]

I might not have used the correct terms MDF so sorry for that. Although its status as a "natural law" is disputed, I do think it's a process that arises ANYWHERE there is competition of any kind, even among religions. So I consider it basically a fact of the universe. The religion that wins is not necessarily the correct one, but more often is the one that allows the greatest advancement of a given society. That's why I take issue with people who insist that religion is this huge negative force on society that so many say it is. I'm convinced that if it was, a nonreligious culture would have thrived and we would be rid of religion altogether by now. But there is religion almost everywhere, even among distinct cultures that completely lacked contact, so not only do I see it as good, I see it as a natural way of seeking answers, much like science. To be perfectly honest I would still support religion even if I knew that God didn't exist, because it provides a tremendous amount of support and stability for people (aside from the occasional whackjobs like Sultan posted in that other thread, but that is largely a political issue). I maintain that militant atheism is unwarranted because the basis behind it (that religion is inherently bad) is flawed. That being said, I do have tolerance for the non-proselytizing atheists (in fact one of my cooler cousins is an atheist, and has never mentioned it, I only know because my aunt told me). They are not much different to me than an upstanding humble Catholic.

But natural selection doesn't arise anywhere there is competition of any kind. It only arises where there is any sort of reproduction taking place. Religions, by contrast, just don't get together and make baby religions which then compete among each other to see which can produce the highest surviving number of new baby religions.
Sure, maybe you can make a model that somehow describes a situation so that religions are in competition with each other, but such a model will not be the same as natural selection, it probably won't even be similar.

Besides, you're still arguing two different approaches as if they were the same, on the one hand competition between religions, on the other hand competition between groups with different religions. As I've said, I think the first approach has nothing to do with natural selection, in the second approach there is at least one component that reproduces (individuals in the groups), but your logic is flawed. It doesn't follow from the genetic success of one group that their religion somehow advances them in a non-relative sense.

A religion needs only give a group an edge compared to other groups, it does not have to be objectively beneficial to the group. Imagine a situation of roaming tribes, groups that have a religion which demands the killing of their enemies will arguably have an edge over groups with more pacifist religion when it comes to passing on genes (Because they kill off non-believers with the wrong genes). Or over groups with no religion at all. Even though the religion will objectively have much less potential for advancement than, for example, a religion that says it's a good idea to try and get along with others. In any case, this situation of roaming tribes not been the case (at least widespread) for how long now? 3000 years? 4000?

If you want to construct a model for today's world I wish you the best of luck, the boundaries will be fleeting, you'll have to take into account that religions aren't unified, that there are different sects, that different sects and religions live side by side in some societies. No... group selection stopped working a long time ago.

In one of my previous posts I also explained how religion can be perpetuated if it benefits a few within the society even if it makes the society as a whole worse off. Instead of repeating your assertions, how about defending them against my criticisms by expanding on them?

I think there's a good reason you still haven't given a detailed account of how this competition between religions is supposed to take place: You can't do it. I'm becoming more and more convinced that all you have is some nebulous concept that the fittest tend to survive and because religion has survived religion must be good for fitness. Sorry, but you can't argue from such a position, all you can do is rant.



I've outlined how a bad religion can advance a group, but even if I hadn't been able to do that your assertion that religion could be a natural way of seeking answers means... nothing. It means nothing if it's false and it means nothing if it's true. If your assertion is wrong we can ignore it, but even if you're right and religion is a natural way for humans to look for answers to tricky questions: So what? Personally I'm less than impressed with the observable results so far, and on a more formal note: Being natural does not mean it will provide accurate, or even generally useful, answers. Furthermore, what does "natural" even mean in this context?
I won't comment much on your comparing science and religion as natural way to search for answers but I'll give you a few hints to my thoughts: Glaring difference, revelation, empirical study.



Finally, your assertion that religion is good independently of anything else because it "provides a tremendous amount of support and stability for people"... Well, this is lovely to hear, but can you explain what you mean? What kind of support? Stability in what sense? And is religion the only way, or even the best way, of providing those things?

You've shown that you're pretty good at making claims, but so far you haven't substantiated, or even explained, a single one of them.

[Neoteny]

MeDeFe, how many times do we have to explain this to you? It's a "fact of the universe!"

[2dimes]

DId you notice, women are allowed to vote, now?

-sigh- I did, which would be fine as long as they're married and will vote for who their husband tells them to. They don't.

[tzor]

But natural selection doesn't arise anywhere there is competition of any kind. It only arises where there is any sort of reproduction taking place. Religions, by contrast, just don't get together and make baby religions which then compete among each other to see which can produce the highest surviving number of new baby religions.

No really, religions produce baby religions all the time. Christianity is the most prolific with schisms and reformations and so on and so forth resulting from thousands of "denominations" to this day. Even within a given denomination there are divisions within the denominaiton (for example Roman Catholics have Franciscans, Dominicians, Jeusits, etc).

Demoninations definitely compete.

The real question is whether this religious reproduction is sexual (two parents) or asexual (one parent). For the most part it is the later, but on the other hand sexual religious reproduction does happen in rare cases. A good example is during St. Francis' visit to the Holy Lands during the crusaide. It is believed that he may have spent much time with the local Sufi population and some ideas may have cross polinated into Franciscan theology and teaching.

[MeDeFe]

But natural selection doesn't arise anywhere there is competition of any kind. It only arises where there is any sort of reproduction taking place. Religions, by contrast, just don't get together and make baby religions which then compete among each other to see which can produce the highest surviving number of new baby religions.

No really, religions produce baby religions all the time. Christianity is the most prolific with schisms and reformations and so on and so forth resulting from thousands of "denominations" to this day. Even within a given denomination there are divisions within the denominaiton (for example Roman Catholics have Franciscans, Dominicians, Jeusits, etc).

Demoninations definitely compete.

The real question is whether this religious reproduction is sexual (two parents) or asexual (one parent). For the most part it is the later, but on the other hand sexual religious reproduction does happen in rare cases. A good example is during St. Francis' visit to the Holy Lands during the crusaide. It is believed that he may have spent much time with the local Sufi population and some ideas may have cross polinated into Franciscan theology and teaching.

I thought I was taking a ridiculous metaphor and stretching it to its breaking point to illustrate something, I didn't expect anyone to actually pick up the shards and take it seriously.

Oh well. But let's take your examples a bit further, even within an order like the Jesuits I doubt you will find two people who have identical opinions in all religious matters. Sure, they will agree on the vast majority of things, but there will be differences. Does that mean all Jesuits have different religions that compete with each other somehow? Does it mean every human has their own religion?
I hope you're beginning to see the silliness.
If every human has their own religion, john9blue's ideas about religions benefitting groups of people are meaningless. If the size of every religion is one adherent there is no such thing as a religious group of people. Telling whether a religion is "fit" or not becomes impossible a lot earlier.

And why can't one simply say that Francis talked to locals while he was on a trip and got some ideas from them which he incorporated into his worldview? That seems like an accurate description to me, so why frame the discussion in terms of religions cross-pollinating each other in the first place? And what if he had never founded the Franciscans, would his religion have been any less "fit" then? If the answer is "no" you effectively admit that there's no even half-objective measurement for fitness of religions. If the answer is "yes" the fitness of a religion becomes detached from the merits of the religion and mostly depends on the charisma of the person trying to spread it.
Neither alternative is good for building an argument for natural selection applying to religions.

[2dimes]

Does it mean every human has their own religion?

I agree with the idea that everyone would by their differences have their own religion to a small extent just because we are all unique. I believe the bible is better than any other text at being very personall even though most of the stories in it are about what some person did in a particular scenario.

I really believe that is one of the major problems with religion. Once it starts to develop I want to convince you of what ever my ideas are but you have your own. The motivation can be either for control or just to share my terrific views and extreme happiness. The problem is somethings are subjective.

If avoiding pork to keep your body clean makes you happy, my bacon, jalepeno, cheeseburger may not be sutible for sharing even though it makes me happy.

[Neoteny]

Oh god... are we going to go into gene vs group selectionism for religions too? It was bad enough in biology...

[Imaweasel]

Interesting points made from several peoples. I keep seeing medefe saying certain things though and thought perhaps this exchange of emails on the subject might help.

Re: Atheist

Sent: Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:00 pm
From: Imaweasel
To: NotAConservative

NotAConservative wrote:
Secondly, God, if existing, must be necessary. God is not necessary. Evolution cannot be disproven, therefore God does not have a place in our lives. This makes God unnecessary. Everything you see on Earth is necessary for something; for another creatures survival, for example. We are necessary for society to function, to do jobs for other creatures, to provide for other creatures; just in our case, these other creatures are of our own species. If God is unnecessary, why should He exist?



Thanks for the reply. As I wrote I have not decided yet what to believe except my own common sense but I have studied and been somewhat educated in both. I will think on what you have written and maybe write you back sometime. For now I just have one problem I see in your statements. Perhaps God ,as such, is not unnecessary? Who is to say? Perhaps this is why society is so fucked up with murder and war and crimes and everything. Perhaps we are missing a vital component to our lives. I suppose you could say God doesn't exist ONLY if evolution is true. But it is after all still only a theory and while it cannot be disproved it lacks the concrete evidence needed to make it fact.

Anyways ty for the response....btw watch out for the ZOMBIES!


So ya basically the question stands is God what humans are missing to make a nice peaceful world...because we have sure tried everything else...

[tzor]

Let’s run with this for a while; point and counter point

[POINT] Secondly, God, if existing, must be necessary.

[COUNTER POINT] I could say that is not necessarily true, but that would be punning. I would simply state that this is an assertion without proof.

[POINT] God is not necessary.

[COUNTER POINT] This is another assertion without proof.

[POINT] Evolution cannot be disproven; therefore God does not have a place in our lives.

[COUNTER POINT] Hold the Q.E.D. folks; this is a “leap” of logic. The implication is that in order for God to have a “place in our lives” he must have created us by some means other than evolution. I mean it’s like going to your wife and saying “Evolution cannot be disproven; therefore you do not have a place in my life.” After your face starts to feel pain from the cast iron skillet that was smacked at your face, you will realize your logic is faulty.

[POINT] This makes God unnecessary.

[COUNTER POINT] Actually it doesn’t.

[POINT] Everything you see on Earth is necessary for something; for another creatures survival, for example. We are necessary for society to function, to do jobs for other creatures, to provide for other creatures; just in our case, these other creatures are of our own species.

[COUNTER POINT] OMG, is this “intelligent design for atheists?” I’m sorry but I really don’t see how internet conversations (which I see on Earth) are necessary for anything!

[POINT] If God is unnecessary, why should He exist?

[COUNTER POINT] Since you never really proved God is unnecessary, this question is moot. (NB In logic, (IF A THEN B) = (NOT A OR B) so B can be either true or false if A is false.)

[Imaweasel]

Well that works of course...and your point counter point is excellent...but i wasnt interested in destroying his idea rather i was attempting to show how Whether or not a certain theory of how we came to exist is true or not ...God might be "the missing link" we are all searching for.

*see my reply to his letter

[PLAYER57832]

Interesting points made from several peoples. I keep seeing medefe saying certain things though and thought perhaps this exchange of emails on the subject might help.

Re: Atheist

Sent: Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:00 pm
From: Imaweasel
To: NotAConservative

NotAConservative wrote:
Secondly, God, if existing, must be necessary. God is not necessary. Evolution cannot be disproven, therefore God does not have a place in our lives. This makes God unnecessary. Everything you see on Earth is necessary for something; for another creatures survival, for example. We are necessary for society to function, to do jobs for other creatures, to provide for other creatures; just in our case, these other creatures are of our own species. If God is unnecessary, why should He exist?

This is a classic "strawman" argument. We see the universe as it is, and only in part at that. To declare anything is or is not "necessary" is simply hubris. We don't even come close to the knowledge necessary to know if either is true.

Claiming that if we are here, we are necessary (which is about the argument above) is simply an opinion, not in any way based upon true facts. We can only imagine what the world would be like if our universe worked differently.

Thanks for the reply. As I wrote I have not decided yet what to believe except my own common sense but I have studied and been somewhat educated in both. I will think on what you have written and maybe write you back sometime. For now I just have one problem I see in your statements. Perhaps God ,as such, is not unnecessary? Who is to say? Perhaps this is why society is so fucked up with murder and war and crimes and everything. Perhaps we are missing a vital component to our lives. I suppose you could say God doesn't exist ONLY if evolution is true. But it is after all still only a theory and while it cannot be disproved it lacks the concrete evidence needed to make it fact.

Anyways ty for the response....btw watch out for the ZOMBIES!


So ya basically the question stands is God what humans are missing to make a nice peaceful world...because we have sure tried everything else...

But, of course, only some people "don't have God". And, among those who do, religion is hardly a "fail safe" for good behavior. The best we can offer is that faith is an individual thing that can be very, very powerful, can offer direction, etc. In conjunction with others of faith, the power increases. However, because human beings are imperfect, we tend to screw up everything.

The Buddhists talk about a continual cycle of learning. Some Christians hold a bit of the same.. that Christ's second coming is set for a time when human beings have done certain things, learned certain things. I don't subscibe to either of those specifically, but they are interesting thoughts.

[Juan_Bottom]

[COUNTER POINT] This is another assertion without proof.

God might be "the missing link" we are all searching for.

This is a classic "strawman" argument. We see the universe as it is, and only in part at that. To declare anything is or is not "necessary" is simply hubris. We don't even come close to the knowledge necessary to know if either is true.

I thought as I read that ("this makes God unnecessary")-that what he was trying to get across was that if you can show how everything happened without needing to include a God in your research then why wouldn't you just eliminate the God from your findings?
However in the end it looks to me like he was saying that Man is God.
I dunno what exactly he/she ment.

[AlgyTaylor]

Nobody can prove that I don't have a pink elephant sitting behind my couch either. See, it can move at the speed of light so if you try and look behind the couch, it hides somewhere else. But it generally lives behind the couch. It's not omnipotent, though. I draw the line at that. It's just a normal elephant, that's pink and very fast.

If people want to believe in my elephant, that's cool. I'm sure it'll appreciate it. If you don't, that's also cool. I doubt it's that bothered.


This reflects my standpoint on deities, although they may well be omnipotent and not necessarily pink or fast. Or behind my couch.

[Imaweasel]

Well for one...If there IS a GOD than he can do whatever he wants right?

I like how people that dont believe in a GOD also are the ones which say exactly what that GOD would or wouldnt do and use what He hasnt done to prove He doesnt exist...

[Frigidus]

Well for one...If there IS a GOD than he can do whatever he wants right?

I like how people that dont believe in a GOD also are the ones which say exactly what that GOD would or wouldnt do and use what He hasnt done to prove He doesnt exist...

The idea of the "perfect" creator is posed to us, and using this being's existence and our world as givens we are able to deduce certain things about reality. Philosophy, mang.

[Imaweasel]

Well for one...If there IS a GOD than he can do whatever he wants right?

I like how people that dont believe in a GOD also are the ones which say exactly what that GOD would or wouldnt do and use what He hasnt done to prove He doesnt exist...

The idea of the "perfect" creator is posed to us, and using this being's existence and our world as givens we are able to deduce certain things about reality. Philosophy, mang.

And what you deduce(I assume) Is that because this Being hasnt done what you see fit he therefore isnt perfect (again your idea of perfect and His plan may differ seeing as you are the created not the creator) and doesnt exist.

How is that in anyway logical. Because My idea of a perfect world includes all the candy I like and also never having to do chores or wash dishes does not mean that my parents (who dont let me have the candy and force me to do chores) do not exist. They just dont exist in the preconceived and unrealistic form I would like them to be in.

[PLAYER57832]

[COUNTER POINT] This is another assertion without proof.

God might be "the missing link" we are all searching for.

This is a classic "strawman" argument. We see the universe as it is, and only in part at that. To declare anything is or is not "necessary" is simply hubris. We don't even come close to the knowledge necessary to know if either is true.

I thought as I read that ("this makes God unnecessary")-that what he was trying to get across was that if you can show how everything happened without needing to include a God in your research then why wouldn't you just eliminate the God from your findings?

That is precisely why most scientists don't tackle the issue of God in any real way, as scientists.

We each have our own faiths and beliefs, however. Belief and faith are not based upon proofs you can show to other people. They are often based upon internal proof. We can often describe it, but they are intensely personnal and sharing them serve no real purpose except fullfilling some voyeuristic tendency by supposed listeners.

If you choose to get into a real and true debate, fine. But nothing here represents a real discussion.