A reason why god doesn’t existence

Originally posted by forkedknight
What if I were to submit that in actuality, we were created two seconds ago, and all of our memories were created inherent in us by a higher power -- prove me wrong.

It's not up to him to "prove you wrong". It's up to you to prove yourself right - you are the one making the affirmative claim.

Originally posted by forkedknight
Anyone who accepts Darwinian evolution (*edit* specifically macro evolution) as fact is an idiot. Evolution is a theory, just like relativity and universal gravitation.

Wrong. Evolution is both a fact AND a theory.

If I drop a ball, would you consider it a fact that it will drop downwards? I know I, and most reasonable people, would. Gravity is both a fact AND a theory, the same as evolution.

Also, the macroevolution / microevolution is a complete fallacy, there is no distinction. What the creationists call macroevolution is just what the creationists call microevolution over a longer time.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Wrong. Evolution is both a fact AND a theory.

If I drop a ball, would you consider it a fact that it will drop downwards? I know I, and most reasonable people, would. Gravity is both a fact AND a theory, the same as evolution.

Also, the macroevolution / microevolution is a complete fallacy, there is no distinction. What the creationists call macroevolution is just what the creationists call microevolution over a longer time.

I agree but it is a fact under normal conditions; what if you drop it in space 0 gravity; different time & space huh. We do not even know what was the "normal" environment back then; for something not normal must've happened to eliminate the dinosaurs for example

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Wrong. Evolution is both a fact AND a theory.

If I drop a ball, would you consider it a fact that it will drop downwards? I know I, and most reasonable people, would. Gravity is both a fact AND a theory, the same as evolution.

Also, the macroevolution / microevolution is a complete fallacy, there is no distinction. What the creationists call macroevolution is just what the creationists call microevolution over a longer time.

You've seen a ball drop to the ground before. You assume from your experience that this will always happen. From this assumption, Newton claimed that _all_ objects everywhere will _always_ have a gravitational force between them. It is this last statement that is a theory, and NOT a fact.

Common usage is to say that a ball falling to the ground is due to gravity because the theory of universal gravitation.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Also, the macroevolution / microevolution is a complete fallacy, there is no distinction. What the creationists call macroevolution is just what the creationists call microevolution over a longer time.

And thanks, I didn't catch that the first 3 times it was stated.

I will concede that most searches of "macroevolution" return results related to how it is no different from microevolution.

Originally posted by AcapaYespada
I agree but it is a fact under normal conditions; what if you drop it in space 0 gravity; different time & space huh. We do not even know what was the "normal" environment back then; for something not normal must've happened to eliminate the dinosaurs for example

There is no "down" in space. "Down" specifically requires a gravitational field.


We know LOTS about paleoenvironment!! For sure, there is a lot that we don't know, but we know so much it'd blow your mind!

Originally posted by forkedknight
You've seen a ball drop to the ground before. You assume from your experience that this will always happen. From this assumption, Newton claimed that _all_ objects everywhere will _always_ have a gravitational force between them. It is this last statement that is a theory, and NOT a fact.

If we define 'fact' as something that is, then we cannot trully know any fact. However we normally do from our experience assume that some things are facts based on how sure we are. A good scientist is as sure that gravity is universal as he is about many other things that even you would call 'facts'. So for a good scientist the statement you specified is a fact. You may be less sure, so you may call it a theory, but you are wrong to project your lack of surity onto everybody else and pretend that for everyone it is a theory and not fact.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If we define 'fact' as something that is, then we cannot trully know any fact. However we normally do from our experience assume that some things are facts based on how sure we are. A good scientist is as sure that gravity is universal as he is about many other things that even you would call 'facts'. So for a good scientist the statement you specified is ...[text shortened]... ack of surity onto everybody else and pretend that for everyone it is a theory and not fact.

well said 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
If we define 'fact' as something that is, then we cannot trully know any fact. However we normally do from our experience assume that some things are facts based on how sure we are. A good scientist is as sure that gravity is universal as he is about many other things that even you would call 'facts'. So for a good scientist the statement you specified is ...[text shortened]... ack of surity onto everybody else and pretend that for everyone it is a theory and not fact.

It seems you think I imply that a theory cannot be "correct", which is not something that I have stated. If you would like to redefine terms you may, but in the scientific community, a 'fact' is an observation, and a 'theory' is an explanation or generalization.

A theory is considered 'sound' until it is disproven. Even soundness says nothing of correctness, just provability.

Originally posted by forkedknight

...And yes, many Christian denominations accept the theory of evolution.

*edit* Also, there are several different opinions in the Christian church (and probably elsewhere) on evolution.
1) It doesn't exist; God created the world exactly as it is
2) It means God doesn't exist
(note: both of these are the minority, as far as what I have found)
3) God created the universe and shapes life through evolution….

“…3) God created the universe and shapes life through evolution….”

I infer that this means that this group believes that ‘god created us by shaping us through evolution’ whatever that is supposed to mean. This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
The theory of evolution doesn’t even give ‘god’ a mention and there is absolutely no reason to believe that ‘god’s intervention’ is necessary to make Darwinian evolution work for Darwinian evolution is self-explanatory with no obvious holes in the theory. So if you accept the idea that we evolved then the idea that a ‘god’ created us by ‘shaping us through evolution’ whatever that is supposed to mean, becomes totally unnecessary and, given the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that ‘god’ even exists let alone that he inexplicably intervenes in Darwinian evolution by natural selection, it is an absurd idea.

It is rather like me designing and manufacturing a car and then a theist claims “god shaped the car through the manufacturing process” and, like with a claim like “god shaped us through the evolution process”, I can respond by asking the questions:

Why would ‘god’ be a necessary part of the explanation of the process?

And, what is the premise for the belief that he had anything to do with it when there is absolutely no evidence that he even exists?

I also question the vagueness of the statement like ‘god created us by shaping us through evolution’ ;
Exactly how did he do this? For example, where there any particular points in time where he ‘intervened’ with the process of Darwinian evolution? If so, exactly when and where? And exactly what changes did he make?
Exactly which part of the process of Darwinian evolution by natural selection did he intervene with? Was it with the natural selection part or was it with the creation of genetic variation part? And for what purpose? If the purpose was to make us then why did he allow Darwinian evolution to give us an imperfect body design (for example we have an appendix which is a useless organ etc) and help design living things that we rarely see and rarely interact with us such as microbes in sediment on the ocean floor etc? and why did he allow Darwinian evolution produce so many imperfect designs for animals with such obvious design flaws (such as asymmetrical flatfish etc)?

I would like to know what answers what the believers of the ’god shaped us through evolution’ hypotheses in the church-of-England would give to such questions.

Originally posted by forkedknight
It seems you think I imply that a theory cannot be "correct", which is not something that I have stated. If you would like to redefine terms you may, but in the scientific community, a 'fact' is an observation, and a 'theory' is an explanation or generalization.

A theory is considered 'sound' until it is disproven. Even soundness says nothing of correctness, just provability.

In that case, a large part of evolution is 'fact' as it is what is observed.

But I think you are wrong. 'Fact' is what is part of which is observed.
It is a fact that Jupiter exists whether or not a scientist is looking at it at any given moment. We only know this fact based on theory (the theory that planets do not pop in and out of existence), but it is still a fact.

Originally posted by forkedknight
Anyone who accepts Darwinian evolution (*edit* specifically macro evolution) as fact is an idiot. Evolution is a theory, just like relativity and universal gravitation.

And yes, many Christian denominations accept the theory of evolution.

*edit* Also, there are several different opinions in the Christian church (and probably elsewhere) on evoluti ...[text shortened]... and lots of different ideas just about this one, but the general theme appears to be the same.

Apparently, then, I am an idiot.

Couldn't I just be mistaken without being an idiot?

I certainly think that you could be mistaken about whether or not evolution operates along Darwinian lines, or whether God directs it, without being an idiot overall.

Couldn't you extend to me the same attributional courtesy?

Originally posted by forkedknight
Anyone who accepts Darwinian evolution (*edit* specifically macro evolution) as fact is an idiot. Evolution is a theory, just like relativity and universal gravitation.

And yes, many Christian denominations accept the theory of evolution.

*edit* Also, there are several different opinions in the Christian church (and probably elsewhere) on evoluti ...[text shortened]... and lots of different ideas just about this one, but the general theme appears to be the same.

Consider three hypotheses:

1) Natural forces shape evolution
2) God helps to shape evolution,
3) An unidentified group of hyperintelligent hyperpowerful hypersurreptitious exterterrestial beings help to shape evolution.

What evidence suggests that 2) is more likely to be true than 3)?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
There is no "down" in space. "Down" specifically requires a gravitational field.


We know LOTS about paleoenvironment!! For sure, there is a lot that we don't know, but we know so much it'd blow your mind!

"...but we know so much it'd blow your mind!

That explains why there are atheists. 😲

Originally posted by josephw
"...but we know so much ....

That explains why there are atheists. [/b]

Yes, because we know so much.