Creator god or intelligent design, the facts that inform the theory?

a reply to: chr0naut

Science tells us that we are all, without exception, going to die.

You exist simply because you...."CANNOT".... "NOT".... exist....
When you die your consciousness energy simply falls back into the electromagnetic field of consciousness energy.

Until....
Your frequency is matched once again.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Nothing verifiable then?
If I can't test it and repeat the test then I don't believe it.

Cool so most of string theory then?

Math theory and scientific theory are not the same thing. Most math theories are untestable, they are based on pure math, which can be difficult to interpret into real world things. Relativity was originally like that but it keeps demonstrating itself and the predictions are showing to be accurate (ie the prediction of gravity waves). String theory is not testable. The math adds up, but it's still very much unprovable, kind of like multiverse theory or the cyclical model. We know it as a possibility that is mathematically viable. God is a possibility that is not mathematically viable, at least not yet. This is why math theory falls under the realm of theoretical physics. That doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, but it's not scientific evidence nor should it be compared.

Philosophical speculation is what most of cosmology is..

Can you disprove god?

No?

Because it's not a scientific question.

Philosophy is only used in science to come up with original ideas or hypotheses. The testing is what determines what is scientific and what is not. Philosophy is not proof of anything unless the premise is indisputable fact and the reasoning is logically valid. This never holds true for apologetic claims and putting it on the same level as testable science is a bit of an extreme. Burden of proof is on the positive claim that god exists, nobody needs to disprove a concept that is hypothetical and speculative in the first place. You prove the idea true, you don't assume it's true until proven wrong.

You asked a philosophical question got philosophical answers you don't understand or have tested vocabulary to understand and have no argument against them based on reason.

The reason it is "philosophical" instead of scientific is because there is no supporting evidence, which was the point they were making, that god is not a scientifically valid concept. Philosophy doesn't hold the same weight as testable science. No evidence = no logical reason to believe something or agree with it. Everything is philosophical until there is evidence to test. Vampires, werewolves, fairies, there are philosophies for each concept, but yet nothing testable. That doesn't mean somebody who is skeptical of those positions is wrong to ask for evidence for something that tons of people constantly claim as TRUTH. The very point of the thread was that god is not a scientific position. Bringing up philosophy is a red herring based on what was requested in the OP.

This was originally a double post, but ran out of room below so I edited this in:

originally posted by: chr0naut
If someone tells you not to play on the road because it is dangerous, and you don't believe them, citing 'absence of evidence', then you are probably going to get run over.

Absence of evidence? Are you seriously trying to argue that there is not evidence of people being killed by cars? In what realm of reality is this a logical argument or even remotely comparable to the idea of god? It's like saying you only wash your hands because you have faith in the existence of germs.

What testable scientific data disproves God?

If you don't have any evidence either way, your opinion is unfounded.

The question is: What scientific data PROVES god? Did you not read the OP or something?

What scientific data disproves fairies? If you don't have any evidence either way, your opinion is unfounded!

Sorry but lack of evidence is a valid logical reason to lack belief in something.

You do realize that this post completely proved his point right? He said that all you have is speculative conjecture and you literally responded with EXACTLY THAT. You can't make this stuff up!

originally posted by: chr0naut
Proof of natural selection does not prove evolution, it only proves natural selection. Proof of mutation does not prove evolution, only mutation, and so forth.

Yes, and those are 2 major mechanisms of evolution. Evolution is not an actual process. It is the description of how multiple mechanisms and processes can change life over time. I didn't say proof, I asked what end-to-end evidence is and you have still not given any details.

While not all processes are neccesary in establishing evolution, more than one or two, and in specific sequence, are. There are many examples of evolutionary mechanisms but I have yet to see one example that unequivocally covers all bases neccesary to the theory.

I still don't know what you mean by "unequivocally covers all bases necessary to the theory." What bases are missing? Are you saying that since we do not know every single thing there is to know about evolution, that it is speculative? Or do you think there is a major step that has been left out?

If you simply accept that evolution must be correct in each case, then you cease critically examining the examples. A true scientist mantains a critical and skeptical view which allows them to continue to evaluate new data as it comes to hand.

Of course. I have never argued that. I have argued that we have enough evidence amassed to give it an extremely high degree of probability, based on all of it put together, not just one or 2 studies. That's why it's considered consensus in academia. For it to be wrong would completely shatter everything we know about biology, and hundreds of thousands of research papers would have to be disproved or shown to be flawed as well as a more probable explanation based on evidence and testing. There is a reason they repeat tests.

I neither accept nor reject evolution, yet you reject Theism - based upon what evidence?

It is not so much I reject it, I see it as pure speculation based on faith. Thus I am skeptical of most theistic claims. I honestly don't care if people choose to believe, it's just the level of fervor they use to to claim they are right and everyone else is wrong to the level of science denial or claiming that philosophical arguments can prove god. I reject illogical irrational arguments, not the idea of god. But I need evidence to buy into any claim, so....

You are the guy who believes that science is capable of explaining, or has already explained, the ultimate origins of existence and based upon that belief, you have stopped enquiring and reasoning about it, expecting instead that someone else has already done so or will do it for you in the future.

I accept that the scientific method brings us effective results and that scientists are working all over the globe to help explain and understand as much as they can about our world. Science is a method that slowly figures things out. It iss not absolute as you are painting it, but it does get us results. That doesn't mean it gets everything perfect right off the bat. It takes time and develops as new information is learned.

There is no evidence against God or creation. Nothing, at least, which would cause a rational rejection of the hypothesis,

Since god is not testable, he doesn't qualify as a hypothesis. God is an idea based on belief. I don't need evidence against it to be skeptical. The lack of supporting evidence is enough. Why is it always the philosophy guys that can't follow basic logic or understand burden of proof?

The best evidence of a Creator is the Creation itself. Well, it's there!

What else might be evidence of a Creator?

Circular reasoning and assuming the premise, but I'm sure you realize this and are taking the piss here.

What might be evidence of fairies?

Religion does have evidence and it is universal. Everything from existence, to complexity, to the temporal nature of nature, to mathematical order, to consciousness, to altruism, to our intrinsic sense of right and wrong are evidential that something, beyond the base forces that science has uncovered driven by random occurrences, is actually going on. None of those things are the outcomes of random processes. Individually they are evidences, together, they present a strong case.

All of that is speculative conjecture. Not everything is completely random, so that's a straw man. You guys love to personify the idea of randomness and turn a mathematical concept into a grand explanation of everything as if it's a tangible thing. There is nothing random about how chemicals interact with one another or the effects of gravity.

In Judeo-Christian theology, God is supreme over time and unchanging (as anything atemporal must be). This has been a core paradigm in theology for more than 3.000 years.

Perhaps your rejection of the existence of God is based upon an invalid ideation?

Again, I am not rejecting god, I'm rejecting arguments that people use to support his existence. Big difference.

If the universe requires a creator due to complexity, then logic would say that god is more complex than his creation, so he would also need a creator, by the standards invoked by that argument. It's textbook special pleading fallacy. If god has no origin or explanation and he was always just there, then that's RANDOM!!! How do you not see that? He's literally JUST THERE, out of the blue, the default state of all existence. How lucky and random is it, that he just happens to always exist? Invoking god to explain the universe is moving the goalposts. If people postulate that a super complex being can exist with no origin, then why can't the universe (something simpler) exist with no origin? Either way you are stuck with the same problem, so the only honest way is to admit we do not know, and I have no problem doing this.

The section above that I have highlighted is a fairly arrogant and unfounded thing to say.

I have yet to see a valid logical rational argument in favor of the existence of god that doesn't invoke assumptions or exploit semantics. It's not arrogant, it's that the arguments are unconvincing and weak. I've read and analyzed pretty much all the apologetic philosophy arguments and they are all flawed and prove nothing (not to mention outdated). Arguments in general prove nothing. Anybody can speculate about what ifs. This thread is about evidence. As I said, I have no problem with belief, I have a problem with people constantly needing to argue it's true without any evidence and think that people should just accept that because an ancient philosopher says so.

Um, temporal things, like the univese, have a beginning and an end. We know of no exceptions. We can obseve the progress of states of the universe and determine that it is clearly temporal.

"We know of no exceptions" is not a logical argument. We know of no exceptions to common observation of matter being constantly rearranged rather than created. We know of no exceptions to anything existing that is non physical. I could go on all day. The reasoning is flawed.

www.reddit.com...

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: chr0naut

Science tells us that we are all, without exception, going to die.

You exist simply because you...."CANNOT".... "NOT".... exist....
When you die your consciousness energy simply falls back into the electromagnetic field of consciousness energy.

Until....
Your frequency is matched once again.

Do we get another universe.

How positively whizzo!

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

Yes, and those are 2 major mechanisms of evolution. Evolution is not an actual process. It is the description of how multiple mechanisms and processes can change life over time. I didn't say proof, I asked what end-to-end evidence is and you have still not given any details.

I still don't know what you mean by "unequivocally covers all bases necessary to the theory." What bases are missing? Are you saying that since we do not know every single thing there is to know about evolution, that it is speculative? Or do you think there is a major step that has been left out?

2 year olds have no problem understanding a sequence of events.



If a particular step, that is required to make the whole evolutionary process work, isn't evidenced, or is precluded by observed time frames, then you can't assume that it must have occurred anyway. The assumption is unfounded.

Of course. I have never argued that. I have argued that we have enough evidence amassed to give it an extremely high degree of probability, based on all of it put together, not just one or 2 studies.

That's why it's considered consensus in academia. For it to be wrong would completely shatter everything we know about biology, and hundreds of thousands of research papers would have to be disproved or shown to be flawed as well as a more probable explanation based on evidence and testing. There is a reason they repeat tests.

Sometimes experiments aren't repeated, but the data continues to be published unchallenged. Sometimes the experiments are repeated and the data is not the same. Sometimes, there is a predjudicial filter applied. Sometimes, others put entirely different interpretation, using a different theoretical framework, on exactly the same evidence (a favourite of creation science, as I'm sure you'd agree).

The fact that these issues remain unadressed is a failure of science.

It is not so much I reject it, I see it as pure speculation based on faith. Thus I am skeptical of most theistic claims. I honestly don't care if people choose to believe, it's just the level of fervor they use to to claim they are right and everyone else is wrong to the level of science denial or claiming that philosophical arguments can prove god. I reject illogical irrational arguments, not the idea of god. But I need evidence to buy into any claim, so....

They aren't illogical and irrational arguments if their premise is true.

I accept that the scientific method brings us effective results and that scientists are working all over the globe to help explain and understand as much as they can about our world. Science is a method that slowly figures things out. It iss not absolute as you are painting it, but it does get us results. That doesn't mean it gets everything perfect right off the bat. It takes time and develops as new information is learned.

Since god is not testable, he doesn't qualify as a hypothesis.

Is God not testable?

God is an idea based on belief. I don't need evidence against it to be skeptical. The lack of supporting evidence is enough. Why is it always the philosophy guys that can't follow basic logic or understand burden of proof?

Circular reasoning and assuming the premise, but I'm sure you realize this and are taking the piss here.

But surely every scientific principle assumes certain premises, like implicate order and emergence. Science could not work if results were truly random. At the core, it is circular reasoning.

What might be evidence of fairies?

Physical traces or consequences of their existence inexplicable by other means.

All of that is speculative conjecture. Not everything is completely random, so that's a straw man. You guys love to personify the idea of randomness and turn a mathematical concept into a grand explanation of everything as if it's a tangible thing. There is nothing random about how chemicals interact with one another or the effects of gravity.

Randomness is unstructured and disorderly. Yet even chaos and turbulence in the universe has order and randomness is conspicuously absent. How many scientific theories invoke randomness as a component? Randomness and order are at odds.

Again, I am not rejecting god, I'm rejecting arguments that people use to support his existence. Big difference.

When you say you are not rejecting God, I assume you mean that you are "not rejecting the existence of God", as this is the point of the argument, rather than rejecting something you assume to exist.

So, lets analyse the statements:

Statement 'A': "I do not reject that 'X' exists. I reject argument that 'X' exists".

... or, the inverse:

Statement 'B': "I reject that 'X' exists, I do not reject arguments that 'X' exists".

These statements are each self-contradictory and unreasonable.

If the universe requires a creator due to complexity, then logic would say that god is more complex than his creation, so he would also need a creator, by the standards invoked by that argument. It's textbook special pleading fallacy. If god has no origin or explanation and he was always just there, then that's RANDOM!!!

How do you not see that? He's literally JUST THERE, out of the blue, the default state of all existence. How lucky and random is it, that he just happens to always exist?

The concepts of numeration are atemporal. They are "literally JUST THERE, out of the blue". Doesn't make them "RANDOM". Bit of faulty reasoning, there.

Invoking god to explain the universe is moving the goalposts. If people postulate that a super complex being can exist with no origin, then why can't the universe (something simpler) exist with no origin?

Because we know the universe is temporal.

Either way you are stuck with the same problem, so the only honest way is to admit we do not know, and I have no problem doing this.

I have yet to see a valid logical rational argument in favor of the existence of god that doesn't invoke assumptions or exploit semantics. It's not arrogant, it's that the arguments are unconvincing and weak. I've read and analyzed pretty much all the apologetic philosophy arguments and they are all flawed and prove nothing (not to mention outdated). Arguments in general prove nothing. Anybody can speculate about what ifs. This thread is about evidence. As I said, I have no problem with belief, I have a problem with people constantly needing to argue it's true without any evidence and think that people should just accept that because an ancient philosopher says so.

"We know of no exceptions" is not a logical argument.

But it is reasoned and rational.

We know of no exceptions to common observation of matter being constantly rearranged rather than created. We know of no exceptions to anything existing that is non physical. I could go on all day. The reasoning is flawed.

Fair enough, so you are saying that matter is atemporal?

originally posted by: Barcs
This was originally a double post, but ran out of room below so I edited this in:

originally posted by: chr0naut
If someone tells you not to play on the road because it is dangerous, and you don't believe them, citing 'absence of evidence', then you are probably going to get run over.

Absence of evidence? Are you seriously trying to argue that there is not evidence of people being killed by cars?

Absolutely not. I am saying that denying evidence because you don't like what it implies does not negate the evidence but has real consequence for the denier. I was pointing out that denial of evidence is a real thing that people do, and that it is childish, not intellectually rigourous.

In what realm of reality is this a logical argument or even remotely comparable to the idea of god? It's like saying you only wash your hands because you have faith in the existence of germs.

So now you are denying the existence of germs?

(Hey, if you can purposfully misinterpret the meaning of what I say, I can do it back to you, too. Turnabout is fair play).

The question is: What scientific data PROVES god? Did you not read the OP or something?

What scientific data disproves fairies? If you don't have any evidence either way, your opinion is unfounded!

So now you've got it in for homosexuals!



But seriously, we have admission by those who produce narratives including fairies (the supernatural type), that the concept is purely fiction. The case that fairies are not real is strongly evidenced.

Sorry but lack of evidence is a valid logical reason to lack belief in something.

You do realize that this post completely proved his point right? He said that all you have is speculative conjecture and you literally responded with EXACTLY THAT. You can't make this stuff up!

There were several physicists quoted who pointed out that particular evidential facts lead them to the conclusion that there is a creator God. This is the same process they use in interpreting data to see if it fits the theory - scientific method.

Their conclusions are exactly as speculative as the best science. That is why science is constantly revised as new data comes to hand. Because the previous interpretations were not absolute truth, i.e, they were speculations based upon incomplete data.

Your dislike of one speculation (theory, by another word) that doesn't sit well with your opinion, over another that has no more 'absolute truthiness' and is therefore also just speculation, is biased and intellectually dishonest.

originally posted by: chr0naut
If a particular step, that is required to make the whole evolutionary process work, isn't evidenced, or is precluded by observed time frames, then you can't assume that it must have occurred anyway. The assumption is unfounded.

Again, what step are you referring to?

Sometimes experiments aren't repeated, but the data continues to be published unchallenged. Sometimes the experiments are repeated and the data is not the same. Sometimes, there is a predjudicial filter applied. Sometimes, others put entirely different interpretation, using a different theoretical framework, on exactly the same evidence (a favourite of creation science, as I'm sure you'd agree).

You have specific examples of this related to evolution? Sometimes the sky appears yellow. I don't care, it's still blue. The vast majority of it is repeatable.

The fact that these issues remain unadressed is a failure of science.

You haven't even brought up any issues. You need more than generalizations, sorry.

They aren't illogical and irrational arguments if their premise is true.

Dude, they are not logical or rational in the least. Every single one of them invokes assumptions, and I've pointed it out numerous times, yet am always met with blind denial. Deductive logic only proves something if the premise is confirmed FACT and the logic is solid. Not a single apologetic argument for god passes that test. If you think one does, then post it here. Maybe I haven't seen it yet, but I doubt it. They are usually extremely vague "what if" statements and many try to define things that we can't even possibly know or define.

Is God not testable?

Since there is zero evidence and not a single test that can confirm or deny the existence of god, then yes, the idea of god is not testable. Another attempt at word games, I see what you were trying to do.

But surely every scientific principle assumes certain premises, like implicate order and emergence. Science could not work if results were truly random. At the core, it is circular reasoning.

Who says that the results of scientific inquiry are truly random? Science doesn't ASSUME premises, it TESTS them. There is nothing random about it. The word random is based on probability ranges of numbers. Stop personifying it.

Physical traces or consequences of their existence inexplicable by other means.

And what would be a consequence of fairies existing? How could you possibly know that without assumption? Where are any physical traces of god or consequences of his existence. Please list them without assumptions.

Randomness is unstructured and disorderly. Yet even chaos and turbulence in the universe has order and randomness is conspicuously absent. How many scientific theories invoke randomness as a component? Randomness and order are at odds.

No, you are once again personifying mathematical concepts. Random just means that something can't be calculated exactly within a certain range of probability. If you press a button that generates a random number between 1 and 500, there is no way to predict it, so the results are random within that parameter. That doesn't mean the origin of everything in existence can be attributed to pure randomness. That doesn't even make logical sense. It's just another buzz word creationists throw in our face. You either believe god or you believe random chance. It's a silly ultimatum. What if both play a role or neither?

Also to say there is an order to things is subjective conjecture. All we know is that matter and energy is bound by the parameters of our universe at this moment.

When you say you are not rejecting God, I assume you mean that you are "not rejecting the existence of God", as this is the point of the argument, rather than rejecting something you assume to exist.

Exactly. That's why I don't capitalize the word "god." I'm referring to the idea or concept of god/creator, not a specific deity by name.

So, lets analyse the statements:

Statement 'A': "I do not reject that 'X' exists. I reject argument that 'X' exists".

... or, the inverse:

Statement 'B': "I reject that 'X' exists, I do not reject arguments that 'X' exists".

These statements are each self-contradictory and unreasonable.

You are killing me, dude. This isn't rocket science. People are trying to argue that philosophical arguments are sufficient reason to believe in god. I am pointing out the flaws and logical inconsistencies often made in those arguments, I am not making an argument that god does not exist. People constantly equivocate those 2 positions. Anybody can make a faulty argument, no matter what they support. You have to take each statement on its own merit and standards regardless of preconceived notions about personal beliefs.

The concepts of numeration are atemporal. They are "literally JUST THERE, out of the blue". Doesn't make them "RANDOM". Bit of faulty reasoning, there.

Oh, so if the universe or singularity/pre-universe is JUST THERE that means it's completely random, but if a creator somehow just happens to exist it's not random in the least? Why do the same standards not apply? Either way you have something existing eternally that transcends our current universe as it exists now. Why is one held to completely different standards than the other? Please explain without assumptions.

Special pleading is a fallacy. I thought you knew that.

Because we know the universe is temporal.

No, we don't know that.

But it is reasoned and rational.

And I am to take that on faith?

Fair enough, so you are saying that matter is atemporal?

I am saying that we don't know its origin, so we should not assume one way or the other until we have a clearer idea of the big picture (which may or may not ever happen).

originally posted by: chr0naut
Absolutely not. I am saying that denying evidence because you don't like what it implies does not negate the evidence but has real consequence for the denier. I was pointing out that denial of evidence is a real thing that people do, and that it is childish, not intellectually rigourous.

I don't think any of us argued against the idea of god based exclusively on whether or not we like the implications, though. It's usually about the absence of evidence, which doesn't apply to your statement about playing in the street, but certainly applies to the existence of god.

So now you are denying the existence of germs?

I only believe in micro Pasteurism. Macro Pasteurism cannot be proved.

But seriously, we have admission by those who produce narratives including fairies (the supernatural type), that the concept is purely fiction. The case that fairies are not real is strongly evidenced.

Not all of them. There are plenty of stories about fairies out there that people think/believed to be real and they have their place in lore where they were believed as true and some still believe they are real today. There is no evidence against fairies. Just because people write fiction stories about them (JUST LIKE THEY DO WITH GOD(S), HELLO?), doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere in this universe or even outside of it. Another double standard argument which just as easily can apply to god or other mythology.

There were several physicists quoted who pointed out that particular evidential facts lead them to the conclusion that there is a creator God. This is the same process they use in interpreting data to see if it fits the theory - scientific method.

No, personal opinions from scientists are not the scientific method. Opinions do not change what is testable and what is not. Plenty of scientists disbelieve as well. Should I quote all of them to counter you? That would be pointless since opinion does not equal scientific fact, nor does popular belief. A good scientist keeps his personal beliefs separate from his empirical data and research. If god/creator was based on the results of the scientific method, it would be universally accepted in academia. There wouldn't be a 50/50 split in belief in god among scientists. People interpret reality in different ways. The scientific method sticks with what is not subjective.

Their conclusions are exactly as speculative as the best science. That is why science is constantly revised as new data comes to hand. Because the previous interpretations were not absolute truth, i.e, they were speculations based upon incomplete data.

Nobody ever said science was absolute truth. These are scientist's opinions, not the conclusion of scientific research. Please learn the difference.

Your dislike of one speculation (theory, by another word) that doesn't sit well with your opinion, over another that has no more 'absolute truthiness' and is therefore also just speculation, is biased and intellectually dishonest.

Which theory do I just dislike out of emotion? I go with what is testable and what scientific research has shown. It has nothing to do with like or dislike. One "theory" is based on hard testable evidence, the other one is complete speculation based on assumptions and personal belief. The scientific method is the best method of fact learning that we have. Putting that on the level of blind faith is ridiculous, I hope that's not what you are insinuating.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

Again, what step are you referring to?

Different steps in different instances:

* Sometimes the required phyletic gradualism is missing (the main reason punctuated equilibrium was proposed). An example is in the rapid rise of 'nylon-eating' bacteria.

* Sometimes the barriers that separate populations where speciating changes are noted, are absent. Like some of those famous Galapagos finches.

* Sometimes all that has been observed in some papers is natural selection alone, and yet it is published as 'proof of evolution'. Like in the studies of the Peppered Moth in the North of England.

* Sometimes clear proof of genetic mutation is missing or is obfuscated by the possibility of genetic change through epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer or pre-existing but rare traits in ancestor populations, such as in the ancestor population of yeasts, in one recent case where evolution was claimed.

* Sometimes alternate theories that fit the same data (like panspermia & saltational catastrophism) are not even considered (but are looking like they are more valid with the aquisition of more data).

To not see that there are such omissions in nearly every specific situation published, and that those unobserved steps are required to validate that the whole theory is in operation, really says something about the quality of evolutionary science as a discipline and perhaps about the belief system which has supplanted science there.

You have specific examples of this related to evolution? Sometimes the sky appears yellow. I don't care, it's still blue. The vast majority of it is repeatable.

The vast majority? It takes a single verified case contrary to a theory to disprove the theory in that instance.

In the instance you mentioned, wouldn't the 'blueness' of the sky be subjective and/or situational, as is proven by the times and situations where it is isn't observed to be blue?

You haven't even brought up any issues. You need more than generalizations, sorry.

Dude, they are not logical or rational in the least. Every single one of them invokes assumptions,

All science is based upon assumptions. Does that invalidate it?

The same basis in assumption that you use against the existence of God applies equally against science. Yet you assert one thing is is true and the other false.

The verdict isn't in, we've not begun the case, the evidence is still being gathered and knowing that, you have made a deliberation. That is the meaning of the word 'prejudice'.

and I've pointed it out numerous times, yet am always met with blind denial. Deductive logic only proves something if the premise is confirmed FACT and the logic is solid.

Do you have anything to support that opinionated statement? I can think of cases where it is not true.

I could counter that science also doesn't meet the criteria (you know, limited observation, incomplete knowledge) but we can, and do, still apply deductive reasoning to draw inferences about what the data is telling us.

In fact, deductive reasoning reveals its power in such situation and wouldn't be necessary at all if 'factuality' could be confirmed by other means.

Not a single apologetic argument for god passes that test.

As I pointed out, if their premise is true, if God exists, then it follows that those apologetic arguments ALL pass that test. If God doesn't exist, then the apologetic arguments are false. As we cannot determine which is true and which is false, we cannot make a determination.

Your denial of one case over the other is both baseless and contrary to reason.

If you think one does, then post it here. Maybe I haven't seen it yet, but I doubt it. They are usually extremely vague "what if" statements and many try to define things that we can't even possibly know or define.

Since there is zero evidence and not a single test that can confirm or deny the existence of god, then yes, the idea of god is not testable. Another attempt at word games, I see what you were trying to do.

Since you disallow deduction and speculation from observation as being evidential, there is no evidence for any concept, anywhere, at any time.

Yes, the existence of God is testable. I have seen sometruly miraculous things happen. Stuff that makes no natural sense and yet still occurred:

I have seen someone paralysed in an automobile accident begin to move moments (seconds) after prayer and later leave the hospital, walking pain-free and unassisted (and yes, they confirmed the extent of the paralysis by sticking a large syringe into many places from the soles of the feet up to the lower sternum, with no sensation at all).

I have seen torrential rain from a clear and starry sky put out a house fire and this also was almost immediately after prayer (but perhaps it was a concidence of a falling mini-comet?).

These are only two of many such things that I have seen, that have left physical traces, that were confirmend by multiple witnesses and by test.

Then there is the personal evidence of the prescence of the Holy Spirit in my life:

Little things I thought were too minor to worry about before, I suddenly realized were morally wrong, no-one told me, I just felt it (increased conscience).

Sometimes the Holy Spirit has given me knowledge of things I otherwise could not know.

Sometimes I have felt power go through me like heat and an electric tingle and it is always and only associated with religious activities (no need for psychoactives or evidence of psychosis).

Sometimes when I am playing guitar in praise, I am amazed to find that the source of the wonderful music is actually me. It is like my consciousness is dissociated from my physical self and my skills have suddenly increased enourmously.

In a thousand little ways, I have personal evidence for what I believe.

a reply to: chr0naut

Since you disallow deduction and speculation from observation as being evidential, there is no evidence for any concept, anywhere, at any time. Yes, the existence of God is testable. I have seen sometruly miraculous things happen. Stuff that makes no natural sense and yet still occurred: I have seen someone paralysed in an automobile accident begin to move moments (seconds) after prayer and later leave the hospital, walking pain-free and unassisted (and yes, they confirmed the extent of the paralysis by sticking a large syringe into many places from the soles of the feet up to the lower sternum, with no sensation at all). I have seen torrential rain from a clear and starry sky put out a house fire and this also was almost immediately after prayer (but perhaps it was a concidence of a falling mini-comet?). These are only two of many such things that I have seen, that have left physical traces, that were confirmend by multiple witnesses and by test. Then there is the personal evidence of the prescence of the Holy Spirit in my life: Little things I thought were too minor to worry about before, I suddenly realized were morally wrong, no-one told me, I just felt it (increased conscience). Sometimes the Holy Spirit has given me knowledge of things I otherwise could not know. Sometimes I have felt power go through me like heat and an electric tingle and it is always and only associated with religious activities (no need for psychoactives or evidence of psychosis). Sometimes when I am playing guitar in praise, I am amazed to find that the source of the wonderful music is actually me. It is like my consciousness is dissociated from my physical self and my skills have suddenly increased enourmously. In a thousand little ways, I have personal evidence for what I believe.

Then your god is an extremely biased, unfair and frivolous god. Why would he/she/it discriminate against a whole lot of people who pray and do whatever religion requires and get no relief? Why do innocent children suffer from diseases that are incurable and leave them debilitated their entire lives? Where was your god when millions died in death camps? Where was your god when thousands die in floods, earthquakes and natural disasters every year?

Why does your Holy Spirit give YOU knowledge when those who need the knowledge i.e. scientists, doctors, people who volunteer to help the needy the sick, the poor or just forgotten don't have it?

The fact is you can't answer any of these questions. The "miracles" you cite may be miracles, but those miracles are not available to the sick, the dying, the lonely, the poor.

I'm not impressed with your god. And neither should you be impressed.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

Then your god is an extremely biased, unfair and frivolous god. Why would he/she/it discriminate against a whole lot of people who pray and do whatever religion requires and get no relief? Why do innocent children suffer from diseases that are incurable and leave them debilitated their entire lives? Where was your god when millions died in death camps? Where was your god when thousands die in floods, earthquakes and natural disasters every year?

Why does your Holy Spirit give YOU knowledge when those who need the knowledge i.e. scientists, doctors, people who volunteer to help the needy the sick, the poor or just forgotten don't have it?

The fact is you can't answer any of these questions. The "miracles" you cite may be miracles, but those miracles are not available to the sick, the dying, the lonely, the poor.

I'm not impressed with your god. And neither should you be impressed.

If God had the power to create the universe, then He also must have the power to maintain it perfectly, without negative things like death, disease or suffering.

But when we chose to exclude God, He politely withdrew His moment by moment management, giving us exactly the universe of our choice. An implacable and mechanistic nature driven by rules that give no consideration for us.

Definitely, the death camps were a direct and obvious consequence of human will. The perpetrators even tried to use science to justify their actions. It is stretching things to try and allocate blame on to God, it is obvious who the perpetrators were.

Every weapon in our modern arsenals are a product of science. Part of a continuum of evil stretching back into history. Those are reasons enough to condemn and blame science, as a field of human endeavour, on ethical grounds.

If there is an afterlife, from God's perspective, it would be a mercy that those who have died are translated away from a place of fear, pain and suffering, to an eternal afterlife where these 'negatives' are absent.

... and I don't know all the reasons why God would occasionally grant special knowledge, but I know that He does it to others as well because each time there have been others who recieve the same knowledge and we have discussed it. It is an amazing thing, I assure you. Truly crystal clear, razor sharp, complete and unbidden.

Jesus is Messiah! As much as I enjoy reading these posts on ATS, and exploring the unknown.... I try not to let it take away from the fact that Jesus is the way!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

Then your god is an extremely biased, unfair and frivolous god. Why would he/she/it discriminate against a whole lot of people who pray and do whatever religion requires and get no relief? Why do innocent children suffer from diseases that are incurable and leave them debilitated their entire lives? Where was your god when millions died in death camps? Where was your god when thousands die in floods, earthquakes and natural disasters every year?

Why does your Holy Spirit give YOU knowledge when those who need the knowledge i.e. scientists, doctors, people who volunteer to help the needy the sick, the poor or just forgotten don't have it?

The fact is you can't answer any of these questions. The "miracles" you cite may be miracles, but those miracles are not available to the sick, the dying, the lonely, the poor.

I'm not impressed with your god. And neither should you be impressed.

If God had the power to create the universe, then He also must have the power to maintain it perfectly, without negative things like death, disease or suffering.

But when we chose to exclude God, He politely withdrew His moment by moment management, giving us exactly the universe of our choice. An implacable and mechanistic nature driven by rules that give no consideration for us.

Definitely, the death camps were a direct and obvious consequence of human will. The perpetrators even tried to use science to justify their actions. It is stretching things to try and allocate blame on to God, it is obvious who the perpetrators were.

Every weapon in our modern arsenals are a product of science. Part of a continuum of evil stretching back into history. Those are reasons enough to condemn and blame science, as a field of human endeavour, on ethical grounds.

If there is an afterlife, from God's perspective, it would be a mercy that those who have died are translated away from a place of fear, pain and suffering, to an eternal afterlife where these 'negatives' are absent.

... and I don't know all the reasons why God would occasionally grant special knowledge, but I know that He does it to others as well because each time there have been others who recieve the same knowledge and we have discussed it. It is an amazing thing, I assure you. Truly crystal clear, razor sharp, complete and unbidden.

A multitude of weak excuses to explain away the obvious: your god is amoral

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

Then your god is an extremely biased, unfair and frivolous god. Why would he/she/it discriminate against a whole lot of people who pray and do whatever religion requires and get no relief? Why do innocent children suffer from diseases that are incurable and leave them debilitated their entire lives? Where was your god when millions died in death camps? Where was your god when thousands die in floods, earthquakes and natural disasters every year?

Why does your Holy Spirit give YOU knowledge when those who need the knowledge i.e. scientists, doctors, people who volunteer to help the needy the sick, the poor or just forgotten don't have it?

The fact is you can't answer any of these questions. The "miracles" you cite may be miracles, but those miracles are not available to the sick, the dying, the lonely, the poor.

I'm not impressed with your god. And neither should you be impressed.

If God had the power to create the universe, then He also must have the power to maintain it perfectly, without negative things like death, disease or suffering.

But when we chose to exclude God, He politely withdrew His moment by moment management, giving us exactly the universe of our choice. An implacable and mechanistic nature driven by rules that give no consideration for us.

Definitely, the death camps were a direct and obvious consequence of human will. The perpetrators even tried to use science to justify their actions. It is stretching things to try and allocate blame on to God, it is obvious who the perpetrators were.

Every weapon in our modern arsenals are a product of science. Part of a continuum of evil stretching back into history. Those are reasons enough to condemn and blame science, as a field of human endeavour, on ethical grounds.

If there is an afterlife, from God's perspective, it would be a mercy that those who have died are translated away from a place of fear, pain and suffering, to an eternal afterlife where these 'negatives' are absent.

... and I don't know all the reasons why God would occasionally grant special knowledge, but I know that He does it to others as well because each time there have been others who recieve the same knowledge and we have discussed it. It is an amazing thing, I assure you. Truly crystal clear, razor sharp, complete and unbidden.

A multitude of weak excuses to explain away the obvious: your god is amoral.

If morality is intrinsic to us, then morality is not your personal invention.

What determined the universality of sense of morality among us?

Seems to me that God imposing a particular rule-set upon created consciousnesses is the best explanation.

Most morality is contrary to survival mechanisms and our 'selfish genes', you can't explain altruism (an outcome of morality) from a natural selection stand-point.

The very morality that you accuse God of transgressing, must have had a source in God.

And you also have no idea of the ultimate ends of situations. God may be, as is often stated by the religious, the supreme example of morality.

a reply to: chr0naut

You're full of excuses for your god's behavior. To pick and choose those who will live and those who will suffer and die is immoral. I don't care who made that decision. That's why probably no one makes these decisions. You can believe that your god speaks to you on some exclusive level, but that just makes you complicit with the god's immoral decisions.

I don't know if there is a god or not. I don't think it really matters. It's anyone's guess and that just makes it irrelevant.
But apparently you approve of your god's duplicitousness. Or is it really you who are making up the rules as you go along?
I think that's more likely the case. You implied that man is responsible for the bad deeds that occur. Are you guilty?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

You're full of excuses for your god's behavior. To pick and choose those who will live and those who will suffer and die is immoral. I don't care who made that decision. That's why probably no one makes these decisions. You can believe that your god speaks to you on some exclusive level, but that just makes you complicit with the god's immoral decisions.

I don't know if there is a god or not. I don't think it really matters. It's anyone's guess and that just makes it irrelevant.
But apparently you approve of your god's duplicitousness. Or is it really you who are making up the rules as you go along?
I think that's more likely the case. You implied that man is responsible for the bad deeds that occur. Are you guilty?

So, by the same reasoning, you are complicit in the crimes of the Nazi's? The warmongers, the truly and unqestionably evil (sorry, but I don't really think I like your friends)?

It seems we are at an impasse, trapped in some sort of screwy complicity with evil by our own logical processes. You are just as guilty as I.

Fortunately, I apparently have been forgiven for my every crime, explicit and complicit.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Phantom423

So, by the same reasoning, you are complicit in the crimes of the Nazi's? The warmongers, the truly and unqestionably evil (sorry, but I don't really think I like your friends)?

Well, this organization was around at the time of the Nazis and complicit in the crimes of the Nazis:

Religion and Nazism

“Hitler . . . had a Catholic as Vice-Chancellor and from practically the first day of the régime Franz von Papen became the drummer to attract the Catholic factions to a support of the new Reich. In every part of the Reich von Papen was to be heard exhorting the faithful to blind obedience to Adolf Hitler.”

“In early 1933 the following official announcement was made by the body corporate of Catholic action and thought in Germany, then led by [Franz] von Papen: ‘We German Catholics will stand, with all our soul and our full convictions, behind Adolf Hitler and his Government. We wonder at his love for fatherland, his energy and his statesmanly wisdom. . . . German Catholicism . . . must take an active part in the building-up of the Third Reich.’”

Franz von Papen was instrumental in achieving a concordat between the Nazi government he served in Germany and the Vatican in Rome. The concordat was signed July 20, 1933. A special communiqué stated: “Cardinal and Secretary of State Pacelli [later Pope Pius XII] to-day bestowed on Vice-Chancellor von Papen, the Grand Cross of the Order of Pius . . . Vice-Chancellor von Papen presented to the Cardinal Secretary of State a Madonna of White Meissen Porcelain as a gift of the Reichs Government. . . . All gifts bore the dedication: ‘A memento of the Reich Concordat 1933.’”​—All quotes taken from Franz von Papen—​His Life and Times, by H. W. Blood-Ryan.

Source: Religion and Nazism

Pacelli was pope from 1939 - 1958. He was just as involved as Franz von Papen as was the organization he was acting on behalf of. Especially when you also consider some of the other details:

This spiritual harlotry, consisting of illicit relations between Babylon the Great and the political rulers, has resulted in the untimely death of tens of millions of innocent people! It was bad enough that the great harlot was involved on both sides of the fighting in World War I. But her sins in relation to World War II have surely “massed together clear up to heaven”! (Revelation 18:5) Why do we say so?
...
Well, to take one example, how did the tyrant Adolf Hitler become chancellor​—and dictator—​of Germany? It was through the political intrigue of a papal knight whom the previous German chancellor, Kurt von Schleicher, described as “the kind of traitor next to whom Judas Iscariot is a saint.” This was Franz von Papen, who marshaled Catholic Action and leaders in industry to oppose communism and unite Germany under Hitler. As part of a sellout bargain, von Papen was made vice-chancellor. Hitler sent a delegation headed by von Papen to Rome to negotiate a concordat between the Nazi State and the Vatican. Pope Pius XI remarked to the German envoys how pleased he was that “the German Government now had at its head a man uncompromisingly opposed to Communism,” and on July 20, 1933, at an elaborate ceremony in the Vatican, Cardinal Pacelli (who was soon to become Pope Pius XII) signed the concordat.*
[*: For obvious reasons, two clauses of the Concordat were kept secret at the time, these dealing with a common front against the Soviet Union and the duties of Catholic priests conscripted in Hitler’s army. Such conscription was a violation of the Treaty of Versailles (1919) to which Germany was still bound; public knowledge of this clause could have disturbed other Versailles signatories.]
...
One historian writes: “The Concordat [with the Vatican] was a great victory for Hitler. It gave him the first moral support he had received from the outer world, and this from the most exalted source.” During the celebrations at the Vatican, Pacelli conferred on von Papen the high papal decoration of the Grand Cross of the Order of Pius.* [Franz von Papen was among the Nazis who were tried as war criminals at Nuremberg, Germany, in the late 1940’s. He was acquitted but later drew a stiff sentence from a German denazification court. Still later, in 1959, he was made a Papal Privy Chamberlain.] Winston Churchill, in his book The Gathering Storm, published in 1948, tells how von Papen further used “his reputation as a good Catholic” to gain church support for the Nazi takeover of Austria. In 1938, in honor of Hitler’s birthday, Cardinal Innitzer ordered that all Austrian churches fly the swastika flag, ring their bells, and pray for the Nazi dictator.
...
A terrible bloodguilt therefore rests on the Vatican! As a leading part of Babylon the Great, it helped significantly in putting Hitler into power and in giving him “moral” support. The Vatican went further in tacitly consenting to Hitler’s atrocities. During the long decade of Nazi terror, the Roman pontiff kept quiet while hundreds of thousands of Catholic soldiers were fighting and dying for the glory of the Nazi regime and while millions of other unfortunates were being liquidated in Hitler’s gas chambers.

The German Catholic bishops even gave open support to Hitler. On the same day that Japan, Germany’s wartime partner at the time, made the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, The New York Times carried this report: “The Conference of German Catholic Bishops assembled in Fulda has recommended the introduction of a special ‘war prayer’ which is to be read at the beginning and end of all divine services. The prayer implores Providence to bless German arms with victory and grant protection to the lives and health of all soldiers. The Bishops further instructed Catholic clergy to keep and remember in a special Sunday sermon at least once a month German soldiers ‘on land, on sea and in the air.’”

Source: The Infamous Harlot—Her Destruction

Von Papen signed the document as Hitler’s representative, and Pacelli there conferred on von Papen the high papal decoration of the Grand Cross of the Order of Pius.* [*: William L. Shirer’s historical work The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich states that von Papen was “more responsible than any other individual in Germany for Hitler’s coming to power.” In January 1933 former German chancellor von Schleicher had said of von Papen: “He proved to be the kind of traitor beside whom Judas Iscariot is a saint.”]
...
The concordat required the Vatican to withdraw its support from Germany’s Catholic Center Party, thus sanctioning Hitler’s one-party “total state.”* [*: In addressing the College of Mondragone on May 14, 1929, Pope Pius XI said that he would negotiate with the Devil himself if the good of souls required it.] Further, its article 14 stated: “The appointments for archbishops, bishops, and the like will be issued only after the governor, installed by the Reich, has duly ascertained that no doubts exist with respect to general political considerations.” By the end of 1933 (proclaimed a “Holy Year” by Pope Pius XI), Vatican support had become a major factor in Hitler’s push for world domination.

Source: Revelation Climax

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Why does it empirically have to be a "God" that is related with intelligent design??

Humans are genetically designing a fathom of organisms every DAY.

WHY couldn't another race of beings do the same before us??

And why wouldn't they program a sort of "dynamic adaptability" into their creations to heighten environmental changes? ... I would.

With the BILLIONS of galaxies out there with hundreds of billions of stars in them, each, most likely to have planets... Many of them earth-like...

Just blows my mind that it has to be " evolution" OR "God"...

Retarded on both sides IMO.