Question for those who are willing to ponder the possibility that we and the universe were created

originally posted by: TerraLiga

I will supply empirical evidence (which I can do) when you supply empirical evidence of your god (which you can't do).

Intelligible laws that go according to mathematical predictability are not the work of random chance. You can believe this programming is random, but they are by definition intelligible and patterned. All matter perpetuates according to these very precise laws. This indicates intelligence, not random chance as you suppose.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Regardless;
Approx 600-650mya evidence shows that the end of a massive glaciation provided an environment for Ediacaran life. Fossil sites include Flinders Ranges, Australia and Mistaken Point, Canada. Fossils this age are extremely rare. A global oceanic oxygen depletion ended this period approx 550mya

Approx 540mya fossil evidence shows that complex life restarted and expanded significantly to include thousands of new types of life, which included almost every type of animal body shape we know of today. I has become known as the Cambian, from a site in Wales, UK where strata was originally identified. Significant sites include Burgess Shale, Canada; Wheeler Shale, USA; Maotianshan Shales, China; Emu Bay, Australia. There is no single adopted theory as to the end of the Cambian, but a significant reductions in fossil types occurred approx 490mya.

It's Cambrian, not 'Cambian'. But anyway, what's the most definitive reason you believe these sites are this old? I have evidence that your dates are way off:









As you can tell, your "hundreds of millions of years" estimate is way off. Especially because you're unable to give any empirical evidence to support your assertion.

originally posted by: daskakik

And, since I am here, christianity is also "essentially the state-sponsored religion, it is deeply embedded programming."

Lol this is patently false. Public schools are not allowed to provide religious instruction. Now here's the real challenge - Can you admit you were wrong?

a reply to: cooperton

I know you think I'm a stupid newby that you can baffle with some gotcha pictures, but you have presented these images many times before and they have all been debunked or explained. All of them. If this is your best effort to refute my post or the universally agreed ages of strata then it's certainly not me who's the stupid one. You have no evidence in those creationist pictures.

The rules of natural processes are not 'logical' in the sense you are suggesting. They are efficient and relatively simple, which makes them appear logical - an adjective that WE give them. Because they are efficient, they did not need programming and neither are they random. When we discover these processes we name them Laws (a scientific term). You are conflating made-made law with evolved processes of nature. Another common creationist trope.

Let's see some evidence for your god please.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Let's see some evidence for your god please.

What would even quantify for you as evidence? Perhaps if someone came and perpetuated a loving philosophy and conquered death? Perhaps if the laws of nature were found to be mathematically precise and consistent?

Seriously what would constitute proof for you?

I actually strongly disagree that we were created for Earth. It doesn't make sense that we would be very vulnerable to the sun in this case. Now, imagine us on Mars, where the Sun wouldn't have as much of an impact.

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
I actually strongly disagree that we were created for Earth. It doesn't make sense that we would be very vulnerable to the sun in this case. Now, imagine us on Mars, where the Sun wouldn't have as much of an impact.

It's more so excessive exposure to the sun. Just like if you eat too much its going to lead to poor health. Skin cancer rates increased remarkably since the advent of sunscreen. I believe it's because sunscreen only blocks uv rays, which are normally the indicator that tells you to get out of the sun. But when the UV rays are blocked, you are able to stay in the sun longer without exhibiting a burn, and this exposes your skin to prolonged periods of gamma and x-ray exposure, which are more intense and than uv rays.

Gamma rays also penetrate through skin, and even bone, so your entire body becomes more at risk.

a reply to: whereislogic

I think you have a cart before the horse thing going on. I don't believe this Earth was created specifically to support our lifeforms. I think that our lifeforms emerged because they are the only kind that could thrive in this environment. Its not that the environment was engineered to support us specifically. Its that we evolved to survive in this environment.

a reply to: cooperton

A loving philosophy? Are you serious? Your god has murdered hundreds of millions, possibly billions of human beings, and countless trillions of individual animals. Your god doesn't espouse love at all. If your book is to believed, he even sent his own son down here knowing he was going to be killed. Like I said before, your god is impotent, lazy, jealous and murderous. Not worth my time.

There are no laws of nature, only naturally efficient processes that we quantify and identify as scientific Laws.

As proof, I would like to see this god of yours. I'd like it to talk to me and explain why I should worship it. I'd like it to refute my argument that I am better than it is because I've killed nobody, I've not laid waste to any land and I do not threaten anyone with death or infinite torture if they oppose my thinking.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

As proof, I would like to see this god of yours. I'd like it to talk to me and explain why I should worship it. I'd like it to refute my argument that I am better than it is because I've killed nobody, I've not laid waste to any land and I do not threaten anyone with death or infinite torture if they oppose my thinking.

I suppose God would wonder how you suppose you could have an objective reality without any judicial system. Are murderers and rapists suppose to go about with no repercussion for impeding on people's free will?

Also, what rapacity did Jesus commit? And if you're referring to the Old Testament, which occurrence was an undue repercussion for a civilization that had judgement executed upon it?

You say it is so great you have killed nobody, but would you let Hitler destroy your whole nation and take all of your children to maintain such a self-aggrandizement?

a reply to: cooperton

Why has your god stopped killing murderers and rapists?

originally posted by: cooperton
Lol this is patently false. Public schools are not allowed to provide religious instruction. Now here's the real challenge - Can you admit you were wrong?

Wrong how?

Getting religion out of schools is a recent occurrence, and only one avenue of indoctrination, while religion was "also" used to control the population for centuries.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

Why has your god stopped killing murderers and rapists?

So I'm assuming your attempt to divert the conversation implies you don't know of any evidence to support your beliefs.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: HawkeyeNation
I actually strongly disagree that we were created for Earth. It doesn't make sense that we would be very vulnerable to the sun in this case. Now, imagine us on Mars, where the Sun wouldn't have as much of an impact.

It's more so excessive exposure to the sun. Just like if you eat too much its going to lead to poor health. Skin cancer rates increased remarkably since the advent of sunscreen. I believe it's because sunscreen only blocks uv rays, which are normally the indicator that tells you to get out of the sun. But when the UV rays are blocked, you are able to stay in the sun longer without exhibiting a burn, and this exposes your skin to prolonged periods of gamma and x-ray exposure, which are more intense and than uv rays.

Gamma rays also penetrate through skin, and even bone, so your entire body becomes more at risk.

Fair point but as a ginger, about 20 minutes on a high UV day and I'm going to start getting cooked lol.

a reply to: cooperton

Are you serious? There is a chain of conversation behind this. Are you a goldfish? Or is this your attempt to not answer my question?

Show me proof of your god.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Show me proof of your god.

Already answered that. Intelligent predictable laws that govern all of nature shows there is an intelligence behind our world. Even the existence of us intelligent human beings shows intelligence exists.. You then went on a tangent as per usual to avoid admitting the obvious.

I don't know why you're so hell-bent on denying the necessity of logic to make logical structures. Your theory is unintelligent, by its own definition.

a reply to: cooperton

That's not proof. You're conflating man-made laws with natural processes that we assign to scientific Laws. There is nothing at all intelligent or logical about them. The only intelligence or logic is what WE attribute them. Efficiency drives and defines nature, nothing more.

Show me proof of your god. Please.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

That's not proof. You're conflating man-made laws with natural processes that we assign to scientific Laws. There is nothing at all intelligent or logical about them. The only intelligence or logic is what WE attribute them. Efficiency drives and defines nature, nothing more.

Show me proof of your god. Please.

This thread is meant for people who can consider logic involved in the processes of nature. If you can't admit there is logical perpetuity in biological organisms and cosmological processes then there's really no use trying to use logic with you.

You can appeal to some of the textbooks that creatures should be renamed bio-illogical organisms.. it won't get very far though because it's simply not an accurate description. Biological organisms are logical structures. If you aren't willing to consider the logical structures of nature then it's a waste of time even having this discussion.

Best of luck

a reply to: cooperton

Neither. They are a series of efficient bio-systems. Logic has absolutely nothing to do with nature, it is a human construct.

I've answered, now answer mine.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: cooperton

Neither. They are a series of efficient bio-systems. Logic has absolutely nothing to do with nature, it is a human construct.

They're literally called biologic organisms and you don't think logic has anything to do with them ??

You can drag a horse to water but you can't make it drink.