You were already told. You should be able to answer that question yourself. You are communicating with me and others thanks to several of the gifts of science.
By studying DESIGN in nature, engineers can learn to engineer more advanced technology. And theres two kinds of science, technology and understanding nature.
What does religion give the world? I have no need for it. The more people become involved in religion, the less useful they are to others around them.
Absolutely incredably insulting. Religion has been very useful to the world. It has helped and served humanity and for some people it has changed them into more loving people. Thats all usefull if you ask me.
Also theres some very useless none religious people, so two can play that game.
Also, you debating me now, is that useful?
Bottom line: I have lived a religion- and god-free life for several decades now that has allowed me to live a meaningful, satisfying, and enjoyable life free of much of the pain and confusion others experience chasing after gods and miracles.
And people can live a meaningful, satisfying, and enjoyable life free of much of the pain and confusion WITH religion too. Your statements are just ones of disbelief in religion. You see it as unreal. But many have had wonderful spiritual experiences with it. Something you are missing out on. Your loss. You deny a part of your birthright.
Not to me it doesn't. Order, complexity, and form are the natural results of mindless physical laws acting on matter.
And how do you determine or know this?
Studying nature does not lead to a god belief in clear thinkers.
In clear thinkers? Wow. Actually, no its the other way around. Concluding a God from studying nature makes you a clear thinker. Theres a good number of scientists who conclude God. Why not say newton was a unclear thinker?
What we find is a world that runs on its own, the nature of which science has well described without reference to gods. Scientific theories derive from the study of nature, and not one has a god in it, nor would any benefit from the ad hoc insertion of one into the theory. Go ahead and stick a god into one and see if it improves its predictive power.
How do you know it runs on its own?
Notice that I changed information to form. Information requires a conscious observer to become informed by external form printed itself onto and into consciousness, thus in-form-ing the observer.
Yea, codes and information or instructions are still caused by intelligence whether you understand the codes or not.
I never said that there are no gods. What I posted was, "There is no god in the rational skeptic's world view"
Ya and no God in his view makes him not rational. Not believing God exists is not rational.
There is none in this rational skeptics world view because I have no reason to believe that any exist, and I have no need to insert one into it. Thatis not the same as saying that no gods exist.
Yes theres lots of reasons to believe, but you ignore them. The question is, why do you ignore them?
False equivalence. Wind and gravity can be detected.
Yes they can, but not detected directly, just like God can be detected, but not directly.
No god can be detected. And once again, I don't deny that gods exist. Nor do I deny that vampires and leprechauns exist. I have no test that excludes or rules them out. But I also have no need for such a test. I am content to remain skeptical of all of these claims, and to hold a world view free of vampires, gods, and leprechauns.
Grouping a infinite God in with a leprechaun is not the same thing. And intelligence is detected, get over it.
Notice that if I choose to disregard the existence of gravity, I will likely be harmed or die.
Wrong, someone could choose to make up a different explanation for why things fall.
Not so with gods, leprechauns, or vampires, and all for the same reason.
Harm or no harm does not dictate if its true or false.
Sorry, but all of us see these things, but do not conclude that a god is needed for any of them. The can all be explained naturalistically.
Explain it naturalistically then?
And what finding would you accept as proof that reality is godless? None at all, if you are honest with yourself.
I just told you, if proof was given the universe came from nothing or was eternal and NDEs with ESPs are chance and halucinations, then id be convinced theres no God. But, proof is likely not going to happen there because the evidence is too overwelming God exists.
Science can predict eclipses. If you like, you can use the science to point your mounted camera to the part of the sky where science has informed you to expect the eclipse to occur, and set the timer on it to shoot a picture at the time science told you the eclipse would be visible, thus controlling the outcome of the photographic effort.
Wonderful.
How is it that you need to be told these things? Aren't you presently predicting and controlling outcomes when you post to RF? Aren't you predicting that your post will appear to yourself and others under certain predictable circumstances, such as turning on one's computer and manipulating it to open the thread to which you posted, at which point you expect that the words you chose will be present for others to read?
Sure.
Yes, they do, sure. Im grateful to science for engineering it and intelligently designing this technology.
Religion does not. Religion cannot compare with science for predictive power or utility (usefulness).
True, religion does not create these computers for us to talk, thanks to scientists for designing them. But thanks to God for designing you and me so we can think, use our fingers to type on a device that science designed. Unlike you, i take the appreciation one step further.
