A complex case against intelligent design

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Really? Go ahead... create 950,000 species of insects--and be sure that they are all perfectly suited for their existence at this time on this planet, so that they don't overpopulate, or eat too much of the planet's vegetation to support other life, or impinge too much upon other life forms, or carry too many diseases, or well, you get the picture. Go ahead, improve on bugs. I'll wait..

LMAO! You silly person. NO creature is "perfectly suited"-- NONE. All are gross compromises, and indeed-- since the environments are constantly changing? Even if there was a perfect species-- in a few generations, they would not be any more-- as the environment will have changed just enough to destroy any possible "perfection"

That has to be the silliest thing I have read all day. "perfectly suited". What a load of fiction!

Funnier than a croco-duck, even... !

I lied, I won't wait. I'll trust that you see the error of your claim without axually having to make the attempt..

Your... .. ahem... "argument" was utterly and completely without merit.

Moving on....

I accept your concession that you cannot muster up a single rational counter argument.

Humans are no more perfect nor less perfect than anything else that exists in the universe. I don't know where you got the idea that my premise is that humans are designed better than anything else. My premise is that (good grief, am I REALLY having to say this again?) if the omni-God exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes..

Hmmm... could it be from your constant use of phrases like "all perfectly suited for their existence"

Yes... that could be it. You just proved your OmniMax God cannot possibly exist, as I have shown you multiple examples of how humans are so far from "perfect" it's literally laughable.

Good! Do you begin to see the error of your arguments, yet? No?

Well keep humming and saying "is not" like a meditation mantra. It won't make your arguments any more valid, but it may help you sleep.

You seem completely incapable of grasping the concept that any change whatsoever in the universe as it exists will have consequences--the vast majority of which are probably not only unknown but unable to BE known to any being that is not omniscient..

And you appear utterly incapable of grasping that humans are so far from "perfection" it's sometimes a wonder that we are still here...! Since I can quite easily imagine any number of subtle, but distinct improvements in humans? That absolutely destroys your "best of all possible" arguments down to the dirt.

It is simply not possible to assert with any certainty whatsoever that any given change to the universe as it exists will absolutely, positively result in a better universe..

Wow..... that's actually sad to read. Are you seriously this shallow? Is your imagination so stunted, that you don't get it, yet?

Must be that constant muttering "is not, is not"...?

One of my favorite quotes from a TV show ever came from Kristen Chenowith's character Olive in "Pushing Daisies": "Wouldn't it just rock and roll if loving someone meant that they had to love you back? But that would be a different universe, and something else would probably suck.".

Meaningless babble. Sorry? Did someone pour vinegar in your binkies this morning?

If you flap a butterfly's wings that weren't supposed to flap, you could create a typhoon halfway across the world that wasn't supposed to happen. That's why we have all these movies and stories about people who go back and change the past--they think for the better--only to find out that when they return to their own time, things are worse than they were to start with. We just cannot say that any change is a beneficial one in the long run..

LMAO! By your failed logic? Nobody should ever-ever-ever have invented eyeglasses. Or a crutch for people with bad legs. Or hearing aids, for the poor of hearing. Or even toupees for bald folk.

Just sit home and take it like a good little, pathetic god-slave, right? That IS the principle message of Christianity, after all: Be a Good Little Slave and just Take It. How DARE you dream of Improving Your Lot in Life! Don't Do IT! God has MADE you a slave, so you just sit there and TAKE it. (that whole "slaves obey your masters" crap in the NT)

And yet, here you are, persisting in your error of trying to say that some changes would absolutely, positively be beneficial. I'm not claiming that it's impossible for you to propose changes that you THINK would be beneficial; I'm explaining why it is impossible to know conclusively that those changes axually WOULD BE beneficial..

See my remarks above, about using eye glasses....

You say it doesn't, I say it does, and neither of us are able to prove our claim. Fortunately enough, the existence of the omni-God is completely irrelevant to my assertion, which, as we should all know by now, goes like this:.

I already argued my case-- which you already capitulated on, and you continue to post zero actual argument in favor of your failed idea.

If the omni-God exists, then we are logically constrained to conclude that we live in the best of all possible universes.

And since we quite obviously do not live in the best possible one? Your omnimax absolutely DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL.

Good! Progress at last!

 

[Axe Elf]

Citation needed. You make an unfounded claim, and don't even try to defend it, other than "is not".

Sorry. I don't buy your "is not".


Citation needed. I'm not taking YOUR word for it-- you have already admitted you do not use reason as a basis for your world view. You use irrational faith. You, stating "is so" or "is not" does not constitute valid reasoning.


It is an accurate "gotcha". Your word-salad (as follows) does not eliminate the "gotcha".

This Problem Of Pure Evil God-->> any being responsible for Infinite Evil (hell) is also Infinitely Evil.

This absolutely contradicts "Omni Benevolent" claim, and also contradicts "Good" claims as well.

Thus the entire claim of Christianity is false.


I have read the entire bible. Why do you think I utterly reject it as IMMORAL?

The bible's god is a malicious monster-- at best.

Which proves it doesn't exist-- there is simply too much good, too much progress towards Better World for such a beast-god to be even a little real.



Citation needed. You have failed-- utterly-- to even show a single argument that the bible's god is NOT an utter monster. A complete moral failure, in fact.

The BS argument that "you can't have good without evil" is beyond stupid.

I can easily imagine a society where nobody EVER gets murdered. It's a Good Place To Live. There is no requirement for the occasional murder to balance this basic goodness.

That argument is utterly without merit.


You just destroyed your earlier "we can't have good without evil" argument in one fell swoop.

If this is the BEST POSSIBLE universe? And it REQUIRES evil to balance the good? It then becomes IMPOSSIBLE for your "afterlife" to even exist in the first place!

ooops! You blew it, here.


I agreed to no such thing: The bible's god is an absolute, malicious, capricious monster. One of the worst inventions by humans, ever.

The petty evil of Voldemort in Harry Potter pales in comparison to the malicious evil of the bible.




Oh, I did that already. You just ignored my post, as is the habit of theists.

Anything bringing their FAITH into question is simply ignored.

Or worse: you cry "is not" while humming and holding your fingers deep in your ears, so as to avoid any possibility of a contrary thought.

Citation needed. You make an unfounded claim, and don't even try to defend it, other than "is not".

Sorry. I don't buy your "is not".


Citation needed. I'm not taking YOUR word for it-- you have already admitted you do not use reason as a basis for your world view. You use irrational faith. You, stating "is so" or "is not" does not constitute valid reasoning.


It is an accurate "gotcha". Your word-salad (as follows) does not eliminate the "gotcha".

This Problem Of Pure Evil God-->> any being responsible for Infinite Evil (hell) is also Infinitely Evil.

This absolutely contradicts "Omni Benevolent" claim, and also contradicts "Good" claims as well.

Thus the entire claim of Christianity is false.


I have read the entire bible. Why do you think I utterly reject it as IMMORAL?

The bible's god is a malicious monster-- at best.

Which proves it doesn't exist-- there is simply too much good, too much progress towards Better World for such a beast-god to be even a little real.



Citation needed. You have failed-- utterly-- to even show a single argument that the bible's god is NOT an utter monster. A complete moral failure, in fact.

The BS argument that "you can't have good without evil" is beyond stupid.

I can easily imagine a society where nobody EVER gets murdered. It's a Good Place To Live. There is no requirement for the occasional murder to balance this basic goodness.

That argument is utterly without merit.


You just destroyed your earlier "we can't have good without evil" argument in one fell swoop.

If this is the BEST POSSIBLE universe? And it REQUIRES evil to balance the good? It then becomes IMPOSSIBLE for your "afterlife" to even exist in the first place!

ooops! You blew it, here.


I agreed to no such thing: The bible's god is an absolute, malicious, capricious monster. One of the worst inventions by humans, ever.

The petty evil of Voldemort in Harry Potter pales in comparison to the malicious evil of the bible.




Oh, I did that already. You just ignored my post, as is the habit of theists.

Anything bringing their FAITH into question is simply ignored.

Or worse: you cry "is not" while humming and holding your fingers deep in your ears, so as to avoid any possibility of a contrary thought.

LMAO! You silly person. NO creature is "perfectly suited"-- NONE. All are gross compromises, and indeed-- since the environments are constantly changing? Even if there was a perfect species-- in a few generations, they would not be any more-- as the environment will have changed just enough to destroy any possible "perfection"

That has to be the silliest thing I have read all day. "perfectly suited". What a load of fiction!

Funnier than a croco-duck, even... !



Your... .. ahem... "argument" was utterly and completely without merit.


I accept your concession that you cannot muster up a single rational counter argument.


Hmmm... could it be from your constant use of phrases like "all perfectly suited for their existence"

Yes... that could be it. You just proved your OmniMax God cannot possibly exist, as I have shown you multiple examples of how humans are so far from "perfect" it's literally laughable.

Good! Do you begin to see the error of your arguments, yet? No?

Well keep humming and saying "is not" like a meditation mantra. It won't make your arguments any more valid, but it may help you sleep.


And you appear utterly incapable of grasping that humans are so far from "perfection" it's sometimes a wonder that we are still here...! Since I can quite easily imagine any number of subtle, but distinct improvements in humans? That absolutely destroys your "best of all possible" arguments down to the dirt.


Wow..... that's actually sad to read. Are you seriously this shallow? Is your imagination so stunted, that you don't get it, yet?

Must be that constant muttering "is not, is not"...?


Meaningless babble. Sorry? Did someone pour vinegar in your binkies this morning?


LMAO! By your failed logic? Nobody should ever-ever-ever have invented eyeglasses. Or a crutch for people with bad legs. Or hearing aids, for the poor of hearing. Or even toupees for bald folk.

Just sit home and take it like a good little, pathetic god-slave, right? That IS the principle message of Christianity, after all: Be a Good Little Slave and just Take It. How DARE you dream of Improving Your Lot in Life! Don't Do IT! God has MADE you a slave, so you just sit there and TAKE it. (that whole "slaves obey your masters" crap in the NT)


See my remarks above, about using eye glasses....


I already argued my case-- which you already capitulated on, and you continue to post zero actual argument in favor of your failed idea.


And since we quite obviously do not live in the best possible one? Your omnimax absolutely DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL.

Good! Progress at last!

Yep, you're done too. You clearly can't comprehend the lesson, can't formulate any coherent arguments against what you think is being taught (even though it's usually not what's being taught at all), and can't even understand why your arguments alternate between being irrelevant and incorrect.

My lesson has now been plainly stated and adequately defended; anyone who can benefit from it already has, and anyone who has not yet benefitted from it probably never will. There's no point in either of us wasting any more time.

Have a good one...

 

[Axe Elf]

What a sad attitude. You don't agree with me so you are wrong and I am tied of trying to defend what does not make sense anyway but I believe, therefor it is.

See? When simple logic "does not make sense anyway" to someone, what methods of education are left? How can I teach logical principles to people for whom logic doesn't make sense?

I can only assume that this information is not something they would be able to use anyway, and move on.

 

[tas8831]

I could answer your question from a scriptural view if you want. But please don't ask unless your are sincerely looking for an answer in the scriptures as it would involve a fair amount of time for me to answer your question as well as to digest the answer on your part. If your mind is already made up I won't waste either of our time.

Then don't waste your time.

It is unconscionable that you and I should 'suffer' for Adam's sin, and if there is justification for this cruelty in the bible, it just makes me more certain that my choice to reject the tall tales was a good one. . We mere humans actually have laws against punishing children for their parent's actions.

 

[tas8831]

How can I teach logical principles to people for whom logic doesn't make sense?
.

Could it be that what you think is logical, isn't?

 

[wellwisher]

A random universe model is not a very intelligent design approach. For example, build me a house using nothing but dice or cards to decide each and every step in the building process, all the way to completion. This would come out like a trash heap. An intelligent way to build a house has a logical sequence of steps, with very little random added to the design. Any random that is added will be addressed by the building inspector who will not write off.

The best argument for an ID universe is the observation of a quantum universe. A quantum universe limits the options that are possible and separates these limited options with gaps so they stand out. For example, the hydrogen atom has distinct energy levels with gaps between. A quantum universe is an intelligent design since it eliminates most of the randomness by loading the dice, thereby saving time. That is a smart design.

Random is a type of modern mythology led by a God who can do anything; odds, but always by luck. This God is an idiot savant. He can form life on earth and then evolve life, but he has no plan or any goal in mind. Why would science prefer that mythology? My guess is some humans want to feel superior to their gods. Human can build a house using design plans or improve on animals by playing with the genes in a logical way. Random would be a disaster if humans did it. Go to your doctor and have him add a random gene. Or randomly use spaghetti as a support beam for you house.

Statistics is based on games like cards and dice. These are man made things. Dice and cards are not natural to nature. If you look at dice it is designed to have the same weight on all sides. The differences between the sides of the dice are not based on potential or energy, as it is in nature. But rather the difference is based on subjective criteria assigned by humans; dot patterns.

The quantum energy levels of the hydrogen atom differ by energy, such that each side of that hydrogen dice is loaded differently based on objective potentials. All the atoms of the periodic table each have specific properties. This natural deck of cards has each card of the deck with different objective potentials. It also has a few major wild cards like oxygen and hydrogen, which were/are manufactured at the highest rate in the universe due to specific nuclear quantum properties. If you add quantum levels and gaps between these properties, they have to fit together in certain ways. If we add local spikes of energy during assembly unique local quantum assemblies can appear. These may be called defects by they still follow quantum energy logic.

Life appears to follow the same principles as do atoms. Each life form has certain properties in terms of form and function. Being of quantum nature, even life will fit together in certain ways to form eco-systems.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A random universe model is not a very intelligent design approach. For example, build me a house using nothing but dice or cards to decide each and every step in the building process, all the way to completion. This would come out like a trash heap. An intelligent way to build a house has a logical sequence of steps, with very little random added to the design. Any random that is added will be addressed by the building inspector who will not write off.

But we don't live in a Universe governed by random chance. We live in a Universe governed by physical laws, so this analogy doesn't really work.

The best argument for an ID universe is the observation of a quantum universe. A quantum universe limits the options that are possible and separates these limited options with gaps so they stand out. For example, the hydrogen atom has distinct energy levels with gaps between. A quantum universe is an intelligent design since it eliminates most of the randomness by loading the dice, thereby saving time. That is a smart design.

But how is it evidence of a God?

Random is a type of modern mythology led by a God who can do anything; odds, but always by luck. This God is an idiot savant. He can form life on earth and then evolve life, but he has no plan or any goal in mind. Why would science prefer that mythology?

It's not a mythology, it's the natural result of looking at all currently available evidence.

My guess is some humans want to feel superior to their gods. Human can build a house using design plans or improve on animals by playing with the genes in a logical way. Random would be a disaster if humans did it. Go to your doctor and have him add a random gene. Or randomly use spaghetti as a support beam for you house.

Evolution is a result of random mutation filtered through a process of natural selection. Evolution is selective, not random.

Statistics is based on games like cards and dice.

Um... No. Statistics is a mathematical model.

The quantum energy levels of the hydrogen atom differ by energy, such that each side of that hydrogen dice is loaded differently based on objective potentials.

This sentence doesn't really make any sense. Would you care to explain what "quantum energy" is?

All the atoms of the periodic table each have specific properties. This natural deck of cards has each card of the deck with different objective potentials. It also has a few major wild cards like oxygen and hydrogen, which were/are manufactured at the highest rate in the universe due to specific nuclear quantum properties. If you add quantum levels and gaps between these properties, they have to fit together in certain ways. If we add local spikes of energy during assembly unique local quantum assemblies can appear. These may be called defects by they still follow quantum energy logic.

Life appears to follow the same principles as do atoms. Each life form has certain properties in terms of form and function. Being of quantum nature, even life will fit together in certain ways to form eco-systems.

To simply say "things have properties" does not, in any way, indicate the influence of an intelligent designer, much less anything about the evolutionary process.

 

[Bear Wild]

See? When simple logic "does not make sense anyway" to someone, what methods of education are left? How can I teach logical principles to people for whom logic doesn't make sense?

I can only assume that this information is not something they would be able to use anyway, and move on.

If what you have to say is important, then it is worth finding a new approach to explain it. If it is true simple logic then it can be made clear.

 

[rrobs]

The scriptures are anything but absolute. Written by men after the events with different interpretations, based on unprovable events often altered for different agendas. Nature is consistent and ultimate. You can think because of natural processes. You ability to see, feel, hear and taste is all through natural processes. The brain operates through natural processes. The fact you chose to accept a what the book clearly says is a natural process. Everything you can learn from is within the natural world including the ability to believe in things there is no proof of. You can believe in any god or goddess you want but that does not make them the real. Everything we truly know is within the natural world.

Let me put it this way: there is nothing in nature that claims it to be an absolute. In fact, nature claims nothing of itself. Nowhere can you find nature claiming to be consistent and ultimate. All you said about it is just you projecting your thoughts into it, which is exactly what quantum mechanics (the building blocks of nature) says.

The scriptures on the other hand explicitly claim it is the truth.

John 8:31-32,

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
​

As I've consistently said, belief is optional. You are absolutely right that people's belief in God is not what makes God real. According to the scriptures, He is real quite independent our thoughts, which is the opposite of nature.

At least you should be aware of the difference between the scriptures and nature. Knowledge is always a good thing.

​

 

[rrobs]

As if your mind is not already made up.

I didn't, nor would I, criticize anybody for having their mind made up on anything. I was merely trying to save time. What's wrong with that?

 

[rrobs]

Yes humans made themselves dysfunctional in believing in a book written by humans designed with myths then try to make into actual factual events instead of learning from the real world which actually exists. Yes that is dysfunctional.

Well, if you read the book you'd see it says it was not actually written by people.

2 Pet 1:21,

for prophecy was not ever uttered by [the] will of man, but holy men of God spake under the power of [the] Holy Spirit.
​

Some folks believe that, others don't. Either way that is what to book says.

You brought up myths. That is an interesting topic the scriptures speak of. They claim to be logos (logic) which is the exact opposite of muthos (myths). Logos and muthos are Greek philosophical terms that are worth a study if you get the time.

As you may have noticed, I give a reference source (the scriptures) for everything I say. Would you mind me asking what is your reference source for the things you claim? I assume you are getting them from a point of reference outside of your own thoughts. I would be curious to know what it is.

One last thing; why do you feel the need to call people who don't believe your way dysfunctional? Given you hardly know anything about me, isn't that a bit presumptuous? It's all too easy to fall into the "internet bashing" mode, anonymity and all that. Let's just try to be respectful in our discussion if you don't mind.

 

[rrobs]

Then don't waste your time.

It is unconscionable that you and I should 'suffer' for Adam's sin, and if there is justification for this cruelty in the bible, it just makes me more certain that my choice to reject the tall tales was a good one. . We mere humans actually have laws against punishing children for their parent's actions.

I appreciate your honesty. Take care...

 

[viole]

That is correct. There can be no more than one omni-God. Only one being can be all-powerful, so plural omnigods are logically excluded.
.

I am going to challenge you on that. How do you come to the conclusion that there cannot be possibly be more than one omni-god?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Well, if you read the book you'd see it says it was not actually written by people.

2 Pet 1:21,

for prophecy was not ever uttered by [the] will of man, but holy men of God spake under the power of [the] Holy Spirit.
​

Some folks believe that, others don't. Either way that is what to book says.

You brought up myths. That is an interesting topic the scriptures speak of. They claim to be logos (logic) which is the exact opposite of muthos (myths). Logos and muthos are Greek philosophical terms that are worth a study if you get the time.

As you may have noticed, I give a reference source (the scriptures) for everything I say. Would you mind me asking what is your reference source for the things you claim? I assume you are getting them from a point of reference outside of your own thoughts. I would be curious to know what it is.

One last thing; why do you feel the need to call people who don't believe your way dysfunctional? Given you hardly know anything about me, isn't that a bit presumptuous? It's all too easy to fall into the "internet bashing" mode, anonymity and all that. Let's just try to be respectful in our discussion if you don't mind.

Oh well, if a book says its author are not humans, then it must be true.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Bear Wild]

Well, if you read the book you'd see it says it was not actually written by people.

2 Pet 1:21,

for prophecy was not ever uttered by [the] will of man, but holy men of God spake under the power of [the] Holy Spirit.
​

Some folks believe that, others don't. Either way that is what to book says.

You brought up myths. That is an interesting topic the scriptures speak of. They claim to be logos (logic) which is the exact opposite of muthos (myths). Logos and muthos are Greek philosophical terms that are worth a study if you get the time.

As you may have noticed, I give a reference source (the scriptures) for everything I say. Would you mind me asking what is your reference source for the things you claim? I assume you are getting them from a point of reference outside of your own thoughts. I would be curious to know what it is.

One last thing; why do you feel the need to call people who don't believe your way dysfunctional? Given you hardly know anything about me, isn't that a bit presumptuous? It's all too easy to fall into the "internet bashing" mode, anonymity and all that. Let's just try to be respectful in our discussion if you don't mind.

I have read the book many times and it is still find that it was written by humans. The scriptures themselves are the reference point and the historical history.

 

[Bear Wild]

Let me put it this way: there is nothing in nature that claims it to be an absolute. In fact, nature claims nothing of itself. Nowhere can you find nature claiming to be consistent and ultimate. All you said about it is just you projecting your thoughts into it, which is exactly what quantum mechanics (the building blocks of nature) says.

The scriptures on the other hand explicitly claim it is the truth.

John 8:31-32,

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
​

As I've consistently said, belief is optional. You are absolutely right that people's belief in God is not what makes God real. According to the scriptures, He is real quite independent our thoughts, which is the opposite of nature.

At least you should be aware of the difference between the scriptures and nature. Knowledge is always a good thing.

​

Scriptures are written by humans so they are a part of the natural world. How do you know god is real? Your belief in a god is a physiologic process which is a part of nature. Your decision making is based on natural processes. There is no evidence a supernatural world. The natural world is all we know unless you know a way of demonstrating the supernatural world.

 

[Bear Wild]

Well, if you read the book you'd see it says it was not actually written by people.

2 Pet 1:21,

for prophecy was not ever uttered by [the] will of man, but holy men of God spake under the power of [the] Holy Spirit.
​

Some folks believe that, others don't. Either way that is what to book says.

You brought up myths. That is an interesting topic the scriptures speak of. They claim to be logos (logic) which is the exact opposite of muthos (myths). Logos and muthos are Greek philosophical terms that are worth a study if you get the time.

As you may have noticed, I give a reference source (the scriptures) for everything I say. Would you mind me asking what is your reference source for the things you claim? I assume you are getting them from a point of reference outside of your own thoughts. I would be curious to know what it is.

One last thing; why do you feel the need to call people who don't believe your way dysfunctional? Given you hardly know anything about me, isn't that a bit presumptuous? It's all too easy to fall into the "internet bashing" mode, anonymity and all that. Let's just try to be respectful in our discussion if you don't mind.

Actually you were the one that called people as dysfunctional. "Bottom line, God did not create people with all the flaws you mentioned. He created them completely functional and they made themselves dysfunctional." So you started the "internet bashing". It was you statement in which I responded to because you referred to people as dysfunctional. As I see it using the bible to draw that conclusion is dysfunctional and not intended directly at you personally.

 

[Bear Wild]

Well, if you read the book you'd see it says it was not actually written by people.

2 Pet 1:21,

for prophecy was not ever uttered by [the] will of man, but holy men of God spake under the power of [the] Holy Spirit.
​

Some folks believe that, others don't. Either way that is what to book says.

You brought up myths. That is an interesting topic the scriptures speak of. They claim to be logos (logic) which is the exact opposite of muthos (myths). Logos and muthos are Greek philosophical terms that are worth a study if you get the time.

As you may have noticed, I give a reference source (the scriptures) for everything I say. Would you mind me asking what is your reference source for the things you claim? I assume you are getting them from a point of reference outside of your own thoughts. I would be curious to know what it is.

One last thing; why do you feel the need to call people who don't believe your way dysfunctional? Given you hardly know anything about me, isn't that a bit presumptuous? It's all too easy to fall into the "internet bashing" mode, anonymity and all that. Let's just try to be respectful in our discussion if you don't mind.

I have studied Greek philosophical terms. Thank you. The term myth however still applies to creation stories as in the one in the bible. The sources are the natural world itself since the creation story in the bible does not match what is in the only world we know about - the natural world. The beliefs we have are a product of the natural world. Nature is ultimate.

 

[Bear Wild]

Let me put it this way: there is nothing in nature that claims it to be an absolute. In fact, nature claims nothing of itself. Nowhere can you find nature claiming to be consistent and ultimate. All you said about it is just you projecting your thoughts into it, which is exactly what quantum mechanics (the building blocks of nature) says.

The scriptures on the other hand explicitly claim it is the truth.

John 8:31-32,

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
​

As I've consistently said, belief is optional. You are absolutely right that people's belief in God is not what makes God real. According to the scriptures, He is real quite independent our thoughts, which is the opposite of nature.

At least you should be aware of the difference between the scriptures and nature. Knowledge is always a good thing.

​

You are right knowledge is a good thing. Scriptures are man-made and nature is our reality. Knowledge is definitely a good thing. Thankfully the natural world gives us the natural processes in the brain which allows for different beliefs including the belief in a god or goddess or for that matter many gods and goddesses.

 

[rrobs]

Oh well, if a book says its author are not humans, then it must be true.

Ciao

- viole

Not necessarily. It could be a lie. It could be true. Some say yes, some say no.