Was this an attempt to ask an intelligent question? It needs work ... :yes:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
On the failure to find God's fingerprints ...
- Thread starter Jayhawker Soule
- Start date
heh...
The grammer police? Ad hom to avoid an answer? Did you spell check my response as well?
There are many theories posed to explain the advent of bipedalism. Perhaps you just have not been exposed to them.
Last edited:
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
So is the suggestion that the way God intervenes is by causing a ton of inconsequential mutations, a lot of harmful ones, and a very few beneficial ones?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Although he has been extremely coy, which makes it hard to tell, I don't think our friend Jayhawker is trying to debunk evolution. Rather I think he's trying to argue that there is no reason that God couldn't be behind the random mutation aspect of evolution. It's a God of the Gaps argument.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I very much doubt that.
You are only aware of the results of the mutations. You put a title on it called random chance because it seems to fit many other results from other processes. Then, without knowing why random chance occurs, you infer that it could not have happened by God's hand because random chance inherently isn't authored by God. It seems to me that no process (ie design, randomness, etc) more or less indicates God. If you think that one must be authored by God and the other is not, why do you think that? What evidence is there to support that?
Advent or success?
With all due respect, as a big fan of Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, E.O. Wilson and others, I'll gladly match my exposure (and library) with most people on this forum, but thanks for the suggestion.
Advent or success?
With all due respect, as a big fan of Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, E.O. Wilson and others, I'll gladly match my exposure (and library) with most people on this forum, but thanks for the suggestion.
I'm not arguing a particular view but with this post being in the Evolution vs Creationism subforum, what is it your proposing?
This argument could be made on any number of odd human traits but the more arguments like these are made, the more it seems humans get more and more common and less needy of a creator.
Granted there wasn't much need for one to begin with.
Of course you are.
This is exactly right, but you are missing the point. I dont think Jay was attempting to express this idea in a scientific manner. Scientifically, it is not on the table (it is not on the science table). But the point is that saying that something cannot be proven scientifically is not the same thing as saying it is false. You (and I) may choose to reject the idea based on a lack of evidence (on the failure to find Gods fingerprints), but that does not prove the absence of intervention.
It may seen to some that I am requiring people to prove the negative. I am not, this would be unfair. All I am asking for is acknowledgment that (at least in this case) the negative cannot be proved.
Arguing against one point of view does not imply a support another particular view. We have more then two choices in life.
Granted its easy to infer that as an atheist I would not accept a theistical view to be taught in schools or to anyone as fact. There is no evidence for the argument of creationism.
However if people want to believe in such I would not argue against that.
However, other then an overal holostic view, their are many different theories and many of them are quite probable.
If we were to assign each theory a probablity how much would you deign to grant creationism and how did you arrive at such?
The fact of evolution does not disprove an interventionist God. Preternatural intervention is unfalsifiable.
That was clarifying. :yes:
fantôme profane;1232253 said:
Ahh... I agree with you completely. Something does not need any proof to be true if - it is true.
However I would add, simply because someone claims something exists does not mean it does exist.
Somewhere we have to draw a line between open mindedness and skeptism. If this is framed as a spirtual discussion of theory and personal beliefs as implied we can make any assumptions you would like for the purposes of discussion.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Is it then nonsense?
What is the question?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
No, scientists have looked at the actual mutations.
No, it's because it appears to be random.
I'm saying that "random chance" is the opposite of something real affecting the outcome. It is exactly the same as nothingness. If your God = random chance, then what good is He? He looks exactly like a God that doesn't exist. What a coincidence. I mean, if you want to believe in and worship a creature that does not cause reality to deviate from random, which is the precise definition of something that does not exist, go for it, but talk about a situation that cries out for Mr. Occam's razor blade, how does it add anything to the story? If it's the same as random chance, why not just call it that?
You're alleging that things being completely random, with no discernable effect, is the same as God determining their outcome? That the effect of God is nothing whatsoever? That's about the opposite of omnipotent, isn't it? Kind of nonipotent? What would be the point of a God who does not affect reality in any way?
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Programs are written to create "random chance". That's by design and it's quite difficult to do.
You are under the mistaken impression that God should feel the need to prove himself. He did, and we call those instances "miracles". It's a small wonder you won't accept those either.
In reality, your "proof" that God does not exist is so flimsy as to boggle the imagination. You are approaching this on a purely emotional level. You are not trying to determine if God exists, but whether or not God fits your narrow perception of what he must be like.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What I'm saying is that by definition, an effect that does not deviate from random chance is no effect. When we say, no effect, we mean, the same as random chance. They are synonymous. So if God is invisible, and cannot be perceived with any sense, and only creates effects that equal random chance, then by definition, that is the same thing as not existing. You have now defined God as a non-existent being, which is to say, you have asserted that God does not exist.
If something cannot be perceived, and only creates effects that equal random chance, in what sense can thing be said to exist?