[Tj3]

Not believing in God is not directly "based" on science.

You are right. Not believing in God has NOTHING to do with science.

[asking]

And of course believing in God has nothing to do with science, right?

[Tj3]

And of course believing in God has nothing to do with science, right?

There is a difference. Notice how Christians use scientific findings, and validate what they say using science.

And that atheists get frustrated and go after the Christians without being able to refute what the Christians post?

The only way that you can demonstrate this not to be true is to actually post something on topic and deal with the issue.

[xxariesxx]

Ah I just discovered this thread. I love these discussions.

:)

[asking]

I'm not going after you. I'm going after your inaccurate statements about biology, science, and the nature of evidence. I'm referring to Cred's original post.

Your premise is that if random people on the internet cannot give detailed biological explanations for any question about the natural world, then that proves that God exists. This is just rank nonsense.

I have posted at length on this topic. Your list of things that you don't know the answer to is quite short, all things considered. But no matter how long you could make the list and how few answers you amassed, none of it would prove the existence of any sort of god, least of all a specific God such as your own. (For that, you must look into your heart.) In fact, your list doesn't prove anything about the natural world except what it says about you personally. Of course I consider you a part of the natural world.

In case you are still confused, I will provide an example: I don't know why heartbeats are irregular. My not knowing that does not prove that God exists or that any god exists. My not being able to explain that does not prove anything except some minor fact about me. This IS an answer to your question about eyes, turkeys, macaws, and various other oddities.

Your not bothering to read about the evolution of eyes or turkeys does prove anything about anything. It's clearly pointless for me to go read up at length about it and carefully summarize for you, because no matter how much I dig up and present to you: it will not prove anything one way or the other, you will be able to ask more questions (and somewhat foolishly think you are winning), because that is the nature of reality. There's always something unknown. It would be futile for me to waste time answering questions just so that you could ask more, especially when I know that you don't want to know the answers, don't want there to be any answers, and apparently think that as long as you have people answering infinite numbers of pointless questions, you are winning a battle against the forces of evil.

[Tj3]

I'm not going after you. I'm going after your inaccurate statements about biology, science, and the nature of evidence. I'm referring to Cred's original post.

I note that you have chosen to attack me by making demeaning comments in numerous messages now - that is not refuting or addressing the topic.

Your premise is that if random people on the internet cannot give detailed biological explanations for any question about the natural world, then that proves that God exists. This is just rank nonsense.

And that comment is a mis-representation that has been clarified many times before, so I can only presume that you are deliberately mis-representing. Again, you are not addressing the issue.

I can understand your frustration in not having an response of substance and yet you feel that you must defend your position.

Your not bothering to read about the evolution of eyes or turkeys does prove anything about anything.

heh heh heh - you must really be frustrated when you fabricate comments like this! I dare you to point out any evidence put forward which I have not addressed.

[xxariesxx]

Asking's post makes a lot of sense actually.

You can't explain unknown's by automatically assigning it to God's work. You can attribute previously unexplainable issues to science now, where as before, when not understood, God was said to be the reason. This happened, and still happens, because people are afraid of the unknown and want to believe there is some larger purpose behind it all.

[Tj3]

You can't explain unknown's by automatically assigning it to God's work.

No one has. This is a strawman argument that he is using because he has no rebuttals.

[xxariesxx]

No one has. This is a strawman argument that he is using because he has no rebuttals.

That's what I understood is happening? For example, the eye. Because science can't necessarily explain exactly how it works, religion would instead like to pin it as the work of God.

[Tj3]

That's what I understood is happening? For example, the eye. Because science can't necessarily explain exactly how it works, religion would instead like to pin it as the work of God.

Nope. In fact I said right at the start that I was prepared to leave God out of the discussion entirely and deal solely what could be shown by science. The atheists on this list were unwilling to rely solely on science.

I suspect that you do not know the history of the discussion. It goes back a number of years, starting with a group of people on another board who originally agreed that there were only two ways in which things that we find in nature could have come into existence - by natural means (whatever that may be), or by means of an intelligent designer / creator (whoever or whatever that may be).

By examining different events / things from nature, if those events / things are impossible to have come about naturally, then that leaves the only other alternative. Saying that some is not possible is not the same as saying that we cannot explain it. Saying that we cannot explain it says that we don't know how it happened. Saying that it is impossible is saying that there are aspect of the events / thing which means that we can demonstrate that it could not have happened that way. This process is commonly used in science.

[michealb]

The problem is that your fundamental logic is wrong TJ3. I know you going to say that is a straw-man argument but please explain how we are giving an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of your position.

As near as I can tell you feel that if certain questions in biology can't be proven. It disproves evolution and therefor proves god. If this is any where near what your position is then telling you that you have logical fallacy is not a straw-man. If this isn't your position please let us know because if this isn't it you have us all very confused.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason everyone tells you that you are ignorant when you debate with them is because you are?

[Fr_Chuck]

Post has ended up negative comments back and forth, litle actual discussion on last several pages,

Thread closed