Why do some atheists think that evolution disproves a creator?

lol, yeah, cause that makes sense in the usage there

 

The Physical Natural Universal Laws that govern everything and anything within our at minimum 10-D Universal Space-Time Dimensionality are what determine what forms and constructs matter and energy have evolved into in our Divergent Universal State of Reality as well as all Infinite in number Divergent Universal States within our Baseline Reality Universal Grouping.

There are many more...actually infinite in number Baseline Reality Universal Groupings and each Grouping has infinite numbers of Universal Realities.

But each Grouping has it's own set of Universal Physical Natural Laws.

Because of this any and all forms and constructs whether they be Matter and Energy or not within these other Baseline Reality Universal Groupings dictate exactly what will exist and evolve withing those Divergent Universal States.

We are a product of Quantum Evolution driven changes and development in our single Divergent Universal Reality.

If our Baseline Reality Universal Grouping had even the smallest difference in it's Universal Space-Time Dimensionality and Physical Natural Laws then we would not exist.

However since our Multiversal System is INFINITE in that infinite numbers of baseline realities each containing infinite numbers of divergent universes.....gives rise to the mathematical reality that we as limited human beings can only relate and understand to just ONE Baseline Reality Universal Grouping......our physical and mental construct will only allow us to relate to and understand just ONE SET OF INFINITE DIVERGENT UNIVERSAL STATES....all having the exact same physical and natural laws of our Divergent Universe.

Any other Baseline Reality Universal Grouping has a completely different and alien set of physical natural laws that our human minds and bodies cannot relate to nor inhabit due to the Universes existing in those alternate groupings having a completely different set of physical natural laws and different Universal Space-Time Dimensionality.

Point is.....things are not so simple as religion might attempt to explain it.

AboveAlpha

 

...and God set all of that into existence.

The inner workings of the engine have no bearing on whether or not it was designed by an engineer, or whether it "just existed".

 

In that case, what you call "reductionism" isn't a fallacy. It's necessary, and it's the basis of all science. In science, you assume that something does not exist, until there is evidence that it does exist. You assume that your hypothesis isn't true, until you can demonstrate that it is true. So what you call reductionism, is actually, just good science.

Well, in that case, morality is just a consequence of human psychology. And thus, morality is as relativistic (or as non-relativistic) as human psychology is relativistic. Psychology itself is a quasi-science, since it's conclusions are based on quasi-scientific methods. Does an ego and id really exist? No one knows for sure, cause unlike in real science, you can't just pry open the brain and figure out how it works.

One day, we may figure out how the human brain works from a mechanical standpoint. But it's interesting, because people have been saying that the more we understand about the human brain, the less logical the very concept of morality becomes. After all, if our brains are nothing more than complex bags of chemicals, and free will is an illusion (both things that neuroscience is pretty close to proving true), then how can morality even exist? And if it can't really exist in any logical framework, doesn't that--in itself, prove that morality is relativistic?

 

The question is where do you draw the line? If you don't believe in most of the bible, then which parts of the bible do you believe, and why do you believe in some parts but not others? At some point it becomes a completely arbitrary process, and then your whole "faith" essentially becomes defined by your personal whims--picking and choosing which parts of the bible you like and which you don't. And that's not really a firm foundation on which to rest your core beliefs.

 

Think of the being that created beauty, flowers, wide vistas of mountains and fijords, Then step out of the shower and look in the mirror. What kind of an off day was it having when it came up with your allotment?

 

Maybe...maybe not.

No evidence or proof exists to determine this either way.

AboveAlpha

 

Let me know when you can find a parrot that can solve quadratic equations.

 

I'm not the one taking those steps, you are. If you can't follow your own discussion then I'm wasting my time.

 

How would you define god and by what measures would you be able to determine what a god is, especially given our lack of intelligence or even understanding of what intelligence is? An imperfect god might be indistinguishable from a super intelligent alien but if it was, what exactly then would make it god?

God either exists or it doesn't. If we cannot determine what god is, if we cannot even understand what god is then that gods existence would have no bearing on our lives on any level and it would be no different than if god didn't exist at all. At which point every attempt at defining god, including leaving him undefined as you do would be a false conclusion, we would be nothing more than people on a planet talking to ourselves. There is no wisdom or worth to be found in a void. To say I leave the question open or accept that it's possible a god exists isn't actually saying anything because it doesn't change the fact that if one does exist we know nothing about it. In the end if we give god meaning and therefore our lives meaning then god is simply a fantasy that will always prevent us from truly experiencing our existence and reaching our full potential.

 

That's the whole point - it's pointless to use "science" to argue against a God anymore than it is for Ray Comfort to argue that a banana is scientific proof of creation.

Natural science by definition only explains "what" not "why or how".

 

Well, I've kind of wondered that myself. I'm a fairly devout Catholic, and think that evolution best describes how our living world came to be in the form they currently are. Can't deny the evidence, so the only logical conclusion for those of us who are theists is that evolution was simply God's method of creation. Yes, it's unprovable (and undisprovable), but belief in God is a matter of faith, not evidence.

 

No, see you and many others here are confusing the narratives. We cannot understand a god that is not defined by man, in other words we cannot argue against an abstract idea that no one even tries to define. However that is not what religion does. Religion defines god, it tells us what god is and what our relationship to this god is. Christians love to take the argument outside the realm of religion to state we can't know if SOME undefined god exists and then they use this argument to support the idea that their Christian God is valid. This is a complete non sequitur and you need to stop doing it.

Atheists argue against religion, i.e. the definitions of gods man has created. Every time you argue that we cannot know god you claim all religions are false. If there is a god people can define then there is god we can argue against using science and other means of logic and reason.

 

My definition of God is a theological intangible. If a perceived God is actually an alien, then the question becomes who or what created the alien thus we are back where we began. Just because we cannot perceive something does not mean that it does not exist nor has a direct impact upon our life. I argue that human perception is so flawed that what we perceive is not a true reflection of reality... but that is probably best left for another debate.

As there are many mysteries to be solved it is my view to rule a theological intangible out is to abandon the position of being scientifically minded. IMO a scientific mind does not rule out a theological intangible as plausible untill evidence comes to light that proves that there is no theological intangible. But I argue that is all but impossible, because even if we can scientifically prove what sparked life and created the universe, this knowledge will lead to new and perhaps even more perplexing questions.

 

Nothing you said invalidates my argument. I didn't say god was an alien by the way. You stated that god may not be perfect, which means god has flaws. I asked how would you distinguish such a god from say a super intelligent alien. I was trying to point out that the tools and measures you or anyone would use to measure gods existence would have to be created out of thin air. There is nothing scientific about supporting an idea that is completely void of evidence. Without evidence we will always get the answer wrong. Leaving the question alone until their is evidence we can learn from is not the same as answering the question in the negative. You seem to be under the impression that if we don't sit around pondering gods existence it will prevent us from gaining knowledge about god but this is not how science works. Science doesn't set out to prove this or that, science simply goes where the evidence takes it. If one day evidence takes us to the existence of a god so be it; until that time it is a guessing game that cannot lead to wisdom but can and has caused massive corruption of our reason and logic.

Why would god impact your life? Why suggests a motive, a motive suggest a desire, a morality, a perspective. These suggest a being, a being we have no description of without religion, a being that has no discernible features or behaviors or ideas. Without knowing what god is, without understanding god it's impact on our lives will remain equally unknown and useless. For all you know gods morality is cruel and the impact he is having on your life is entirely negative.

God may exist and god may be impacting our lives directly. I might be god right now trying to test your belief but until there is evidence to support any of these ideas, until you can prove any of it one way or another, its no different than if god didn't exist at all.

 

The premise of your rebuttal is based upon what you perceive I "seem" to say, rather than what I actually said.

My argument is that to rule anything out based upon incomplete evidence goes against my measure of a scientific mind. The evidence should lead us to the conclusion and the best evidence as I currently observe it is not compelling enough nor complete for me to form a definitive conclusion either way. My argument is not that science supports the claim of God, but neither has it irrefutably proven that God does not exist.

 

Actually, intelligent design cannot be disproven. Any result of evolution can be explained as intelligent design. That is why intelligent design is not science. There is no possibility it could be disproven. And, while I am not an adherent of intelligent design, you are making it into a strawman. The ID folks I have read do claim that adaptation is part of it. Heck, the creationists I have read claim that there is such thing as adaptation. That is what they claim observable evolution (like antibiotic resistance) is an example of.

 

Well, it disproves Genesis as being literal history. It doesn't disprove the lessons we can learn from Genesis about human nature, etc.

 

It's a story meant to tell the relationship between all mankind, our relationship with God, and to illustrate the foibles of human nature. The only people who treat the Bible as literally true are atheists and evangelicals.

 

This fails to address my argument on multiple levels. Incomplete evidence first and foremost suggests there is SOME evidence but there is zero evidence.

Second without evidence there is literally nothing to go on. What then are you pondering? You have no measure by which to determine anything about the existence of any god. I never said science ruled out a god or proved that none exists. What I said was that science doesn't need to rule out something there is zero evidence for. With zero evidence the result is the same whether god exists or not.

When you and I say god we are defining something that cannot be defined. A theological intangible is still a definition; how do you know god is not a man in the sky? Every definition, every query that is not supported by evidence is equally false and entirely unscientific as well as useless. In fact this is the opposite of how science works.

If there is a knowledge of a god out there to discover it will be discovered by a scientist who was never looking for it, not by a believer holding on to an abstract idea just in case.

 

why? it's enough that they calculate, and that their brains - despite being tiny in comparison - can do 'human' thinking.

to me, parrots, wolves, dolphins, and primates are tremendously interesting because they challenge the antiquated notion of noble humans and dumb beasts.

 

the problem is, what IS a theological intangible, in order for us to rule it out? is it, literally, anything?

if so, I have to ask how you would have science 'rule in' anything.

 

but there isn't 'incomplete evidence', Rob. there is no evidence. suggesting science ought still to consider it (gods) is akin to suggesting science ought to consider any and all magical and/or supernatural ideas - with no starting place for any of them. are you genuinely suggesting such a thing?

 

Perhaps where I differ from from atheists is that I think it is unlikely that the base mysteries of the universe can be answered by science. I am open to the possibility that science can answer all, but think that it is more likely that each answer will lead to new and perhaps more perplexing questions. If we arrive at the axiom that all existence is founded upon, then I would wonder what the axiom was found upon... thus leading to an unsolvable infinite regression.

All forms are based upon a previous forum, once we get to the original form then the question becomes what created its form? Once we come to a point that is impossible to explain then perhaps that is where we can come to a more logical conclusion of an unexplained power greater than ourselves that some refer to as God.

Perhaps the simple answer is that not all things have a beginning and an ending thus rendering the search for the axiom unnecessary.

 

My argument is that we should follow the science, but I doubt that science can ever solve the base mystery of the creation of energy, matter and life.