What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator

Nosy said this didn't qualify for a Coffee House thread, and I wasn't sure it had what it takes to be a thread unto itself, but let's see if it will float.This started as an off-topic sequence in which robinrohan said something about fossils when it turns out he meant transitionals. He believes the existence of transitionals in the fossil record, if they really are transitionals, means that God can't exist.http://EvC Forum: Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation -->EvC Forum: Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 08:45 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

The point is that the other proofs of evolution do not eliminate God. God might very well have set up DNA the way it is and so forth.But the fossils--now there's some proof.

The fossils don't rule out God either. There are lots of theistic and deistic evolutionists who would agree with me on this.

But Robin, I thought you made it clear you mean transitionals when you say fossils. The fossils, the bazillion fossils all over the earth, are no proof against God, or at least you haven't made the case yet for why they are if you think they are. I thought you had in mind the supposed "transitionals" as the proof against God. I think you need to clarify this.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-12-2006 09:05 PM

quote:

---

He believes the existence of transitionals in the fossil record, if they really are transitionals, means that God can't exist.

---

Although I don't believe in the existence of God myself, I don't see how transitional fossils is proof of her non-existence. robinrohan has some, er, interesting notions about God that he doesn't seem to be able to explain in a very convincing manner.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Yes, of course, I'm talking about those particular fossils that illustrate evolution at work. The reptile-to-mammal line, for example, which is very complete. This proves that evolution happened.I think you would agree that God would not insert these things as some sort of joke. I think you would agree that the Fall does not mix with evolution. Therefore, no God.

Let me put it to you very briefly though it has been explained at length in the thread entitled "What we must accept if we accept evolution."Before evolutionary ideas, we had no way to explain how we got here except by special creation. We don't need that anymore.Moreover, a good God would never institute a system whereby, in order to survive, life forms must feed off other life forms--which is what we have with the world presented by evolution.Therefore, no God.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 03-12-2006 08:16 PM

quote:

---

Moreover, a good God would never institute a system whereby, in order to survive, life forms must feed off other life forms--which is what we have with the world presented by evolution.

---

Good is a subjective term. God may or may not have instituted this system, and God may or may not have arranged things to look as if the universe is billions of years old. That you call this "not good" is your designation and may not have any relevance.Even if there is an objective standard for good (which so far one has been able to demostrate), it may very well be that creating creatures that eat other creatures and/or making the illusion of billions of years of history may fall into the category of "good" -- without knowing what this standard is, there is no way determining what is good and what is not.Finally, it may be that God herself is not "good" according to this objective standard, if it exists.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

True--if there is no God.

The subjectivity of morality is independent of the existence of God.God and an objective standard of morality may both exist.There may be no God, but there may be an objective standard of morality.God may exist, but no objective standard of morality may exist.Neither God nor an objective standard of morality may exist.These are two independent concepts, however much the Christians and the neo-Platonists think otherwise.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

No. it's not, and I will explain to you why it's not. In order for there to be an objective morality there has to be a ground for that morality. Can you come up with a logical ground without begging the question? I don't think so.Now if there were an ideal, there would be such a ground. The existence of God would provide such an ideal.

I bumped another thread in case you want to go into this in more detail.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

No, here's the argument. Fossils are the only proof for the non-existence of God. The other proofs of evolution only tell us that if evolution is true, such-and-such must follow. Fossils are direct proof.If evolution is true, there can be no God. Evolution logically includes atheism, materialism, determinism, and nihilism.Therefore, if one accepts evolution, one must be a nihilist. Life has no meaning, other than some subjective meaning that one assigns to it. It does not matter ultimately what we do--whether we live or die. It does not matter what we do or fail to do. We are of no more significance than the wind blowing across the Texas plains.

I certainly see the fossil record as good evidence for evolution, but not necessarily the best evidence. But that may be a subjective determination. You seem to think the fossils are better evidence than the evidence that exists; well, I'm not sure how to argue something as subjective as what evidence is "better". If that is your opinion, so be it. It's probably as good as mine.The fossils certainly are not proof of evolution, no more than, say, the nested heirarchical classification of the species. One can just as easily come up with an ad hoc explanation for one as for the other.And establishing the fact of evolution is not proof against God. It could all be part of God's design.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt