What evidence absolutely rules out a Creator

Even if you allow for the possibility of supernatural events, a literalist reading of the Genesis account cannot be reconciled with physics or with common sense.

Great story. I hope I get to see someone convert some day. See them become a "gusher." I've only heard stories, including my own, seen the aftereffects. But the transformation, that I want to see.

True enough, God should be able to "do supernatural stuff". The problem is that He seems to also erase His tracks.1. He creates a universe only 6000 years ago but puts things in it that make it look billions of years older.2. He Floods the entire world but leaves mountains of evidence directly conflicts with what should be there as a consequence of that Flood.3. He provides predictions of the future but when they are borne out they no longer look like predictions.4. He heals people but only if they are not diagnosed with an ailment first.I would think He would like to leave definitive tracks so we could follow them to Him. Is their some reason He doesn't?edited to provide the proper respect to God through capitalization.This message has been edited by LinearAq, 03-17-2006 10:14 AM

Alpha courses and fullfilled prophecies are all very interesting, but I hope that no one minds if I try to get things back on topic.The topic is the question whether the fossil record proves evolution and therefore proves the non-existence of God; in particular the death and disease that it implies, proves that God does not exist.One person has purported to have a logical proof that it does. However, there were several very severe flaws in his argument. Namely, he never (despite repeated requests) sufficient defines his terms clearly enough to determine whether his proof is logically valid. One example in particular, he continues to talk about how God must be "perfect" and the consequences this "perfection" must entail, but he has never, despite repeated requests, ever told us what perfection means in sufficiently precise detail to determine whether "perfection" is either a reasonable assumption nor whether the alleged consequences are implied.The other flaw (and I think that jar may have been trying to make this point) is that logical proofs don't in fact prove anything about the real world. Even if the logic in the argument is perfectly valid, the argument is only as sound as the premises. But premises can only be assumed; unless everyone accepts the premises as self-evident the argument isn't going to be convincing.In some instances, a premise may be a conclusion proven from a prior argument; but since all arguments must have premises and a circular series of arguments is unsound, either there must be an infinite regress of premises to be proven, or there must be some set of premises that are simply accepted. In any case, we mere mortals are forced to start with some set of premises that are considered self-evident. If the disputants cannot agree to a set of premises, then no logical argument is possible. That is just the way it is.Finally (and I think this might be part of the point jar was trying to make), even if all parties agree to the premises, that does not mean that the premises are in fact true statements about the real universe. The history of science and philosophy is littered with convincing logical proofs that were abandoned when new discoveries showed that the old assumptions were simply incorrect, and that the world actually works in ways that are often extremely counter-intuitive. Again, that is just the way it is; history has shown that very reasonable and intuitive ideas are simply wrong, and so no proof can be completely trusted to have actually proven anything about the real world.

---

"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

I do have a repeatable experiment that rules out an 'all seeing' god.It has to do with the fact that in the qunata world, a watched quantum pot never boils.it takes x microseconds for all the electrons to hit the higher state - so if you set a detector to "watch" them half at x/2, probability is that half will be in the higher state and half in the lower state.but if you keep cutting down the time between watching and not watching, eventually you get to a point where the probability wave doesn't have enough time to spread to encompass the higher level, and
and all the electrons will stay at the lower level.This means that observation on a quanta level will prevent a quanta from changing state.What this means is that 'god' must not be bothering to observe quanta, else the state of the quanta would not change.

Whoa! Not all creationists, including not all fundie literalist creationists like myself argue for a young earth. Not if your interpretation of the evidence eliminates the conflicts, at the same time accomodating a ww flood. Nobody has falsified the falsifiable bonafide prophecies and the bonafide healings, though there are cases of the bogus regarding both.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-17-2006 09:50 PM

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

Why not? For example, in my great debate with Jar many months ago I showed where it satisfies all three TD laws with Jar unable to refute and common sense says that an omnipotent God can create life in a short time without evolutionary process.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 Z Y BUZ SAW

but...If God is not only 'all seeing' but also 'all powerful' then it can observe a quanta without preventing it from changing state. How? It's all powerful - it can do anything it likes To me this is why any discussion of the effects of an omnipotent God interacting within our reality (in terms of detectability or leaving traces etc.) is futile.By definition an omnipotent God can cause anything to happen, or indeed not happen - essentially making scientific investigation useless.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

hey mikei really dont claim to know what goes on inside anybodies head... but i do know that no matter who you are... from hitler to mother theresa.. we all experience the same emotions and react to them with choices. there really isnt any tricks or secrets.. what you have is what i have.i know who i am inside... and that involves looking within .. i dont know why this would seem so complicated or why this would make you reply with a snippy remark

we are talking about faith.. not quantam physics... of course you see atoms, quarks, and germs with microscopes.. or understand celestial bodies with a telescope... your comparing apples to oranges

I don't think I do, but you can explain how you know that, if you like.

At least you were willing to say that I did have an arguments of sorts. Most just said I made an assertion.My argument is summed up in message #163. It does contain a dilemma however, which I discussed a little later. If they don't, we can know nothing.

Yes, yes, yes, absolutely, right on.Now watch everybody deny it.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-18-2006 01:26 AM

No - we just can't prove anything. Seems like a big difference, to me.

You've demonmstrated your closed mind by your reliance on repeating assertions that have been shown to be indefensible. So yes, I know that your mind is closed because you've proved it.