God.....again.

quote:

---

God could exist, I guess. There's nothing that, to my knowledge, prevents the existence of God. It's just my conclusion from the data that he doesn't exist at this time. So, given that there's no evidence, I'm absolutely sure that god doesn't exist - but I know I could be wrong.

---

Gosh, frog, you sound like one of us Agnostics!

quote:

---

Crashfrog, The reason you've never found any evidence for a creator is because you're never looking for any, and if you did find some you'd deny it no matter what because you're baised towards evolution.

---

Well, wouldn't this 'evidence' be apparent to everyone if it existed?What evidence are you talking about, anyway?Oh, and why do you make that strange connection between not believing and god and acceptance of the evidence of evolution?God could exist AND evolution be true, you know. It may be that your idea of god and what god can and does do is incorrect.

quote:

---

Well, no one as ever seem one species becoming another through Slow darwinian processes. The evidence they have is indirect...

---

...except that we have directly observed one species turning into another rather frequently.Here's an exaple, with many more found at the link:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

quote:

---

Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.

---

quote:

---

The same goes for God...

---

Sorry, the evidence for god is entirely subjective and individual-dependent. By contrast, anyone can look at the data in support of any scientific theory, such as the ToE.

quote:

---

However in both cases acceptance depends on your will to consider the indirect evidence. And in both cases i admit that the indirect evidende might not be an absolute proof.

---

What indirect evidence of god do you have? I mean, what specific predictions about the nature of the universe have been made wrt determining the existence of god which have been borne out?

quote:

---

'As far as I can tell that's a red ball'

​

being different to

​

'I'm not sure if that is a red ball or a blue dodecahedron.'

---

I understand the difference, but I don't know that your example is analogous to my thoughts and crashfrog's thoughts about the existence of God.I mean, we are both agreeing that there is no evidence for God, and he concludes that there must not be any God, yet will accept that there may be one and evidence might come forth which would cause him to accept the existence of god.I can't see how this is substantively different from my position, which is that there is no evidence for god, but we don't know, nor can we perceive, everything. We just don't know.I don't know if this makes Crashfrog an Agnostic or me an Atheist, thoug.

Well, I have always thought of Athiests holding that there was no god as if they do know for sure, but I could easily be mistaken.That's a big reason I call myself an Agnostic; I don't know. What's more, I don't think anybody knows.I guess the difference is that I have always thought that Athiests wouldn't accept evidence for God if it came about, but Agnoostics would, but maybe this just shows my ignorance of Atheism.

quote:

---

You know I have, in the past, called you "scraffy"; but considering how efficiently and venemously you take on characters like buzzsaw (as in your recent post on my thread) I should really call you "scrappy"! But this is an aside.

---

Awww, I always liked that you called me "schraffy".I'll accept "scrappy", though. I can't deny that it's accurate.

quote:

---

The word "atheism" comes to us from the Greek atheos - "denying the gods," by way of the French - atheisme. Atheos appears to be a combination of theos - "god," plus the negative particle - a, "no" or "not."

​

To me, a-theism means two things.

​

1. - That I don't believe in the concept of an invisible, immortal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Guy in the Sky. And,
2. - That I am opposed to Theism, a philosophy which embraces the above mentioned Guy and seeks to bring me under His dominion.

​

Theism is the power behind the throne where monarchy is practiced (that was a problem for Henry the Eighth). Theism is sometimes expressed through a form of government called Theocracy, wherein "God Rules" (through his priests, or ministers, or mullahs) I'm sure you've seen this arrangement. Most recently it has been called The Taliban.

​

So "atheism" in my book, also means anti-theism; for theism leads to theocracy; and theocracy is hell on wheels.

---

Hmm, interesting.Isn't "theism" different from "religion", though? Isn't the problem with governments and theocracy more about the adherence to a religion rather than belief in God/gods?Is it your position that Theism inevitably leads to religion/Theocracy?