I Know That God Does Not Exist

I don't think you can even compare Canada and the US. The US is more fanatically fundamentalist but also less inclined to display love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance. And the Scandinavian nations are pretty secular but they're also pretty good at taking care of their poor and sick. If you measure goodness in terms of cash, the ones with the most cash will seem like the most good.

Not all that giving is good. The preachers getting rich from poor Americans (BBC)

OK Here is a Canadian StudyAlso, we aren't talking about charity that is derived from government. We are talking about what individuals, either on their own or as part of a defined group, do to spend their time and financial assets for the benefit of others. I'm not at all clear about what point you are trying to make here.

What on earth are you talking about? You said in Message 991, "I declare that I "know" God exists." and I replied in Message 993, "But you have no evidence." How on earth is a quote from NASA in any way related to what we were talking about? Nobody "believes" in string theory. Some people think it's the most promising current hypothesis. Are you suggesting that heat is not an explanation for boiling water? You asked for evidence that we can explain phenomena in terms of natural processes or "blind chance" as you call it. That's what I did. Now the goalposts have moved? But it isn't piling processes on processes. It's connecting known processes to known processes. As I said, it's a network, not a hierarchy. There is no ultimate beginning to the network of processes, so there's no need for an infinite regression - like there is for an intelligent cause. It looks like the fundamental forces interacting with each other.There's no need to speculate about "where it came from". If something "always was" - like your God - then the processes can just as easily be the something that always was.

I had a different idea on the discussion.While the particles may be too complex for our complete understanding of their individual properties, as “simple” building blocks left to their combined influences and forces, even more complex macro-structures come into being pretty much all on their own.You and Sarah may be looking on different levels. More complexity built from already staggering complexity.

Sounds like the argument against an intelligent cause for life when such a belief is compared to believing in Santa Claus for example.

I would say that it is certainly possible. But I think I understand GDRs point. What specific evidence? Frame the basic issue. The issue is knowing or not knowing whether or not an intelligent Creator exists or could exist. I would submit that Romans 1:18-28 represents the Faith based position fairly adequately. Humans themselves are both simple and complex. We were the first animals to have empathy, yet also the first animals to become aware of the possibility of God and the freedom to reject Him and to attempt to understand reality without Him. Some would call this progress, but (yes, Tangle ) the Jury is still out. Lets look at the simplicity (or complexity) of words and of word definitions, shall we? I have told everyone before about my philosophy regarding such things. I grew up knowing About God. Everyone can share this same reality, be they atheists who view God as a human mythological construct or be they sheep in one of many fields globally. And yes, we are contrasting belief and knowledge here, but an apologist would submit the idea that Romans 1:18-28 is inspired and explains a world view that was quite educated for the times it was written in. The bottom line is that we are each responsible for the world view that we choose to form. We are not slaves either to faith or to evidence...we can freely use and apply one or both to our individual world views. And I would argue that the Bible is data for some. Choice is always our right and our responsibility.

Why not? The vast majority of good that I do for people is through my taxes. It isn't rocket science. Americans give more because they have more, not because they're more religious.

The phone book is data for some. You can either use it for its intended purpose or you can misuses it.

Sorry, GDR, you lost me.I know that's easy to do and getting easier every day, but... what?

Which leads me down several rabbit trails, as I too have a different idea on "the discussion" and what specifically we are collectively trying to express.

Should humans assume that their intelligence(or simplicity) is the only contribution towards a universal consensus?

We need to ask ourselves what idea or argument we individually(and/or collectively) are trying to defend or further develop.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile

Which then leads to the question (and/or presumption) that the Bible has a specific intended purpose.

Ahhh yes. Money makes the world go around, the world go around, the world go around.I would argue that human empathy (and action) go a lot further than mere tax dollars or spare change in the collection plate. I concede, however, that I am taking us off topic. I observe that Americans seem to prefer throwing money at problems rather than getting personally involved.

Well, that's the point. Believers treat the Bible as if it had an intended purpose. They might just as well use the phone book to predict lottery numbers.

I predict that you'll lose that argument but go ahead and make it. Or is it just another one of your assertions? Exactly.