I Know That God Does Not Exist

Psychotropic drugs, for one thing.Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

OK. I showed you secular studies done that show that church goers contribute more financially than do non-church goers. What evidence do you have that non-church goers contribute more in other ways that do non-church goers. My personal experience with volunteering has always seen church goers volunteer their time far more than non-church goers.Also with your two mites quote that was hardly the point. The studies were done across a broad spectrum that included people of essentially all incomes.

How on earth is that germane? Those drugs are to help with brain illnesses jsut as you take an Tylenol for a headache.

I don't need any. My only claim is that you can't tell how good a person is by their religion. It has nothing to do with income. It isn't all about cash, as I keep saying. Jesus' point was that you can't determine "how much" a person gives from a simple sum of dollars and cents.

Those drugs alter the way the brain thinks, which - news flash - indicates that the brain works by chemistry.

Hey, we agree.

You claim, "I contend that the existence of the natural processes themselves constitute evidence." But there's nothing behind this claim. Ever since humans began to try to understand the universe they tried both natural and supernatural explanations for various phenomena.So far the count is: supernatural - 0, natural - several zillion.Persisting in the non-natural view is not a reasonable way of thinking. It may, of course, turn out that we will someday discover such an explanation. But until then...

When we open the hood of a car and see the engine we can see that the car moves because of the engine so that explains everything by that way of thinking.I am suggesting that just as the engine needed an intelligent cause so did brain chemistry.

That again simply dodges the issue. Yes, natural processes can explain a great deal but not why the natural processes exist in the first place. From a scientific POV a non-natural view adds nothing to scientific study. Scientific study is geared to identify and understand natural processes. Why those processes exist at all is outside the purview of science.That however, does not mean that our vieews on the subject don't matter.

Beyond the purview? Who knows? Perhaps some day there will be a scientific explanation for such things as why there are three spatial dimensions, why mass and inertia are so closely linked, why there is an imbalance between matter and anti-matter in the universe . . .

Science has made so many amazing discoveries. I don't have a background in science beyond high school other than recreational reading. I am amazed when read posts like those of Son Goku on this forum.Little point though. If science is able to accomplish what you suggest there is still the question of what was behind the process that gave the universe those properties.Just another thought on all of this. We actually can if we wish separate the creation of the universe from the creation of life. I think the two are connected as from what I have read there is a connection between consciousness and our physical world. Just a thought.

Since consciousness is an emergent property of our physical biological being a connection is obvious. I don’t think anyone can show any evidence that this connection takes on the type of woo connection to some cosmic consciousness you may be hoping to believe. Again, as always, evidence, not some wishful hope, would be required to see consciousness as anything more than the human body’s user-interface into our local environment. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

What do you mean by that? That there is a connection is self evident as AZPaul3 says in his response Your statement is pretty much word salad unless you explain what you are attempting to say by putting those words together.

Funny, I see I had a question about this as did a couple others here. Can you say what sort of connection you are talking about and if a person should be able to recognize it? And you say you read it so do you know what you read and who wrote it?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I can understand Sprouls logic far better than I can the mumbo jumbo word salad that masquerades as Word Salad here at EvC from the likes of AZPaul3, Tangle, and to a lesser extent Stile and ringo. Stile has a love of his opponents that is absent in AZPaul3. ringo just likes to argue, and I have a grudging respect of how God uses him--the atheist--to force me to sharpen my arguments. Theodoric has an inner disdain for Charismatics, Conservatism, and even the idea of the God we market.And (nobody listens to these audio podcast but) I am on board with Sprouls basic logic:
Self CreationOne further thought: Im curious what Miller, a member of the Discovery Institute, means when he talks of this "gospel" of materialism?