GDR writes:
OK, can you give me an example of non-physical evidence for something that you believe?
No, I can't think of one.
But I'm not ignoring any - I'm
begging you to show me one, and you haven't yet. How is that ignoring it?
Show me anything at all that you can validate to be a part of reality - and I will love to look at it when attempting to find the truth about reality.
If you can't validate it to be a part of reality - what good is it when attempting to find the truth about reality?
How can you insist that I'm ignoring it when you refuse to show me one?
I suggest that common sense points to the conclusion that life exists because of a pre-existing intelligence. I guess for you common sense suggests to you that life is the result of a chance combination of just the tight base elements. As you can't see definitive evidence for a pre-existing intelligence your common sense tells you that such an entity doesn't exist.
No, my common sense agrees with you.
My common sense also tells me that life exists because of a pre-existing intelligence.
But that's not what reality, and the evidence says. Reality says that life exists due to natural processes (abiogenesis and evolution.)
Just like my common sense says that whales are fish.
But that's also wrong - reality says that whales are mammals.
There is also no evidence of how the first cell came into existence and even if process that did that could be found, it still tells us nothing about whether or not there was an intelligence responsible for the process.
You're not very good at this game.
Over 5 million papers again.
Evidence of how the first cell came into existence:
And this does tell us something about whether or not an intelligence was responsible for the process. It tells us that no intelligence is found necessary for these processes. That, coupled with not being able to find a previous intelligence
anywhere and everywhere else tells us that no previous intelligence existed or was involved.
A rock tumbles down a hill and smashes into your car. All you know is that gravity propelled that rock down the hill but you don't know whether it was pushed or not. You can't find any evidence to answer the question so you have to take other things into consideration to form a conclusion that you can't know absolutely what the answer is.
You're exactly right.
The good news is - after looking around for God - we
most certainly can find evidence. And the evidence says God is not necessary - for anything at all. And that God cannot be found - anywhere and everywhere we look. Which is the evidence saying that God does not exist.
This would be similar to looking around for evidence of the rock tumble, and
finding a lot of evidence:
- Previous pictures show that the rock was precariously balanced and likely to fall off the mountain
- Aerial footage at the time shows us that no person or animal or creature of any kind was around the rock at the time of it tumbling downhill
- Geological scans at the time show us that a minor earthquake occurred that caused the mountain to shake a little
Upon finding this evidence it shows us that the rock falling was natural. It shows us that "a pusher"
does not exist for causing this rock to fall.
Just like finding the evidence we have about everything we know of the universe shows us that
this universe is natural. It shows us that "a pre-existing intelligence"
does not exist.
The rock evidence didn't have to be that way: Maybe previous pictures show a stable rock position. Maybe the aerial footage
did show us some people, or a very close campsite or animal tracks or hairs/scat of close by creatures. Maybe there's no evidence of an earthquake or any other natural process that could be responsible.
This would be evidence that the rock was pushed.
The universe evidence didn't have to be this way: Maybe studies of the sun actually show us magnetic traces of where sophisticated "ropes" could have been to pull it across the sky. Maybe studies of lightning actually show us large hand-prints used to "throw" the lightning. Maybe studies of evolution do not show a nested hierarchy and actually show indications of intelligent planning. Maybe studies of abiogenesis do not show that it's possible and actually show that there's no way such elements could have existed on earth naturally. Maybe studies of society do not show natural procession of human development and actually show leaps-and-bounds of technological progress that couldn't be possible without outside influence. Maybe studies of religious people show that they actually "get more right" about the world and create better technology. Maybe studies of religious people show that they really are happier or smarter or kinder people.
...This would be evidence that "a pre-existing intelligence" exists.
But... we don't find any of that, do we?
...you can't know absolutely what the answer is.
We can't "absolutely" know the answer for anything at all.
Not even that GDR and Stile are currently posting on EvC forum. Can't "absolutely" know that. It's not possible.
But, we do have a "best-way-to-know-things" - and it involves following evidence that can be verified to be real.
And this method tells us that God does not exist. It is not "up in the air." It is not "still ongoing." It is not in contention.
It was... thousands of years ago, hundreds of years ago... maybe even tens-of-years ago. But, now - we just have too much information/data/evidence that tells us that God really does not exist.
You can ignore it all you want.
It doesn't make it go away.
™ Version 4.2
