Evolution and Christianity incompatible!

[kimmielittle]

No, it is an absolutely true statement. Saying “God did it” offers no explanation of anything. It doesn’t describe how, why, when or anything else. It’s merely a call to stop asking questions, you don’t need to know, calm down, God loves you, don’t worry, everything will be fine, nothing to see here.
That isn’t explanation. It’s indoctrination.

emphasis mine

Saying “evolution did it”… It doesn’t describe how, why, when or anything else. It’s merely a call to stop asking questions.

Evolution is complicated. If you call it the progression of Simple to Complex organisms, a Biologist will tell you that’s not exactly true. If you say it’s survival of the fittest, a Biologist will tell you that this is only one of several mechanisms. If you call it a fact, a Biologist will point out that it’s also a theory. If you say it’s a theory, a Biologist will point out that it’s also a fact.

The fact remains that; a Scientific Explanation can only be as simple as Nature allows. AND Nature is far from Simple OR definable.

Scientifically, Nature is an undefinable element, and very elusive, at this time.

It is up to Science to ** first ** prove the claim.

As always,just my thoughts

 

[wanstronian]

wanstronian,

I find it rather odd, that some atheists are continually crying about indoctrination of religious people, yet it is the same atheists who are continually trotting out the tired old arguments that most theists who frequent such message boards have seen hundreds of times. Yes, we get it, you believe religious people are indoctrinated, can’t think for themselves, follow blindly what they are told, need emotional re-assurance when faced with the big bad scary world etc. How about you actually try to argue for such conclusions instead of merely asserting them?

Well, it’s simple. You believe in an unproven entity that performs impossible acts and you offer no explanation for where this entity comes from or how it performs these acts. Yet you presumably don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which in terms of proper, empirical evidence, is just as likely to exist as God. If you question your religion at all (some do, some don’t) then you continue to hold your religious faith as a result of faulty logic.

So. Either you believe in God, for which no evidence exists, but not in anything else for which no evidence exists, which means you have an inconsistent worldview. Or, you believe in a multitude of things for which no evidence exists, which means that you are consistent, but probably should be institutionalised.
If the former, then if you haven’t questioned the reasons for your faith, you are indoctrinated. If you have but continue to have faith, then you are deluded - or, possibly, right purely by an incredible coincidence.
The final option is if you have some irrefutable proof for God’s existence, in which case, please share it with me and the rest of the world.

As for the statement above, you’ll remember that I actually challenged your assertion that believing God created the universe is incapable of producing value or meaning in peoples lives. This is clearly, obviously false, and I don’t see any argument refuting this in the paragraph above. All I see is the same old assertions, with no argument to support them. Again I’ll ask, what is the point of this sort of hyperbole

How about you explain why the notion that God created the universe explains nothing (and/or is incapable of creating value or meaning), instead of just asserting that it does not??

I thought I had responded, by saying that a belief in God, although almost certainly false and certainly without rationality, may have some benefit to the believer in terms of offering comfort in times of hardship.
An explanation of “God made the universe,” however, offers no value at all, because it doesn’t explain when, how, why. It doesn’t explain where God came from. It doesn’t explain anything about him. The existence of God is an assertion without provenance, therefore any corrollary assertion about his nature or actions is also without provenance, which adds nothing of any relevance to any rational discussion. That’s why I say it’s valueless.

I’m sorry if the above is a bit rough, and you are in any way offended by it. I have been frequenting different philosophy forums for years now and I constantly see some brash atheists (not all) doing plenty of asserting, but very little argumentation.

That’s ironic, since all theist ‘proofs’ of God are by definition assertions without proof! I think the main atheist assertion is “There is no evidence for God,” which is irrefutable. However, some atheists (and I don’t exclude myself from this, although I try) do make baseless assertions. However, it’s important to note that an assertion, the evidence of which is real but just happens to be rejected by theists because it doesn’t support their belief, is not a baseless assertion.

We are all here to try to come closer to the truth, which isn’t easy, and provactive statements and hyperbole like you have presented above do nothing to help honest and sincere discussion. Maybe we are all in need of a bit more humility?

I am prone to bluntness in some of my posts - rarely is it my intent to offend (although there are one or two people on this forum who deserve nothing but ridicule for their ignorant assertions and refusal to accept abundant evidence). Apologies if you were offended.

When it comes down to it, we’re not going to find the truth from the to-and-fro between theists and atheists on this forum. In my view, we’ll never know the whole truth about everything, but science and not religion, holds the best chance of discovering some of it. This axiom has been proved empirically over the last few centuries, so I see no reason to believe it will change.

 

[wanstronian]

emphasis mine

Saying “evolution did it”… It doesn’t describe how, why, when or anything else. It’s merely a call to stop asking questions.

So you think evolutionary biologists have stopped asking questions? That they’re not continuing to research into how the process of evolution works? You’re very naive if you believe this is true.

 

[kimmielittle]

So you think evolutionary biologists have stopped asking questions? That they’re not continuing to research into how the process of evolution works? You’re very naive if you believe this is true.

Hiyas

While it could It be true that I’m naive I’m a kid ].

Personally, You Atheist / evolutionist…crack me up.
You can not prove evolution as creation.
You can not disprove God
You can not prove that we don’t evolve according to Gods’ plan.

As always, just my thoughts

 

[wanstronian]

Hiyas

While it could It be true that I’m naive I’m a kid ].

Personally, You Atheist / evolutionist…crack me up.
You can not prove evolution as creation.

We don’t try. Evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. There is evidence for both. Not complete evidence, but still evidence. There is no evidence for any other explanation. Are you one of these theists that says, “Because the theory isn’t totally complete, it’s totally completely wrong” ? If so, presumably you don’t believe in gravity?quote]
You can not disprove GodWhat does that have to do with anything? We can’t disprove the celestial teapot either - do you believe in it? And unicorns, fairies, elves, the FSM etc. etc.? We’re not trying to ‘disprove’ God, we’re just pointing that there’s no evidence for his existence. Big difference.

You can not prove that we don’t evolve according to Gods’ plan.

See above.

As always, just my thoughts

They could do with significant development.

 

[kimmielittle]

We don’t try. Evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. There is evidence for both. Not complete evidence, but still evidence. There is no evidence for any other explanation. Are you one of these theists that says, “Because the theory isn’t totally complete, it’s totally completely wrong” ? If so, presumably you don’t believe in gravity?

Which… Master Newtons or Master Einsteins?

What does that have to do with anything? We can’t disprove the celestial teapot either - do you believe in it? And unicorns, fairies, elves, the FSM etc. etc.? We’re not trying to ‘disprove’ God, we’re just pointing that there’s no evidence for his existence. Big difference.See above.

You really must do better than this…It’s your burden to disprove.

They could do with significant development.

Do all of you Atheists need to resort to rude and abusive cheap shots?

Why, because I disagree?

“The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein

 

[MindOverMatter]

Its an absolute fable that empirical science is the absolute standard of reasonable truth.
Outside the qeustion of God there are things that both atheists and theists believe in that are not scientifically proven. The atheists on this thread are being prejudiced of God. Its plain and simple.

There are things in our experiences that imply that there is a God. Some people have experienced divine revelation and miracles. Some people have the intellectual ability to realize that Gods existence follows necessarily from the fact of physical reality.

Before science can be a science, it has to be a philosophy. For instance, We have to assume that the universe objectively exists according to how we perceive it. But according to wanstronian’s understanding of science, i can’t accept the objective existence of physics because i cannot prove by scientific means the objective existence of physics!

Alot of the time scientists infer the existence of entities with logic before they prove their existence with empiricism, and even then, scientific evidence is provisional.

I wish wanstronian would find something better to do than talk tosh just because he cannot reason properly. He shouldn’t take it out on us.

 

[wanstronian]

Which… Master Newtons or Master Einsteins?

It doesn’t matter.

You really must do better than this…It’s your burden to disprove.

No, it isn’t, because as I said (but you clearly didn’t read), we’re not *trying *to disprove God. We’re just pointing out that there’s no evidence that he exists. If you claim that he does, then it’s your burden of proof. There’s no such thing as a burden of disproof.

Do all of you Atheists need to resort to rude and abusive cheap shots?

Why, because I disagree?

It was an observation. You seem muddled and unclear that you are conjuring up logical fallacies. I believe you need to think about what you post, before you post it.

“The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein

I couldn’t agree more. But a recognition of the facts is not arrogance. And the fact is that there is no evidence for the existence of God. None at all. That’s the position I am holding. It doesn’t make me arrogant because it is true. What is arrogant is to invent ‘proofs’ which rely on bare assertion and logical inconsistencies, then stand by them even when they are refuted again and again.

 

[wanstronian]

Its an absolute fable that empirical science is the absolute standard of reasonable truth.
Outside the qeustion of God there are things that both atheists and theists believe in that are not scientifically proven. The atheists on this thread are being prejudiced of God. Its plain and simple.

There are things in our experiences that imply that there is a God. Some people have experienced divine revelation and miracles. Some people have the intellectual ability to realize that Gods existence follows necessarily from the fact of physical reality.

Before science can be a science, it has to be a philosophy. For instance, We have to assume that the universe objectively exists according to how we perceive it. But according to wanstronian’s understanding of science, i can’t accept the objective existence of physics because i cannot prove by scientific means the objective existence of physics!

Alot of the time scientists infer the existence of entities with logic before they prove their existence with empiricism, and even then, scientific evidence is provisional.

I wish wanstronian would find something better to do than talk tosh just because he cannot reason properly. He shouldn’t take it out on us.

Having read several of your ‘proofs’ for the existence of God on this forum, I really don’t think that you should be accusing me of being unable to reason! They’re full of logical chasms and bald assertions!

If you can refute my statement that there is no evidence for God, then go right ahead. Simply provide some evidence. Proper evidence, not pseudo-logic that has gaps you could drive a truck through.

Go on. Give it your best shot. Then I’ll show you exactly where the flaws lie in your argument.

 

[kimmielittle]

It doesn’t matter.No, it isn’t, because as I said (but you clearly didn’t read), we’re not *trying *to disprove God. We’re just pointing out that there’s no evidence that he exists. If you claim that he does, then it’s your burden of proof. There’s no such thing as a burden of disproof.It was an observation. You seem muddled and unclear that you are conjuring up logical fallacies. I believe you need to think about what you post, before you post it.

I believe, you stray from the Original post

**Evolution and Christianity incompatible! **

 

[wanstronian]

I believe, you stray from the Original post

Ha! I respond to your statement and you berate me for straying from the OP! We both strayed, it didn’t make our discussion invalid.

But we’ll leave it there, as you clearly aren’t compelled to continue.

 

[AlbertBall]

well said wanstronian, u have owned this thread.

 

[kimmielittle]

well said wanstronian, u have owned this thread.

Ya think?

He/she can’t convince a kid:shrug:

How do you figure?

Is arrogance, rudeness, abusiveness ruling?

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi wanstonian,

Well, it’s simple. You believe in an unproven entity that performs impossible acts and you offer no explanation for where this entity comes from or how it performs these acts. Yet you presumably don’t believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which in terms of proper, empirical evidence, is just as likely to exist as God. If you question your religion at all (some do, some don’t) then you continue to hold your religious faith as a result of faulty logic.

I see a number of problems with this. First, what is your concept of “proof”? Do you think that a belief, in order for it to be rationally acceptable, needs some sort of a priori, or analytic proof? Being a materialist, I would assume you wouldn’t. I would assume that you consider a belief to be rationally justified if it has a certain type of supporting “evidence”. This brings me to another question. What is your definition of evidence? It seems like you are employing the stock-standard materialist epistemology whereby the only acceptable evidence that can support a belief is of the empirical kind, i.e. that which can be repeated and objectively assessed. Does this sound pretty much right?

First, I take a much broader definition to what could be considered evidence. I consider evidence to be any fact, or set of facts (by facts I mean well established pieces of information) that make it more likely that a person accept a certain belief, given said person is well informed and their cognitive equipment is working normally. As stated above, you seem to want to limit evidence to only “empirical evidence”, or rather, you consider empirical evidence to be “proper” evidence for a given belief. So, I guess I would ask you, what justification do you have to assess “empirical evidence” to be “proper”? Does this justification consist itself of empirical evidence, or is there some analytic argument for this belief/judgement? If it is the former, then you are trapped in circular reasoning, if it is the latter, well, I’ve never heard of an analytic argument which concludes that empirical evidence is the only “proper” evidence. Maybe you could present one?

Second, you state the God performs “impossible” acts. Do you mean impossible in the broadly logical sense? The concept of God is pretty widely regarded as logically coherent, so do you mean you can provide an argument whereby it is shown that God is logically incoherent? I suppose if you are a materialist God is indeed impossible, but that doesn’t really say much to convince a non-materialist.

Third, we all hold many beliefs which are not assessed by empirical evidence. I believe that other minds exist that function like my own, yet I have no knock down evidence of this that cannot be circumvented by “andriod” type arguments. I believe that the universe existed 5 minutes ago, but I have no empirical evidence that shows that the universe didn’t pop into existence, with our memories and all, a short while ago. I believe I love my wife, but I don’t do experiments to try to gather “empirical evidence” in order to justify this belief. And on and on… Am I irrational for believing such things?

I thought I had responded, by saying that a belief in God, although almost certainly false and certainly without rationality, may have some benefit to the believer in terms of offering comfort in times of hardship.

I find this an interesting statement from someone who appears to adhere to the new atheist ideals. Here you are asserting that belief in God is almost certainly false, that is a positive assertion which needs defence. Usually new atheist types say that they simply lack a belief in God, and stay away from positive assertions like this. Do you have “empirical evidence” which shows that belief in God is almost certainly false?

An explanation of “God made the universe,” however, offers no value at all, because it doesn’t explain when, how, why.

Well it depends what you mean by “value”. As I have stated repeatedly many people find plenty of value in the belief that God created the universe, as you seem to admit above (even if you, rather arrogantly, reduce such value to mere comfort in the face of adversity). Sure, the belief that God created the universe doesn’t allow us to build cars better, predict the orbit of the planets or behaviour of electrons etc. but who cares? Most of what people find meaningful and valuable in this world have nothing to do with the mere mechanics of matter.

It doesn’t explain where God came from.

This shows a lack of understanding, or the refusal to assent to, the common understanding of the Christian God. God is eternal, He created time, transcends it and therefore He didn’t “come” from anywhere, “came” implies change and non-being, which does not exist for a Being which transcends time.

cont…

 

[AndyT_81]

That’s ironic, since all theist ‘proofs’ of God are by definition assertions without proof!

Huh? A proof is by definition an assertion without proof? What are you talking about? It might pay to think more clearly about what you are trying to say, as this kind of sentence comes across as gibberish.

I think the main atheist assertion is “There is no evidence for God,” which is irrefutable.

The assertion “There is no evidence for God” is irrefutable? What is your argument for that? This looks like mere assertion again.

However, it’s important to note that an assertion, the evidence of which is real but just happens to be rejected by theists because it doesn’t support their belief, is not a baseless assertion.

What is the “real” evidence for your claim that the assertion “There is no evidence for God” is irrefutable?

I am prone to bluntness in some of my posts - rarely is it my intent to offend (although there are one or two people on this forum who deserve nothing but ridicule for their ignorant assertions and refusal to accept abundant evidence). Apologies if you were offended.

Not at all, thank you for the kind thought.

 

[AndyT_81]

Sorry, forgot to address this comment:

In my view, we’ll never know the whole truth about everything, but science and not religion, holds the best chance of discovering some of it. This axiom has been proved empirically over the last few centuries, so I see no reason to believe it will change.

Ok, so what you are basically saying here is that science is the best way of discovering truth, and the way we can tell this is via the “empirical” evidence of science success. The problem here though, is that you are arguing in a circle. Science is an endevour which uses empirical data to verify or disconfirm hypotheses about the way things work (notice I didn’t say the way things are). So, the person who wants to equate hypotheses confirmed by the scientific method as truth (i.e. as confirming what really is), must believe that empirical evidence is necessary for the discovery of this truth. However, you then try to argue that the reason we should accept science as the best way of discovering truth, is because it has performed so well in developing things that work. You say this performance is the necessary empirical evidence to show this. So what you are essentially doing is arguing that empirical evidence is the best way of discovering truth (i.e. via the scientific method) by using the empirical evidence of the good performance of science. You’re using “empirical evidence” to show that empirical evidence is necessary for truth. In other words, you are using a circular argument.

The point here is this. The scientific method, with its usage of methodological naturalism, develops models of matter which conform to the way said matter behaves. In science, these models are considered good insofar as they produce results which line up with what happens in controlled experiments to test them (i.e. empirical evidence). They do not go any further then what is required to explain the evidence. The naturalist philosopher then comes along and tries to equate these models with the way things really are, i.e. the truth. However, often their justification for the leap from model to truth is based on the success of science, which is, in effect, a positive result of an experiment on the hypothesis that the scientific method is effective in developing models of the way matter works/behaves. Notice however, that no where is the argument made that said models of matter behaviour are necessarily unique, or that they are the fullest expression of the way things really are. You need something else in order to make the leap from model to truth, and that leap is metaphysical naturalism, a philosophical conjecture, not an expression of empirical evidence.

To try to illustrate, let me pose an example. A scientist says:

“The force of attraction between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them”

A theist may say:

“God, in His infinite wisdom, decided that the force of attraction between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them”

Now, the scientist, in his professional role, does not have anything to say about the additional information regarding God in the statement by the theist. That’s because he is only concerned with developing models of how matter behaves, nothing more. The statement regarding God doesn’t allow him to “do stuff”. However, the second statement may very well be true (of course I believe it is) and therefore a fuller expression of the truth/the way things are than the first statement. Therefore, science and it’s associated empirical evidence, is by no means guaranteed to produce the fullest expressions of truth. In order to say that it is guaranteed, requires one to move beyond the empirical evidence and into metaphysics. If you try to use the fact that science has been successful to prove this, you will again be arguing in a circle (i.e. using empirical evidence to show that empirical evidence is a sure way to truth).

 

[NowAgnostic]

Ok, so what you are basically saying here is that science is the best way of discovering truth, and the way we can tell this is via the “empirical” evidence of science success. The problem here though, is that you are arguing in a circle.

I’ll agree in part and disagree in part. Science is the only way of discovering contingent truth. I am using “science” loosely here to denote a method constituted by observation and inference. Philosophy or metaphysics can’t discover contingent truth, only necessary truth, by a method of deduction from first principles. However, what philosophy can say is that it is a necessary truth that science is the only way of discovering contingent truth. I agree that this statement must come from philosophy not science. The contingent truth that science has been successful is only a result of the contingent truth that the world is such that it will be successful.

The point here is this. The scientific method, with its usage of methodological naturalism, develops models of matter which conform to the way said matter behaves. In science, these models are considered good insofar as they produce results which line up with what happens in controlled experiments to test them (i.e. empirical evidence). They do not go any further then what is required to explain the evidence. The naturalist philosopher then comes along and tries to equate these models with the way things really are, i.e. the truth. However, often their justification for the leap from model to truth is based on the success of science, which is, in effect, a positive result of an experiment on the hypothesis that the scientific method is effective in developing models of the way matter works/behaves. Notice however, that no where is the argument made that said models of matter behaviour are necessarily unique, or that they are the fullest expression of the way things really are.

Again, I’ll agree in part, but science also seeks the most parsimonious model consistent with the evidence, since from induction the most parsimonious model is the most likely to be the correct one. So it’s not a case of willy-nilly selecting anything that works.

You need something else in order to make the leap from model to truth, and that leap is metaphysical naturalism, a philosophical conjecture, not an expression of empirical evidence.

If the science is done properly, the model is very likely to be true, although never 100% because you never arrive at 100% through induction. What you’re trying to say here maybe is that the model is not all of the truth?

To try to illustrate, let me pose an example. A scientist says:

“The force of attraction between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them”

A theist may say:

“God, in His infinite wisdom, decided that the force of attraction between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them”

But you’re not denying the truth of the model, are you? The force of attraction really is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. It might not be the whole truth, but it is still part of it.

Now, the scientist, in his professional role, does not have anything to say about the additional information regarding God in the statement by the theist. That’s because he is only concerned with developing models of how matter behaves, nothing more. The statement regarding God doesn’t allow him to “do stuff”. However, the second statement may very well be true (of course I believe it is) and therefore a fuller expression of the truth/the way things are than the first statement. Therefore, science and it’s associated empirical evidence, is by no means guaranteed to produce the fullest expressions of truth.

Agreed, if philosophy can prove it to be a necessary truth that God exists, and everything that happens must be by His decree. However, philosophy is not going to be able to show it to be a necessary truth that God must create a physical world with an inverse square law of gravity. That’s a contingent truth, and the only way to arrive at it is through science.

In order to say that it is guaranteed, requires one to move beyond the empirical evidence and into metaphysics. If you try to use the fact that science has been successful to prove this, you will again be arguing in a circle (i.e. using empirical evidence to show that empirical evidence is a sure way to truth).

Agreed in part. Science can and does sometimes encroach on metaphysics, but sometimes it’s the other way around as well. The problem as I see it is a failure to distinguish between necessary and contingent truths.

 

[wanstronian]

I see a number of problems with this. First, what is your concept of “proof”? Do you think that a belief, in order for it to be rationally acceptable, needs some sort of a priori, or analytic proof? Being a materialist, I would assume you wouldn’t. I would assume that you consider a belief to be rationally justified if it has a certain type of supporting “evidence”. This brings me to another question. What is your definition of evidence? It seems like you are employing the stock-standard materialist epistemology whereby the only acceptable evidence that can support a belief is of the empirical kind, i.e. that which can be repeated and objectively assessed. Does this sound pretty much right?

First, I take a much broader definition to what could be considered evidence. I consider evidence to be any fact, or set of facts (by facts I mean well established pieces of information) that make it more likely that a person accept a certain belief, given said person is well informed and their cognitive equipment is working normally. As stated above, you seem to want to limit evidence to only “empirical evidence”, or rather, you consider empirical evidence to be “proper” evidence for a given belief. So, I guess I would ask you, what justification do you have to assess “empirical evidence” to be “proper”? Does this justification consist itself of empirical evidence, or is there some analytic argument for this belief/judgement? If it is the former, then you are trapped in circular reasoning, if it is the latter, well, I’ve never heard of an analytic argument which concludes that empirical evidence is the only “proper” evidence. Maybe you could present one?

The level of evidence should be proportional to the scope of the claim. What theists are claiming is, objectively, outrageous. The proof should conform to a principle of “beyond reasonable objective doubt.” The fact is that all evidence put forward by theists is easily debunkable, either by pointing out the logical fallacies of the arguments, or by showing that there are other explanations for the ‘evidence.’

Second, you state the God performs “impossible” acts. Do you mean impossible in the broadly logical sense? The concept of God is pretty widely regarded as logically coherent, so do you mean you can provide an argument whereby it is shown that God is logically incoherent?

I was talking in a general sense about miracles, which by definition are impossible events. Events that would, say, require the suspension of the laws of physics in order to occur.

I suppose if you are a materialist God is indeed impossible, but that doesn’t really say much to convince a non-materialist.

No - it’s fair to say that people who believe in God, believe that God is possible. That doesn’t make such a belief rational.

Third, we all hold many beliefs which are not assessed by empirical evidence. I believe that other minds exist that function like my own, yet I have no knock down evidence of this that cannot be circumvented by “andriod” type arguments. I believe that the universe existed 5 minutes ago, but I have no empirical evidence that shows that the universe didn’t pop into existence, with our memories and all, a short while ago. I believe I love my wife, but I don’t do experiments to try to gather “empirical evidence” in order to justify this belief. And on and on… Am I irrational for believing such things?

No, but you’re comparing something of which we all have experience, and can observe daily, to something on a completely different scale, which we can’t observe daily, and which we don’t all have experience of. Your argument is rather specious.

I find this an interesting statement from someone who appears to adhere to the new atheist ideals.

Can you define ‘New Atheism’ for me? Atheism is a lack of belief in God. How can there be a new version of that?

Here you are asserting that belief in God is almost certainly false, that is a positive assertion which needs defence. Usually new atheist types say that they simply lack a belief in God, and stay away from positive assertions like this. Do you have “empirical evidence” which shows that belief in God is almost certainly false?

I have the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of God. My assertion that he probably doesn’t exist is based on exactly the same principle by which I’m happy to assert that Unicorns probably don’t exist. But I would never say categorically that God doesn’t exist, because there’s no evidence to support such a statement.

Well it depends what you mean by “value”. As I have stated repeatedly many people find plenty of value in the belief that God created the universe, as you seem to admit above (even if you, rather arrogantly, reduce such value to mere comfort in the face of adversity).

I’m not attempting to be arrogant, I can just find no other real value in a belief in God.

Sure, the belief that God created the universe doesn’t allow us to build cars better, predict the orbit of the planets or behaviour of electrons etc. but who cares? Most of what people find meaningful and valuable in this world have nothing to do with the mere mechanics of matter.

Of course. But how much of what you find valuable can be objectively attributed solely to your belief in God? In other words, what does your belief give you, that atheists do not get?

This shows a lack of understanding, or the refusal to assent to, the common understanding of the Christian God. God is eternal, He created time, transcends it and therefore He didn’t “come” from anywhere, “came” implies change and non-being, which does not exist for a Being which transcends time.

Of course I understand these concepts. But they’re just assertion. And assertion without evidence is opinion. The problem is, you’re expressing it as fact.

 

[wanstronian]

Huh? A proof is by definition an assertion without proof? What are you talking about? It might pay to think more clearly about what you are trying to say, as this kind of sentence comes across as gibberish.

That’s not what I said - I was responding to your assertion that atheist comments are all assertion without argumentation. Admittedly I should not have said ‘by definition’ - let me rephrase:
“That’s ironic, since all theist ‘proofs’ of God are in practice assertions without proof!”

The assertion “There is no evidence for God” is irrefutable? What is your argument for that? This looks like mere assertion again.

It’s assertion based on the comprehensive debunking of all and any evidence for God put forward by theists. It’s hardly assertion without merit. If you have **new **evidence for God, let’s hear it and if I can’t show you why it’s wrong, then I’ll retract my statement with apologies.Based on the existing arguments for God (and I should have been clearer about this, apologies), my assertion stands.

What is the “real” evidence for your claim that the assertion “There is no evidence for God” is irrefutable?

Answered above. I will allow that maybe there is some evidence, as yet undiscovered, that will prove the existence of God. However, on current evidence, as I said before, my assertion stands.

 

[wanstronian]

Ok, so what you are basically saying here is that science is the best way of discovering truth, and the way we can tell this is via the “empirical” evidence of science success. The problem here though, is that you are arguing in a circle. Science is an endevour which uses empirical data to verify or disconfirm hypotheses about the way things work (notice I didn’t say the way things are). So, the person who wants to equate hypotheses confirmed by the scientific method as truth (i.e. as confirming what really is), must believe that empirical evidence is necessary for the discovery of this truth. However, you then try to argue that the reason we should accept science as the best way of discovering truth, is because it has performed so well in developing things that work. You say this performance is the necessary empirical evidence to show this. So what you are essentially doing is arguing that empirical evidence is the best way of discovering truth (i.e. via the scientific method) by using the empirical evidence of the good performance of science. You’re using “empirical evidence” to show that empirical evidence is necessary for truth. In other words, you are using a circular argument.

The point here is this. The scientific method, with its usage of methodological naturalism, develops models of matter which conform to the way said matter behaves. In science, these models are considered good insofar as they produce results which line up with what happens in controlled experiments to test them (i.e. empirical evidence). They do not go any further then what is required to explain the evidence. The naturalist philosopher then comes along and tries to equate these models with the way things really are, i.e. the truth. However, often their justification for the leap from model to truth is based on the success of science, which is, in effect, a positive result of an experiment on the hypothesis that the scientific method is effective in developing models of the way matter works/behaves. Notice however, that no where is the argument made that said models of matter behaviour are necessarily unique, or that they are the fullest expression of the way things really are. You need something else in order to make the leap from model to truth, and that leap is metaphysical naturalism, a philosophical conjecture, not an expression of empirical evidence.

To try to illustrate, let me pose an example. A scientist says:

“The force of attraction between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them”

A theist may say:

“God, in His infinite wisdom, decided that the force of attraction between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them”

Now, the scientist, in his professional role, does not have anything to say about the additional information regarding God in the statement by the theist. That’s because he is only concerned with developing models of how matter behaves, nothing more. The statement regarding God doesn’t allow him to “do stuff”. However, the second statement may very well be true (of course I believe it is) and therefore a fuller expression of the truth/the way things are than the first statement. Therefore, science and it’s associated empirical evidence, is by no means guaranteed to produce the fullest expressions of truth. In order to say that it is guaranteed, requires one to move beyond the empirical evidence and into metaphysics. If you try to use the fact that science has been successful to prove this, you will again be arguing in a circle (i.e. using empirical evidence to show that empirical evidence is a sure way to truth).

You’re right - science doesn’t explain, it merely describes. Theology and philosophy explain, but the explanations are nothing more than conjecture and opinion. They hold no weight in the real world. One can’t act on the explanation with an expectation of a certain result. The explanations may ‘sound right’ to the theologist or his/her audience, but that’s as far as it goes in terms of value. You can’t base experiments on this information, there’s no way of showing its truth or falsehood.

In your example, you are adding an unnecessary, unfounded and subjective aspect to what is known. It is mere conjecture that “God decided” this or that. It adds no objective value. We can’t use this information in any meaningful way. It’s entirely spurious.

If I were to say that in fact, “Pixies and elves, in their infinite wisdom, decided that the force of attraction between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them” then my statement has equal weight and credibility to yours. It can neither be proved nor disproved, but in any case adds no value.

Science is not guaranteed to produce the fullest expression of truth (and this is not its aim), but neither does your addition to the statement. It just adds opinion.