God vs Athiesm: Which Is More Rationale?

[Mudda]

There is absolutely no proof of a god. Only faith. There is plenty of scientific theory. And there are plenty of facts that support those positions. Don't believe me? There's this thing called gravity. It has been scientifically proven. Don't believe me? Get in a plane. Go to about 12,000 feet. Jump out without a parachute. See what happens. As you are falling to your certain death, ask your god to save you. See what happens.

Only the uneducated attempt to segregate science and God, the creator of science.

You are the one who is uneducated about science & modern philosophy, and who believes your imagination of "God" has anything to do with science.
.

My God invented science.
A science that says explosions do not evolve into order on their own.

So who invented your god?

Your question validates the limited thinking of atheists.

So you're an atheist? Because you didn't answer my question.

 

[the_human_being]

Actually, I have the intelligence to research both sides of the issue for myself. I've already done it. I'm not interested in your beliefs or lack of beliefs. Why would you presume you matter in the least to me? You are one of the walking dead.

Go ahead, keep deflecting, and continue demonstrating your ignorance and inability to debate.
Just like all religion dogma eaters who can't think for themselves ... rationally.

I will bet you that for nearly forty years before I finally retired, I used far more science and mathematics in my job than you have ever dreamed of. I didn't simply read about it, I made it work in practical applications.

I'll take your bet ... about understanding (NOT!) science. You seem to be ignorant about scientific methods and knowledge. Obviously, your job did not involve science, other than following an engineer/technician "cookbook" derived from scientific research.

Actually, I was an electrical design engineer with a minor in mathematics. My field was instrumentation and process control.

As i predicted.
I won the bet.

But lost your soul





So

The Odds of Life Forming by Chance

Telling that you link to a religious writer rather than a science writer. I hope his theology is better than his science.

At any rate he writes: "Proteins, DNA and RNA are extremely complex organic molecules that are essential for life. These molecules could not have originated through evolution". So he as started with an unsupported assumption and proceeds from there. Not surprising since he is a religious writer and accepts a lot on faith rather than evidence.

He then makes the same error of assumption: "Natural selection requires living cells that are capable of replication, and living cells could not exist until these molecules were already in existence". Cells are incredibly complex assemblages of simpler life forms that took several billion years of evolution. Natural selection really only requires molecular replication and that can be done by simple molecules.

Once he's gone so terribly off the rails, the remainder of his article is just meaningless math.

Actually, I have the intelligence to research both sides of the issue for myself. I've already done it. I'm not interested in your beliefs or lack of beliefs. Why would you presume you matter in the least to me? You are one of the walking dead.

Go ahead, keep deflecting, and continue demonstrating your ignorance and inability to debate.
Just like all religion dogma eaters who can't think for themselves ... rationally.

I will bet you that for nearly forty years before I finally retired, I used far more science and mathematics in my job than you have ever dreamed of. I didn't simply read about it, I made it work in practical applications.

I'll take your bet ... about understanding (NOT!) science. You seem to be ignorant about scientific methods and knowledge. Obviously, your job did not involve science, other than following an engineer/technician "cookbook" derived from scientific research.

Actually, I was an electrical design engineer with a minor in mathematics. My field was instrumentation and process control.

As i predicted.
I won the bet.

 

[PK1]

Go ahead, keep deflecting, and continue demonstrating your ignorance and inability to debate.
Just like all religion dogma eaters who can't think for themselves ... rationally.

I will bet you that for nearly forty years before I finally retired, I used far more science and mathematics in my job than you have ever dreamed of. I didn't simply read about it, I made it work in practical applications.

I'll take your bet ... about understanding (NOT!) science. You seem to be ignorant about scientific methods and knowledge. Obviously, your job did not involve science, other than following an engineer/technician "cookbook" derived from scientific research.

Actually, I was an electrical design engineer with a minor in mathematics. My field was instrumentation and process control.

As i predicted.
I won the bet.

But lost your soul

The religious "soul"?
Another ancient concept for the uneducated, fearful, & dreamers. You should convert to Islam so you can look forward to 72 virgins.

Modern philosophers reject dualism, in light of modern science.
.

 

[Avatar4321]

What's more rational: Walking up to a house and assuming that it just constructed itself by random chance or that someone built it?

Atheism has no basis in reason. Agnosticism, yes. Atheism no. I haven't ever shot a man with a gun. Can I therefore conclude no one has shot a man and that guns dont hurt people? To state that there is no god because I haven't any knowledge of him is the perfect example of logical fallacy. The only way to rationally conclude there is no god is to have all knowledge in the universe. We have to be aware of what's going on everywhere in and out of the universe in all time and out of it. In short, in order to rationally conclude there is no god, you'd have to be god.

But we can know God is real by experimenting on faith. We can see His works, and in some cases see Him and His angels. We can hear His voice. We can feel His power. We can rationally know God through our senses and reason. We cannot know there is no god with them.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I will bet you that for nearly forty years before I finally retired, I used far more science and mathematics in my job than you have ever dreamed of. I didn't simply read about it, I made it work in practical applications.

I'll take your bet ... about understanding (NOT!) science. You seem to be ignorant about scientific methods and knowledge. Obviously, your job did not involve science, other than following an engineer/technician "cookbook" derived from scientific research.

Actually, I was an electrical design engineer with a minor in mathematics. My field was instrumentation and process control.

As i predicted.
I won the bet.

But lost your soul

The religious "soul"?
Another ancient concept for the uneducated, fearful, & dreamers. You should convert to Islam so you can look forward to 72 virgins.

Modern philosophers reject dualism, in light of modern science.
.

Have you ever sinned?
Yes or no, I don't want details.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Where did you get your atoms from?
If the weight of an electron were a trillionth of a percent different the universe would not exist.

Like I said, it is irrational to think explosions evolve into spacecraft. And that's exactly what you're saying, so yes, you have more faith than I.

It a long way from the big bang to spacecraft, but we have natural explanations for each step. What is your rational alternative? And if you say "God did it" please offer a rational explanation as to how he did it.

Anyone believing spaceships naturally evolve out of explosions has more faith than I.
Congrats.

 

[Weatherman2020]

How bacterial flagellum moves around.
Engineering marvel.

 

[PK1]

I'll take your bet ... about understanding (NOT!) science. You seem to be ignorant about scientific methods and knowledge. Obviously, your job did not involve science, other than following an engineer/technician "cookbook" derived from scientific research.

Actually, I was an electrical design engineer with a minor in mathematics. My field was instrumentation and process control.

As i predicted.
I won the bet.

But lost your soul

The religious "soul"?
Another ancient concept for the uneducated, fearful, & dreamers. You should convert to Islam so you can look forward to 72 virgins.

Modern philosophers reject dualism, in light of modern science.

Have you ever sinned?
Yes or no, I don't want details.

Of course not.
I may be an agnostic, but when considering primitive Abrahamic religions & their stupid dogma, i can only shake my head at those who actually believe in "original sin" or any of its man-made variants.
.

 

[alang1216]

It a long way from the big bang to spacecraft, but we have natural explanations for each step. What is your rational alternative? And if you say "God did it" please offer a rational explanation as to how he did it.

Anyone believing spaceships naturally evolve out of explosions has more faith than I.
Congrats.

What step in the process don't you accept?

My faith lies in the scientific method.

 

[alang1216]

How bacterial flagellum moves around.
Engineering marvel.

True enough but there is only a minor molecular difference between flagellum that move and those that don't move, they are missing a molecule that locks the structure in place. That minor difference arose by chance but gave the organism a competitive advantage over bacteria that didn't have them. That is how evolution works and it accounts for every feature of every organism.

 

[alang1216]

So

The Odds of Life Forming by Chance

Telling that you link to a religious writer rather than a science writer. I hope his theology is better than his science.

At any rate he writes: "Proteins, DNA and RNA are extremely complex organic molecules that are essential for life. These molecules could not have originated through evolution". So he as started with an unsupported assumption and proceeds from there. Not surprising since he is a religious writer and accepts a lot on faith rather than evidence.

He then makes the same error of assumption: "Natural selection requires living cells that are capable of replication, and living cells could not exist until these molecules were already in existence". Cells are incredibly complex assemblages of simpler life forms that took several billion years of evolution. Natural selection really only requires molecular replication and that can be done by simple molecules.

Once he's gone so terribly off the rails, the remainder of his article is just meaningless math.

So? So it doesn't matter that he misrepresented the facts so long as he supported your position?

 

[Weatherman2020]

How bacterial flagellum moves around.
Engineering marvel.

True enough but there is only a minor molecular difference between flagellum that move and those that don't move, they are missing a molecule that locks the structure in place. That minor difference arose by chance but gave the organism a competitive advantage over bacteria that didn't have them. That is how evolution works and it accounts for every feature of every organism.

You fail to understand.
Without one of those components listed, without each one working perfectly, the entire mechanism cannot function.
Today we design advanced machines with that same exact design.
To believe mere chance of an explosion creating an advanced design?
You have more faith than I.

 

[Weatherman2020]

It a long way from the big bang to spacecraft, but we have natural explanations for each step. What is your rational alternative? And if you say "God did it" please offer a rational explanation as to how he did it.

Anyone believing spaceships naturally evolve out of explosions has more faith than I.
Congrats.

What step in the process don't you accept?

My faith lies in the scientific method.

Intersting. Do you blow things up to see what machines you can create?
Explain music from an evolutionary position.
Explain staring at a sunset from an evolutionary position.

 

[alang1216]

You fail to understand.
Without one of those components listed, without each one working perfectly, the entire mechanism cannot function.
Today we design advanced machines with that same exact design.
To believe mere chance of an explosion creating an advanced design?
You have more faith than I.

What you fail to understand is that minor changes, each providing even a small survival advantage, add up to new functions. It was similar minor molecular changes that led to the original, non-rotating structure.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You fail to understand.
Without one of those components listed, without each one working perfectly, the entire mechanism cannot function.
Today we design advanced machines with that same exact design.
To believe mere chance of an explosion creating an advanced design?
You have more faith than I.

What you fail to understand is that minor changes, each providing even a small survival advantage, add up to new functions. It was similar minor molecular changes that led to the original, non-rotating structure.

You fail to understand rocks don't eventually start posting on an Internet they created.

 

[alang1216]

Explain music from an evolutionary position.
Explain staring at a sunset from an evolutionary position.

There are theories. Can you explain them from a creationist position?

 

[alang1216]

You fail to understand rocks don't eventually start posting on an Internet they created.

Why do you believe that? Faith or facts?

BTW, isn't that exactly what happened in Genesis? How did God accomplish that? If you don't know how he did it why do you say you know how he didn't do it?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Explain music from an evolutionary position.
Explain staring at a sunset from an evolutionary position.

There are theories. Can you explain them from a creationist position?

A world rife with contradictions? I've yet to observe one contradiction in my life in a modern world. Yet people who have never seen a light bulb also love music as I do.

You didn't answer why a sunset can stop people in their tracks and make them stare at it.

Yes, I can explain music and beauty from a creation standpoint. We are created in Gods image meaning we enjoy the things God does.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You fail to understand rocks don't eventually start posting on an Internet they created.

Why do you believe that? Faith or facts?

BTW, isn't that exactly what happened in Genesis? How did God accomplish that? If you don't know how he did it why do you say you know how he didn't do it?

If you add a creator.
I have zero belief the rocks on my ranch will be alive someday.

 

[alang1216]

We are created in Gods image meaning we enjoy the things God does.

Wow, you know what God enjoys? Does he like all music or just Country?