@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Smileyrius wrote:
I believe Neo is lending support to the credibility of the testimony that makes up a portion of his evidence.
Would you infer that there is no scientific evidence in support of a creator hypothesis?
Let's say that I dare people to show me any evidence.
Okay...(even from someone who is not religious in any way)...
...I submit the stars, the planets, cats, carrots, golf balls, humans, and anything made of atoms as evidence of a creator.
So...where do we go from there?
Those could all have been created by natural processes requiring no intelligent creator. The fact that we don't understand every bit of it is irrelevant. There is no reason to attribute this to a God rather than natural processes, and you cannot demonstrate in any way at all that a God is more likely.
I am not attributing it to any gods, Brandon.
I am saying that IF there is a creator god (something it seems none of us knows for sure)...
...but IF there is such a god...
...then EVERYTHING here is evidence of that god.
You are dismissing it as "evidence" that a creator god exists because it is NOT PROOF that there is a god.
Stop doing that. It is illogical to do so.
And if my successes in life are the result of aliens in a ship near the solar system intervening on my behalf, then my successes in life are evidence for their existence. However, in fact, my successes in life are not evidence of intervention by kindly aliens.
The existence of the stars, planets, cats etc. are not evidence for the existence of God, because those phenomena do not particularly indicate the existence of a God. They admit other, more mundane explanations. How about giving me some evidence which is more likely to be attributable to a God that to other causes?