The Top Ten Reasons....

[Igakusei]

I'm reposting this from Greta Christina's blog, and I'll post a link to the source at the bottom. Perhaps someday I will write my own list, but for now I think it's written more eloquently than I can and I couldn't find any that I disagreed with.

1: The consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones.

When you look at the history of what we know about the world, you see a very noticeable pattern. Natural explanations of things have been replacing supernatural explanations of them. Like a steamroller.

Why the sun rises and sets. Where thunder and lightning come from. Why people get sick. Why people look like their parents. How the complexity of life came into being. I could go on and on.

All of these things were once explained by religion. But as we understood the world better, and learned to observe it more carefully, the religious explanations were replaced by physical cause and effect. Consistently. Thoroughly. Like a steamroller. The number of times that a supernatural or religious explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a natural explanation? Thousands upon thousands upon thousands.

Now. The number of times that a natural explanation of a phenomenon has been replaced by a supernatural or religious one? The number of times humankind has said, "We used to think (X) was caused by physical cause and effect, but now we understand that it's actually caused by God, or spirits, or demons, or the soul"?

Exactly zero.

Sure, people come up with new supernatural explanations for stuff all the time. But explanations with evidence? Replicable evidence? Carefully gathered, patiently tested, rigorously reviewed evidence? Internally consistent evidence? Large amounts of it, from many different sources?

Again -- exactly zero.

Given that this is true, what are the chances that any given phenomenon for which we currently don't have a thorough explanation -- human consciousness, for instance, or the origin of the universe -- will be best explained by the supernatural?

Given this pattern, it seems clear that the chances of this are essentially zero. So close to zero that they might as well be zero. And the hypothesis of the supernatural is therefore a hypothesis we can comfortably discard. It is a hypothesis we came up with when we didn't understand the world as well as we do now... but that, on more careful examination, has never -- not once -- been shown to be correct.

If I see any solid evidence to support a religious or supernatural explanation of a phenomenon, I'll reconsider my disbelief. Until then, I'll assume that the mind-bogglingly consistent pattern of natural explanations replacing supernatural ones is almost certain to continue.

more on this

2: The inconsistency of world religions.

If God (or any other metaphysical being or beings) were real, and people were really perceiving him/ her/ it/ them, why do those perceptions differ so wildly?

When different people look at, say, a tree, we more or less agree about what we're looking at: what size it is, what shape, whether it currently has leaves or not and what color those leaves are, etc. We may have disagreements regarding the tree -- what other plants it's most closely related to, where it stands in the evolutionary tree, should it be cut down to make way for a new sports stadium, etc. But unless one of us is hallucinating or deranged or literally unable to see, we can all agree on the tree's basic existence, and the basic facts about it.

This is blatantly not the case for God. Even among people who do believe in God, there is no agreement whatsoever as to what God is, what God does, what God wants from us, how he acts or does not act upon the world, whether he's a he, whether there's one or more of him, whether he's a personal being or a diffuse metaphysical substance. And this is among smart, thoughtful, sane people. What's more, many smart, thoughtful, sane people don't even think that God exists... and the number of those people is going up all the time.

And if God existed, he'd be a whole lot bigger, a whole lot more powerful, with a whole lot more effect in the world, than a tree. Why is it that we can all see a tree in more or less the same way, but we don't see God in even remotely the same way whatsoever?

The explanation, of course, is that God does not really exist. We disagree so radically over what he is because we aren't actually perceiving anything that's real. We're "perceiving" something we made up; something we were taught to believe; something that the part of our brains that's wired to see pattern and intention (even when none exists) is wired to see and believe.

more

still more

3: The weakness of religious arguments, explanations, and apologetics.

I have seen a lot of arguments for the existence of God. And they all boil down to one or more of the following:

The argument from authority. (Example: "God exists because the Bible says God exists.")

The argument from personal experience. (Example: "God exists because I feel in my heart that God exists.")

The argument that religion shouldn't have to logically defend its claims. (Example: "God is an entity that cannot be proven by reason or evidence.")

Or the redefining of God into an abstract principle -- so abstract that it can't be argued against, but also so abstract that it scarcely deserves the name God. (Example: "God is love.")

And all these arguments are incredibly weak.

Sacred books and authorities can be mistaken. I have yet to see a sacred book that doesn't have any mistakes. (The Bible, for just one example, is shot full of them.) And the feelings in people's hearts can definitely be mistaken. They are mistaken, demonstrably so, much of the time. Instinct and intuition play an important part of human understanding and experience... but they should never be treated as the final word on a subject.

I mean, if I told you, "The tree in front of my house is 500 feet tall with hot pink leaves," and offered as a defense, "I know this is true because my mother/ preacher/ sacred book tells me so"... or "I know this is true because I feel it in my heart"... would you take me seriously?

Some people do still try to point to evidence in the world that God exists. But that evidence is inevitably terrible. Pointing to the perfection of the Bible as a historical and prophetic document, for instance, when it so blatantly is nothing of the kind. Or pointing to the complexity of life and the world and insisting that it must have been designed... when the sciences of biology and geology and such have provided far, far better explanations for what looks, at first glance, like design.

As to the "We don't got to show you no stinking reason or evidence" argument... that's just conceding the game before you've even begun. It's basically saying, "I know I can't make my case, therefore I'm going to concentrate my arguments on why I don't have to make my case in the first place." It's like a defense lawyer who knows their client is guilty, and thus tries to get the case thrown out on a technicality.

Ditto with the "redefining God out of existence" argument. If what you believe in isn't a supernatural being(s) or substance(s) that currently has, or at one time had, some sort of effect on the world... well, your philosophy might be a dandy and clever one, but it is not, by any useful definition of the word, religion.

Again: If I tried to argue, "The tree in front of my house is 500 feet tall with hot pink leaves -- and the height and color of trees is a question that is best answered with personal faith and feeling, not with reason or evidence"... or, "I know this is true because I am defining '500 feet tall and hot pink' as the essential nature of tree-ness, regardless of its outward appearance"... would you take me seriously?

more

still more

still more pt 2

even more

4: The increasing diminishment of God.

This is closely related to #1 (the consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones); but I think it's different enough to deserve its own number.

When you look at the history of religion, you see that the perceived power of God himself, among believers themselves, has been diminishing. As our understanding of the natural, physical world has increased -- and our ability to test theories and claims has improved -- the domain of God's miracles (or other purported supernatural/ metaphysical phenomena) has consistently shifted, away from the phenomena that are now understood as physical cause and effect, and onto the increasingly shrinking area of phenomena that we still don't understand.

Examples: We stopped needing God to explain floods, but we still needed him to explain sickness and health. Then we didn't need him to explain sickness and health any more... but we still needed him to explain consciousness. Now we're beginning to get a grip on consciousness, so we'll soon need God to explain... what, exactly?

Or, as Ebon Muse so eloquently put it, ""Where the Bible tells us God once shaped worlds out of the void and parted great seas with the power of his word, today his most impressive acts seem to be shaping sticky buns into the likenesses of saints and conferring vaguely-defined warm feelings on his believers' hearts when they attend church."

This is what atheists call the "God of the gaps." Whatever gap there is in our understanding of the world, that's what God is responsible for. Wherever the empty spaces are in our coloring book, that's what gets filled in with the blue crayon called God.

But the blue crayon is worn down to a nub. And it's never proven to be the right color. And over and over again, throughout history, we have had to go to great trouble to scrape the blue crayon out of people's minds and replace it with the right color. Given this pattern, doesn't it seem that we should stop reaching for the blue crayon every time we see an empty space in the coloring book?

more on this

even more on this

5: The fact that religion runs in families.

Here's what I mean by this one. The single strongest factor in determining what religion a person is? It's what religion they were brought up with. By far.

Very, very few people carefully examine all the religious beliefs currently being followed -- or even some of those beliefs -- and select the one they think most accurately describes the world. Overwhelmingly, people believe whatever religion they were taught as children.

Now, we don't do this with, for instance, science. We don't hold on to the Steady State theory of the universe, or geocentrism, or the four bodily humours theory of illness, simply because it's what we were taught as children. We believe whatever scientific understanding is best supported by the best available evidence at the time. And if the evidence changes, the understanding changes. (Unless, of course, it's a scientific understanding that our religion teaches is wrong...)

Even political opinions don't run in families as stubbornly as religion. Witness the opinion polls that consistently show support of same-sex marriage increasing with each younger generation. Even political beliefs learned from youth can and do break down in the face of the reality that people see and live with every day. And scientific theories absolutely do this, all the time, on a regular basis.

Once again, this leads me to the conclusion that religion is not a perception of a real entity. If it were, people wouldn't just believe whatever religious belief they were taught as children, simply because it was what they were taught as children. The fact that religion runs so firmly in families strongly suggests that it is not a perception of anything real. It is a dogma, supported and perpetuated by tradition and social pressure -- and in many cases, by fear and intimidation. Not by reality.

6: The physical causes of everything we think of as the soul.

[igakusei: This probably applies less to SDAs than some of the others do]

The science of neuropsychology is still very much in its infancy. But there are a few things that we know about it. And one of the things we know is that everything we think of as the soul -- consciousness, identity, character, free will -- all of that is powerfully affected by physical changes to the brain and body. Drugs and medicines, injury, illness, sleep deprivation, etc.... all of these can make changes to the "soul." In some cases, they can make changes so drastic, they render a person's personality and character completely unrecognizable.

And death, of course, is a physical change that renders a person's personality and character, not only unrecognizable, but non-existent.

So given that this is true, doesn't it seem far more likely that consciousness and identity, character and free will, are some sort of product of the physical brain and body?

7: The complete failure of any sort of supernatural phenomenon to stand up to rigorous testing.

Not all religious and spiritual beliefs make testable claims. But some of them do. And in the face of actual testing, every one of those claims falls apart like Kleenex in a hurricane.

Whether it's the power of prayer, or faith healing, or astrology, or life after death: the same pattern is consistently seen. Whenever religious and supernatural beliefs have made testable claims, and those claims have been tested -- not half-assedly tested, but really tested, using careful, rigorous, double-blind, placebo- controlled, replicated, etc. etc. etc. testing methods -- the claims have consistently fallen apart.

I'm not going to cite every one of these tests, or even most of them. This piece is already ridiculously long as it is. Instead, I'll encourage you to spend a little time on the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and Skeptical Inquirer websites. You'll see a pattern so consistent it boggles the mind: Claimants insist that Supernatural Claim X is real. Supernatural Claim X is subjected to careful testing, applying the standard scientific methods commonly used to screen out both bias and fraud. Supernatural Claim X is found to hold about as much water as a sieve.

(And claimants, having agreed beforehand that the testing method is valid, afterwards insist that it wasn't fair.)

And don't say, "Oh, the testers were biased." That's the great thing about the scientific method. It is designed to screen out bias, as much as is humanly possible. When done right, it will give you the right answer, regardless of the bias of the people doing the testing.

Plus, here's a point that defenders of the supernatural never effectively address when they accuse scientists of anti-religion bias: In the early days of science and the scientific method, most scientists did believe in God, and the soul, and the metaphysical. In fact, many early science experiments were attempts to prove the existence of these things, and discover their true natures, and resolve the squabbles about them once and for all. (Not God so much, but the soul and the supernatural.) It was only after decades upon decades of these experiments failing to turn up anything at all that the scientific community began -- gradually, and painfully -- to give up on the idea.

Supernatural claims only hold up under careless, casual examination. They are supported by confirmation bias (i.e., our tendency to overemphasize evidence that supports what we believe and discard evidence that contradicts it), and wishful thinking, and our poor understanding and instincts when it comes to probability, and our tendency to see pattern and intention even when none exists, and a dozen other forms of weird human brain wiring. When studied carefully under conditions specifically designed to screen these things out, they vanish like the insubstantial imaginings that they are.

With any other phenomenon, if we can show that physical forces and actions produce observable effects, we think of that as a physical phenomenon. Why should the soul be any different? Whatever consciousness and selfhood and the rest of it turn out to be, doesn't it seem overwhelmingly likely that they are, in some way, a biological process, governed by laws of physical cause and effect?

8: The slipperiness of religious and spiritual beliefs.

Not all religious and spiritual beliefs make testable claims. Many of them have a more "saved if we do, saved if we don't" quality. If things go the believer's way, it's a sign of God's grace and intervention; if they don't, then, well, God moves in mysterious ways, and maybe he has a lesson to teach that we don't understand, and it's not up to us to question his will. That sort of thing. No matter what happens, it can be twisted around to prove that the belief is right.

That is a sure sign of a bad, bad argument.

Here's the thing. It is a well-established principle in the philosophy of science that, if a theory can be supported no matter what possible evidence comes down the pike, it is a completely useless theory. It has no power to explain what's already happened, or predict what will happen in the future. The theory of gravity, for instance, could be disproven by things suddenly falling up; the theory of evolution could be disproven by finding rabbits in the pre-Cambrian fossil layer. These theories predict that these things will not happen; if they do, then the theories go poof. But if your theory of God's existence holds up no matter what happens -- whether your friend with cancer gets better or dies, whether natural disasters strike big sinful cities or small God-fearing towns -- then it is an utterly useless theory, with no power to either predict or explain anything.

What's more, when atheists challenge theists on their beliefs, the theists' arguments shift and slip around in an unbelievably annoying "moving the goalposts" way. Hard-line fundamentalists, for instance, will insist on the unchangeable perfect truth of the Bible; but when challenged on its specific historical/ scientific errors and moral atrocities, they insist that you're not interpreting those passages correctly. (If the book needs interpreting, then how perfect can it be?)

And progressive ecumenical believers can be unbelievably slippery on the subject of what they really do and do not believe. Is God real, or a metaphor? Does God intervene in the world, or doesn't he? Do they actually even believe in God, or do they just choose to act is if they believe in God because they find it useful? Debating with a progressive believer is like wrestling with a fish: the arguments aren't very powerful, but they don't give you anything firm to grab onto.

Once again, that's a sure sign of a bad, bad argument. If you can't just make your case and then stick by it, or genuinely modify it, or let it go... then you don't have a very good case. (And if you're making any version of the "Shut up, that's why" argument -- arguing that it's rude and intolerant to question religious beliefs, or that letting go of doubts and questions about faith makes you a better person, or that doubting faith will get you tortured in Hell forever, or any of the other classic arguments intended to silence the debate rather than address it -- then that's a sure sign that your argument is totally in the toilet.)

9: The failure of religion to improve or clarify over time.

Over the years and decades and centuries, our understanding of the physical world has grown and clarified by a ridiculous amount. We understand things about the world and the universe that we couldn't even have imagined a thousand years ago, or a hundred, or even ten. Things that make your mouth gape open with astonishment and wonder just to think about.

And the reason for this is that we came up with a really good method for sorting out the good ideas from the bad ones, the more accurate theories from the less accurate ones. We came up with the scientific method: a self-correcting method for understanding the physical world, which -- over time, and with the many fits and starts and setbacks that accompany any human endeavor -- has done, and continues to do, an astonishingly good job of helping us perceive and understand the world, predict it and shape it, in ways we could not have possibly imagined a thousand, or a hundred, or even ten years ago.

(And the scientific method itself is self-correcting. Not only has our understanding of the world improved by ridiculous leaps and bounds; our method for understanding it is improving as well.)

But our understanding of the metaphysical world?

Not so much.

Our understanding of the metaphysical world is exactly in the place it's always been: hundreds and indeed thousands of sects, squabbling over which sacred text and which set of spiritual intuitions is the right one. We haven't come to any sort of consensus about which sect has a more accurate conception of the metaphysical world. We haven't even come up with a method of deciding which sect has a more accurate conception of the metaphysical world. All anyone can do is point to their own sacred text and their own spiritual intuition. And around in the squabbling circle we go.

All of which clearly points to religion, not as a perception of a real being or substance, but as an idea we made up and are clinging to. If religion were a perception of a real being or substance, our understanding of it would be sharpening, clarifying, being refined. We would have improved prayer techniques, more accurate prophecies, something. Anything but people squabbling with greater or lesser degrees of rancor, and nothing to actually back up their belief.

10: The complete and utter lack of solid evidence for God's existence.

This is probably the best argument I have against God's existence:

There's just no evidence for it.

No good evidence, anyway. No evidence that doesn't just amount to opinion and tradition and confirmation bias and all the other stuff I've been talking about for the last two days.

And in a perfect world, that should have been the only argument I needed. In a perfect world, I shouldn't have had to spend the last month and a half collating and summarizing the reasons I don't believe in God, any more than I would have for Zeus or Quetzalcoatl or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

As thousands of atheists before me have pointed out: It is not up to us to prove that God does not exist. It is up to theists to prove that he does.

In a comment on this blog, arensb made a point on this topic that was so ridiculously insightful, I'm still smacking myself on the head for not having thought of it myself. I was writing about how theists get upset at atheists for rejecting religion after hearing 876,362 arguments for it, saying, "But you haven't considered Argument #876,363! How can you be so close-minded?" And here's what arensb said:

"If, in fact, it turns out that argument #876,364 is the one that will convince you, WTF didn't the apologists put it in the top 10?"

Why, indeed?

If there's an argument for religion that's convincing -- actually convincing, convincing by means of something other than authority/ tradition, personal intuition, confirmation bias, fear and intimidation, wishful thinking, or some combination of the above -- wouldn't we all know about it?

Wouldn't it have spread like wildfire? Wouldn't it be the Meme of All Memes? I mean, we all saw that video of the cat trying to wake its owner up within about two weeks of it hitting the Internet. Don't you think that the Truly Excellent Argument/ Evidence for God's Existence would have spread even faster, and wider, than some silly cartoon video?

If the arguments for religion are so wonderful, why are they so unconvincing to anyone who doesn't already believe?

And why does God need arguments, anyway? Why does God need people to make his arguments for him? Why can't he just reveal his true self, clearly and unequivocally, and settle the question once and for all? If God existed, why wouldn't it just be obvious? (See #2 above, in yesterday's post.)

It is not up to us to prove that God does not exist. It is up to theists to prove that he does. And in the absence of any genuinely good, solid evidence or arguments in favor of God's existence -- and in the presence of a whole lot of very solid arguments against it -- I am going to continue to hold the null hypothesis of atheism: that God almost certainly does not exist, and that it is completely reasonable to act as if he does not exist.

So. What do you all think? Atheists -- are there arguments against God's existence that you think are more convincing than these? And theists -- do you have any thoughts on these arguments? I don't promise to debate every one of you ad infinitum, or indeed any one of you; but I'm curious to hear what you have to say.

-Greta Christina

I know it's very long, but hopefully some of these points will produce some reasonable discussion. I'm posting this partially in response to comments I've received lately that atheists are simply "mad at God," when the most cursory investigation into why we think the things we think reveals that to be a rather silly assertion.

[skyblue888]

The beating heart is to me the most convincing proof that God not only exists but that He is the life of everything that lives.

sky

[Igakusei]

The beating heart is to me the most convincing proof that God not only exists but that He is the life of everything that lives.

sky

How so?

[Guest]

Hi there Igakusei, long time no see.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

The beating heart is to me the most convincing proof that God not only exists but that He is the life of everything that lives.

sky

How so?

The heart is a muscle. When you and I were in high school we were told by our biology teachers that the heart is an "involuntary" muscle because it beats independently of our will. Yet a muscle cannot contract once without a command. There are more than 500 muscles in the human body and they cannot contract once without a command of the will and yet the heart contracts independently of our will.

The heart does not beat by my will or your will. While we sleep we are unconscious and yet the heart keeps on beating and we continue to breathe independently of our will.

There is another will that makes the heart beat and that can only be the will of Him who created us. This is in harmony with the teachings of Holy Writ: "In Him we live and move and have our being." Acts 17:28.

Therefore all created beings live by the will and power of God.

Ellen White beautifully expressed this fact in these words:

"The beating heart, the throbbing pulse, every nerve and muscle in the living organism is kept in order and activity by the power of an ever-present God... The heart beats, pulse succeeds pulse, breath succeeds breath, but the entire being is under the supersivion of God."

Back to you.

sky

[Igakusei]

Your biology teacher got a few things wrong. The heart receives plenty of signals. Signals from other parts of itself, from endocrine glands, and from both branches of your autonomic nervous system.

The autonomic nervous system is called autonomic because it functions autonomously; that is, independent of your conscious desires.

When babies are born with defects in these systems, their hearts do not regulate themselves properly and death always follows without modern medical intervention. They also wear out over time, and are sometimes damaged by things like heart attacks.

When these patients must undergo surgery to have artificial pacemakers installed, does it mean that God has abandoned them?

Your argument here is essentially a "God of the gaps" argument, which is specifically what is addressed in Greta's first point. Unfortunately, this one isn't even a "gap" as we know in rather significant detail how the heart is regulated.

[Igakusei]

Hi there Igakusei, long time no see.

Hey, I've been busy adjusting to the new school year :)

[skyblue888]

You say that the heart receives signals from other parts of the body but who is in control of these other parts? By stating that these other parts are responsible for the heart beat, without God, are you not deifying nature?

sky

[Igakusei]

You say that the heart receives signals from other parts of the body but who is in control of these other parts? By stating that these other parts are responsible for the heart beat, without God, are you not deifying nature?

sky

Certainly not. Just because you aren't consciously supplying the will to speed your heart up or slow it doesn't doesn't mean that mindless chemical reactions in your brain aren't doing it for you. Evolution explains the complexity of the reactions, so you can't go there either. Your entire argument is the basis of her very first point. Did you bother to read it?

[skyblue888]

I read over it yes.

Think about that:

The blood contains these wonderful living cells that you see. The red cells simply carry in the oxygen, and carry out the carbonic gases; that is about all that they do. But the white cells have a more wonderful faculty and power. It is their duty to travel through the body, creeping into every nook and cranny, getting into every minute crevice and corner, where they are actively engaged in removing everything that does not belong there. They have a wonderful intelligence; but their movements are not directed by our will. These little cells find something in the body that does not belong there, and they really swallow that thing up. What makes these cells move about in this way and perform their functions? There is a power there which is none other than the power of God.

"For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse." Rom.1:20.

sky

[Igakusei]

I'm not going to bother describing in great detail the chemical mechanisms that control that behavior, but rest assured that your (or whoever is writing these miniature devotionals) failure to understand human physiology does not mean that it's all being orchestrated by some supernatural force.

It's even worse than "God of the gaps," since the gaps you're trying to insert God into aren't even gaps.

If God really is controlling the behavior of white cells directly, it means that anyone with an autoimmune disease is being attacked, directly, by God.

Think about it.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: skyblue888

You say that the heart receives signals from other parts of the body but who is in control of these other parts? By stating that these other parts are responsible for the heart beat, without God, are you not deifying nature?

sky

Certainly not. Just because you aren't consciously supplying the will to speed your heart up or slow it doesn't doesn't mean that mindless chemical reactions in your brain aren't doing it for you. Evolution explains the complexity of the reactions, so you can't go there either. Your entire argument is the basis of her very first point. Did you bother to read it?

It's actually not true that you cannot consciously supply the will to speed up or slow down your heart...

And, while true the heart receives all these many signals from the body in various forms; the heart does beat "independantly" in the sense of it's very unique "purkinge fibres."

At any rate; correcting someone about how the heart beats proves nothing about your 10 accusations against christianity or the Bible.

[Overaged]

Certainly not. Just because you aren't consciously supplying the will to speed your heart up or slow it doesn't doesn't mean that mindless chemical reactions in your brain aren't doing it for you. Evolution explains the complexity of the reactions, so you can't go there either. Your entire argument is the basis of her very first point. Did you bother to read it?

These chemicles are not "mindless"

[Overaged]

You say that the heart receives signals from other parts of the body but who is in control of these other parts? By stating that these other parts are responsible for the heart beat, without God, are you not deifying nature?

sky

God is in control. Always has been, always will be.

[Igakusei]

My point was that living organisms are completely self-sustaining for the duration of their lifespan. There is absolutely no evidence that constant direct action from some unexplainable supernatural force is required to maintain life.

[Neil D]

My point was that living organisms are completely self-sustaining for the duration of their lifespan. There is absolutely no evidence that constant direct action from some unexplainable supernatural force is required to maintain life.

That arguement alone speaks for the existance of God. Since when is God the god of constant direct action? Why not, instead, is He the Creator of life? Self-sustaining life?

I know the counter arguement- If He is the creator of self-sustaining life, why is not there more population on this planet with an age that is greater than six score and ten?

Because there is another power in the universe that is counter to life. And he is a person to be reckoned with as well. When you deny life, you encourage death. Is that not also true as well?

One more evidence that God creates life that we do not seem to see.....Catapillars changing into butterflies....Can you explain the changing of one form into another thru chemical processes in the chrysalis? I am not sure if science has been able to do that....yet...smile

[Igakusei]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

My point was that living organisms are completely self-sustaining for the duration of their lifespan. There is absolutely no evidence that constant direct action from some unexplainable supernatural force is required to maintain life.

That arguement alone speaks for the existance of God. Since when is God the god of constant direct action? Why not, instead, is He the Creator of life? Self-sustaining life?

I know the counter arguement- If He is the creator of self-sustaining life, why is not there more population on this planet with an age that is greater than six score and ten?

Because there is another power in the universe that is counter to life. And he is a person to be reckoned with as well. When you deny life, you encourage death. Is that not also true as well?

One more evidence that God creates life that we do not seem to see.....Catapillars changing into butterflies....Can you explain the changing of one form into another thru chemical processes in the chrysalis? I am not sure if science has been able to do that....yet...smile

What's with these arguments? Did you even read point number one in the OP? People used to think that God guided the formation of babies in the womb, but then we discovered things like DNA crossover and the self-regulating chemical cascades that control embryogenesis.

When I point these things out you immediately retreat to the assumption that someone must have created that self-regulating chemistry, but again there's no evidence that it had to have been specially designed. The magnitude of evidence is that life inevitably evolves complexity (even so-called irreducible complexity).

[Overaged]

What's with these arguments? Did you even read point number one in the OP?

I think you need to allow a little more latitude here; your OP was a very very long post and it should not be surprising that people either miss or forget some detals about it.

Some of the physiological facts and processes that you are talking about are truly amazing, and very interesting. In and of themselves, they would not conclusively prove evolution or ID; however, when coupled with other evidence, from other fields of knowledge; I think this changes a lot.

[Overaged]

when I point these things out you immediately retreat to the assumption that someone must have created that self-regulating chemistry, but again there's no evidence that it had to have been specially designed. The magnitude of evidence is that life inevitably evolves complexity (even so-called irreducible complexity).

"self-regulating" chemistry, meaning what? Are you talking about homeostasis as in the whole system; or in other individual processes?

There is certainly even less evidence of same "evolving."

[Igakusei]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

What's with these arguments? Did you even read point number one in the OP?

I think you need to allow a little more latitude here; your OP was a very very long post and it should not be surprising that people either miss or forget some detals about it.

Some of the physiological facts and processes that you are talking about are truly amazing, and very interesting. In and of themselves, they would not conclusively prove evolution or ID; however, when coupled with other evidence, from other fields of knowledge; I think this changes a lot.

Well, you're certainly welcome to draw your own conclusions. Speaking only for myself, I have found the evidence for evolution convincing and the arguments from ID flawed and often dishonest. I'd prefer this thread not get derailed in this direction though, since there's an entire forum for that and I've already gone down that road with most of the people here that are willing to do it.

[Neil D]

What's with these arguments? Did you even read point number one in the OP? People used to think that God guided the formation of babies in the womb, but then we discovered things like DNA crossover and the self-regulating chemical cascades that control embryogenesis.

[Overaged]

My point was that living organisms are completely self-sustaining for the duration of their lifespan. There is absolutely no evidence that constant direct action from some unexplainable supernatural force is required to maintain life.

I find this idea really hard to believe or understand.

If you could take all the "self-sustaining" elements that it takes to make a human being, and mix em all up in a jar, you still would not get a living organism...you still would not be able to create life. Something else is needed to make it alive; and that something else will always fail in the test tube...growing something from small cells doesn't make for a created life either.

[Overaged]

.Again, showing that the Designer of Life, is far more complex in His designing than we reduce Him to be....

nd while "God" may be 3 letters in length, it is still a big word.

[Igakusei]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

My point was that living organisms are completely self-sustaining for the duration of their lifespan. There is absolutely no evidence that constant direct action from some unexplainable supernatural force is required to maintain life.

I find this idea really hard to believe or understand.

If you could take all the "self-sustaining" elements that it takes to make a human being, and mix em all up in a jar, you still would not get a living organism...you still would not be able to create life. Something else is needed to make it alive; and that something else will always fail in the test tube...growing something from small cells doesn't make for a created life either.

My body is only self-sustaining because all of the proteins that make my body function are in their correct locations (and yes, there are well-known mechanisms that relegate each protein to its required place. These evolved too). If you "mixed me up in a jar," you would destroy this organization and I would cease to exist as a living entity. There's still no magical force.

I'm nothing more than a chemical reaction chamber. At some point in the future I'll accrue enough damage that the reactions stop propagating and I'll die.

[Igakusei]

Where you see a lack of evidence, I do see evidence of design. Just because we place our faith in those who are able to explain these things doesn't mean that they are not designed. The complexity of this world is not explained thru the simplicity of evolution. Look, you yourself said- "there's no evidence that it had to have been 'specifically' designed." Even your statement is NOT absolute...Even you reluctantly admit, that there are specific examples that can point to specific design...and when I bring up the catipillar/butterfly problem, you immediately revert to the concept of "Life inevitably evolved complexity"...Again, showing that the Designer of Life, is far more complex in His designing than we reduce Him to be....

nd while "God" may be 3 letters in length, it is still a big word.

There is no caterpillar/butterfly problem.

http://www.amazon.com/Campbell-Biology-9...3873&sr=8-1

I didn't admit that there were any examples that point to specific design. Other people have (my reference to irreducible complexity), but they've all been convincingly refuted.

The complexity of life IS explained through evolution. That's the whole point. If you want to argue whether or not God used evolution to create us I'll play that game, but I'm not actually going to debate whether or not evolution even happened.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=why+evolution+is+true&x=0&y=0