Do you believe in Evolution?

[Utceforp]

The plain fact is that if you have an omnibenevolent god that seeks only to make his "chosen people" happy then that does not explain why humans are as flawed as they are. You can't present in the same argument that god is perfect and that he created all that exists, but all that exists is flawed and inefficient.

He wouldn't want imperfect creatures, because he's omnibenevolent.
Christianity does not assert that God seeks only to make his "chosen people" happy, for one. Further, I don't see any reason why an omnibenevolent God would of necessity create all contingent beings as perfect. He might have done so, but if He wants imperfect creatures, I see no reason why He might not bring them about.

An omnibenevolent god would not create imperfection.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Do you even know what evolution EBILoochun is?

The truth hath been exposed!

[Genivaria]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

How is that in anyway relevant to evolution?

[The Tovian Way]

Again, show your work.

Learn what the null hypothesis is first, please. There is no use explaining things to you you won't grasp.

That's twice now I've asked you to back up your claim that "The null hypothesis necessitates the nonexistence of God." and twice now that you've avoided attempting to do so, either through repetition of the claim or changing the subject.
I ask once again: Please provide some argument supporting your conclusion that "The null hypothesis necessitates the nonexistence of God."

[Mavorpen]

Yes.

So something is false until proven true?

No. You don't need to prove it.

[Kantria]

So ''it's magic'' is a valid answer then?

I don't know where I said that it was.

"There is god and he is supernatural (and not, say, a naturally occurring alien entity of immense power)" is not a testable concept. Therefore, scientifically, it is not a valid hypothesis, and it is not necessary to disprove it, because it cannot be disproven (or proven).

No. The burden of proof extends outside of science.

Of course it does. I never said that they didn't have a burden of proof at all, only that it's not a valid scientific hypothesis—unworthy of even being considered. It's a philosophical question. Of course, I believe philosophy ought to be grounded in science. Not everyone does.

[Riiser-Larsen]

The plain fact is that if you have an omnibenevolent god that seeks only to make his "chosen people" happy then that does not explain why humans are as flawed as they are. You can't present in the same argument that god is perfect and that he created all that exists; all that exists is flawed and inefficient.

Christianity does not assert that God seeks only to make his "chosen people" happy, for one. Further, I don't see any reason why an omnibenevolent God would of necessity create all contingent beings as perfect. He might have done so, but if He wants imperfect creatures, I see no reason why He might not bring them about.

In religion it is stated that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. That points to him specifically seeking to create a people which are happy and avoiding tragedy. This, however, is not consistent with the actual world as it exists.

[Socialist Republic of Andrew]

Well the thing is this, there is a difference between someone, such as myself stating their opinion and then there are the people arguing that their opinions are fact.

This is my own opinion and so whether others choose to believe it or not is their choice, i just stated what i believed, nothing else to it.

It's not an "opinion". An opinion is that a certain type of pizza tastes better than other kinds. An opinion is that "Them damn lib-e-rals want my guns!" An opinion is not whether or not a proven theory can be disproven. As I said in an earlier post, we all live in reality, and reality only follows a certain set of rules. When trying to disprove science, you have to deal in facts, not beliefs.

Say what you want, but this is my opinion, im not arguing over things with science or religion, just stating what i believe in.
If i believe in what i posted then that is what i believe in and i do not need a scientific test or holy book telling me otherwise, my beliefs are my beliefs, regardless what others say about them.

[Hurdegaryp]

It seems to make no sense to me how nothing can explode causing something. I believe in the description the bible gives which I think is much more detailed and believable.

How is that in anyway relevant to evolution?

Cuz double rainbows. What does it mean?

[Liriena]

*passes the hot potato* Now the burden of proof is on you. Have fun.

Well the thing is this, there is a difference between someone, such as myself stating their opinion and then there are the people arguing that their opinions are fact.

This is my own opinion and so whether others choose to believe it or not is their choice, i just stated what i believed, nothing else to it.

Your cop out is rejected...and the hot potato just blew up.

[The Tovian Way]

He wouldn't want imperfect creatures, because he's omnibenevolent.

I don't see how this follows. There doesn't seem to be any conflict a priori between omnibenevolence and a desire to create imperfect creatures.
For an example, keeping it understood that this is merely an example rather than a claim I am asserting, it is entirely possible that the omnibenevolent God desires not merely perfect creatures, but creatures who, through their own effort and in dependence upon Him as creator, become perfect. Such a God would therefore create creatures imperfect, so that they may become perfect during their mortal existence, or become moreso at least.

[Riiser-Larsen]

Christianity does not assert that God seeks only to make his "chosen people" happy, for one. Further, I don't see any reason why an omnibenevolent God would of necessity create all contingent beings as perfect. He might have done so, but if He wants imperfect creatures, I see no reason why He might not bring them about.

In religion it is stated that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. That points to him specifically seeking to create a people which are happy and avoiding tragedy. This, however, is not consistent with the actual world as it exists.

Specifically, I mean why would a god which is supposed to protect his people also allow diseases like Ebola to exist? Or genetic disorders where the infant develops outside of the mother's womb, dies, and then is slowly extruded from the body through the skin?

[Hurdegaryp]

Well the thing is this, there is a difference between someone, such as myself stating their opinion and then there are the people arguing that their opinions are fact.

This is my own opinion and so whether others choose to believe it or not is their choice, i just stated what i believed, nothing else to it.

Your cop out is rejected...and the hot potato just blew up.

That's a shame. I could really go for a hot potato right now. All this noise generated by deliberate ignorance concerning the functionality of evolution is making me hungry!

[Utceforp]

It's not an "opinion". An opinion is that a certain type of pizza tastes better than other kinds. An opinion is that "Them damn lib-e-rals want my guns!" An opinion is not whether or not a proven theory can be disproven. As I said in an earlier post, we all live in reality, and reality only follows a certain set of rules. When trying to disprove science, you have to deal in facts, not beliefs.

Say what you want, but this is my opinion, im not arguing over things with science or religion, just stating what i believe in.
If i believe in what i posted then that is what i believe in and i do not need a scientific test or holy book telling me otherwise, my beliefs are my beliefs, regardless what others say about them.

And all I am saying is that your beliefs are wrong. And (I think we can all agree on this one) being wrong is bad. Being ignorant is one thing, being ignorant enough to yell at people on the internet is another thing, but you're doing something even worse. You know that you're wrong and you refuse to change what you believe.

[Kantria]

So something is false until proven true?

Of course not. It's a hypothesis until supported through evidence or until refuted through evidence which renders it invalid. Then the hypothesis must be either reformulated or abandoned.

A hypothesis is neither true nor false until it's tested. It's a prediction—sometimes a very well-educated one and sometimes not—and should be treated as such.

[Left Wing Radical]

Evolution is undeniable fact! Anyone who denies this is just a brainwashed idiot who is living in the dark ages.

[Liriena]

As for the Big Bang, the formation of planets, abiogenesis or the evolutionary process, I see no reason why such a deity wouldn't utilize such mechanisms; presumably He could have chosen other means, but there is no compelling reason I see here for Him not to choose the means He did.

How about practicality? Even with your rationale, the entire known process through which our Universe and our species came to be is awfully impractical and wasteful.

[The Tovian Way]

Christianity does not assert that God seeks only to make his "chosen people" happy, for one. Further, I don't see any reason why an omnibenevolent God would of necessity create all contingent beings as perfect. He might have done so, but if He wants imperfect creatures, I see no reason why He might not bring them about.

In religion it is stated that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. That points to him specifically seeking to create a people which are happy and avoiding tragedy. This, however, is not consistent with the actual world as it exists.

It does not point to him specifically seeking to create a people which are happy and avoiding tragedy if one denies that happiness is, in every respect, good and that tragedy or suffering is, in every respect, evil. It might very well be the case that some happiness is not good, and/or that some tragedy or suffering is not evil.

[The Black Forrest]

what was I saying?

[Riiser-Larsen]

He wouldn't want imperfect creatures, because he's omnibenevolent.

I don't see how this follows. There doesn't seem to be any conflict a priori between omnibenevolence and a desire to create imperfect creatures.
For an example, keeping it understood that this is merely an example rather than a claim I am asserting, it is entirely possible that the omnibenevolent God desires not merely perfect creatures, but creatures who, through their own effort and in dependence upon Him as creator, become perfect. Such a God would therefore create creatures imperfect, so that they may become perfect during their mortal existence, or become moreso at least.

In that case, why would he then allow a religion to exist which both worships him and spreads such beliefs, but balks and rallies against efforts by humanity to try and achieve that perfection?

[Liriena]

In religion it is stated that god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. That points to him specifically seeking to create a people which are happy and avoiding tragedy. This, however, is not consistent with the actual world as it exists.

It does not point to him specifically seeking to create a people which are happy and avoiding tragedy if one denies that happiness is, in every respect, good and that tragedy or suffering is, in every respect, evil. It might very well be the case that some happiness is not good, and/or that some tragedy or suffering is not evil.

Which begs the question: why would any of these concepts be necessary for an omnipotent deity?

[The Tovian Way]

As for the Big Bang, the formation of planets, abiogenesis or the evolutionary process, I see no reason why such a deity wouldn't utilize such mechanisms; presumably He could have chosen other means, but there is no compelling reason I see here for Him not to choose the means He did.

How about practicality? Even with your rationale, the entire know process through which our Universe and our species came to be is awfully impractical and wasteful.

If God is timeless, omnipotent and created the world out of nothing, as Christianity asserts, then no manner of creation is impractical, because God can actualize any logically possible means of creation He wishes, and choosing the one He did wastes none of His existence, since He is timeless, and none of His materials, since He used no material to create the world in the first place.

[Bottle]

These "Theories" are treated as scientific facts.

They're not treated as scientific facts, they are scientific facts.

ARRRRGH.

No.

Ok.

Evolution occurs. This is a fact. It is a thing that happens.

When people talk about "the theory of evolution," they are actually talking about the theory of Evolution Via Natural Selection. Calling it "the theory of evolution" is like how you call someone Bill when their full name is William. It's a nickname, that's all.

The Big Bang is a model for what happened. It is a theory.

A principle is not a hypothesis or theory. A principle is like a law: it describes a fundamental behavior or reality. It does not posit a mechanism or explanation, but rather is a the distilled result of repeated observation. It describes what is.

So:

EVOLUTION is a fact.

THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION VIA NATURAL SELECTION (often nicknamed the Theory of Evolution) is the really really really really really really really well supported collection of piles and piles of hypotheses which, together, describe how evolution happens.

The BIG BANG THEORY is the prevailing cosmological model for how the universe came to exist. It is a scientific theory. It is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists and is the defining model for our current study of cosmology.

The HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE is a principle. It does not try to explain why or how anything is happening, but rather it is a description of what does happen.

[Socialist Republic of Andrew]

Say what you want, but this is my opinion, im not arguing over things with science or religion, just stating what i believe in.
If i believe in what i posted then that is what i believe in and i do not need a scientific test or holy book telling me otherwise, my beliefs are my beliefs, regardless what others say about them.

And all I am saying is that your beliefs are wrong. And (I think we can all agree on this one) being wrong is bad. Being ignorant is one thing, being ignorant enough to yell at people on the internet is another thing, but you're doing something even worse. You know that you're wrong and you refuse to change what you believe.

And who are you to tell me my beliefs? My beliefs are my business and my choice, if i choose to think and believe something, then that is what i believe, and you say i am ignorant, but you are the one questioning others beliefs and telling them that they are wrong, do you have proof that my beliefs are wrong? And please do not say "oh well science proves it" because for all we know, God may have created evolution or he may have not, we cannot fully tell, so do not say my beliefs are wrong because you disagree with them and do not have full evidence to back it, i do not have evidence to back my thing, because it is an OPINION, and opinions are what others think and believe.
Im not saying im right im not saying im wrong, and yet you tell me my beliefs are wrong, and im the ignorant one, but yet the true ignorant people are the ones who question others beliefs and call others ignorarnt for not believing what they believe it.

[Mavorpen]

Learn what the null hypothesis is first, please. There is no use explaining things to you you won't grasp.

That's twice now I've asked you to back up your claim that "The null hypothesis necessitates the nonexistence of God." and twice now that you've avoided attempting to do so, either through repetition of the claim or changing the subject

Which is funny because this is precisely what you have done since the beginning. I HAVE explained this. You refused to listen. So I'll try again. I'll fucking hold your hand.

When you make a hypothesis (keep in mind you haven't even done so), you are testing it against the null hypothesis. The null hyppthesis is always X is not true or does not exist. It is up to YOU to disprove the null hypothesis and demonstrate your hypothesis has a better probability of being true than it.

And so, I asked you to provide evidence for your claim in place of your nonexistant hypothesis. You refused to do so and therefore disprove the null hypothesis, which is that God (or X) does not exist.