Evolution or Creationism

[Norstal]

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... m-argument
http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arg ... ontingency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

Here are some to get you started.

This Creationist argument is brought to you by the letter G!

Anyway, tl;dr. Mind summarizing? From what I skimmed in that "proof of god" website, the overarching belief is that its impossible for everything to come from nothing, which has no bearing on evolution.

Silly Christians.

Q:"How do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? Nothing can come out from nothing."
A:"Just like God?"

[Free Soviets]

Evidence of the divine hand guiding it, please?

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf

you have an interesting take on pennock's work, that's for sure. doesn't seem in keeping with what he actually says, of course, but interesting none the less.

[Farnhamia]

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf

you have an interesting take on pennock's work, that's for sure. doesn't seem in keeping with what he actually says, of course, but interesting none the less.

Pennock's book, Tower of Babel, begins, "Creationism is evolving."

[Norstal]

you have an interesting take on pennock's work, that's for sure. doesn't seem in keeping with what he actually says, of course, but interesting none the less.

Pennock's book, Tower of Babel, begins, "Creationism is evolving."

Hah. It's funny because it's true.

[Sociobiology]

OK. I am a Heliopolitan Egyptian Recon. The pantheon is massive, but we can essentially break it down into three kinds of gods:

1. Ra as supreme/creator god (according to Heliopolitan creation myth as narrated in the “Monologue of Ra” of Papyrus Bremner-Rhind BM10188)

2. Celestial Gods. That is, the other gods of the pantheon who were, according to the Heliopolitan school, not involved in the act of creation, but who nonetheless are divine beings with supernatural powers. (e.g. Shu, Tefnut)

by definition a supernatural does not operate in the universe (the natural world)

3. Earthly Gods. Gods of the royal pantheon who ruled on Earth in corporeal form. Almost always Pharaohs, but there are some who were not. (e.g. Ahmose I, Amunhotep I, Amunhotep-sa-Hapu)

If we stick to these three definitions as being fairly clear, then we should have no confusion as to who/what we are talking about. So, let us discuss what each is claimed by the religion to have done, and how these claims are regarded by myself. It should be borne in mind here that there is no absolute modern authority on modern Heliopolitan thought (i.e. there is no “official church line” akin to the Vatican for Roman Catholicism). I am speaking for myself and how I personally interpret and follow the religion, to the best of my ability.

Ra as Supreme God
Ra is ascribed power above and beyond that of all other gods in the pantheon. His powers are not limitless, and are given as changing over time. Prior to the act of creation, neither Ra nor any other life existed, but the potential for it did. Ra, thus, did not create the potential for life, but rather set about realising that potential.

How? we have a known method to bring about life? what part did Ra play in it?

The existent was split from the non-existence, the creation of the cosmos, including Ra as the first being. Thus, from this I conclude that though Ra is indeed as old as the universe, He is not eternal, and neither is the cosmos. Egyptian texts are explicitly stated as not being literal in interpretation (see the original scribal annotations to the so-called book of the dead, which attempt to interpret certain passages), and I personally interpret the physical act of creation itself as being the Big Bang.

A meaningless statement, if something a vague as separating existence from non-existence is code for the big bang than nearly any phrase about any form of construction can mean the big bang why choose this one.

Similarly, Ra, along with Osiris, is mentioned to be the last two beings to survive to the end of the cosmos. This is explicitly stated in the so-called “Book of the Dead”, which is not, strictly speaking, a purely Heliopolitan text, but it was (and is) used by all Egyptian theological schools of thought.

If they are still alive then what if any influence do they still have?

Nun is the state of non-existence, as already described. It is visualised in Egyptian myth as a primordial ocean. Given that by definition this condition harbours no life, and the serpent is an ambiguous state between existence and non-existence in Egyptian meta-language, it is accepted by myself (and also by the academic community) that this is the nearest thing to an explicit statement permissible in Egyptian culture that not only will the cosmos eventually end, but that doing so will necessitate the reduction of Ra back to the state of potential but unrealised existence. This is not explicitly stated (i.e "It is dead") is due to a taboo in Egyptian culture. I personally interpret this physical event as the Big Crunch scenario for the ultimate fate of the cosmos.

the big crunch is a refuted prediction based on measurements of universal expansion, but again by making everything allegory why are these writings more justified tan say the works of Herod, or a modern fantasy novel. If everything is allegory then it is meaningless to use it as evidence since it is entirely subjective.

Ra is stated as having created the first generation of the lesser gods, and well as the land and animals, including humans.





Again, it is important to stress that we are not talking in literal terms, but rather a visualisation of a series of events. My interpretation of the text is that the existence of gods and animal life predates the existence of humans, and that though the gods were directly created, and thus descended from Ra, Earthly life is not the result of a direct action, but rather something that was desired, and was introduced to Earth by mundane means, through abiogenesis and evolution. The existence of humans was the result of a separate will, and brought about likewise through natural processes.

As for direct interactions with humankind, the Book of the Celestial Cow details this. To quote the whole text would be impractical, but a somewhat lacking summary can be seen here.

To cut a long story medium length, Ra rules a united dominion, as King both on Earth and in the celestial realm. He grows old, his body turning into precious materials (skin of gold, bones of silver, hair of lapis lazuli), and more distanced from His earthly subjects. The humans rebel. Ra consults with a council of the gods and seeks advice from Nun itself, before deciding to sends his eye (i.e. his active agency, in the form of Sekhmet) to Earth to slaughter humankind. Upon realising the scale of the slaughter, Ra has a change of heart, but is unable to stop Sekhmet. He orders his priests on earth to flood the land with a blood red coloured beer. Sekhmet believes it to be blood and drinks it, falls into a drunken stupor and wakes up happy as peaceful Hathor. The gods and loyal humans urge Ra to retain His Earthly throne, and the loyal humans attempt to hunt down and kill the remaining rebels ot persuade Him, but Ra elects to withdraw to the sky and delegate some of His role on Earth to the minor gods.

The text is somewhat esoteric and it only appears in Royal tomb texts, never private. Numerous interpretations have been made of it, both religiously inspired and purely academic. My personal view is to go with a simple interpretation. Much as in the Dynastic period in Egypt, when Horus reigned on Earth through a shared incarnate divinity with the reigning Pharaoh, then a similar political situation existed in one of the pre Naqada III polities with Ra,and that a war/rebellion brought that period to an end. The common phrase in Egyptian text referring to the "Time of Ra" lends some support to the idea that Horus has not always been the prime celestial deity involved in the Kingship, and it is historically known that in the 2nd Dynasty, the situation briefly changed, and Set briefly usurped the role of Horus (link). Gods and politics, always interesting... I did actually write a paper on the possible role of Ra in Early Dynastic state ideology utilising Kahl's work on Early Dynastic elite and Royal names. I'd quote from it if I could my laptop sorted out

Celestial Gods
Nothing particularly exciting here. I believe I've already covered the main issue, that their existence is, in my interpretation, down to the direct actions of Ra. They are, for all intents and purposes, His bloodline descendent, His children, for want of a better term. Being celestial, like Ra, they do not act directly upon the physical world, except through taking using a physical vessel such as an icon. Horus, as we have already discussed, did have a semi-permanent presence on Earth by sharing the incarnate body of the Royal gods, and that it is my personal interpretation that Ra previously did the same. Other than that, the Celestial Gods wield power only indirectly, and do not generally involve themselves particularly heavily in human affairs on Earth, except in limited cases where they have a clearly defined role, such as Thoth, Hapi etc.

Their role is more significant in my beliefs concerning the afterlife, but that is a long and mostly separate issue we can discuss if you so wish.

Earthly Gods
This is rather more interesting, and is one of the more unusual parts of Egyptian religion that doesn't really have a very close analogue in others, though some would compare Jesus, when one gets into details it doesn't really compare that well.

Firstly, many of the earthly gods are known to us from history. Names like Ahmose I (after Ra, He is the most important god in my own personal faith), Ramesses II, Thutmose III are all very well known. It gives us the frankly rather overwhelming situation of actually coming, quite literally, face to face with the gods. In this respect, there is also the situation that their existence isn't really in question. All of the those I just listed have direct physical remains, right here on Earth. This also makes the question of their impact and interaction with humans rather straightforward, as we have proof of thir actions, which can be attributed directly to them beyond any reasonable doubt. Unlike the others, during earthly life they have less need for icons, having a direct corporeal form. When that form dies, then they in effect are celestial gods. Like them, they are in the direct service of Ra, and like them, they require icons to have any more direct interaction with or impact upon earthly matters.

you have still failed to describe what interaction Ra has on earth, "He allegorically did something" is a unfalsifiable statement and thus meaningless for logic. there is no evidence that the Egyptian pharaohs exhibited anything except normal human abilities and weakness, so what justification is there for calling them gods?
I guess if you make your belief vague enough you never have to question them but thats what I asked for you have not provided and distinction, description or setting of influence just a list of allegory. If you cannot describe what interaction your gods have then it is not evidence.
by declaring it allegory you also make the use of those sacred text useless for a description since anything I could mention could just be allegory. You don't even seem to be sure yourself what influence they had.
you seem to think just giving a name somehow defines a god, which it might if you did not immediately follow it by saying any story or action prescribed to said god is purely allegory, this leaves them with no definition.
please actually give what is asked next time it will make this go much faster.

present me with a god, with a definition, including their influence, if he/she/it has/had any, on the universe, life, humanity, ect.
like I have said before "god" is such an amorphous term that it requires a definition for logical discussion.
This also cuts down on the "thats not the kind of god I'm talking about" game.

[Sociobiology]

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/ ... Design.pdf

you do realize this article is a refutation of Meyer's view not a support for it.

http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html

argument from personal incredulity all of these have been throughly dealt with by actual scientists, including how the eye and brain evolved and how the earth would not have a "earth like" atmosphere were it not for both the moon forming impact and the pollution produced by early life.

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm

I didn't even get past the second paragraph complexity does not need a designer that is why natural selection was so controversial when it was first published it gave a credible means to get complexity, and improvement without a designer

http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arguments-fo-the-existence-of-god/the-kalam-argument

the Kalam argument is easily disproven, either it is true and God also needs a separate creator (which becomes a infinite regress), or it is wrong and either the universe could always exist or could be a self actualizing process.

http://www.proofofgod.org/index.php/arguments-fo-the-existence-of-god/the-argument-from-contingency

same disproof as with Kalam, but with the added consideration of it describing the universe incorrectly the universe IS time and space not inside it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_ontological_proof

This is just ridiculous no reason is given why existence is more perfect than non-existence or even what perfection is. by the same argument god could be disproven by stating that a god that did not let thousands of infants die in tsunami would be more perfect.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.htmlaying

this is just pure strawman, science does not claim matter has always existed.

Here are some to get you started.

here are a few to get YOU started.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.geoportal.org/web/guest/geo_home
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDtjLSa5 ... r_embedded
http://www.sciscoop.com/universe-is-not ... eople.html
http://www.science20.com/
http://tolweb.org/tree/
http://www.paleoportal.org/
https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54debunks
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwi ... f-species/
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... 561a0.html
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/hum ... ls/fossils
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution
http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Atheism/ ... roject.png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APEpwkXa ... Qu0_WiHhq8

I have more but my copy/paste fingers are sore.

[The Large Steel Lords]

Silly Christians.

Q:"How do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? Nothing can come out from nothing."
A:"Just like God?"

A. this is an ad hominem argument. Care to stop the attacks and actually argue the points?

Why? On what basis?

I cannot speak for the writer of the post you were quoting, but I accept Creation based on the same abductive logic used by evolutionists before any examination of evidence. You see, many of the evidences used for evolution (such as similarities between species, or the popularly labeled and libeled fossil record) can also be used as evidences for a single Intelligent Designer. For example, let's take a single blacksmith. He may make many different tools and weapons, but a blacksmith is known not by the items he makes for sale but by the tools he makes for himself. A blacksmith would realize a need for a tool with a specific function and make that tool using his own skills. A person who knows blacksmiths would be able to attribute a specific tool to a specific blacksmith because every tool that blacksmith makes would be made using similar shapes and methods from tool to tool, coming up with very unique items made using similar pieces. Likewise, an intelligent Designer would use similar parts to make entirely unique species.

Abductive logic, which I mentioned earlier, is a form of logic which makes a single, general observation:

There is a wide variety of unique things on the earth.

Then we make an assumption. Atheists make the assumption that there is no God, and therefore come to the conclusion that some mechanism of nature would have to explain the variety, which we now know as evolution. Christians and other theists make the assumption that there has to be a God, thus we come to the conclusion that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

My further reasoning is that I believe that both atheism and theism require faith. Both theism and atheism have no ability to prove or disprove several facets of their beliefs:

Atheism:
Cannot answer the question of origins from a cosmological standpoint. Either matter had to always exist and the universe is not expanding, or else the universe is expanding and there was a point when no matter existed. Either way you have a problem. The former opinion has a problem with the Expanding Universe Theory, while the latter has a problem with the laws of thermodynamics.
The atheist "god of the gaps" theory is that of vacuum energy, an unmeasurable, unobservable and ultimately unprovable theory.
Cannot disprove the existence of God

Theism:
Cannot prove the existence of God thus resulting in a god of the gaps theory.


While there are points for and against both, I believe in putting my faith in a belief which will provide purpose. If there truly is no God, then there is no purpose for me to be here, and therefore I am nothing, as was the belief of Friedrich Nietzsche. However, if God is real, then there is hope, there is purpose, and there is a reason to live.

Yes, my belief is not scientific, but it is not illogical, irrational, nor unfounded.

[Tim-Opolis]

Evolution


thank Max Barry its winning

[Bottle]

Silly Christians.

Q:"How do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? Nothing can come out from nothing."
A:"Just like God?"

A. this is an ad hominem argument. Care to stop the attacks and actually argue the points?

I cannot speak for the writer of the post you were quoting, but I accept Creation based on the same abductive logic used by evolutionists before any examination of evidence. You see, many of the evidences used for evolution (such as similarities between species, or the popularly labeled and libeled fossil record) can also be used as evidences for a single Intelligent Designer. For example, let's take a single blacksmith. He may make many different tools and weapons, but a blacksmith is known not by the items he makes for sale but by the tools he makes for himself. A blacksmith would realize a need for a tool with a specific function and make that tool using his own skills. A person who knows blacksmiths would be able to attribute a specific tool to a specific blacksmith because every tool that blacksmith makes would be made using similar shapes and methods from tool to tool, coming up with very unique items made using similar pieces. Likewise, an intelligent Designer would use similar parts to make entirely unique species.

Abductive logic, which I mentioned earlier, is a form of logic which makes a single, general observation:


Then we make an assumption. Atheists make the assumption that there is no God, and therefore come to the conclusion that some mechanism of nature would have to explain the variety, which we now know as evolution. Christians and other theists make the assumption that there has to be a God, thus we come to the conclusion that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

My further reasoning is that I believe that both atheism and theism require faith. Both theism and atheism have no ability to prove or disprove several facets of their beliefs:

Atheism:
Cannot answer the question of origins from a cosmological standpoint. Either matter had to always exist and the universe is not expanding, or else the universe is expanding and there was a point when no matter existed. Either way you have a problem. The former opinion has a problem with the Expanding Universe Theory, while the latter has a problem with the laws of thermodynamics.
The atheist "god of the gaps" theory is that of vacuum energy, an unmeasurable, unobservable and ultimately unprovable theory.
Cannot disprove the existence of God

Theism:
Cannot prove the existence of God thus resulting in a god of the gaps theory.


While there are points for and against both, I believe in putting my faith in a belief which will provide purpose. If there truly is no God, then there is no purpose for me to be here, and therefore I am nothing, as was the belief of Friedrich Nietzsche. However, if God is real, then there is hope, there is purpose, and there is a reason to live.

Yes, my belief is not scientific, but it is not illogical, irrational, nor unfounded.

You appear to be arguing that you have no purpose in life without God. Which you're free to argue, but it doesn't really make you seem like a smart, capable, or psychologically stable individual.

[Farnhamia]

Silly Christians.

Q:"How do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? Nothing can come out from nothing."
A:"Just like God?"

A. this is an ad hominem argument. Care to stop the attacks and actually argue the points?

I cannot speak for the writer of the post you were quoting, but I accept Creation based on the same abductive logic used by evolutionists before any examination of evidence. You see, many of the evidences used for evolution (such as similarities between species, or the popularly labeled and libeled fossil record) can also be used as evidences for a single Intelligent Designer. For example, let's take a single blacksmith. He may make many different tools and weapons, but a blacksmith is known not by the items he makes for sale but by the tools he makes for himself. A blacksmith would realize a need for a tool with a specific function and make that tool using his own skills. A person who knows blacksmiths would be able to attribute a specific tool to a specific blacksmith because every tool that blacksmith makes would be made using similar shapes and methods from tool to tool, coming up with very unique items made using similar pieces. Likewise, an intelligent Designer would use similar parts to make entirely unique species.

Abductive logic, which I mentioned earlier, is a form of logic which makes a single, general observation:


Then we make an assumption. Atheists make the assumption that there is no God, and therefore come to the conclusion that some mechanism of nature would have to explain the variety, which we now know as evolution. Christians and other theists make the assumption that there has to be a God, thus we come to the conclusion that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

My further reasoning is that I believe that both atheism and theism require faith. Both theism and atheism have no ability to prove or disprove several facets of their beliefs:

Atheism:
Cannot answer the question of origins from a cosmological standpoint. Either matter had to always exist and the universe is not expanding, or else the universe is expanding and there was a point when no matter existed. Either way you have a problem. The former opinion has a problem with the Expanding Universe Theory, while the latter has a problem with the laws of thermodynamics.
The atheist "god of the gaps" theory is that of vacuum energy, an unmeasurable, unobservable and ultimately unprovable theory.
Cannot disprove the existence of God

Theism:
Cannot prove the existence of God thus resulting in a god of the gaps theory.


While there are points for and against both, I believe in putting my faith in a belief which will provide purpose. If there truly is no God, then there is no purpose for me to be here, and therefore I am nothing, as was the belief of Friedrich Nietzsche. However, if God is real, then there is hope, there is purpose, and there is a reason to live.

Yes, my belief is not scientific, but it is not illogical, irrational, nor unfounded.

Abductive reasoning? Which has been called "guessing" by Charles Sanders Pierce?

[Jedi8246]

A. this is an ad hominem argument. Care to stop the attacks and actually argue the points?

You appear to be arguing that you have no purpose in life without God. Which you're free to argue, but it doesn't really make you seem like a smart, capable, or psychologically stable individual.

If there were no God, we wouldn't be having an argument. There would be nothing.

[Farnhamia]

You appear to be arguing that you have no purpose in life without God. Which you're free to argue, but it doesn't really make you seem like a smart, capable, or psychologically stable individual.

If there were no God, we wouldn't be having an argument. There would be nothing.

Sure, hon.

[Ceannairceach]

You appear to be arguing that you have no purpose in life without God. Which you're free to argue, but it doesn't really make you seem like a smart, capable, or psychologically stable individual.

If there were no God, we wouldn't be having an argument. There would be nothing.

If there were no god, we'd still be here, as one is not needed, as the big bang and evolution show us.

[Ingini]

Oh this again...

Somebody bring out the whips and the freeze-dried horse carcasses.

[Bottle]

You appear to be arguing that you have no purpose in life without God. Which you're free to argue, but it doesn't really make you seem like a smart, capable, or psychologically stable individual.

If there were no God, we wouldn't be having an argument. There would be nothing.

Saying something doesn't make it so, unfortunately.

But, in addition, your reply is irrelevant. God is not a part of my life, and I have a lot of purpose and meaning. I'm sorry if you are unable to find any value in your life beyond your God-belief, but really that's your personal neurosis not a general human condition.

[The Large Steel Lords]

Abductive reasoning is the basis of ALL logic and research. Example: In math, we must ASSUME that 1+1=2. Without 1+1=2, none of math would work the way it does now. If 1+1=3, then all of our math as we currently know it is incorrect.

Premise 1:
You, as an atheist, have absolutely no empirical proof that God does not exist.
AND
We, as Christians, have absolutely no empirical proof that God DOES exist.

Premise 2:
Without empirical proof of something, we have only a hypothesis which is untestable. This is also called a guess or assumption.

Conclusion:
Both atheism and Christianity are based on assumptions.


You cannot have it both ways. Either you can prove that God does not exist AND we can prove that He does; or else you cannot prove God does not exist and we cannot prove He does. Which way do you want it?

[Bottle]

Abductive reasoning is the basis of ALL logic and research. Example: In math, we must ASSUME that 1+1=2. Without 1+1=2, none of math would work the way it does now. If 1+1=3, then all of our math as we currently know it is incorrect.

Premise 1:
You, as an atheist, have absolutely no empirical proof that God does not exist.
AND
We, as Christians, have absolutely no empirical proof that God DOES exist.

Premise 2:
Without empirical proof of something, we have only a hypothesis which is untestable. This is also called a guess or assumption.

Conclusion:
Both atheism and Christianity are based on assumptions.


You cannot have it both ways. Either you can prove that God does not exist AND we can prove that He does; or else you cannot prove God does not exist and we cannot prove He does. Which way do you want it?

I have no need to disprove God, any more than I have need to disprove Quizblorg.

[Ingini]

Abductive reasoning is the basis of ALL logic and research. Example: In math, we must ASSUME that 1+1=2. Without 1+1=2, none of math would work the way it does now. If 1+1=3, then all of our math as we currently know it is incorrect.

Premise 1:
You, as an atheist, have absolutely no empirical proof that God does not exist.
AND
We, as Christians, have absolutely no empirical proof that God DOES exist.

Premise 2:
Without empirical proof of something, we have only a hypothesis which is untestable. This is also called a guess or assumption.

Conclusion:
Both atheism and Christianity are based on assumptions.


You cannot have it both ways. Either you can prove that God does not exist AND we can prove that He does; or else you cannot prove God does not exist and we cannot prove He does. Which way do you want it?

^ this ^

[OG Chem Dawg]

Common sense dictates that evolution is real. Its a shame common sense isn't common though...

[Sociobiology]

Silly Christians.

Q:"How do you believe in the Big Bang Theory? Nothing can come out from nothing."
A:"Just like God?"

A. this is an ad hominem argument. Care to stop the attacks and actually argue the points?

I cannot speak for the writer of the post you were quoting, but I accept Creation based on the same abductive logic used by evolutionists before any examination of evidence. You see, many of the evidences used for evolution (such as similarities between species, or the popularly labeled and libeled fossil record) can also be used as evidences for a single Intelligent Designer. For example, let's take a single blacksmith. He may make many different tools and weapons, but a blacksmith is known not by the items he makes for sale but by the tools he makes for himself. A blacksmith would realize a need for a tool with a specific function and make that tool using his own skills. A person who knows blacksmiths would be able to attribute a specific tool to a specific blacksmith because every tool that blacksmith makes would be made using similar shapes and methods from tool to tool, coming up with very unique items made using similar pieces. Likewise, an intelligent Designer would use similar parts to make entirely unique species.

its not the similarity in parts that proves evolution its the pattern they exist in in known life which matches a pattern of common decent, not independent creation. non-optimal and vestigial organs are evidence against a creator but to be expected in evolution.

Abductive logic, which I mentioned earlier, is a form of logic which makes a single, general observation:


Then we make an assumption. Atheists make the assumption that there is no God, and therefore come to the conclusion that some mechanism of nature would have to explain the variety, which we now know as evolution. Christians and other theists make the assumption that there has to be a God, thus we come to the conclusion that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

the diffrence is that in science every single assumption must be tested and verified, god would not be part of the null, which is the simplest universe possible to explain known observations, everything is considered to not exist until proven in science.
where as religion tends to uses an arbitrary null.
this is why burden of proof is always on any added proposition in science.

Atheism:
Cannot answer the question of origins from a cosmological standpoint. Either matter had to always exist and the universe is not expanding, or else the universe is expanding and there was a point when no matter existed. Either way you have a problem. The former opinion has a problem with the Expanding Universe Theory, while the latter has a problem with the laws of thermodynamics.
The atheist "god of the gaps" theory is that of vacuum energy, an unmeasurable, unobservable and ultimately unprovable theory.

Casimir effect

Cannot disprove the existence of God

don't have to, evidence is necessary to propose any added complexity to the understanding of the universe.

Theism:
Cannot prove the existence of God thus resulting in a god of the gaps theory.

a position that has had god getting smaller for the last 400yrs ever since the orbit of the earth was described.

While there are points for and against both, I believe in putting my faith in a belief which will provide purpose. If there truly is no God, then there is no purpose for me to be here, and therefore I am nothing, as was the belief of Friedrich Nietzsche. However, if God is real, then there is hope, there is purpose, and there is a reason to live.

Yes, my belief is not scientific, but it is not illogical, irrational, nor unfounded.

this is what happens when absolutists lose religion but more reasonable people tend try and improve the the lot of humanity through science yielding more reliable and greater hope, know that the purpose of life is to spread itself, and choose to find other personal meaning for our life, such as curing cancer, educating the ignorant, exploring the unknown, which many would agree are far better purposes than sucking up to an imaginary father figure.
and as for a reason to live if life is temporary but after-life is eternal what reason do YOU have to live, we atheists tend to be more attached to life and the lives of others when we realize that this short existence is all we get. The belief in an afterlife is a major supporting idea for those that commit violence in the name of religion, after all if temporary suffering yields eternal rewards then logic does justify them, while if there is no afterlife any violence not for the purpose of preserving greater life is unacceptable.

[Farnhamia]

Abductive reasoning is the basis of ALL logic and research. Example: In math, we must ASSUME that 1+1=2. Without 1+1=2, none of math would work the way it does now. If 1+1=3, then all of our math as we currently know it is incorrect.

Premise 1:
You, as an atheist, have absolutely no empirical proof that God does not exist.
AND
We, as Christians, have absolutely no empirical proof that God DOES exist.

Premise 2:
Without empirical proof of something, we have only a hypothesis which is untestable. This is also called a guess or assumption.

Conclusion:
Both atheism and Christianity are based on assumptions.


You cannot have it both ways. Either you can prove that God does not exist AND we can prove that He does; or else you cannot prove God does not exist and we cannot prove He does. Which way do you want it?

I have no need to disprove God, any more than I have need to disprove Quizblorg.

Careful, Quizblorg is everywhere.

As for the Large Steel Lords, that post is just philosophical coin-flipping, Pascal's Wager using Monopoly money.

[Dyakovo]

Abductive reasoning is the basis of ALL logic and research. Example: In math, we must ASSUME that 1+1=2. Without 1+1=2, none of math would work the way it does now. If 1+1=3, then all of our math as we currently know it is incorrect.

Premise 1:
You, as an atheist, have absolutely no empirical proof that God does not exist.
AND
We, as Christians, have absolutely no empirical proof that God DOES exist.

Premise 2:
Without empirical proof of something, we have only a hypothesis which is untestable. This is also called a guess or assumption.

Conclusion:
Both atheism and Christianity are based on assumptions.


You cannot have it both ways. Either you can prove that God does not exist AND we can prove that He does; or else you cannot prove God does not exist and we cannot prove He does. Which way do you want it?

Firstly that's a false dichotomy, atheist and christian aren't the only choices...
Secondly, I as an atheist make no claim that your god does not exist, just that I lack belief in him.
Thirdly, even if a god does exist that does not mean that creationism is correct.

Edit: Also The Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection being correct does not and is not supposed to disprove the existence of any god.

[Jedi8246]

Abductive reasoning is the basis of ALL logic and research. Example: In math, we must ASSUME that 1+1=2. Without 1+1=2, none of math would work the way it does now. If 1+1=3, then all of our math as we currently know it is incorrect.

Premise 1:
You, as an atheist, have absolutely no empirical proof that God does not exist.
AND
We, as Christians, have absolutely no empirical proof that God DOES exist.

Premise 2:
Without empirical proof of something, we have only a hypothesis which is untestable. This is also called a guess or assumption.

Conclusion:
Both atheism and Christianity are based on assumptions.


You cannot have it both ways. Either you can prove that God does not exist AND we can prove that He does; or else you cannot prove God does not exist and we cannot prove He does. Which way do you want it?

Firstly that's a false dichotomy, atheist and christian aren't the only choices...
Secondly, I as an atheist make no claim that your god does not exist, just that I lack belief in him.
Thirdly, even if a god does exist that does not mean that creationism is correct.

I like this. At least you are being fair about it. Unlike other atheists.

[Ceannairceach]

I like this. At least you are being fair about it. Unlike other atheists.

How are we not being fair?

[Dyakovo]

Firstly that's a false dichotomy, atheist and christian aren't the only choices...
Secondly, I as an atheist make no claim that your god does not exist, just that I lack belief in him.
Thirdly, even if a god does exist that does not mean that creationism is correct.

I like this. At least you are being fair about it. Unlike other atheists.

Not sure what you think is "fair" about my post, but if it is my second comment, most atheists are (like me) of the implicit variety, making your "unlike other atheists" comment a blatant falsehood.