We have naturalistic explanations for DNA. It's chemistry. And we have naturalistic explanations for the encoding sequence, evolution by natural selection.
That's all well and good. But you didn't address the question. While it may have a naturalistic explanation, that does not mean it isn't good evidence for God's existence. If it was evidence for God, how could you know that it was? Jan.
I'm unclear as to why each of your responses is a rant. Why the anger? I don't even get the logic behind it. I am aware of all those negative aspects to religion (of course). I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm the atheist after all. You, in my opinion, have chosen a strange approach. You are, rightly, offended by the misuse of religion in all the cases you've described but you are also just as offended by those who point out that there is no evidence for religion. Is it just that everything offends you equally? Your approach to discussion is anger and name calling but it's indiscriminate as you appear to be angry at everything. I don't know where you live as you keep talking about my society and in my world but in my locale (Seattle) there is a football player that used to be referred to a "Angry Doug Baldwin". He has since matured and calmed down a bit but it seems he has passed the torch to you.
No. 'I cannot see God therefore what is there to interact with?' It never means he doesn't exist, it simply questions the relevance of whether it makes any difference. One does not go around assuming things exist without having a reason to think so. That is irrational. Do you think that, if you changed your attitude about unicorns, they would appear to you?
Of course you do. You have a concept of unicorns (if not, every time I mentioned them, you'd say what??) yet (unless you know otherwise) they do not exist.
If there is a perfectly natural explanation, we don't need God as an explanation. What do you think evidence means?
I don't know. I see insufficient evidence. More to the point, I see no direct relevance to the world - though I see indirect relevance through other people's beliefs. But the same could be said about black cats crossing their path. If you change it, unicorns will appear to you. At least, by the logic you've presented.
That's your own problem. Your apparent lack of pathos would appear to disrupt your reading comprehension, and there really isn't much I can do to help you with that. And I'm sorry if you find that confusing, but what, really, do you expect your opinion to count for when you demonstrate yourself clueless? Seriously: With nothing affirmative about your argument all we know is what it isn't. You're aware, but ... what then? You talk about strange approaches, yet you can't even answer for your own. If all you're doing is complaining for your own satisfaction, fine. In fact, that would be good to know; then people who prefer informed discussion will know to just leave you alone. Because, seriously, going out of one's way to deepen divisions 'twixt people just seems a problematic response what one describes as "negative aspects". People like you make communication between people intending good faith just a little more difficult. That's your contribution to the world. And if we limit the range of acceptable possibilities, as you do, severely enough, such appearances become inevitable. You are unreliable. In the meantime, you asked me particular questions, and I answered, and you're still changing the subject. You're correct: What more is there to say? Whatever you want, neighbor, but none of it really matters. You might be "aware of all those negative aspects to religion", but your apparent purpose is simply the denigration of other human beings. For some of us, these questions go beyond questions of satisfying bigotry. Here's the thing: You're not actually helping anyone, and your refusal to engage questions of religion in any context of good faith actually augments and perpetuates the harm caused by religious behaviors. That's the problem. I can tell you the purpose of my critique. And I am very much suspicious of those, like you, who are afraid to discuss the purpose of their own. If you disdain the negative aspects of irrational belief, then stop wallowing in them. If you disdain the negative aspects of religion but not other irrational beliefs, why? Because that's a simple behavioral contradiction: Reject God for rational reasons (Check!); limit rational demand to question of existence of God (Huh?); proactively argue anti-identification while refusing rational consideration of anything (Now wait a ... er ... oh ... duh, of course). Look: What do you actually think you are doing? Or: What are you on about? Aside from defending fallacy, I mean. As I suggested: Your argument is an anti-identification without an affirmative assertion, and it's easy enough to prove that assessment wrong.
I don't know whether unicorns exist or not. I doubt they exist on this planet, but I cannot say they don't exist on any of the innumerable planets, in any of the innumerable universes. Jan.
lol Don't ever lose your sense of wonder, Jan. There are some people who just don't look at the world with wonder, anymore.
Bit of a double-standard there: 'I don't know' is a perfectly acceptable response for you, but apparently not for others. And yet, when this has been presented as a stance on the existence God, you find it unacceptable.
Are you trying to learn a new word a day? "Pathos" doesn't fit in that sentence. You're arguing that anyone who isn't in agreement with your ranting is clueless. How is that working out for you as a tactic? I'm guessing not so well. What is there to "affirm" on a subject you don't consider to exist? What is your affirmative message regarding unicorns? I don't think I'm the one who's deepening divisions 'twixt people here. That seems to be your contribution to the world. Again, try picking up a dictionary. I know you are trying to call me a name but "unreliable" makes no sense in this context. Is English your first language? If not I'll be more lenient. I'm not engaging in any "other" irrational behaviors. I'm also not limiting any discourse regarding questioning the existence of God. Discuss and question all you want . I don't have anything to clarify in my mind on this issue just as I don't have anything to clarify on that much disliked subject of unicorns. I'm not limiting any discussions by those who are looking for more clarity. I think you are in the Jan school of thought in this matter. You assume that those who have no reason to believe in God actually do believe but just have some troubling questions to resolve. That's not the case with most atheists I would guess. It's hard to have questions for something that doesn't seem to exist in the first place.
Unsupported assertion as change of subject. Support that assertion. Already on record: • #455↑ ― to Seattle: "... matters of history and theology, anthropology, psychology, behavioral economics, art, ontology, dialectics, &c." • #306↑ ― to Jan Ardena: "When you provide your analyses, you rely on a literary corpus or construction of perspective that pretty much nobody else has access to; nobody knows what you're on about." • #209↑ ― to DaveC426913: "In order to establish your equivalence, you functionally dismiss the entire historical and literary records regarding how people treat either concept." As I said before↑, pay attention. Then again, I also noted these things mean having discussions that you are apparently incapable of engaging because you have refused these issues and aspects. And therein lies your problem: You're so caught up in your petulant identity politic you can't perceive anything else. Like I said, you can't get beyond this intellectually stunted excrement, and there doesn't really seem to be any mystery why; the critique from ignorance just seems an unreliable proposition, if you don't like that assessment you can always prove it wrong. You've offered yet another post in which you have nothing affirmative or useful to offer the thread. Snuff your gaslight.
No, I am not. This is how it is. Whatever be the type of discussion..civil or uncivil..could you understand theist point of view or could a theist understand your point of view ? You expect objective evidence which a theist cannot provide. You do not wish to move beyond this position, there are spiritual awakenings, some kind of higher level, discussing them with you will be futile because you are not even able to cross the first barrier. The first thing which you will have to do is to unlearn your objectivity on this matter. Well you won't agree on this, so things cannot move.