I'm not sure where you're running off to. You seem to be putting words into my mouth and thoughts into my head.Seth wrote:Animavore wrote:
I wouldn't mind. I already stated I can't prove it wasn't ordered by God but he still went and said, prove it wasn't God.The point of challenging you to do so is to show that your results do not prove anything at all, because God could have produced those effects for you, just to fuck with your head. That's the problem with miracles, you see...unless you can prove that God does not exist, anything could be a miracle of God. In fact, EVERYTHING could be a miracle of God...even evolution.So what? What leads you to the false belief that answers are required to every question? God may be complex and may add questions to those science already has about the nature of the universe(s) but so what? I would think this would be a challenge for science, because to me, assuming arguendo that God exists, the first question that comes to my mind is "how did God come to exist?" The second is "what is the nature of God?"Animavore wrote:Yes. It could. You're talking to me as if I don't already know this when I already stated that I do. But so what? Whether I factor God in or not the outcome is the same so believing or not believing God causes phenomena makes no difference except when you factor God in you leave more questions than you've answered.
But instead of pursuing a scientific examination of the proposition that God, or something that we might reasonably define as "god" (like a vastly more intelligent entity inhabiting another membrane universe that chooses to dabble and intervene in this universe for reasons only it knows) science insists that God does not exist because God is not "necessary" as an explanation for the physical phenomena we observe.
But this is itself a conceit of science that's built in to the religious dogma of the religion of Science. Science assumes a priori that there is no god and that all things have a "naturalistic" answer. The conceit is the use of the Atheists Fallacy that uses human theistic descriptions of God to vainly attempt to "scientifically" define God as something "supernatural" and therefore ipso facto impossible and to be disregarded. Most wannabee pseudo-scientist Atheists found in places like this (right up to the Pope of Atheism, Richard Dawkins) like to think that they understand the scientific method, but they don't. It is these sort of pseudo-scientists who blithely dismiss even the possibility of an intelligence vastly superior to our own that operates on a pan-universal scale that could be the author of some, many or all things in this particular universe but could be operating entirely within the "naturalistic" sphere of science, but outside the sphere of human knowledge and understanding of physics. They wrongly think that because God is "unnecessary" as an explanation, that therefore God cannot be the explanation. But this too is a conceit and fallacy of pseudo-science.
Actual science, however, must view the question of the existence of God as a valid scientific question to be answered in the same way as any other question about the nature of the universe(s), and even the Pope of Atheism admits this in "The God Delusion." Of course he then goes on to shove his foot right into his mouth by spending the rest of the book ignoring his own advice, but that's just because he's an inconsistent and incoherent religious zealot pretty much like every other religious zealot I've ever heard of.
Where did I even suggest that everything needs an explanation? I just said God leaves more questions then are answered. For instance, it's satisfactory for me to say what I saw when I stared at the sun was caused by a wobble in my eye and retinal burns. I'm happy to leave it there. Saying God caused this doesn't add any input. That's all I'm saying. None of this other stuff you're getting into here.
You really have to stop judging others with your preconceived notions and accusations of big-A atheism and ramming your vitriol down their throat.