Give one reason or argument that God doesnt exist

[austin12345]

Try and give one reason philosophically or scientifically that God doesnt exist, but not one emotionally.

[ciko]

DNA, which formed because of natural selection after variation.

no, DNA cant do that, you are actually givining DNA intelectual capacities beacuse , engine parts on correct places are like puzzles



so telling that someone who cant think (in this case, DNA/NATURE) put (puzzles/engine parts) on correct places is ridicolous idea.

who had rotating propellers before bacterias and spermcells?
how could DNA tell the engine to start to rotate?
How could DNA know that fructose is fuel for the engine?

if you dont know what DNA is then you should watch this, DNA is actually big evidence for inteligent design

DNA as Evidence for Intelligent Design
[youtube][/youtube]

I told you already: the evolutionary mechanism for getting the instructions in the first place, is reproduction with variation, followed by selection - i.e. evolution. The mechanism for using those instructions to connect parts to correct places is the formation of, and interactions with proteins - i.e. genetics and epigenetics.

i cant believe my eyes

you are actually telling me this

Me: How was the new engine for BMW created
YOU: you see, it was created in the factory

everybody know that they formate by interaction with proteins(genetics), but you did not answered how could this genetics /protein or DNA, whatever know future?
How could proteins know that if object X

Object X (has only stator, rotor)

how could proteins create rotating propellers , can this tools/proteins think in future so they realize that object X needs rotating propellers?

these DNA, proteins, are only tools wich God used when he programmed and created first engines, and gave copying properties, so they could replicate.

it is same when engineers design and make simulations of the new engine, and then the workers create it in the factory. It is not factory who create engines, factory is place where engines ar created by engeneers and workers, it is same, DNA, proteins,(nature) is factory where natural engines were created by God.

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND YOU ATHEISTS, YOU GIVE NATURE INTELECTUAL CAPACITY, LIKE IF IT COULD THINK IN FUTURE AND CREATE PART FOR THE FUTURE. WHILE I GIVE THESE PROPERTIES TO GOD, AND NATURE IS ONLY FACTORY FOR GOD.

THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE:

Atheist:

Engines created by

Nature(Factory)

while I say:

Engines created by

God---->in the Nature(factory)

you give intelectual capacity to non-thinking nature

while i give intelectual capacity to God.

[Bust Nak]

no, DNA cant do that, you are actually givining DNA intelectual capacities beacuse , engine parts on correct places are like puzzles

Not biological engines they don't. Only the engines we build are like puzzles.

so telling that someone who cant think (in this case, DNA/NATURE) put (puzzles/engine parts) on correct places is ridicolous idea.

I agree, that's why we know nobody told DNA to put engine parts on correct places.

who had rotating propellers before bacterias and spermcells?

The ancestors of bacterias.

how could DNA tell the engine to start to rotate?

The engine rotates natually without anyone telling it.

How could DNA know that fructose is fuel for the engine?

It doesn't.

if you dont know what DNA is then you should watch this, DNA is actually big evidence for inteligent design

DNA as Evidence for Intelligent Design
[youtube]

Already debunked. Complexity doesn't imply designed.

i cant believe my eyes

you are actually telling me this

Me: How was the new engine for BMW created
YOU: you see, it was created in the factory

everybody know that they formate by interaction with proteins(genetics), but you did not answered how could this genetics /protein or DNA, whatever know future?

Loaded questions cannot be answered. "Genetics /protein or DNA" does not know the future.

How could proteins know that if object X

Object X (has only stator, rotor)

how could proteins create rotating propellers , can this tools/proteins think in future so they realize that object X needs rotating propellers?

Proteins doesn't know how to put together an engine at all. They do with without knowing anything - they cannot think.

these DNA, proteins, are only tools wich God used when he programmed and created first engines, and gave copying properties, so they could replicate.

Why would you need to programming it when it can do so natually? Do you need to program a log to roll down a slope or does it roll down natually without intelligent input?

it is same when engineers design and make simulations of the new engine, and then the workers create it in the factory.

No, it's not the same. Engineers design because we are thinking entities. This biological engine is not designed because DNA and proteins are not thinking entities.

It is not factory who create engines, factory is place where engines ar created by engeneers and workers, it is same, DNA, proteins,(nature) is factory where natural engines were created by God.

Not always. Cells are factory which operate without intelligence input.

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ME AND YOU ATHEISTS, YOU GIVE NATURE INTELECTUAL CAPACITY, LIKE IF IT COULD THINK IN FUTURE AND CREATE PART FOR THE FUTURE.

This is incorrect. There is no intellectual capacity in bacteria or any of our cells.

WHILE I GIVE THESE PROPERTIES TO GOD, AND NATURE IS ONLY FACTORY FOR GOD.

What properties?

THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE:

Atheist:

Engines created by

Nature(Factory)

while I say:

Engines created by

God---->in the Nature(factory)

Yeah, that is indeed the difference. Since nature can do it without intelligence input, your addition of God is unnecessry.

you give intelectual capacity to non-thinking nature

while i give intelectual capacity to God.

You see intellectual capacity where there is none. Which goes back to what I said earlier, you see vague shapes in the sand and call it footprints, you see random splodges of ink and call it a painting.

[PhiloKGB]

FYI, ciko, the flagellum has substantial homology with the Type III secretion system. I'm sure I can dig up some primary references if necessary.

[southern cross]

FYI, ciko, the flagellum has substantial homology with the Type III secretion system. I'm sure I can dig up some primary references if necessary.

Philo, I don't think Ray Comfort would agree with you or whatsis face Ham or thingo Hovind.
Yes I do see. My arguments are just so imprecise as to be meaningless. I withdraw from the discussion. My apologies.

[Nickman]

Wasn't the flagellum used as an argument to get creation into schools by Michael Behe back in the 2004 and failed because evolution showed how it could be made via evolution? I am quite certain this is the case. Why are these old refuted arguments still coming up with creationists? Oh yeah because they don't look at the evidence that has already been established.

[Goat]

Wasn't the flagellum used as an argument to get creation into schools by Michael Behe back in the 2004 and failed because evolution showed how it could be made via evolution? I am quite certain this is the case. Why are these old refuted arguments still coming up with creationists? Oh yeah because they don't look at the evidence that has already been established.

Quite correct. However, it doesn't seem like the anti-evolutionary forces realize that , well, knowledge advances. They totally ignore that the discovery of so called 'Irreducible complex systems' as they call them was in fact predicted in Herman Muller in 1918, as well as how they could evolve.

See Muller, Hermann J. 1918. Genetic variability, twin hybrids and constant hybrids, in a case of balanced lethal factors. Genetics 3: 422-499. http://www.genetics.org/content/vol3/issue5/index.shtml


The terminology Mulleralled it was 'Interlocking complexity' .. (Muller, H. J. 1939. Reversibility in evolution considered from the standpoint of genetics. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 14: 261-280. )

[olavisjo]

Wasn't the flagellum used as an argument to get creation into schools by Michael Behe back in the 2004 and failed because evolution showed how it could be made via evolution? I am quite certain this is the case. Why are these old refuted arguments still coming up with creationists? Oh yeah because they don't look at the evidence that has already been established.

"They don't look at the evidence ".
That is an interesting accusation coming from someone who has obviously not looked at the evidence.

"Why are these old refuted arguments".
"Evolution showed how it could be made".
Nothing has been refuted, evolutionists still have no clue how the bacterial flagellum came into existence.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Try and give one reason philosophically or scientifically that God doesnt exist, but not one emotionally.

Which God?

Here's an argument against the Abrahamic conception of God:

If God exists then God is logically consistent.

As shown in the Bible, God is not logically consistent.

The God of the Bible does not exist.

[Tammy789]

Try and give one reason philosophically or scientifically that God doesnt exist, but not one emotionally.

Which God?

Here's an argument against the Abrahamic conception of God:

If God exists then God is logically consistent.

As shown in the Bible, God is not logically consistent.

The God of the Bible does not exist.

Yes, which God?

Here's my argument against the Abrahamic conception of God:

The conception is he is the good, perfect, and just creator.

He created this crappy world where the innocent suffer and are placated with a false reward in the hereafter, therefore he is not good, perfect and just - this God does not exist.

[Nickman]

Wasn't the flagellum used as an argument to get creation into schools by Michael Behe back in the 2004 and failed because evolution showed how it could be made via evolution? I am quite certain this is the case. Why are these old refuted arguments still coming up with creationists? Oh yeah because they don't look at the evidence that has already been established.

"They don't look at the evidence ".
That is an interesting accusation coming from someone who has obviously not looked at the evidence.

"Why are these old refuted arguments".
"Evolution showed how it could be made".
Nothing has been refuted, evolutionists still have no clue how the bacterial flagellum came into existence.

This argument was settled and science has shown how the Flagellum can be made by evolutionary means. This went all the way to court. Behe lost misersably. Goat just posted a reason why the flagellum can be.