God vs Athiesm: Which Is More Rationale?

[Weatherman2020]

Belief in God is far more rational than atheism.

I was agnostic for my first 35 years. Then I figured I better do my homework and answer the ultimate issue. Good luck.

Neither theism or atheism is fully rational. Even trying to define "God " is irrational.
Why not be HONEST?
We don't kmow.
Using a God-of-the-gaps rational to support one's beliefs is a reflection of stupid ignorance.

Smart ignorance + honesty = agnosticm. The scientific view.

You must be getting fearful in your old age!

Just because God is unknowable in our limited understanding does not mean God does not exist. Scientists have mathematical proof there are dozens of dimensions. The math is beyond my understanding but I also believe they are telling the truth.

Why believe in someone else's conception of "God" when you don't know any details about a "God"?
Why not believe in multiple Gods or gods?

Why not be HONEST?
We don't know jack about our origins.
However, like in science, we can have theories, but they need evidence, along with speculation.
.

Correct, every athiest and religious person thinks they are right. That's why as an agnostic I studied all religions to draw my own conclusions.
The OP is merely about a creator vs an accidental something becoming life.

What about "creators" (plural)?
We don't know, right?

Read post 53.

 

[the_human_being]

You can't even understand my simple posts. I said nothing about the size of a church. I was speaking of what a church preached and anyone who has understanding can readily ascertain that from my posts.

I said they were small, and you automatically called them fundamentalist. Make up your mind

Fundamentalist does not mean "small". Fundamentalism is the belief in certain doctrines. See my friend, ignorance continues to abound.

no shit lol. I say small and you AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME IT WAS FUNDAMENTALIST. What was I supposed to think?

Well, actually I expected you to know the difference between the two terms.

difference between small and fundamentalist? WTF are you talking about?

Why don't you simply google it and educate yourself?

 

[PK1]

Then you do the math on the odds of a single cell evolving into a four cell. I'll wait for you to post your results.

You make the common mistake in thinking of evolution as a random process. It is not, it requires natural selection.

If I randomly throw down a bunch of random words the odds of getting Hamlet are infinitesimal. However if I remove any words that didn't appear in Hamlet and thrown them down again I'll eventually have all the words of Hamlet. An inevitable process.

In other words you can't do the math. I understand. I am used to you scientific types that can't do math. The answer is infinity. The odds against it ever happening even over billions of years are so great that we have no number to express it.

You misuse math, a tool.
Math needs rational concepts to manipulate.

 

[PK1]

Read what Dr Collins says.

You realize that Collins believes in evolution, right?

Irrelevant to the OP. Collins rejects Athiesm because of his work on the human genome is the issue.

Collins rejects atheism because of emotional issues, not evidence.
His genome work supports evolution.
.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Then you do the math on the odds of a single cell evolving into a four cell. I'll wait for you to post your results.

You make the common mistake in thinking of evolution as a random process. It is not, it requires natural selection.

If I randomly throw down a bunch of random words the odds of getting Hamlet are infinitesimal. However if I remove any words that didn't appear in Hamlet and thrown them down again I'll eventually have all the words of Hamlet. An inevitable process.

In other words you can't do the math. I understand. I am used to you scientific types that can't do math. The answer is infinity. The odds against it ever happening even over billions of years are so great that we have no number to express it.

You misuse math, a tool.
Math needs rational concepts to manipulate.

One cannot manipulate math.
The universe is simply math, and it is what it is.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Read what Dr Collins says.

You realize that Collins believes in evolution, right?
.

Irrelevant to the OP. Collins rejects Athiesm because of his work on the human genome is the issue.

Collins rejects atheism because of emotional issues, not evidence.
.

He says it's because of seeing how life works at the smallest levels.
It's your free will to call him a liar.

 

[the_human_being]

Then you do the math on the odds of a single cell evolving into a four cell. I'll wait for you to post your results.

You make the common mistake in thinking of evolution as a random process. It is not, it requires natural selection.

If I randomly throw down a bunch of random words the odds of getting Hamlet are infinitesimal. However if I remove any words that didn't appear in Hamlet and thrown them down again I'll eventually have all the words of Hamlet. An inevitable process.

In other words you can't do the math. I understand. I am used to you scientific types that can't do math. The answer is infinity. The odds against it ever happening even over billions of years are so great that we have no number to express it.

You misuse math, a tool.
Math needs rational concepts to manipulate.

Mathematics can predict odds of occurrences. Math is a tool and is used to support many scientific facts - it simply will not support evolution.

 

[Weatherman2020]

To be or not to be.


Anti evolutionary statement.

 

[PK1]

Read what Dr Collins says.

You realize that Collins believes in evolution, right?
.

Irrelevant to the OP. Collins rejects Athiesm because of his work on the human genome is the issue.

Collins rejects atheism because of emotional issues, not evidence.
.

He says it's because of seeing how life works at the smallest levels.
It's your free will to call him a liar.

I did not call him a liar, just ignorant.

 

[PK1]

Then you do the math on the odds of a single cell evolving into a four cell. I'll wait for you to post your results.

You make the common mistake in thinking of evolution as a random process. It is not, it requires natural selection.

If I randomly throw down a bunch of random words the odds of getting Hamlet are infinitesimal. However if I remove any words that didn't appear in Hamlet and thrown them down again I'll eventually have all the words of Hamlet. An inevitable process.

In other words you can't do the math. I understand. I am used to you scientific types that can't do math. The answer is infinity. The odds against it ever happening even over billions of years are so great that we have no number to express it.

You misuse math, a tool.
Math needs rational concepts to manipulate.

Mathematics can predict odds of occurrences. Math is a tool and is used to support many scientific facts - it simply will not support evolution.

Math supports evolution much better than a made up concept of "God ".
.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Read what Dr Collins says.

You realize that Collins believes in evolution, right?
.

Irrelevant to the OP. Collins rejects Athiesm because of his work on the human genome is the issue.

Collins rejects atheism because of emotional issues, not evidence.
.

He says it's because of seeing how life works at the smallest levels.
It's your free will to call him a liar.

I did not call him a liar, just ignorant.

So now you're a psychologist who's spent time with Dr Collins.
Got it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Then you do the math on the odds of a single cell evolving into a four cell. I'll wait for you to post your results.

You make the common mistake in thinking of evolution as a random process. It is not, it requires natural selection.

If I randomly throw down a bunch of random words the odds of getting Hamlet are infinitesimal. However if I remove any words that didn't appear in Hamlet and thrown them down again I'll eventually have all the words of Hamlet. An inevitable process.

In other words you can't do the math. I understand. I am used to you scientific types that can't do math. The answer is infinity. The odds against it ever happening even over billions of years are so great that we have no number to express it.

You misuse math, a tool.
Math needs rational concepts to manipulate.

Mathematics can predict odds of occurrences. Math is a tool and is used to support many scientific facts - it simply will not support evolution.

Math supports evolution much better than a made up concept of "God ".
.

Where does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?

 

[alang1216]

Because the bacteria requires photosynthesis.

So we agree that sensing light is advantageous for bacteria. Seems logical that the better you can sense light the bigger the advantage.

 

[PK1]

You make the common mistake in thinking of evolution as a random process. It is not, it requires natural selection.

If I randomly throw down a bunch of random words the odds of getting Hamlet are infinitesimal. However if I remove any words that didn't appear in Hamlet and thrown them down again I'll eventually have all the words of Hamlet. An inevitable process.

In other words you can't do the math. I understand. I am used to you scientific types that can't do math. The answer is infinity. The odds against it ever happening even over billions of years are so great that we have no number to express it.

You misuse math, a tool.
Math needs rational concepts to manipulate.

Mathematics can predict odds of occurrences. Math is a tool and is used to support many scientific facts - it simply will not support evolution.

Math supports evolution much better than a made up concept of "God ".
.

Where does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?

Check out the concepts of self-organization & emergence.
.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Because the bacteria requires photosynthesis.

So we agree that sensing light is advantageous for bacteria. Seems logical that the better you can sense light the bigger the advantage.

You confuse photosynthesis with sight.

 

[Weatherman2020]

In other words you can't do the math. I understand. I am used to you scientific types that can't do math. The answer is infinity. The odds against it ever happening even over billions of years are so great that we have no number to express it.

You misuse math, a tool.
Math needs rational concepts to manipulate.

Mathematics can predict odds of occurrences. Math is a tool and is used to support many scientific facts - it simply will not support evolution.

Math supports evolution much better than a made up concept of "God ".
.

Where does it say chaos naturally evolves into order?

Check out the concepts of self-organization & emergence.
.

I asked how an explosion naturally turns into order.

 

[PK1]

You realize that Collins believes in evolution, right?
.

Irrelevant to the OP. Collins rejects Athiesm because of his work on the human genome is the issue.

Collins rejects atheism because of emotional issues, not evidence.
.

He says it's because of seeing how life works at the smallest levels.
It's your free will to call him a liar.

I did not call him a liar, just ignorant.

So now you're a psychologist who's spent time with Dr Collins.
Got it.

Yes, i'm a developmental psychologist who is very familiar with scientific research methods.
.

 

[alang1216]

Then you do the math on the odds of a single cell evolving into a four cell. I'll wait for you to post your results.

You make the common mistake in thinking of evolution as a random process. It is not, it requires natural selection.

If I randomly throw down a bunch of random words the odds of getting Hamlet are infinitesimal. However if I remove any words that didn't appear in Hamlet and thrown them down again I'll eventually have all the words of Hamlet. An inevitable process.

In other words you can't do the math. I understand. I am used to you scientific types that can't do math. The answer is infinity. The odds against it ever happening even over billions of years are so great that we have no number to express it.

The math is easy. The odds are 100% given enough time. I must be right since that is what happened.

Since you prize math so much, what are the odds that God created this universe. Please show your work.

 

[alang1216]

I see you didn't dispute what I said. If evolution can't pass the mathematical tests, then it fails.

Every single thing you said was wrong. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

No. You made an accusation but did not offer any proof of your accusations. Now do the math I asked you to do. I am waiting.

The math you asked for has nothing to do with evolution since it is NOT a random process.

Hossfly, I can measure radiation emissions from a radioactive source which is a totally random emission rate. I can even measure the background decay of radiation which is also a random decay. Do you actually know anything about science or mathematics?

I know there are things that are random and things that are not. Evolution has a random component but natural selection is NOT a random process.

 

[alang1216]

Because the bacteria requires photosynthesis.

So we agree that sensing light is advantageous for bacteria. Seems logical that the better you can sense light the bigger the advantage.

You confuse photosynthesis with sight.

Biologists say they have solved the riddle of how a tiny bacterium senses light and moves towards it.