There is no evidence for the existence or non-existence of God...

The evidence God exists is in you. Obviously if you are self aware then it is possible that other forms of "life" (organic or otherwise) have also developed self awareness. Humans have figured out ways to manipulate the world around them. It is possible that these other life forms have also figured out how to manipulate the world around them but in ways that far exceed our powers and perhaps these other forms of life have figured out how to live forever as we may do one day.

In an infinite amount of time all possibilities happen.

The chances of there not being an entity out there with powers akin to a God are almost zero.

 

sufficiently advanced aliens ok even if all posibilitys happen dose that mean any thing at all is posible what if the laws of phyisics limit the power you can have even if you learn them and figure out all you can do under them how do the not sufficintly advanced gauge that potential ?

 

Coincidentally, there is no evidence for the existence or non-existance of either the Martian Tea Kettle floating in perfect orbit around mars nor the magical God-eating dragon living in my garage.

 

I don't think the idea of a more powerful entity is illogical or impossible (although the specifications of the Christian god are problematic.) But I disagree that such an entity is likely to have created and us and maintained an interest in our welfare, in particular in such an anthropomorphic fashion as is described in the bible. Allowing for the possibility of a super-being isn't really useful without any evidence that one exists, and I don't think you've proven that.

 

How can an incredible powerful and intelligent being who is able to create a universe in 7 days after having created his first one, which contains one planet with some ugly malfunctioning prototypes of low level intelligent creatures waste his time by threatening his own constructional defects punishments for not functioning perfectly. That is both ridiculous from the view of technology and the view of logic. Everyone who has no problem to tinker universes within one week simply would make a new one. Every inventor is cursing at his new machine when it is not working. Bur even the most stupid inventor knows that this does not help. No technology can compensate the flaws of its constructor. That certainly is known to the highest intelligent of all beings, (alleged) creator of our universe. If he would be so stupid he wouldn't be able to create anything. The alternative looks much more logical: he himself was created. Created in the fantasies of early human beings in the absence of explanations for anything. He was the substitute for scientific discoveries. In the beginning he was in everything. After the beginning he popped out of everything where the basic function of the object was found out by natural sciences.

That is my opinion as scientist. There is however an error probability. Science tries to extract a rule out of repeating observations. That rule is the "hypothesis" or "theory". The hypothesis then is attempted to be proven experimentally. If that is possible, a hypothesis is regarded to be valid. Science has however problems with non repetetive occurences, because those simply have no rule. Science then generates a theory which is nothing but "belief", scientific religion, and perhaps by chance finds an experimental setup which produces the same effect. That however is not the complete proof of the former theory, many different causes having similar effects (Example: thunder. It is not only produced by an electrical discharge). In summary for me there is enough place in the error probabilities of science for people believing in god. Religion is nothing but one altenative hypothesis for effects we are not able to explain. If we are not yet able to explain those effects or if we already have the correct theory (religion) waits to be clarified by science. One point however must be perfectly clear: nobody in the world can prove that something does not exist. The burden of proof always is on them who think it does. Here religious people have an awful deficit. The usual "belief is proof enough" mantra does not add any credibility to their side. Here is the next problem all religions have. Why should anybody believe in the system of explanation of effects people had some thousand years ago. Religion is static. Everything which is written in those old books has become dogma. Nobody tries to seperate thousands of years old misinterpretations of nature from aspects which still could be regarded as valid, at least more valid as those old fashioned theories.

 

Mankind has figured out a way to worship many Gods, from a Cow to a Stone, but none of those Gods have any power.

The Only God that has any power is the one found in the Holy Bible. But even that God is not the God of all mankind. Only a select few.

 

Truth, right?
The son-of-God is Truth.

 

To some. not to all. as it should be.

 

Poor reading comprehension and the lack of information about the Universe was responsible for the misinterpretations about those seven 'days."

Reading better, we discover that the 24 hour day did not appear until god made the sun the time keeper for the Solar Clock.
Hence, the history of the earth during those first seven "days" were actually measured on the Geological Clock, in eras.


1. Formative/Cosmologic Era-Hadean Era/ = First Day

(This was a 9 billion year long duration until the formless matter of the Earth appeared and gradually record the History of the Earth in these rock layers):




2. Hadean Era-Archaean Era/ = Second Day

3. Archaean Era-Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day

4. Proterozoic Era-Paleozoic Era/ = Fourth Day

5. Paleozoic Era-Mesozoic Era/ = Fifth Day

6. Mesozoic Era-Cenozoic Era/ = Six Day

7. Cenozoic Era-Common Era/ = Seventh Day

 

Look, I have no problem with the theory that seven 'days' actually meant seven 'time periods'. But you keep posting the same seven periods - which are not objective in any real way. There are other ways to measure the eras of the past, which have more or less time periods, and are more useful, more consistent or so on. You or whoever wrote that piece have clearly just grab one of the many systems, that happened to match your preconceived idea. It's post-hoc rationalisation. By all means, continue to propose that seven days are not 'days' at all. Just don't try to back it up with this specious shoehorning.

 

Here is the corresponding durations and the seven "days" referred to in Genesis:


1. Chaotian evening of the Formative/Cosmologic Era -



… and the Cryptic morning of the Hadean Era/ = First Day




2. Early Imbrian evening of the Hadean Era -



… and the Eoarchean morning of the Archaean Era/ = Second Day



3. The Neo-archean evening of the Archaean Era-



… and the Paleo-proterozoic morning of the Proterozoic Era/ = Third Day




4. Neo-proterozoic evening of the Proterozoic Era-



… and the Cambrian morning of the Paleozoic Era/ = Fourth Day

 

Seven "days" continued:

5. Permian evening of the Paleozoic Era-



… and the Triassic morning of the Mesozoic Era/ = Fifth Day



6. Cretaceous evening of the Mesozoic Era-




… and the Tertiary morning of the Cenozoic Era/ = Six Day



7. Quaternary evening of the Cenozoic Era-




… and the Recent Epoch morning of the Common Era/ = Seventh Day

 

It is also a great misinterpretation that Noah built an Ark and floated around for 40 days and night with two of every animal. The actual facts based on the proper reading of these texts clearly shows it was not an Ark, but an Island produced for Noah by God, that was made of pumice and floated (we call this Australia today), and the days were actually the equivilent of 17.6 minutes by todays standards. Also, as it is clearly impossible to collect 2 of every animal on Earth in one place...the correct interpretation states that only one was needed, and Noah simply cloned them with alien technology provided by God and stored on the underside of the great pumice island.

Come on folks.....read yer freakin' bible.

 

The "island" was a special fenced off garden for thoughts which Noah carried Out-of-Africa, in his mind, images of all the animals.






Paleontologists Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews proposes that modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens 200,000-150,000 years ago only in Africa and then some of them migrated into the rest of the Old World replacing all of the Neanderthals and other late archaic Homo sapiens beginning around 100,000 years ago.

If this interpretation of the fossil record is correct, all people today share a relatively modern African ancestry. All other lines of humans that had descended from Homo erectus presumably became extinct.

From this view, the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years.

 

Another inaccurate interpretation.

The real and actual truthiness can be easily seen in the story of Adam and Eve. Adam was not created from Mud, he was incubated underground in an advanced hyperbolic chamber in Gods subterrainian city of Crystal spheres left over from the creation of the Orion system. Eve was an afterthough, but did not arise from his rib...it was the second penis that the original design carried so as to simplify the polygamy intended for Humans.

 

Deny the metaphor though it fits so well if you must, but you also deny the nonsense from the ancient church teachings.

Tis evidences the objection to rational interpretation or irrational interpretation.

It just means your mind was bias from git go.

As far Adam, he was created by an Act-of-God.
Two of the 24 Apes chromosomes had fused, chemical, (as if the atoms involved were the dust of the earth) that mutated this new creature with only 23 chromosomes.


At each end of a chromosome we have a Telomere.
The purpose of the telomere in a chromosome is to prevent deterioration of the important bits of the chromosome from the end.



Chimpanzees and Humans have extremely similar DNA to humans.
But Chimpanzees have one more chromosome than Humans do, (24 pairs), and if Humans and Chimpanzees are genetically related (sharing a common ancestor), this extra chromosome had to go somewhere.
Evolutionary Biologists might predict that two chromosomes fused into one.
But they would need hard evidence to use that hypothesis as more argument for evolution in general, and for a good enough reason to make such a claim.
As it turns out Chromosome number 2 in Humans was once two different chromosomes that were fused together.
Additionally, the evidence is that an extra large Telomere appears in the middle of the #2 chromosome, as well as an extra Centromere, as depicted in the illustration above.

 

You kinda proved my point. You've got "eons" mixed in with "eras": which is it? And why are some "eras" considered "days" and not others?

Again, there's nothing inherently wrong with your idea. But anyone can see you are trying to squeeze subjectively-determined time periods to fit your preconceived notion.

 

Complete nonsense.

 

That's an interesting perspective.
Of course, it used to be said by some cultures that God was a giant bearded dude living on top of a mountain (eg: Zeus)... that was proven false, so the core belief became that God actually lives on a cloud.... that was proven false, so it's changed again...

The only reason the notion of God hasn't been disproven is because religion moves the goalposts and redefines God to fit in the rapidly diminishing "unknown" left by science.

Despite this, there is not definitive proof for today's definition of "God"... so belief should be based on the balance of probability.
- Is it probable that a benevolent, invisible, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient being created all of existence as some sort of test? No, because an omniscient being wouldn't need to perform tests.
- Is it probable that a benevolent, invisible, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient being will reward some and punish others for all eternity? No, because the being would not be benevolent if it set benchmarks and then created beings it knew were going to fail, because it would knowingly be creating beings specifically for the purpose of eternal punishment.
- Is it probable that a benevolent, invisible, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient being created all of existence for the purpose of supporting humans? No, because the vast majority of our planet (much less all of existence) is not suited to human life.

 

I have a problem with the "7 days" of creation being some Million years (to be honest: I have the same problem with the theory of "evolution"): When "God" worked a few Million years on the creation on this planet and the ones he had in mind to have to live on it: Why did he stop (or in evolutionary theory: why is evolution suddenly "frozen"?) ? Why don't we see every day protozoa developing from algae, primitive organisms developing from protozoa or fish creeping out of the sea to develop into amphibians or for those who believe in god: the "creation" of new species by the creating authority "God"? The primary conditions for both "creation" and "evolution" have not changed so dramatically that both shouldn't occur (or "work") anymore. For evolutionists: if the evolution of species is explained by "selective advantages": Why do the "disadvantaged" elder lines of species still exist? For god believers: to create a bouquet of species on a planet is an expression of will. By which emotion was that will driven? Fun? Entertainment? Because god regarded life without inferior beings to be boring? And after creating that bouquet of species on our planet, which at least must have been driven by the same logic the laws of nature were "created", why did many species disappear without being simply "recreated"? For both: Is there the possibility for a 3rd hypothesis nobody has taken ino account until present?

 

Being at a 'disadvantage' (however you might decide that) doesn't mean your race immediately vanishes in a puff of evolution. Every disadvantage has its own consequences, some of them more serious than others, and most importantly if a species can still be competitive at reproduction and feeding then there's little reason to assume that they would die out at all.

Yes. Come up with it and we'll talk

 

Look at what's going on in this world and throughout the universe: birth, growth, procreation, death/dissolution, and rebirth. There is a progressive hierarchy of realities. What does an algae know about the reality of a tree? What does an amoeba know about the reality of an earthworm? What does an earthworm know about the reality of a bee, a bird, or a fish? What does a monkey know about the reality of an astronaut? Thus we do not know what is the reality beyond the human being, but it might be a darn good idea to bank on one being there, unless we are the apex of intelligence and reality in the universe, which is unlikely.

 

But maybe there is no apex.

As the old zen catechism states "perfection is a road, not a destination"

The idea of the absolute god is relatively new. Primitive gods could be injured, make mistakes and so on.

I think its funny that theist and atheist both agree that a limited god is "not god".

 

No apex? It's all relative. Perhaps the next step beyond this universe is other universes.

The ancient wisdom knowledge does not say the buck stops here.

God became limited upon stepping out of the unmanifest into the manifest. It goes with the territory.