Rob the Wop wrote:Finally something to work with.
OK, why even posit that God exists in the first place?
I think we can both agree that if we make up something out of thin air, it is pointless trying to prove it exists simply because I made it up- right? I suddenly say that there are green Twinkies waiting to kill me behind the closed door in front of us, you would look at me funny. You would then ask what makes me think there are green Twinkies behind the door.
This is the starting point in the debate for God in my eyes.
The green Twinkies should be consideded not exist because there is no reason to posit their existance. It was created, not to explain a phenomena, but simply for shits and grins.
God was created initially to explain things we didn't understand. Over the years, we have discovered that most of those things attributed to God were actually explainable via scintific means (thunder, the sun, volcanos, etc.). While there are still things out there that haven't been explained fully, we have been wrong so many times with the 'God explaination' that it makes me wonder why people still try to use it.
So the question is- what question is God specifically addressing at this point?
Like the green Twinkies the concept of God shouldn't be considered unless it addresses a specific question. "To explain everything we don't know" isn't good enough for me. Occam's Razor is the simplest way I could use to define this. We don't need to create beings to define things we don't know, since we then have the impossible task of trying to define how God does these things. And God doesn't disappear in a puff of logic when something we attribute to him is proven to be caused by something else. There is always someone there to say, "OK- we were wrong on that point. What about everything else?"
The concept of God is only useful to answer a question. The answer of God is a very very vague and useless answer to ANY question. As such, it should not be considered- other more scientific explainations (which we can attempt to prove) should be used instead.
All this has been stated earlier. Does this rewording make it easier?
It's as clear as it's always been. You have chosen to use a very narrow definition of the nature of god (in this case, god OR science, god OR nature) and used it to prove to yourself that there is no god. For someone who accuses someone else of being stupid and childish, it's a strangely closed-minded thought process. But I've already talked about god and science/nature not being mutually exclusive and it was ignored so nevermind.
Speaking of Ocham's Razor, what is the more simple explanation for something existing, that it was created or that it was not created and (somehow) has always existed?