great answer Foxy

Foxy,

God as the default option....?

So if you believe that God is the most feasible answer to all of life's big questions, how do you (personally) respond to that?

"evolution - that somehow the ever-improving organism can transform into an entirely different species!" - cybacaT

No. An ever-adapting species responding to changes in the ecology.

The chains-of-evidence are DNA and the fossil record that can be traced back from the land, to the sea at large, to the sea floor, to the biosphere under the sea. Significant factors being Carbon & Oxygen and in the Cambrian Period the development of shells, amphibians, spins, cold blooded land animals, warm blooded animals [meteor stike], mammals [land & sea], us:
[Not only because are intelligent: We belief we are control of the ecology. We might win battles against rain forrests etc., but we we loose a war against the Nature of the Planet, if we don't adapt.

Hope the Dolphins survive :-).

If I ever get the chance to meet the all mighty zoo keeper, not only am I going to give him a forehead slap, but Iam going ask him to leave better instructions.

God! You'd better have a bloody good explanation for all this.

I give up! Smile.

EVO

Of course God exists Cat surely evidenced by his many minions doing their best to convince you of the fact, not only in this thread but in the non-cyber world. I don't mean just the witnesses knocking down your door but the edifices of worship in every community.

God exists like romantic love exists. I know that there was a hell of a lot of hormones responsible for Romeo and Juliet wanting to get it on but wrap it all up in a love story and it is glorious. And isn't that what God is? A glorious love story. We might not feel it but others do and just as most of us are reluctant to come between star crossed lovers (unless you are the girls father) do we need to be getting in the way of people's love of a God? People need a way to cope with this awareness thing nature has lumped us with (particularly of personal mortality) and a God notion is a pretty spectacular way of doing it, it seems to work pretty well for so many.

So if you want to trash God for people you logically (or scientifically if you like) need to be prepared to forego romantic love. Willing to make the sacrifice? If you are not then can I please have the empirical evidence for romantic love?

The fun in these threads is not finding out anything new, but to see how far the godbotherers are prepared to stretch reason in order to get their point across.

>>God exists like romantic love exists... So if you want to trash God for people you logically (or scientifically if you like) need to be prepared to forego romantic love<<

Cute.

Take one abstract concept, put it alongside another abstract concept, and say "if you can believe in one abstract concept you must believe in all abstract concepts; if you disbelieve one, then you must of necessity disbelieve them all."

I'm absolutely sure that csteele believes that the two - God and romantic love - are connected. But to anyone not blinded by the romanticism of religion, the two have no logical association whatsoever.

The author does not even have the courtesy to justify the connection they so blithely establish. We are apparently supposed to say "ah, yes, of course", once again proving that in order to believe in God it is important not to engage any brain cells.

The triumphal challenge at the end...

>>Willing to make the sacrifice? If you are not then can I please have the empirical evidence for romantic love?<<

... is therefore no more than self-deluded bluster.