Question for atheists?

Question

This is a discussion on the theory of evolution, which I believe likely to be true, by the way. Can you cite something, anything, that provides evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that a supernatural parallel that guided evolution, undetectable by physical science, DOES NOT exist?

With all due respect, I don't see how any intellecually honest individual could adequately answer this question asserting absolute knowledge on the non-existence of such a component. Yes, natural selection is a great way to explain biological adaptations without mention of a designer, but only in the sense (at least to me) that it is does not facilitate the necessity for theology. The fact is that in the possibility of a metaphysical realm undetectable by current science, disproof of a designer is philosophically impossible, and the complexities of natural selection only seems to indicate (to me) that the existence of God is at least, very possible.
You're welcome to take a crack at it!

Anyway, it's not like we're going to convince eachother, so let's just exchange ideas.

Answer 1

This is not a discussion forum, it is a question and answer forum.

You've stated your case and lack of desire to see another viewpoint that disagrees with yours.

There isn't much left for "atheists" to add. (Atheist doesn't mean "biologist" or "evolutionary apologist" it means "lack of belief in a deity".)

Answer 2

A directly undetectable agent may be known by its effects on that which can be detected.
Thus the nucleus of the atom was shown by the scattering of particles.(Rutherford, 1911)
If there was a benificent creator, some evidence of that should be apparent. In fact the bible asserts the principle most firmly in Romans 1.
Now that's a hypothesis that can be considered.
(an indifferent God, as proposed by deists, is more difficult but a God that doesn't interact with the universe rapidly becomes little different from no god at all, for all practical purposes.)
For a God capable of benign creation by fiat the wasteful, contingent and cruel process of evolution doesn't seem an obvious route of choice. That Christians have to invoke "The Fall" to account for parts of nature being considerably less than "good" raises the possiblilty of invoking Occam's razor.
Painful childbirth in women an evolutionary by-product of developing large brains, or God's specific curse?
("Both" is an awkward position to hold)
No, the question can be addressed, though it's not a trivial one.

More tricky in some respects is the "Are we living in a computer simulation?" question. How would we prove, there, that the universe we seemingly detect is in fact an artificial construct? Only by tiny inconsistencies and glitches, perhaps.

Answer 3

So What Your Asking Is, Why Do We Belive That God Doesnt Exist, Without Evidence? Or Why the World Has Evolved Into What It Is With Us Being the Dominant Specices?

To Be Honest, I Have A Few Reasons Why God Does Not Exist. My Number One Being, There Is No Plausable Evidence That he Actually Exist's, Nobody Knows That, Untill they Die, Its Whether Or Not You Believe; That Makes Him real.(Sure I Beleive there Was A Man Named Jesus Back In The Day n he did some miraculous Stuff, But I dont beleive Him to be The Son Of Your Savour)

Other One Would be That something like 95% Of The World Beleives In Some Sort of Supernatural Higher Power being, But Yet None Of Them Roam The Earth. And probally more Than Half Of these People Who Beleive in this Would Not Beleive A UFO, Or The Lockness Monster, Or Big Foot. All Tho All Of These Have PhotoGraphic Evidence to Back Them Up, All God Has Is A Book.

The Milky Way(Our Galaxy) Has Roughly 100-200BILLION Stars That Are the Mass Of Our Sun, That Our Solar System Revolves Around... Now that ameans there are wat mayb 7X more planets than there are suns? And That there could Very Well be life, if not intellegent on any of them.... mayb not. But Then You Need to Take Into Account , There are Probally Millions Of Galaxys, but to astronomers can gaurantee that there are over 100,000. Now You do the Math on that, Its Almost Impossible. Now Are You to Say He Is the Only God In Our Solar system, or in our galaxy? Or In The WHOLE universe, there fore being the Superior Being to any life form that is on trillions and trillions of planets?

My Answer Is, I Will Beleive In God IF He Is To Make An Appearance Better Than The Other Myterious Things On This Earth.

Answer 4

You said "I don't see how any intellecually honest individual could adequately answer this question asserting absolute knowledge on the non-existence of such a component".

Quite. That's why science doesn't rule that out. But as it is, and I quote, "supernatural", it is outside the realms of the natural and therefor science does not consider it at all.

Most atheists will not say that absolutely something like that does not exist, simple because it is impossible to disprove. However, anyone can "not believe" in it without needing to disprove it.

It is an incredible claim - an extremely unlikely eventuality. The onus is on someone who makes such a claim to provide evidence for it.

Answer 5

Science does not address anything that is "undetectable by physical science." If it is not detectable, measurable, or analyzable, then it is irrelevant. If it is not detectable--AT ALL--, then it cannot have any kind of real world effect.

Science does not deal with the "supernatural" either because it is, by definition, not natural. Since science is the study of natural phenomenoa and forces, "supernatural" has no place.

That's it.

Present evidence that this undetectable, supernatural entity/force/genie exists, and then I'll listen. Until then, you might as well be talking about invisble pink unicorns, leprechauns, Zetas, Greys, and other imaginary beings that demonstrate no detectable evidence for their existence either.

Answer 6

There is a simple philosophical tool known as Occam's Razor which states that the simplest explanation is likely the most accurate. Biological science knows the genetic mechanisms that power evolution. A supernatural overlay that can't be verified and appears to be a superfluous complication of a verifiable natural process, probably IS superfluous. The mechanism is simple: useful mutations survive, un-useful ones perish. No "guidance" is needed.

Answer 7

Creationism and intelligent design are based on the premise that intelligence must come from intelligence. That premise is completely untrue.

In the field of artificial intelligence, there is a branch of study known as genetic algorithms. Models of the theory of evolution are used to generate intelligent robotic behavior from a set of initial behaviors that are entirely random.

First, the random behaviors are tested in simulation against a benchmark for performance. The worst performers are eliminated (killed). The remaining ones (the survivors) are copied (asexual reproduction) and/or mixed together (sexual reproduction) and a few variables in them are randomly changed (mutations). This new set of behaviors (the offspring) are tested against the benchmark and the worst performers are eliminated. This process repeats for many generations.

Eventually, this process of natural selection does lead to a set of intelligent behaviors for the robot, despite the fact that the initial ones were entirely random. This proves that intelligence can be created by unintelligent forces.

An almighty, omniscient creator God is not necessary to create the universe we live in.

Answer 8

No, of course not. You can't prove a negative on unknown grounds. That's on par with asking me to disprove the existence of aliens living among us that we can't sense or detect in any way.

You basically have to make a decision based on the lack of evidence. You can't state a logical true or false, but you can state a probable no based on the lack of evidence, and an even stronger probable no on the basis that the groups that make the claim's beliefs don't have any evidence either.

Answer 9

Did you hear what you asked? You asked for me to prove the non-existence of something that is not detectable. I couldn't disprove anything that does not exist.

Why do you think nature is too complicated to have happened by itself. As humans it is near impossible to even fathom our own life time, let alone billions of years.

As for absolute knowledge, no one is asserting that. Still that gets you to some form of deism, that is a far cry from any of the current monotheistic religions. For all practical purposes it is the same as atheism. There is no big guy in the sky, or a personal god.

Answer 10

Hmmm... I'm too anxious to answer your question, for I was thinking about this just last night...
Here goes, and sorry if I missed something, cause I didn't read the whole question.
I don't know if you can disprove the existence of a more evolved organism or inteligence in the galaxy than us, but you can definitely disprove our conception of a "god" or "gods". The logic behind this is that the truly all-powerful, omnipresent god we humans imagine would most certainly have to be able to think, or in other words, be sentient. It is no accident that we are able to think. Sentient beings, such as humans and animals, can think in order to react to their environment and survive. If god were indeed the alpha and the omega, as we like to imagine, there would be no reason for him to be sentient. There would be no reason for him to react, no motivation such as survival, and no reason for him to stir up the ingredients in this "fishbowl" to suit his desires. He would have no desires, or drives. Therefore, just the mere speculation as to god's ability to think disproves his existence. I believe this would be the absolute inverse of Rene Descartes' statement: "God thinks, therefore he is not".

Answer 11

If I could prove that god didn't exist I probably wouldn't tell anyone. A lot of people can't figure out right and wrong for themselves, and religion keeps them in check. I'd say the only good thing religion has done for the world. There are a lot of arguments I could give, but you just need to decide this one on your own.