Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?

RR, the fact is that if you're going to say that the theory indicates no God, that's fine. Yet the actual theories don't indicate anything other than what they seek to conclude.Simplistic Example, as I can't be bothered with a good one; This fish sure is colourful,
therefore I bet there's more colours of fish.There are, as predicted.END OF THEORY...... Person's belief outside of theory; that means fish built mountains afterall, as this theory indicates it.Another person's belief: I knew God painted fish with oil paints, as this theory seems to indicate it.Another: Oh my, fish are radiant pink bubbles of cosmic dust orgasms afterall.RR, obviously anything you see will have nihilism written all over it, and to another, like Jar, it might have God written all over it. It is of no consequence or relevance to the theory, and it's form.This is what Faith and Randman don't understand.There isn't a real contradiction in Jar's theology because he qualified God as a creator, or instigator of the universe. God would still be able to count without using his fingers if he can create a universe. Also, evolution would be none contradictive because if Jar seeing evolution coming about increases his belief or whatever, this would be fine, and impressive from the point of view that God made it possible.

This doesn't matter unless you say that God was needed. It assumes that the theist is saying that he is.There is no need of a cow, when I am making a cheese sandwhich.The fact is that parsimoniously, God is an addage from a biased perspective; but then if one never stated God was needed for evolution, then it's vacuous. God would be the instigator of the universe. How can he be an addage, if the Theistic claimant doesn't claim him to be necessary in the first place? Therefore you cannot infer he doesn't exist, from these premisses.Nevertheless, one could say that evolution requires God because God created the universe. And if there was no universe, then there'd be no evolution that could take place. Thus in this way, God is required. Like with my cheese sandwhich. Sure, when I make it I don't need the cow, but if there was never a cow, I couldn't make the sandwhich. So you see, it's how you look at it. And how we all look at it, is quite irrelevant as we can't prove anything.Your argument seems to be that mere absence favours the negative.If this is correct, then if I murder someone and there's no evidence, then there was no murderer.Can you see how that is faulty? Mere absence doesn't favour the negative. Yet if one expects to see evidence and it isn't there, then it is a genuine evidence of absence.But this depends on an incredible amount of speculation as to what would constitute "evidence of God".We could argue all day as to what would evidence God.You think you have a better argument for nihilism instantly, because of absence. Logically, I think you can't be right. You might have a persuasive argument, but that's a different thing altogether.Your argument can be incredibly persuasive, but that won't effect the logic that one cannot conclude as to which scenario is true with the information involved. I have made many persuasive arguments favouring God. But it doesn't matter because it's all vacuous if there is no proof.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-19-2005 04:57 PM

An appeal to Occam's reputation/popularity eh? I am not necessary, when it comes to washing your underwear. It doesn't mean I don't exist, or that you can infer my none-existence. Fair enough? (The universe won't fall apart if you/anyone agrees with mike). The razor alone, doesn't allow you to infer God is overall, unnecessary. Just that he is not necessary when it comes to evolution.God might not be required for evolution. True. Therefore he is not parsimonious WHEN looking at evolution. Therefore I am not arguing against Occam's razor. But Occam's razor doesn't allow you to conclude anything other than what is unparsimonious in the particular instance.Example;I am not required, and I am un-parsimonius, when it comes to washing your clothes.For all you know, if there was no God, then genesis and evolution could not occur. (cow and sandwhich example in my previous post).God not being necessary equates with me not being necessary in the washing of your underwear. It might be Occam's razor, but does it matter?

If you are looking for evidence of No God, you are not going to find it in the ToE, or anywhere else for that matter.

Well, on a personal level, I am convinced God does exist. I am just willing and able to say that my convinctions are irrelevant, objectively, as my personal experiences don't prove God.Sure, I'll admitt that it would be nice to have evidence. But then I wouldn't need to believe I suppose.

]-->