I am hoping, assuming, that points 2-4 are not being attributed to me so I will refrain from commenting on them or your responses (much as I would like to I just don't have the time).
Point 1.
Your 'response' in point 1 is to an argument that I never put forward and isn't even present in the preceding line. I never said that it was proof that God exists. This is especially egregious since I've made the point, many times, that I was
not offering that as objective evidence of the existence of God and further, and that I believe that no such evidence exists, or is even possible to obtain. You appear to be consistently missing the point I'm trying to make and focussing on potential arguments that I have never made on this thread.
Point 5
The same thing for point 5. The contention that you're responding to makes no claim about this being proof of anything. It is a statement of faith only. Yet you react as if this were somehow presented as 'evidence'. It was not.
Point 6,
Your response appears to be a demand that I speculate about the motivations of a being who could create the universe, who exists outside of space and time, and who I can't even remotely qualify to speak for as a representative. So, I decline to do so.
That said, I'm not exactly sure how your questions about God's motivations actually are intended to rebut the logic of my argument, so I begin to hope that maybe you are beginning to see that I'm right about that. If they
are intended as a rebuttal of some kind, then it's either very obtuse, or a misdirection used when no relevant, logical counterpoint to my proposition came to mind.
Point 7
Carl Sagan (a fairly famous atheist himself) once wrote that 'Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence'. Yet you keep referring to the lack of evidence as a reason that you believe that there's no God. I think Carl encapsulated the logic perfectly but you can feel free to believe otherwise if you like. Science can only fail to disprove something, rather than prove something. So, why can't you recognize that the same inherant logical issue exists for anyone wanting to 'prove' the existence of God versus someone wanting to 'dis-prove' the same? The former is both impossible and logically incompatible with scientific method, while the latter is logically consistent with scientific method, but is also impossible since God exists beyond space and time. And whatever God's motivations might be, they are not a relevant riposte to this logical proposition.
General
You keep demanding 'evidence for'. I say none exists. I further say that no human test can ever prove, nor disprove, God's existence. You contend otherwise, yet offer no example of such a test to disprove me. Why? If you're right you should be able to cut me off at the knees with a single devastating example that I can't explain away with a rationale for how it fails to definitely dis-prove God's existence.
You repeatedly demand the impossible (proof for the existence of God) to advance an argument that I have never made, and that I don't think can ever reasonably
be made. I have no interest in tilting at windmills. Especially windmills not of my choosing and irrelevant to the question at hand.
Science can only describe/explain phenomena that exist within the limitations of space and time. Beyond those limits, science cannot go except in speculation. That's reality, as I see it. If you disagree then fine. Show me where I'm wrong. My rationale: God, if he exists, created space and time. He isn't limited by them. Science can NEVER get a handle on God. He's beyond the scope of our very existence. He's not some clever fellow playing harps on a cloud who we can send a plane up to photograph; he's not some cowardly alien 'hiding' behind Alpha Centauri; he's GOD.
Now, before you respond again that I'm not offering you any evidence, let me be very clear. I am not
trying to offer this as evidence for the existence of God.
I am only explaining to you, as carefully as I can, that science cannot prove, nor disprove God's existence. Science does not even operate at the level where you could find such evidence (beyond space and time). Where science stops, philosophy and religion start. Using scientific evidence (limited by physics, space and time) to argue either for
or against the existence of God is therefore a nonsensical proposition.
It's like the game pieces in Monopoly trying to explain the game's existence solely by interpreting the rules of the game itself. The existence of the game itself is incontrovertible but the why is a mystery to the game pieces. From within the game itself, the flow of time brings about a progression of events that are dictated by certain game rules. The rules themselves can be quantified and measured, but the ultimate point of the rules and the game's existence is far larger than the sum of the rules, however inexorable and unchangeable they appear to be after the game has been manufactured and sold. The idea of there being a game creator isn't anywhere to be seen in the rules themselves, but we know it remains true nonetheless (because WE are not limited by our frame of reference as the game pieces are).
In the parallel question of God's existence, the game rules are parallel to the rules of space and time (physics, chemistry, etc), we are the game pieces with the limited frame of reference arguing about it all, and God is the creator of the game.
I believe in God. That is a choice I made when I was a teenager (I also had a non-religious upbringing incidentally). You are welcome to choose otherwise, as you wish, with my best wishes for whatever choice you make. I am not out to convert you, or even to make you sypathetic to my viewpoint on the matter. Yet I've seen the same evidence that you have, maybe more. I think I've demonstrated a fair understanding of evolutionary theory and have presented well-reasoned, logical arguments as to why my choice is really not that big a deal for reconciling with the lessons of science. I've also formed an opinion on where the limits of science are, and I have come to an opposite view as to the existence of God as you. Why does that seem to challenge you so greatly? Science is a wonderful tool. But it is not, and never will be, able to answer all the questions about the 'why' questions we will always continue to have.
I think that faith is a choice that people make in the absence of compelling contrary evidence. We have no evidence at all as to whether the universe came about somehow as a result of design, or by accident, or something else. I believe in God and I think it's design. You don't believe in God and say it must be 'extra-cosmic accident' or 'something unknown'. You will not even entertain the possibility of a God being the real explanation. The point is, your initial assumption about God shapes your interpretation of the facts. Neither explanation can be tested. Neither explanation constitutes proof of anything: and I've never claimed otherwise.
My faith does not contradict any of the findings of science, and nor should it. Likewise, none of the findings of science contradicts my faith in God's existence even if, occasionally, they force me to redefine my understanding of the world around me and my interpretation of the bible.
In fact, about the only thing on this thread that makes me a little nervous is that I appear to be on the same side of an argument as Mike375!
Say some researcher published an article tomorrow saying that he was able to measure some aspect of god's influence on the world. Do you think the faithful would refute that evidence as energetically as they refute all of the scientific evidence for evolution?
Well, if you understand my position at all, then you'd know that both the scenario, and the idea that I am somehow attacking evolutionary theory, are both quite ridiculous. I share your opinion that science is a laudable tool for discovery that should never be obstructed. I am embarassed that some people of faith react in fear to the idea of learning something unexpected and new.
I find it a part of the natural human arrogance to argue that all that is currently not understood can and will be eventually understood by the human mind
I think folks who object to Dan_Cat's word 'arrogance' in this context are over-reacting a bit. Perhaps a less perjorative substitute would help, like 'hubris'?
Humanity tends to have a rather high opinion of itself despite all the evidence to the contrary. I concur with dan_cat here.