I'm not saying either. In the same way that "design" has not clear measurable criteria for its definition, something like "God's involvement" also lacks such hard criteria. If you're looking for a formalized scientific theory of the involvement of God in the universe, you're not going to find it.

I think the analogy of dog breeds is sufficient to explain my position. I don't think I can explain it any more clearly than an analogy.

It's hard to talk to people who can't even explain that which makes the most sense to them.

I should also add, that my "how" question is easily answerable for the human dog breeding. Humans intervene by crossing and selecting appropriately.

The "makes sense" is very simple. God is involved as the creator/sustainer of the universe (theistic) and things change over time (evolution).

But since this isn't what you're looking for, you're not able to understand what I'm saying.

Now, which of the traits are the result of human intervention, and which ones are the result of natural selective processes?

What do you mean by "sustainer"? (this is the same "how" question)

That's a different question. I only asked you to provide a "how" to begin with. Once you do that these other questions may or may not become relevant.

man this is getting rediculous....no theist has provided any evidence for there extraordinary claims.....heaven forbid I asked for extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary claims.

theist I just want you to examine your views and approach things skepitcally. This is the approach that many used on me and it seem to hit home the hardest. When you have no evidence its time to abandon that belief system/worldview.

Do not worry however, if we later find some evidence, we can go back to the theist worldview no problem-o.

If God chose to end the universe in three minutes, he could do it, and there's nothing anybody can do to stop it.

Again, unless you can parse between "this is by God" and "this is not by God" in a meaningful way, the question is empty. Is "gravity" somehow "not by God" simply because we put equations on it? Is "life" somehow "not by God" because we have this mechanism that we call "evolution" that describes how life progresses?

The problem, as I see it, is that you're trying to divide things that cannot be divided.

Who defines "God" to be an extraordinary claim?

Can you be skeptical of the value of "evidence" under the definition that you use? It seems that your worldview is so steeped in it that I don't think you could question it if you tried.

you are such a dishonest person that I will no longer engage in debate of any kind with you, nor will I waste any more time on you. I really hope you waste your entire life under the indoctorination of a god that isnt there. Then I hope you go to heaven and I hope your entire family does not. Then we will see how gracious your god is when you are living it up in heaven while some of your family is burning in enternal torment.

glad I dont believe that **** be hard to look my family in the eye

If you can make a claim and verify it without evidence that is testable or obersveable or repeatable or empirical or demonstrative then I wont even consider that claim in my worldview.

Me for one

I don't mind this one bit. Nevertheless, the claim that such-and-such is extraordinary is not one that is quantifiable, and something that is essentially an arbitrary standard. It seems not-so-extraordinary to me.

As anyone can plainly see, your definition of evidence is so deep in your worldview that you cannot escape it. You lack the capacity to be skeptical of your own worldview.

Sustains the universe = can destroy it in 3 minutes? That's your definition?

It's about time you went ahead and defined "God".

I wasn't giving a definition. I was giving an example. The universe is God's to do with what he pleases. If he wanted it to end, he could end it. If he wants it to continue, then he can allow it to continue.

There's no definition of "God" that I can provide for you that will be sufficient for declaring what "God" is (edit: beyond "God is who he is"). I can give you definitions of aspects of "God" but I will not define "God" because that would be a gigantic category error.

Telling me about your gods' destructive superpowers has little to do with my question. (unless you want to say that the only "sustaining" your gods do is not destroying the universe)


lol, I can understand someone taking this position because they feel better about it or are just lazy, but how this position "makes more sense" is a complete mystery to me

Bunch of three year-olds and name calling ITT. Anyways...

The fact is when it comes to God, theists can't scientifically prove it and atheists can't scientifically disprove it. There is no scientific evidence either way.

Theists have their reasons why they, personally, believe there is a God. Atheists have their reasons why they, personally, believe there is no God.
The claims on both sides cannot be proven either way, so how is one side more ignorant or dishonest than the other?

Stop attacking the other side because it gets you nowhere laggy; in fact, it makes you seem ignorant and infantile.

So the bible is a huge error. Good to know.

I think it's safe to say a lot of mathematics went into the pyramids. Because of the land census (due to floods) the Egyptians were well versed on geometry. This likely made them able to draw well specified engineering plans and calculate logistics, building some like the biggest pyramids by pure trial and error is a lost cause.

As for Catedrals, the middle ages surfed along on a lot of Greco-Roman knowledge, even if the majority of method was lost. Historically you will actually see engineering sophistication accelerate not untill the renessaince with the rediscovery of geometry, mathematics and not the
least; concrete.

They might have perfected their brick and mortar techniques, but the the real architectural advance came as a result of an intellectual revolution.

Tell me where the Bible "defines" God in some form other than what I have described.

If you fail to accept the premise that "nothing exists without God" then you will continue to fail to make sense of anything I've said.

What "makes sense" (just as what is logical) depends upon what you assume. If you assume things that are in conflict with my conclusion, it will never "make sense" to you.

Edit: For emphasis - If *YOU* assume things that are in conflict with *MY* conclusion, it will never "make sense" to *YOU*.

Before I ACCEPT your premise, I need to UNDERSTAND what your premise says. I don't know how well you yourself understand it, but so far you've done a pretty poor job of explaining it to me.

When you say "nothing exists without God", do you mean that if God seized to exist (whatever the undefinable "God" means), everything (I assume by everything you mean the universe) would seize to exist?

And one more question in case you answer "yes" - do you think the universe exists as a fundamental entity or is it merely an illusion of fundamental existence and the "actual reality" is not all of this? If the question is unclear, I'm thinking of e.g. "holes" in semi-conductors as looking exactly like particles while not really being particles but instead being a collective effect of the underlying material, or a computer simulation of some object.

Yes. Our existence is contingent upon His.

I think that there is a real universe. I don't think it's sensible to construct a brain-in-the-vat type of understanding of the universe. I don't think that we are able to understand it to the fullest extent possible, but this does not negate the real-ness of it.

I was just kidding mostly but the bible and its followers that speak for God define hm in all kinds of ways. Im not really interested in going through the thousands of ways in which they and the bible do that.

Ok. These are the options I see right now.

We are a physical part of this "God" thing, like an arm or a leg - and there are some natural processes that keep both of us going, but we are a sub-component that's non-essential to "God"'s existence (but not vice versa).
We are not a physical part of this "God" thing, but "God" is the driving mechanism behind one or more of our 4 fundamental forces, or whatever it is that you mean by saying "universe seizes to exist".

Yes/no?

No. You're headed into a pantheistic worldview at this point by declaring us to be a "part" of God.

Better. I don't see any immediate problems with this understanding, so I'll move forward with it to see where it goes. (I've never considered it in these terms, so I'm going to need some time to feel out various interpretations and consequences of this phrasing.)

The only part of this that you are potentially moving towards a static role for God by "mechanizing" Him. If you allow an understanding of "mechanism" to include statements such as "This post was created by the 'Aaron W. mechanism,'" then I think we'll be okay.

If you're not going to define god in any way, why god and not "pete" or "X"? It seems hard to believe that you don't have any thoughts as to what god is; you might as well be an atheist then.