Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Immanuel Can]

If I were simply to believe my eyes, I would look at, oh, the fossil record for instance, and conclude that humans and other great apes are descended from a common ancestor.

If you'd actually looked at the fossil record, I promise you wouldn't conclude that.

What in the fossil record would compel me to conclude otherwise?

I said that. In fact, it's the next thing you quote. See below.

But that's only one of many, actually.

We have nowhere near enough supposed transitional stage fossils to support any such narrative.

Okie dokie, so what is your explanation for the transitional stages we do have?

Name one.

[Will Bouwman]

We have nowhere near enough supposed transitional stage fossils to support any such narrative.

As you have said yourself, absence of proof is not proof of absence. There is nothing in the fossil record that would compel anyone to conclude that homo sapiens and the other great apes do not share a common ancestor.

Name one.

Australopithecus afarensis.

[Immanuel Can]

We have nowhere near enough supposed transitional stage fossils to support any such narrative.

As you have said yourself, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I've heard others say that line; but you'll find I've never said it. However, what is true is that is that absence of proof leaves a claim unsubstantiated.

There is nothing in the fossil record that would compel anyone to conclude that homo sapiens and the other great apes do not share a common ancestor.

You're shifting the burden of proof illegitimately. If the subject is the Theory of Evolution, then the theory owes us its evidence, its demonstrations, its proofs. It's not a reasonable argument to shift the burden.

It's the same as if you said, "Well, until you can prove fairies do not exist, they do."

Name one.

Australopithecus afarensis.

Well, I'm sure you Googled that. But okay.

Two problems. One is that you don't know whether it's an authentic transitional fossil or not. Piltdown Man and Ramapithecus, as well as archaeopteryx, once appeared in all textbooks, yet turned out to be frauds. Others (Sahelanthropus Tchadensis, Orrorin Tugenensis, Ardipithecus Kadabba, Homo Habilis, etc.) are based on fragments of teeth an jaw, plus conjecture. You have no way of knowing whether or not you're looking at a human ancestor or another ape.

The second problem, the one I mentioned, is that there are nowhere near the millions or billions of fossils, each one modelling a minute migration away from Homo Sapiens back to some alleged ancestor. So whatever you conjecture, it can't be the exceedingly wasteful and slow progressing processes of evolution that produced such a record as you find.

What we should have is a million "transitional" fossils for every one fixed-species fossil. Sheer numbers make that absolutely necessary. And if that's not what we find (and, you'll find, it's not), then Evolutionists need to explain why the allegedly random and progressive process of evolution does not yield many transitional forms for every one successful, completed species form. Such "bridges" should be everywhere.

[Gary Childress]

We have nowhere near enough supposed transitional stage fossils to support any such narrative.

As you have said yourself, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I've heard others say that line; but you'll find I've never said it. However, what is true is that is that absence of proof leaves a claim unsubstantiated.

Is your claim that the world was created by "God" substantiated or unsubstantiated?

[Immanuel Can]

As you have said yourself, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I've heard others say that line; but you'll find I've never said it. However, what is true is that is that absence of proof leaves a claim unsubstantiated.

Is your claim that the world was created by "God" substantiated or unsubstantiated?

Well, there's certainly evidence for it.

[Gary Childress]

I've heard others say that line; but you'll find I've never said it. However, what is true is that is that absence of proof leaves a claim unsubstantiated.

Is your claim that the world was created by "God" substantiated or unsubstantiated?

Well, there's certainly evidence for it.

What evidence exists that the world was created by "God"?

So does that mean that, by your definition, your claim that the world was created by "God" is therefore unsubstantiated? Yes or no?

[Immanuel Can]

Is your claim that the world was created by "God" substantiated or unsubstantiated?

Well, there's certainly evidence for it.

What evidence exists that the world was created by "God"?

We've gone over that. If you've forgotten, go back to the start of the thread and reread.

[Gary Childress]

Well, there's certainly evidence for it.

What evidence exists that the world was created by "God"?

We've gone over that. If you've forgotten, go back to the start of the thread and reread.

So, since you claim that "proof" is required to "substantiate" a claim, does your "evidence" that the world was created by God make your claim "substantiated" or "unsubstantiated"? Or is your "evidence" a "proof" that "God" created the world?

[Immanuel Can]

What evidence exists that the world was created by "God"?

We've gone over that. If you've forgotten, go back to the start of the thread and reread.

So, since you claim that "proof" is required to "substantiate" a claim, does your "evidence" that the world was created by God make your claim "substantiated" or "unsubstantiated"? Or is your "evidence" a "proof" that "God" created the world?

I think you're using the word "proof" a little casually -- which is fine, and you can do, but it's wise to make it clear that's what you mean by your usage in this context. Technically, a "proof" is not an empirical, observational or scientific thing: it's a mathematical-conceptual thing.

So if we use "proof" precisely, then the problem of an infinite regress of causes would qualify as a proof. But things like the design observations in nature would be "evidence," rather than "proof." I submit to you that the God hypothesis has both, therefore.

[Gary Childress]

We've gone over that. If you've forgotten, go back to the start of the thread and reread.

So, since you claim that "proof" is required to "substantiate" a claim, does your "evidence" that the world was created by God make your claim "substantiated" or "unsubstantiated"? Or is your "evidence" a "proof" that "God" created the world?

I think you're using the word "proof" a little casually -- which is fine, and you can do, but it's wise to make it clear that's what you mean by your usage in this context. Technically, a "proof" is not an empirical, observational or scientific thing: it's a mathematical-conceptual thing.

So if we use "proof" precisely, then the problem of an infinite regress of causes would qualify as a proof. But things like the design observations in nature would be "evidence," rather than "proof." I submit to you that the God hypothesis has both, therefore.

The problem of an "infinite regress" in cosmology is that there must be a beginning, and "something" cannot come from "nothing". Is that correct?

[Immanuel Can]

So, since you claim that "proof" is required to "substantiate" a claim, does your "evidence" that the world was created by God make your claim "substantiated" or "unsubstantiated"? Or is your "evidence" a "proof" that "God" created the world?

I think you're using the word "proof" a little casually -- which is fine, and you can do, but it's wise to make it clear that's what you mean by your usage in this context. Technically, a "proof" is not an empirical, observational or scientific thing: it's a mathematical-conceptual thing.

So if we use "proof" precisely, then the problem of an infinite regress of causes would qualify as a proof. But things like the design observations in nature would be "evidence," rather than "proof." I submit to you that the God hypothesis has both, therefore.

The problem of an "infinite regress" in cosmology is that there must be a beginning, and "something" cannot come from "nothing". Is that correct?

That's not a precise repetition of it, but it summarizes the inevitable conclusion somewhat.

[Gary Childress]

I think you're using the word "proof" a little casually -- which is fine, and you can do, but it's wise to make it clear that's what you mean by your usage in this context. Technically, a "proof" is not an empirical, observational or scientific thing: it's a mathematical-conceptual thing.

So if we use "proof" precisely, then the problem of an infinite regress of causes would qualify as a proof. But things like the design observations in nature would be "evidence," rather than "proof." I submit to you that the God hypothesis has both, therefore.

The problem of an "infinite regress" in cosmology is that there must be a beginning, and "something" cannot come from "nothing". Is that correct?

That's not a precise repetition of it, but it summarizes the inevitable conclusion somewhat.

What is the precise wording of the "infinite regress" problem?

[Immanuel Can]

The problem of an "infinite regress" in cosmology is that there must be a beginning, and "something" cannot come from "nothing". Is that correct?

That's not a precise repetition of it, but it summarizes the inevitable conclusion somewhat.

What is the precise wording of the "infinite regress" problem?

Again, I gave that several times, with lengthy explanations. To go over it yet again seems unnecessary. If you have a comment though, after you go back and read it, I'll address it.

[Gary Childress]

That's not a precise repetition of it, but it summarizes the inevitable conclusion somewhat.

What is the precise wording of the "infinite regress" problem?

Again, I gave that several times, with lengthy explanations. To go over it yet again seems unnecessary. If you have a comment though, after you go back and read it, I'll address it.

Where can I find your explanation of the infinite regress problem that contains the precise wording of the problem?

[Immanuel Can]

What is the precise wording of the "infinite regress" problem?

Again, I gave that several times, with lengthy explanations. To go over it yet again seems unnecessary. If you have a comment though, after you go back and read it, I'll address it.

Where can I find your explanation of the infinite regress problem that contains the precise wording of the problem?

The previous 30 or so pages. It's repeated several times, and objections are raised and dealt with there. I'm not going to go over all of that again, but if you're interested, you won't have a hard time finding it and following the trail.