What if we're all wrong!
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Re: "Can you give me one of the best "major errors" in the Bible?"
Here's one right out of the gate...
@ Tin Man
As you know you will only get evasions, instructions on reading other passages that "explain" (but don't) this seeming contradiction. You should just accept it TM, after all Jo is "living in truth".
His acceptance and excusing of rape, pillage, misogyny, genocide and patently false information throughout his preferred book of myth and non science serve his higher purpose.
Mendacity, excuses and "interpretation" are the hallmark of such responses as we are fed by theists who care more about protecting their view of life and religion than the truth.
"His acceptance and excusing of rape, pillage, misogyny, genocide and patently false information throughout his preferred book of myth and non science serve his higher purpose. "
It is a typical situation to be in for those who believe in flim-flam etc. They WANT to believe in it, as a matter of cultural acceptance within their in-group or just doctrine, no matter what the facts say or how strong the arguments against their position are, and they refuse to accept any evidence in opposition to their view. One example: look at those who believe homeopathy works, or even is superior to science based medicine. I have debated quite a few of them, and they are as indoctrinated and fundamentalist as religionists in defending their woo woo belief system. The acceptance of erroneous beliefs no matter what the arguments or facts against are or are presented is symptomatic for the state of mind of those going down a rabbit hole, irrespective of which rabbit hole it is.
@ Old man shouts.
I see you have dropped the racism charge? Was it just an oversight? Did the verse about all humans being of one blood convince you?
On another forum you said how that verbally beating up theists make you feel better.
Glad to have been of service.
No I have not "dropped the racism charge" The bible , your gods are indubitably racist.
The verse you quoted means nothing compared to the wholesale genocide, infanticide, massacres commanded by your god(s) in many verses of the bible.
Even your Jesus is reported to have been exclusionist, condemned by his own words...yes, that means racist. Your defence merely means you are unaware of 1st Century Jewish Law, cultural traditions and mores. As usual your complete ignorance is on display. Bravo.
The fact that you excuse these recorded horrors and try to rationalise them as justified is probably the worst thing I have read from you or anyone on these pages.
They show you to be amoral, cruel, without empathy and capable of such atrocities yourself if you think they can be excused or mitigated.
That is the appalling picture you have painted of yourself and your 'faith'.
For those 'fence sitters' who haunt these pages your incessant apologist stance, defence of the indefensible and intellectual somersaults should help them in their journey away from dark age superstition. The superstition that you embrace without a shred of evidence to support it.
The same horridly murderous 'god' that you try to 'logic into existence(and fail miserably). The 'loving magical' jesus figure, for which not a shred of contemporary evidence can be found, yet you still blindly and erroneously follow are symptoms of a much deeper malaise within yourself.
I will happily beat up anyone on any forum that presents such an inhuman set of views as you. You are not "of service" your views are despicable.
Hmm? Now by your rationale I'd be justified in implying that "theists are racist," as you implied atheists have a burden of proof, based on YOUR claim to have read some atheists make certain claims. Though you failed to offer a single link in evidence of that claim of course. Or even respond to my post come that.
His reference to genocide seems to have that covered.
I was a theist until approximately 1993 I decided to read the bible in it's entirety and truly learn every word. That is when I came to the inescapable conclusion that it was one very fucked up book, rife with contradictions and the weirdest of unbelievable stories.
If you want to become an atheist, read the bible.
Kind of like telling someone not to touch the hot stove because they will get burned. Even though a person has never actually been burnt by a hot stove, they can still understand the rule. I have never been hit by a car, but somehow I am able to know it would not be good.
@Jo Re: "Kind of like telling someone not to touch the hot stove because they will get burned. Even though a person has never actually been burnt by a hot stove, they can still understand the rule. I have never been hit by a car, but somehow I am able to know it would not be good."
Oh-dear-oh-dear-oh-dear.... *doing a double-take*... Oh, my goodness gracious... Tsk-tsk-tsk... Oh, you poor child... *chuckle*... Ya know, it is somewhat painful to see such morbid failure from someone who seems so genuinely earnest and sincere. Yet, at the same time, I can't help but see it as incredibly amusing. (But - hey - I'm just a sick motherfucker like that... *shrugging shoulders*...) Despite your failed analogy, though, at least you tried. So it is only fair you get a small consolation prize for participating. Here... *handing over small brown eraser shaped like a dog turd*... Oh, that's not a real turd, by the way, so please don't try to eat it. Anyway, let's see where you went wrong, shall we? Geeeeee..... Where to start?....
Well, first of all, just ask anybody who has ever had kids how effective it is to simply tell the child, "Don't do that, or it will hurt you." Most kids simply have to learn the hard way no matter how many times their parents tell them not to do something. You only hope they survive the lesson(s) without too much damage. So, there is your first fail. (Oh, Spoiler Alert: Your failure only gets worse from here..)
Next, I see people use parent/child analogies like that all the time. (aka: God is the "parent" and we (humanity) are his "children".) Now, on the surface, one could see that as making sense, right? Hell, I even use to believe it was a good idea once upon a time. Here's your "little" hiccup with that, though.... THERE IS NOT A PARENT ON THIS EARTH WHO IS OMNISCIENT OR OMNIPOTENT. (Not yelling, by the way. Just wanted that to stand out, and I do not know how to italicize on here.) God, on the other hand, being the supposed "Father" of us all, supposedly KNOWS EVERYTHING and can DO ANYTHING. That is what I was taught, at least. So, with that in mind, using your "hot stove" example, I have a question: WHY in the divine and unholy name of crunchy peanut butter and mustard jelly sandwiches did your all-knowing and all-powerful god put the damn "hot stove" right in the middle of the garden within easy reach of the "children"??? But, wait, there's MORE! Even beyond THAT total fucked up blunder, your god even already KNEW they would eventually "touch the stove" if he put it there. And in my mind, that makes your god either: A. The absolute stupidest and most incompetent "all-knowing" being ever imagined, or B. The biggest DICK and shittiest "parent" one could ever imagine. Either way, your god should not be receiving any "Parent of the History of Man" awards any time soon. Ummm.... allow me to put this another way, just in case this first explanation was not clear enough for you...
* Your god created EVERYTHING. The entire universe, our solar system, the Earth, and everything on the Earth to include Man.
* Your god placed his two pet humans on Earth in a tiny little patch of a "perfect garden of paradise" practically in the middle of nowhere in a fairly isolated location on Earth.
* His two pet humans were completely innocent and naive, and they had absolutely ZERO knowledge nor comprehension of good or bad... Because your god intentionally MADE THEM THAT WAY.
* Your god has a tree that is supposedly incredibly important and valuable. It is also supposedly very "dangerous" to his pet humans (who, remember, have NO concept of danger or such things).
* So your god is like, "Hmmmm.... I have this tree that I do not want my two precious pets to eat the fruit of, because it will "kill them." Where should I put it?.... Uh, let's seeeeee"..... *looking around all over the universe*.... "Oh, I know! I'll just stick it down there right in the middle of the little garden I made for them so that I can keep an eye on it and make sure they don't eat from it. YES! A perfect plan, if I do say so myself!"... *pats self on back*... "Gee, I wonder if I should put some type of barricade or fence around it, though? After all, I would hate for them to eat from it by accident.... Naaaaaaah"... *waving hand in dismissal of the thought*... "I'll just tell them not to eat from it. Surly they won't disobey me. (Okay, I know they will, but that's beside the point.) Oh, yeah, and I will make it the most beautiful tree with the most delicious looking fruits in the entire garden. After all, certainly wouldn't want some brown, shriveled, foul-smelling, poisonous, uninviting looking tree cluttering up the middle of the garden. That would be an unacceptable eyesore."
* Your god INTENTIONALLY made a "talking serpent" (God doesn't make mistakes, remember?) to trick his two precious, innocent, naive, gullible human pets into eating from the tree.
Wow... So, uh, yeah.... Sure, I could go on and on about this, but from this point forward it would be like beating a dead horse. What would be the point? But, hey, enjoy your consolation prize, at least.... *sees Jo spitting out pieces of brown eraser*... Geeeeez, dude, I TOLD you not to eat it... *sadly shaking head*...
@Jo Re: " You can't take 21st century understanding of science,overlay on an ancient text that was not a scientific treatise. Then ignore the original audience, ignore the type of literature, and ignore the purpose of the text."
Oooooooh.... Okay! I get it now! An ALL-powerful and ALL-knowing god that created THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE was absolutely CLUELESS as to how it might pass along vital knowledge to the very beings it created because it obviously made them too STUPID to understand. Therefore, it thought it would be better to totally mislead them in regards to many important scientific facts that could have helped them tremendously, and instead allowed them to discover these scientific facts for themselves over a period of thousands of years. All the while, however, having to fight and struggle the entire way (often at the threat of torturous death) against those "truly faithful" individuals/groups who determined their scientific research to be blasphemous and "demonic" because it was against that god's will. Excellent! Got it! Makes perfect sense now. Thanks.
Oh, wait... There IS one more possibility....
Maybe basic mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and cosmology were all TOTALLY DIFFERENT way back then than they are now. And your god somehow forgot to update his "perfect book", OR maybe it simply didn't think it would be very important for future generations to know such things. Yep, I can just see the ol' fart sitting way upon high looking down upon us puny creatures and thinking to itself, "Aw, crap... I KNEW I should have been a little more specific and accurate with that science stuff. Damn... I have GOT TO LEARN to trust my instincts. Honestly, though, I never imagined they would end up being smart enough to figure out all that shit."
(A couple of small edits for clarity.)
There are alternate possibilities. This god was a complete idiot, it could not make decent instructions. Of else it does not exist, and everything in the bible was not divine inspiration, but the ramblings of many different nomadic, brutal, and primitive sheep fuckers high on weed and hash.
Of course there are, mermaids, unicorns, leprechauns, dragons, garden fairies, any unevidenced fiction basically.
Explain how the deity you believe in is any different than Zeus or Thor? Beyond still being in vogue with the superstitious obviously.
"Explain how the deity you believe in is any different than Zeus or Thor? Beyond still being in vogue with the superstitious obviously."
Ohh! Ooh! I know! Pick me! Pick me!
Uhhhh, you see - there is this book called the Bible, in which God's word is written. And since it contains God's inerrant word, what the Bible says must be true, so therefore God exists. Neither Zeus nor Thor wrote the Bible, so they cannot exist, and are figments of superstitious minds from millennia ago!
And it's time for the editorial piece again ...
Oddly enough, this is one of the points I've been making repeatedly in various places, namely, that the moment any genuine evidence for a god type entity arrives for our perusal, said evidence will point to something so radically different from all past human experience, that the people best placed to understand it will be particle physicists, because they deal with counter--intuitive concepts on a routine basis in their research. Indeed, I expressed that very view in an earlier post in this thread, namely this one. Apparently you failed to read that before posting your above comment, and failed to notice in addition that I had, via said comment, already addressed this issue.
This still does not, however, absolve supernaturalists from drawing bad analogies, because I've been able to demonstrate a proper analytical understanding of relevant concepts repeatedly here. As a corollary, it's not for me to lower my standards to accept whatever fabrications supernaturalists think will prop up their assertions, but for supernaturalists to learn to develop some rigour.
Moving on ...
No I'm not. Once again, let's break this down into the relevant elementary steps, shall we?
Step 1: The magic man from the requisite mythology, is asserted to possess the ability to acquire perfect foreknowledge of the future.
Step 2: As a corollary of  above, said magic man must necessarily know in advance, that any errors attributed thereto will be discovered.
Step 3: The magic man from the requisite mythology, is also asserted to possess the fantastic powers required to instantiate an entire universe.
Step 4: As a corollary of  above,. said magic man must possess a level of understanding of physics at the very least, that if anything far surpasses the understanding of 21st century physicists.
Step 5: As a corollary of  and  above, any genuine entity that exists, to which assertions  and  apply, must also be able to know that any errors attributed thereto, will be detected by persons with far less understanding of physics.
Step 6: As a corollary of , any errors present in the requisite mythology, attributed thereto, either [6A] are not errors arising from said entity, but errors arising from humans lacking even elementary understanding of basic physics, which can be discarded on that basis, or [6B] point to incompetence on the part of said entity. Both [6A] and [6B], whichever one happens to be true, lead to the requisite assertions being discardable as demonstrable errors, and the provenance of the mythology as a purported source of reliable factual information to he cast in serious doubt.
This isn't a "strawman argument", it's a proper deductive analysis, based upon taking supernaturalist assertions to their logical conclusions.
Except that there are numerous supernaturalists who do regard this mythology as a scientific treatise. See: creationists.
Furthermore, pointing out that a mythology contains demonstrable errors is a perfectly proper exercise, especially when said mythology is presented by adherents thereof as purportedly constituting a special, privileged brand of "wisdom". Doing so refutes that epistemological assertion.
Except that YOU are ignoring the manner in which this text is regarded by present day adherents thereof, which is the point I am making here. The original authors and their contemporary audience can be forgiven for treating this mythology as fact, because they simply didn't know any better. But present day adherents who take the same stance, have a vast body of subsequent knowledge to call upon, against which to test the assertions of this mythology. Their failure to do so points to a woeful level of indolence on their part.
It isn't a "straw mam" argument, it's demonstrable fact. The mythology in question contains errors that would NOT have been the product of any genuine fantastically gifted entity, of the sort asserted therein to exist. This is inescapable.
Yes it does, and anyone reading that text without the requisite ideological blinkers can see this.
So why does it assert that these organisms arose, simply as a result of arranging for the parents to shag alongside coloured sticks? This is precisely what that passage asserts. And this assertion is utterly fatuous in the light of even 19th century genetics, let alone anything more advanced.
Ahem, if this is so, why is the connection I have just described asserted to be in place in that passage?
Look, drop the attempt to prop up this drivel with apologetics, and address the concepts that are clearly present within that passage.
So what? This is an irrelevance from the standpoint of the assertion that is clearly contained within that text. Your pathetic attempt to hand-wave this away with a change of subject isn't going to work with people who paid attention in class.
Excuse me? That biological absurdity is clearly asserted to be the mechanism that produced the requisite organisms. You cannot escape from that embarrassing fact.
Do NOT treat science as a branch of apologetics. This will only work out badly for you.
First of all, the authors thereof knew nothing of the sort, this was merely asserted to be the case. Furthermore, this mythology isn't the only mythology containing a "beginning" assertion. Greek mythology has one. Mayan mythology has one. Egyptian mythology has one. Daoism has one. There's a nice compartmentalised list of the creation myths humans have fabricated over time you can gaze at here. Your mythology isn't unique in this respect, and isn't even unique with respect to a creation ex nihilo myth - the Sumerians had one, which was plundered and plagiarised to a readily detectable extent by the authors of your mythology. The "global flood" myth is a wholesale borrowing from the Epic of Gilgamesh.
The data here is witheringly lethal to your apologetics.
Second, cosmological physicists are, as I've covered at length here and elsewhere, devising hypotheses for the instantiation of the observable universe, in terms of entities and interactions that are postulated to have existed eternally. In short, their view consists of "what we see had a beginning, but what it came from didn't".
Correction: what physicists postulate is that the universe in its earliest moments contained photons. Not all photons correspond to visible light. Furthermore, photons and other particles are a necessary consequence of the universe possessing various symmetries. If you want to try and peddle some apologetic fabrication to the effect that people 3,000 years ago knew about gauge symmetries, then every physicist on the planet will point and laugh.
In the past atheists could use the Bible claims of the universe having a beginning and light before the sun as evidence against its reliability. Now we know that it was right all along.
No it wasn't. Because, wait for it, during the early epoch in which photons first appeared, the intrinsic temperature of the universe was too hot for stable neutral atoms to form. Without stable neutral atoms, a solid body such as the Earth could not exist. Except that, oops, the Earth is asserted in Genesis 1 to have been "created" before the appearance of light. There goes your apologetics in a puff of factual smoke.
No I didn't. I hereby challenge you to back up this assertion with a citation, knowing that you will fail.
Once again, what part of "not all photons equate to visible light" do you not understand?
No they don't. Assertions that your magic man micro-manages the universe to move toward a predestined end, have been roundly flushed down the toilet, not least by quantum indeterminacy.
Plus, you've missed the point by several light years yet again. What science has succeeded in doing, is destroying supernaturalist assertions, particularly when those assertions have observational consequences that manifestly never occurred. This is subtly but rigorously different from destroying the 'god concept'. I've openly and explicitly stated that science hasn't destroyed the latter, not least because I've made reference to that concept in order to present specific, well-defined ideas of my own, such as the notion I presented in that past post, that any genuine god type entity found to exist will be best understood by particle physicists. What I'm saying isn't that science has "disproven" any god type entity in the most generic sense, but that it has rendered asserted mythological candidates for the role absurd.
Do learn to pay attention to what I actually state here, as opposed to your own fabricated version thereof.
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your post.
Why is it wrong for theists to try and use science to prove God, but not wrong for atheists to do the same?
Your invocation of science is a misuse of science. http://skepdic.com/essays/godscience.html
No one should misuse science and twist the Bible to support their beliefs.
Quick call the fire brigade before the irony burns the place down..........................
Oh, dear, it looks like it's editorial time again ...
First of all, if you examine all of the fatuous attempts by supernaturalists to try and use science to validate their adherence to mythological assertions, they all consist of treating science as a branch of apologetics. Which it isn't. Not least because apologetics is nothing more than the art of pretending that fabrication and discoursive elision constitute "evidence", which they don't.
Furthermore, whenever supernaturalists resort to the "science proves my magic man is real" apologetic gabage, they engage in unwarranted conclusion jumping, assertion peddling and blatant misuse of concepts they manifestly do not understand.
On the other hand, pointing out that scientific postulates are massively at variance with mythological assertions, is perfectly valid, especially when presented with that subset of supernaturalists who think that their favourite mythology is scientifically and historically accurate. It isn't, full stop. Worse still, there are cogent reasons for dismissing it as a collection of ethical fables, my previous dismantling of Genesis being a case in point.
And, my essential argument still stands, which you have totally failed to address in a proper, substantive manner. Namely, that any genuine massively gifted magic entity, capable of and responsible for instantiating an entire universe, would not allow elementary and risible errors to be associated therewith. Even more so, in the case of an entity which is asserted to be capable of obtaining perfect foreknowledge of the future, and as a corollary, would know that said errors would be discovered and exposed. You have presented NO valid objection to this essential fact. If I were in the requisite position, possessing the fantastic gifts asserted to be possessed by the merely asserted mythological magic man, I would make absolutely sure that any statements attributed to me were properly error checked and proof read, a process I apply diligence to even without possessing those fantastic gifts.
As for your invocation of Stephen Jay Gould's failed "non-overlapping magisteria", this IS a failure, not least because supernaturalists have trampled all over it with their size 12 boots on a grand scale. How many times have the regulars here seen assertions such as "science can't tell us anything about my magic man", then in the next breath from the same commentators, seen assertions that their magic man intervenes in the observable universe with observable consequences? Excuse me, but the moment ANY entity engages in observable interactions, then it becomes the purview of science BY DEFINITION, because that's what science is all about - examining and analying the observable. Apparently you failed to register this elementary concept in the requisite classes. You also failed to notice the blatant "have your cake and eat it" nature of the supernaturalist practice I've just described.
Even more importantly, you failed to register this important part of that essay you linked:
The fun part being, of course, that many of the assertions referred to in that paragraph emanating from supernaturalists, are not free from conceptual contradictions, and are not consistent with known facts, which means that the situation for supernaturalist apologetics is even worse than that essay implies.
Then, of course, the essay continues with this elementary observation:
So already, your attempt to try and dismiss my entirely valid observations and postulates, has failed on several grounds.
Even worse for your attempt to peddle this essay as a "rebuttal" of my expositions here, we have this:
In short, that essay essentially agrees with many of the points I've been making here. Except that it then wanders off into philosophical tangents that end up missing that essential point I presented above - science is BY DEFINITION the examination and analysis of the observable. As a corollary, if supernaturalists want to prevent science from being informative about their assertions, they have no choice but to render their magic entities unobservable. On the other hand, if they want to pretend that their magic entities are observable, science immediately steps up to the plate and says "bring me the data". There is no escape from this.
But it's even worse than that. Not least, because the requisite mythologies, as I've already expounded at length, contain assertions about the physical world and its contents, which is by definition observable, and those assertions have been flushed down the toilet by the observable data gathered by scientists. As a corollary, the provenance of the mythologies in question as purported sources of "knowledge" on these matters is likewise sent on a one-way trip round the U-bend. Noting this observable fact isn't "misuse" of science.
Quite simply, we have sound reasons to reject mythological assertions, as follows:
 The testable assertions have all been found to be wrong;
 The assertions that are not obviously wrong are almost always untestable, and therefore remain forever condemned to live in the void labelled "truth value unknown".
Oh, and once again, the moment one provides evidence in support of a postulate, we're not dealing with "beliefs". Do learn this lesson, especially as you've been presented this lesson repeatedly here.
I agree, but theists keep doing this. Atheists don't do this, as they accept scientific facts without bias, theists often cherry pick which facts they'll accept, based on their a priority religious beliefs. The threads here are littered with examples.
There is no scientific evidence for any deity, that's axiomatic. Many claims theists make and their scriptures make, are directly contradicted by known scientific facts. Atheist only point this out when theists make such claims, and this may disprove that claim, and possibly disprove that version of a deity, but atgeiststs don't need to disprove the existence of a deity anymore than they need to disprove the existence of invisible unicorns. Just why you keep ignoring this epistemological tenet of logic is unclear, but I must infer it's deliberate dishonesty on your part Jo, as this has been explained numerous times to you.
As of course has the common logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam, and how theists use this fallacy, as you keep doing, to try and reverse the burden of proof, and claim falsley that atheism involves a contrary claim or belief to theism, when a simple Google search shows it does not. Theism is a belief that infers a claim, atheism is simply the lack of that belief, and thus need not involve any claim or incur any burden of proof.
I disbelieve any deity or deities exist because no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for them. This is an unbiased benchmark as I apply it universally. I do so because methods that insist sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated for claims, like the scientific method, have been demonstrated to be far and away the best method we have for objectively understanding reality.
You are making more faith claims. "...like the scientific method, have been demonstrated to be far and away the best method we have for objectively understanding reality." I agree that science is the best way to understand the natural world, but you said reality? What do you mean by reality? That is an extraordinary claim.
Another faith claim you made. "There is no scientific evidence for any deity, that's axiomatic"
Claiming self evidence of something to do with deity is a faith claim.
It is also an irrational claim to expect to directly evidence the supernatural with the natural.
And one more claim. "Many claims theists make and their scriptures make, are directly contradicted by known scientific facts." What scientific facts contradict an objective understanding of the Bible?
I'd just have aliens from the far distant future bring us all back to life inside a computer emulation of a more idealised version of our universe or something like that. You would still have some of the problems you would have with a slightly boring more traditional super-natural based eternal life just minus anything particularly religious about it, unless people decide to start worshipping the aliens as a new religion.
Bollocks, you've failed for months to demonstrate a single shred of objective evidence, nothing but vapid rhetoric, anecdotal claims piled in tandem as if this validates the previous claims, and of course the usual string of fallaciously flawed religious polemic. Come on Jo, we have all seen this act too many times to let it pass without criticism.
give us your best piece of (what you consider to be) evidence for any deity. the very best you have, go on I challenge you to not be called a liar for your claim for evidence.
I am confident you will call me a liar and other dastardly names regardless how well or honestly I answer.
Will you tell me the reason you do that?
I have answered that question on a number of occasions. It is a lie to say I have not.
I can give you the dates and forums.
You may not have accepted, liked or even recognized the reasons I gave for my belief, but I did.
Here are some highlights again of why I believe in the God in the Christian Bible:
Because it answers the difficult questions in life in a way that makes sense out of life.
It is the best match for what I have observed, what I have learned, and what I have experienced.
It is where the evidence and reasoning has led me.
The universe and life evidences to me a purpose.
Its existence, laws, beauty, grandeur, immeasurable size, its logic.
The universe is capable of being comprehended.
All of the above cause me to conclude a creator, and something about this creator.
Life and the universe existing by some massively improbable happenstance, seems like a denial of the obvious to me.
The human condition of desiring to create.
Mercy, love, justice, compassion, heaven, purpose, meaning, and truth, point me to something that embodies and fulfills those qualities.
When I see a new born baby, a sunset, a supernova or a spec of sand, I see evidence of God.
There is something rather than nothing.
Looking like it was designed, indicates a designer. The universe looks rigged.
The universe being logical and rational indicate purpose, meaning, and a logical mind behind it all.
The need for a cause, fine tuning, nature and humans reflecting God.
The improbability of all the extremely unlikely events occurring that has led us to this point
It is the complete answer that encompasses everything and not just a narrow examination of some of the evidence.
Bullshit. We hear that non-sense here all the time, and it never stands up to even a moment's scrutiny.
Has it not withstood scrutiny for thousands of years?
Has your fine tuning arguments withstood scrutiny for thousands of years? I'm going to guess they haven't. Now, I'm pretty sure you didn't want to ask that question. Can you clarify your question?
An illiterate person living in a pre-scientific age, to a brilliant physics, they all can see that nature looks like a fix. It looks rigged. As if some great mind was behind it all. When you connect the dots it spells God. Or you can just see a bunch of dots. Causality is evident everywhere.
That is pretty vague. So some people "think" some stuff about nature? Can you be more specific?
Yes, physicist. Another bad grade in school for Jo. :-)
Having an understanding of DNA, RNA, proteins and the stuff of life (obviously I am not a brilliant biologist) evidences God. But even a person who knew nothing about DNA, RNA, etc., can see evidence of God in nature. God is not nature, but he is the author, architect and artist of nature. Just like we could in some way know an author or artist from their work, we can know God from his.
Is that any better?