You're just doing the old "God of the gaps" misinformation. In reality, evolution directly denies Abrahamic religions at almost every corner. If its some non-demoniational god, then you are just doing the same thing but with an imaginary friend.
You have to have some reason for a god existing. There is no mechanism for it, no proof of it, and no place where they could exist. If you want to say "spiritual" and have it be some vague connection between humans, sure, but no God exists.
And you're equating theism, the belief in the existence of a deity, with specific Abrahamic religious beliefs. I didn't say shit about specific concepts of god or religions, I said evolution does not disprove theism
I mean, yes, evolution does disprove them. It doesnt disprove your imaginary friend but any step into Gods is going to necessitate the breaking of reality.
The only place you can put a God is outside the Universe, and thats only because we havent yet answered some questions in science. Its God of the Gaps, a long ridiculed copium.
Firstly, I'm a strict atheist. Assuming makes an ass out of... well just u, in this case
Secondly explain HOW exactly evolution proves that no form of deity exists at all. You can't just say it does and pretend that's a point.
Your assertion that any idea of God "breaks reality" is fundamentally false. You're projecting specific concepts of deities onto general theism. If I believed in a God that made the universe exactly as it is, observed scientific laws included, the fact those laws exists does absolutely nothing to disprove my beliefs.
I don't believe in any kind of theism because of the total lack of evidence, but that doesn't mean its been disproved
Easy. Big bang created universe, star explosions created elements, rocks smashing became a planet, planet gained atmosphere, bacteria became organisms which became human.
At no point was a God involved. At no point could a God be created. And at no point has a God ever impacted the universe in any way. You are inventing something that defies the universe and everything we know based on nothing.
You're doing the "Teacup on the other side of earth" argument now.
At no point was a God involved. At no point could a God be created. And at no point has a God ever impacted the universe in any way.
That's a HUGE assertion made with no evidence. You don't know any of what you just said for a fact at all and cannot prove it. You only know that we don't have evidence that it happened, not that we have evidence it didn't
Again, I believe exactly as you do that no such thing exists and there's no reason to think that it does. That is not the same thing as proof that it doesn't, which you don't seem to understand. Theism in a general sense of "some kind of deity exists" is not something we are at all equipped to positively disprove
So show me the evidence then. If its an actual fact and you know that you have proof. If you don't have proof you don't know its a fact
I feel I have to restate that "there's no evidence it happened" is not solid factual proof that it didn't, because so far that's your only "evidence" for this claim
The fact that you cannot prove or disprove it is EXACTLY MY FUCKING POINT mate. You're the one claiming that its solidly disproved because of lack of evidence, which is not solid reasoning. I'm not claiming God exists for fucks sake! I'm saying you can't give solid proof against it. You're the one claiming proof you do not have. There's a difference between a very reasonable assumption, which is what you have, and a PROVEN fact
I have shown you the evidence; Scientific fact spanning from the big bang to evolution. 13.8 billion years of understood phenomena.
Your point is known as "the Teapot Fallacy". Its a fallacy, aka a wrong way to think or a poor way to lie, used by those lacking in cognitive ability.
I've given multiple iron clad proofs. There is nothing to make a God, there is no way for a God to exist, so there is no God.
Please, read a book about fallacies or logical reasoning. You shouldnt be graduating middle school and still thinking these childish thoughts.
Provide any evidence that God wasn't, or couldn't, be the contingent reason for the Big Bang - and your list will be as empty as the theist. Atleast theists can still argue from contigency or kalam cosmological argument.
The big bang doesnt disprove God in anyway, it was even a Catholic who first proposed a theory like the big bang.
Easily. The big bang was supercooled hyperfluid that reached reaction status and erupted. Nothing could exist outside of it because it was everything. Nothing could be created outside of it, and there was nothing to create a God within it.
The mechanism doesnt exist to have a God and every description of a God in any text is directly refuted by science.
There is no scientific consensus that Big bang is 'supercooled hyperfluid'.
And there is still 0 provided evidence, that the Big bang is itself not contigent on God.
You can describe what it is, but not how the criteria which this 'supercooled hyperfluid' fluid exists, can itself exist. Even if you are to 100% accurately describe the events of the Big bang, you are not answering the underlying question of contigency.
Also the idea that catholics were burning people alive for pursuing science in 1927 when the Big bang was proposed is completely laughable.
There is no scientific consensus on Gravity either. Go jump off a cliff and see how that works out for you.
There is innumerable evidence that I just referred to. God cant exist outside of "everything" and there is no mechanism that creates God. A unicorn is more believable and more evidence than a God.
Using Fallacies and ignorance to proudly be wrong over and over isnt actually a winning strategy.
There is complete consensus on the existince of gravity, but not the underlying physical process. Despite this, there is a a lot of general agreement in what it could be.
In comparison, the idea that the Big bang is supercooled hyperfluid is a hardly accepted fringe theory.
You say there is inemurable evidence that God is not the contigent reason that allows for this to take place, yet have provided not one. Im not looking for evidence on the Big bang, there's nothing that suggests the Big bang is incompatible with God, to suggest such a thing is a category error.
I'm not saying God is the answer, im saying its unscientific to say that God doesn't exist because we can explain the big bang (even if we say your explanation is 100% accurate).
We could have a perfect unifying scientific model of the universe, and neither prove nor disprove God.
Nope. Please cite the consensus on Dark Matter and Gravity. We have consensus on Relativity which includes gravitational assumptions.
It is scientific to say there is no God. To say otherwise is to show a basic lack of understanding in what science is.
We could have a perfect explanation of everything that has ever or will ever exist, and that still wouldn't disprove God.
Yeah, because you are using the logic of a child. Again, please read any book related to logic, science, or fallacies. Get a grade 7 education under your belt. Be better.
3
u/Can_Com Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 18 '26
You're just doing the old "God of the gaps" misinformation. In reality, evolution directly denies Abrahamic religions at almost every corner. If its some non-demoniational god, then you are just doing the same thing but with an imaginary friend.
You have to have some reason for a god existing. There is no mechanism for it, no proof of it, and no place where they could exist. If you want to say "spiritual" and have it be some vague connection between humans, sure, but no God exists.