Evil and Suffering

[dcalling]

Perhaps you could present what you feel is proof of God's existence

Right now it is not possible to proof or disaproof God's existence, so both atheist and non-atheist are there by Faith.

However the proof will be there soon. I am a software engineer, and you hardly find one software enginner (the good ones) that believe in computer programs that are aware of itself (or real AI, not the fake ones). In another 30 years the computer's computing power will exceed the entire human race combined, and if we still can't make real AI, that means nature can't make us either.

 

[dcalling]

You still claim that you have been an atheist. If that is correct, and you have been an atheist of a kind that I could in any way recognize myself in, you should be able to understand.

First, you are confronted with a claim that you disagree with, disbelieve in, that is contradicting your whole worldview. You say that. And the response you get isn't an argument backing up the unbelievable claim, it is "hah, prove me wrong, you cannot, I win."

What did you think in such a situation? What do you think now in such a situation?


Second, you have been confronted with the claim that your opponents position is obviously right and obviously obvious, there is no (real) disagreement... the case is clear-cut and you are just wrong. No evidence is given. The obvious obviousness is implied, but never explained.
When asked to back up his claims, your opponent simply states that there are many reasons, and that he believes based on evidence... but still he doesn't present the reasons or the evidence.

Where you convinced by the claims of other people having evidence? What do you think today about people claiming to have evidence for their claims?

See my post above.

"
Right now it is not possible to proof or disaproof God's existence, so both atheist and non-atheist are there by Faith.

However the proof will be there soon. I am a software engineer, and you hardly find one software enginner (the good ones) that believe in computer programs that are aware of itself (or real AI, not the fake ones). In another 30 years the computer's computing power will exceed the entire human race combined, and if we still can't make real AI, that means nature can't make us either."


And second, as advanced as we are, we are not even able to create a fully self replicate RNA. What does that tell you above nature's chance of doing it?

Third, what comes up fist? Chicken or egg?

Been an atheist is by faith as well, so since we are both here by faith (that is my initial discovery since I can't prove there is no God), what left there is look at the evidence and see which one is more likely.

 

[bling]

If we accept that for all the reasons you listed above, our existence in the way it is is necessary, you have effectively disproven the existence of "heaven", where nothing on your list is necessary... not even the "Love" that you claimed is the main reason for all that.

How does our fulfilling our earthly objective “disprove” heaven?

Heaven is like one huge “Love Feast” but the only “love” being shown is unselfish Godly type Love.

.A person who repeatedly refuses to even accept Godly type Love and thus desires only to be loved for the way they would like others to perceive them to be, would not be happy in heaven.

 

[[serious]]

Right now it is not possible to proof or disaproof God's existence, so both atheist and non-atheist are there by Faith.

However the proof will be there soon. I am a software engineer, and you hardly find one software enginner (the good ones) that believe in computer programs that are aware of itself (or real AI, not the fake ones). In another 30 years the computer's computing power will exceed the entire human race combined, and if we still can't make real AI, that means nature can't make us either.

How does that follow? There are more differences between brains and computers than just processing power. Think of it this way, why do graphics cards do better mining bitcoins? Do they have more processing power or is it something else? Could this same concept apply to brains and computers?

 

[Freodin]

See my post above.

See my questions above. You didn't answer them. I wonder why.

I understand that this also might be beyond the scope of this specific thread, but I am curious. I am quite often confronted with Christians who claim to have been "atheists"... and specifically use their previous status as "atheists" as if it should be some kind of argument against me.

But each and every time I meet those "former atheists", they make statements, claims, arguments that make me wonder: "if they have been 'atheists', if they have, as they claim, where I am now... how can they make these statements, claims, arguments... and not have their former self rage out at themselves? How can they make all these claims, when they should know, from their own experience: "Now this doesn't work. These same arguments that I use now as a Christian... when I was an atheist, they didn't satisfy me at all. I hated it, when people used them, because I felt they didn't have any clue about me or my position... or what atheism means."

Right now it is not possible to proof or disaproof God's existence, so both atheist and non-atheist are there by Faith.

I almost agree. It isn't possible to prove or disprove God's existence... though atheists "are there" by doubt rather than by faith. Atheism is, all in all, a position of disbelief, not of belief.
I also agree that "what left there is look at the evidence and see which one is more likely."

And that is where the disagreement starts. Atheists look at your "evidence" and don't find it convincing. Many times, they do not even see it as "evidence" at all. Many, many times, they see the "evidence" and "arguments" and think: "This is just wrong!"

However the proof will be there soon. I am a software engineer, and you hardly find one software enginner (the good ones) that believe in computer programs that are aware of itself (or real AI, not the fake ones). In another 30 years the computer's computing power will exceed the entire human race combined, and if we still can't make real AI, that means nature can't make us either."

And Lo! 'This is just wrong!' A logical fallacy.
- There is a mechanism that hasn't given us a specific result.
- That means that a completely different mechanism will not give us that specific result either.
- Now that means that there must be another different mechanism - one that we define as 'being able to give us that specific result' - and that will certainly give us that specific result. We haven't any clue that it really works, but we have 'faith'.

Sorry, but that is not evidence.

And second, as advanced as we are, we are not even able to create a fully self replicate RNA. What does that tell you above nature's chance of doing it?

It tells me that nature does it differently from our "advanced" ability. It does not tell me, 'nature is inable to do it'. Logical fallacy.

In fact, this goes back to my initial objection - you cannot have it both ways: argue from knowledge and ignorance. You cannot argue that we do not understand how it works, and then argue that we do understand how it cannot work.

Third, what comes up fist? Chicken or egg?

Old question, stupid question, already answered question: the egg. Not in the way you imagine it, not even in the way the question is meant. But it is an answer in almost exactly the way that theists would answer it: something that isn't either chicken nor egg.

Been an atheist is by faith as well, so since we are both here by faith (that is my initial discovery since I can't prove there is no God), what left there is look at the evidence and see which one is more likely.

Almost agreed. (See above)
The disagreement is in the evaluation of "which one is more likely"... and even more important, the way to do that evaluation.

 

[Freodin]

How does our fulfilling our earthly objective “disprove” heaven?

Heaven is like one huge “Love Feast” but the only “love” being shown is unselfish Godly type Love.

.A person who repeatedly refuses to even accept Godly type Love and thus desires only to be loved for the way they would like others to perceive them to be, would not be happy in heaven.

"Unselfish Godly type Love"... now what is that? Everything that you stated in your previous post was quite "worldly" in this regard. And, if you think about it, everything you can state about it will be quite "worldly".

All that "unselfish Godly type Love" is connected with suffering, and how to deal with it. (Which, by the way, seems to be to let the suffering go on.)

So how are all those people at the "one huge Love Feast" showing their "unselfish Godly type love" to each other... without there being any suffering?

 

[bling]

"Unselfish Godly type Love"... now what is that? Everything that you stated in your previous post was quite "worldly" in this regard. And, if you think about it, everything you can state about it will be quite "worldly".

All that "unselfish Godly type Love" is connected with suffering, and how to deal with it. (Which, by the way, seems to be to let the suffering go on.)

So how are all those people at the "one huge Love Feast" showing their "unselfish Godly type love" to each other... without there being any suffering?

Godly type Love does not require suffering?
Unselfish is doing stuff for the sake of others and not for your own sake. Love someone might cause them to Love you back, but that is not the reason you Loved them in the first place. You do not "Love" them because of who they are, but you Love them because of who you are.

 

[anonymous person]

"Unselfish Godly type Love"... now what is that? Everything that you stated in your previous post was quite "worldly" in this regard. And, if you think about it, everything you can state about it will be quite "worldly".

All that "unselfish Godly type Love" is connected with suffering, and how to deal with it. (Which, by the way, seems to be to let the suffering go on.)

So how are all those people at the "one huge Love Feast" showing their "unselfish Godly type love" to each other... without there being any suffering?

Agape (/ˈæɡəpiː/ or /ˈæɡəpɪ/; Classical Greek: ἀγάπη, agápē; Modern Greek: αγάπη IPA: [aˈɣapi]), translated as "love: the highest form of love, especially brotherly love, charity; the love of God for man.

We hold that love makes suffering possible, not necessary.

In heaven we will love, but there will be no suffering.

 

[dcalling]

How does that follow? There are more differences between brains and computers than just processing power. Think of it this way, why do graphics cards do better mining bitcoins? Do they have more processing power or is it something else? Could this same concept apply to brains and computers?

Agreed, but if you observe closely you will find that all programs no matter how simple or complex, there is a flow of it, that was defined long ago, and you don't need a computer to think of such flows. No one has ever figured out a flow of self awareness.

And the reason I mentioned speed is because without speed, many of thing things are impossible (i.e. speech/image reco etc), they were all theories before and now with the speed people can put them in programs that can be useful. We humans can do things that nature can't in billions of years, and if nature can create life and self awareness, we should be able to as well.

 

[dcalling]

I almost agree. It isn't possible to prove or disprove God's existence... though atheists "are there" by doubt rather than by faith. Atheism is, all in all, a position of disbelief, not of belief.
I also agree that "what left there is look at the evidence and see which one is more likely."

I think this is the key why you don't understand me.

You are looking it from a view of a former Christian, or someone who grow up in a Christian environment.
Think the other way, I grow up from a total atheist environment.... So to me believe in God is a position of disbelief (disbelief of atheism).

Think of this way (in a pure logic way). I believe in A and you believe in B, and it is almost impossible to proof either.

And the only reason I changed my position from B to A is because the evidence.

Now if you want I can list the evidences for A.

And that is where the disagreement starts. Atheists look at your "evidence" and don't find it convincing. Many times, they do not even see it as "evidence" at all. Many, many times, they see the "evidence" and "arguments" and think: "This is just wrong!"

Let's decompose it down below. I will tell you, to me it is a problem is probability, which one is more Probable.

And Lo! 'This is just wrong!' A logical fallacy.
- There is a mechanism that hasn't given us a specific result.
- That means that a completely different mechanism will not give us that specific result either.
- Now that means that there must be another different mechanism - one that we define as 'being able to give us that specific result' - and that will certainly give us that specific result. We haven't any clue that it really works, but we have 'faith'.
Sorry, but that is not evidence.

So think about it, we can do things in minutes that nature can't in millions of years, yet we can't create life, we can't create real AI that are self aware, we don't even have slightest idea how it can be done (not even a model, espically we have so many models way before the computer that can only be used by computers).

It tells me that nature does it differently from our "advanced" ability. It does not tell me, 'nature is inable to do it'. Logical fallacy.

It is a problem of probability.

In fact, this goes back to my initial objection - you cannot have it both ways: argue from knowledge and ignorance. You cannot argue that we do not understand how it works, and then argue that we do understand how it cannot work.

I am arguing that there is no way it can work. i.e. nature, a thing that is not intelligence, can't produce intelligence.

Old question, stupid question, already answered question: the egg. Not in the way you imagine it, not even in the way the question is meant. But it is an answer in almost exactly the way that theists would answer it: something that isn't either chicken nor egg.

It is an old question, but why is it stupid question? When I was an atheist I thought about it too, and I just brush it off as silly. But if you take a look at a simple cell, and how complex it is (any simple cell is way more complex than maybe 8086, can you believe lighting strick sand and by some magic a 8086 jumps out, and got started?

There are many problems that we see every day, don't even notice, and they might be the next technological advance (i.e. what's gravity?)

Almost agreed. (See above)
The disagreement is in the evaluation of "which one is more likely"... and even more important, the way to do that evaluation.

Probability. A very simple example, what are the chances nature can randomly creates a RNA and yet we can't do it under lab conditions?

 

[Freodin]

Godly type Love does not require suffering?
Unselfish is doing stuff for the sake of others and not for your own sake. Love someone might cause them to Love you back, but that is not the reason you Loved them in the first place. You do not "Love" them because of who they are, but you Love them because of who you are.

Why would you do "stuff for the sake of others"? What "stuff" would you do?

 

[Freodin]

Agape (/ˈæɡəpiː/ or /ˈæɡəpɪ/; Classical Greek: ἀγάπη, agápē; Modern Greek: αγάπη IPA: [aˈɣapi]), translated as "love: the highest form of love, especially brotherly love, charity; the love of God for man.

We hold that love makes suffering possible, not necessary.

In heaven we will love, but there will be no suffering.

(my emphasis)
That is what I said. You can love without suffering being necessary. So the necessity of suffering for love falls flat as an excuse of why God doesn't end suffering.

 

[Freodin]

I think this is the key why you don't understand me.

You are looking it from a view of a former Christian, or someone who grow up in a Christian environment.
Think the other way, I grow up from a total atheist environment.... So to me believe in God is a position of disbelief (disbelief of atheism).

Ok, I think I understand you better now. All that is left now is for you to understand me.

Just like the term "Christian", the concept of "Atheist" has different connotations to different persons. Some of them are more reasonable than others.

As I said, atheism is a position that comes from doubt, from disbelief in distinct claims. There are a lot of things that we do not believe, but we would never imagine calling ourself "a-thing-I-have-no-clue-about-ist". You - most certainly - do not believe that the second husband of the Grand-Queen of Orion IV is called "Hubert"... but that doesn't make you an "Ahubertist".

So to be an atheist "of a kind that I could in any way recognize myself in" you need to have been aware of theistic claims, and doubt or disregard them.

I did. I grew up "in a Christian environment"... but I have never been a Christian. I have been a skeptic from a very early age, wanting to know how things really work... not what people tell.

I didn't see any difference between princesses playing with balls of gold and frogs turning into princes when kissed and people walking on water or turning it into wine. It wasn't real, just stories.

Think of this way (in a pure logic way). I believe in A and you believe in B, and it is almost impossible to proof either.

And the only reason I changed my position from B to A is because the evidence.

Now if you want I can list the evidences for A.

I still don't believe you. When you say that you changed your position "because the evidence"... that means you must have seen and evaluated "the evidence". That means you must have been confronted with all that I said before, with all that argumentation and rationalization and the empty claims. An evaluation must have included weighting in the opposite arguments... you must have critically considered what you have been presented with.

And if we went through that, my original questions stand: how can you go and argue in the way you did in your previous posts - with empty, condescending claims?

Let's decompose it down below. I will tell you, to me it is a problem is probability, which one is more Probable.

So think about it, we can do things in minutes that nature can't in millions of years, yet we can't create life, we can't create real AI that are self aware, we don't even have slightest idea how it can be done (not even a model, espically we have so many models way before the computer that can only be used by computers).

And that, as you should be aware, is an argument from ignorace. "We do not know how it happened this way... so it must have happened that way (which we also do not know.)"

The answer is simple: we do not know. Basically, we do not know either way. BUT! (And here we go into your question of 'which one is more probable') We know a lot more about the processes of "nature" than we do about anything "divine".

It is a problem of probability.

Yes. And the problem is that you declare the mechanism where we have no data at all as more probable than the process that we only have few data.

I am arguing that there is no way it can work. i.e. nature, a thing that is not intelligence, can't produce intelligence.

In this case, you are arguing without a basis. There is nothing to justify this premise: "Intelligence can only be produced by intelligence".
Effectively, you are even contradicting your own reasoning: "God is spirit. Something that is not matter, can't produce matter." Right? Same logic... and equally invalid.

It is an old question, but why is it stupid question? When I was an atheist I thought about it too, and I just brush it off as silly. But if you take a look at a simple cell, and how complex it is (any simple cell is way more complex than maybe 8086, can you believe lighting strick sand and by some magic a 8086 jumps out, and got started?

It is a stupid question because it sets arbitrary limits. (Well, it is not stupid, if you don't approach it stupidly: in a literal way).

You refuse to see any option that isn't already given in the question: where did the chicken come from? From an egg! Where did the egg come from? From a chicken! So which was first.
The option that there was a long changing line, a line of evolving descendents... doesn't even show up in the question.

As for "it is so complex, it couldn't have come by lightning striking sand." Stupid argument! If that is the way you evaluate probabilities, you should be ashamed of yourself!
These invalid simplifications are the bread and butter of the dishonest business that is "creationism".

Don't go looking at cells and how complex they are! Take a look at something a lot more complex: go and look into a mirror. A walking, talking, thinking (I hope), internet-using conglomerate of billions of interacting cells. And the all come from two single cells, reproducing and dividing and changing. And they constantly change and adapt and interchange with outside material. All by nature. Chemistry, physics, biology. There is no God responsible for digesting your breakfast, no God responsible for shedding dead skin cells or making your hair go grey.
It is highly complex... and it didn't start with a lump of clay being breathed upon. (Or a stork, or a cabbage leaf, or whatever 'creationist' story you like).

There are many problems that we see every day, don't even notice, and they might be the next technological advance (i.e. what's gravity?)

Gravity is tiny little elves pulling you to the ground. That is more probable than space-time being bend by mass (what is mass, after all? With all our advanced computer power, we still do not know for sure.)

Probability. A very simple example, what are the chances nature can randomly creates a RNA and yet we can't do it under lab conditions?

What are the chances that nature randomly creates any molecule? Slim? Non-existent? Yet it happens, all around us.
Again, like with the chicken and the egg, you are ignoring the options that are not already given in the question. Creationist tactics. Set one point and say "and this now must have happened randomly! This is impossible, thus it was Jesus, hallelujah!"

But even if we were to accept that: what are the chances nature can randomly create a RNA? Tiny. Minuscule! Almost non-existent!!!
Yet we know (basically) how chemistry works, and these tiny, minuscule chance is at least there. We can at least do an evaluation!

So what are the chances that there is a "being" of utmost complexity, whose nature is to have the goal of having self-replicating molecules evolve into beings that "love" this said being? How would you even start to do an evaluation here?

No. When you say you look at the probabilities, you are fooling yourself.

 

[anonymous person]

(my emphasis)
That is what I said. You can love without suffering being necessary. So the necessity of suffering for love falls flat as an excuse of why God doesn't end suffering.

What significance does suffering have in your worldview?

 

[Freodin]

What significance does suffering have in your worldview?

Does it have to have "significance"?

I could list some points where I think "suffering" shapes us, as humans in general as well as individuals.
I could point out some things that would make us "less" human, if suffering did not exist. (Well, different human. But we do like to think that the way we are is the way we should be, don't we?)

But is that significant?

You might not understand it - my "worldview" might perhaps seem a little schizophrenic to you - but I see it from two perspectives.
The world is as it is. Suffering exists, joy exists... as humans do experiences these concepts. Neither of it is good or bad per se. It is only the human evaluation that adds these values. And as a human being that evaluates things, I can evaluate suffering as a bad thing we are to vanquish.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Right now it is not possible to proof or disaproof God's existence, so both atheist and non-atheist are there by Faith.

Been an atheist is by faith as well, so since we are both here by faith (that is my initial discovery since I can't prove there is no God), what left there is look at the evidence and see which one is more likely.

No faith is needed to reject unsupported claims.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Give me one conclusive scientific evidence that God does not exist, and you win

The burden of proof lies with you.

And I can give you many reasons why God must exist. I was a former atheist, and the evidence actually win me over to God

I was a Christian. The paucity of evidence led me to question my theological commitments. Upon examination, they were not as well founded as I thought they were.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is a problem of probability.

I am arguing that there is no way it can work. i.e. nature, a thing that is not intelligence, can't produce intelligence.

How do you know that intelligence cannot emerge through natural processes, since that is what you are claiming here?

Probability. A very simple example, what are the chances nature can randomly creates a RNA and yet we can't do it under lab conditions?

We don't know how the first self-replicating molecules emerged. It doesn't follow that they were therefore intelligently designed.

 

[dcalling]

Ok, I think I understand you better now. All that is left now is for you to understand me.

Just like the term "Christian", the concept of "Atheist" has different connotations to different persons. Some of them are more reasonable than others.

As I said, atheism is a position that comes from doubt, from disbelief in distinct claims. There are a lot of things that we do not believe, but we would never imagine calling ourself "a-thing-I-have-no-clue-about-ist". You - most certainly - do not believe that the second husband of the Grand-Queen of Orion IV is called "Hubert"... but that doesn't make you an "Ahubertist".

So to be an atheist "of a kind that I could in any way recognize myself in" you need to have been aware of theistic claims, and doubt or disregard them.

I did. I grew up "in a Christian environment"... but I have never been a Christian. I have been a skeptic from a very early age, wanting to know how things really work... not what people tell.

If that is the case, that you are approaching this rationally, you are a agnostic, not an atheist. Atheism is the position of not believing there is a God, but since you are a skeptic, you are a agnostic.

I didn't see any difference between princesses playing with balls of gold and frogs turning into princes when kissed and people walking on water or turning it into wine. It wasn't real, just stories.


I still don't believe you. When you say that you changed your position "because the evidence"... that means you must have seen and evaluated "the evidence". That means you must have been confronted with all that I said before, with all that argumentation and rationalization and the empty claims. An evaluation must have included weighting in the opposite arguments... you must have critically considered what you have been presented with.

And if we went through that, my original questions stand: how can you go and argue in the way you did in your previous posts - with empty, condescending claims?

If I sounds condescending anywhere, please accept my apologies. I don't mean it. When I first come into this country, I was condescending towards Christians, I was actually shocked that why the most technologically advanced country can have so many people believe in supernatural. Isn't Evolution already proven? What is it, redneck country ? Anyway, it took me over 10 years of arguing to change.

In this case, you are arguing without a basis. There is nothing to justify this premise: "Intelligence can only be produced by intelligence".
Effectively, you are even contradicting your own reasoning: "God is spirit. Something that is not matter, can't produce matter." Right? Same logic... and equally invalid.

That is a fair argument

What I should say is, if we can't even imagine a model for self awareness in all of years that we humans exist, nature will not be able to do it at all.

It is a stupid question because it sets arbitrary limits. (Well, it is not stupid, if you don't approach it stupidly: in a literal way).

I hope you are not been condescending towards me.

You refuse to see any option that isn't already given in the question: where did the chicken come from? From an egg! Where did the egg come from? From a chicken! So which was first.
The option that there was a long changing line, a line of evolving descendents... doesn't even show up in the question.

should be evolving ancestors. I will show you in one example below with my argument.

As for "it is so complex, it couldn't have come by lightning striking sand." Stupid argument! If that is the way you evaluate probabilities, you should be ashamed of yourself!
These invalid simplifications are the bread and butter of the dishonest business that is "creationism".


Don't go looking at cells and how complex they are! Take a look at something a lot more complex: go and look into a mirror. A walking, talking, thinking (I hope), internet-using conglomerate of billions of interacting cells. And the all come from two single cells, reproducing and dividing and changing. And they constantly change and adapt and interchange with outside material. All by nature. Chemistry, physics, biology. There is no God responsible for digesting your breakfast, no God responsible for shedding dead skin cells or making your hair go grey.
It is highly complex... and it didn't start with a lump of clay being breathed upon. (Or a stork, or a cabbage leaf, or whatever 'creationist' story you like).

I don't look for complex things. I look for simple things and try to find my answer, that is usually how engineers do things, we find something that we can understand, and try to debug the program from there. We have not yet even be able to create an RNA in favorable lab conditions, that means the entire theory of evolution is simply not proven.

Gravity is tiny little elves pulling you to the ground. That is more probable than space-time being bend by mass (what is mass, after all? With all our advanced computer power, we still do not know for sure.)

That is Einestan's theroy, an very interesting perspective. Einstein was proven wrong on the Quantam pairing theory by experiment, you never know what science can bring us next.

What are the chances that nature randomly creates any molecule? Slim? Non-existent? Yet it happens, all around us.
Again, like with the chicken and the egg, you are ignoring the options that are not already given in the question. Creationist tactics. Set one point and say "and this now must have happened randomly! This is impossible, thus it was Jesus, hallelujah!"

show me where molecules are randomly created, show me how is that happening all around us.

But even if we were to accept that: what are the chances nature can randomly create a RNA? Tiny. Minuscule! Almost non-existent!!!
Yet we know (basically) how chemistry works, and these tiny, minuscule chance is at least there. We can at least do an evaluation!

We don't fully know how chemistry works. We only observe and see how nature works. Until we can create a RNA ourselves, you can't be sure that RNA can be created by nature. RNA is a very complex structure, if you see how we produce other drugs, you will start to wonder what kind of energy is needed to produce RNA.

So what are the chances that there is a "being" of utmost complexity, whose nature is to have the goal of having self-replicating molecules evolve into beings that "love" this said being? How would you even start to do an evaluation here?
No. When you say you look at the probabilities, you are fooling yourself.

Check this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
This experiment, with the goal of check how e.coli evolve, kind of shows that nature seems to have bounds, almost like a software program, that has its own parameters that allows mutatuion to certain degree, but never out of the bound. After so many years, 50k generations, nothing that is not really ecoli evolved out of it, not even one double cell combo..... I will just say the result is interesting.

 

[Freodin]

...
Anyway, it took me over 10 years of arguing to change.

And we are back on square one. Back to my original questions, that you still didn't even attempt to answer.
Now you spelled it out: it took you over ten years of arguing to change.
How did these ten years go? Were these ten years filled with undeniable, scientific, testable facts? Hard evidence that should have convinced you from the start, but you were too hard-hearted, too settled in your sin to be shifted by these mountains of irrefutable logical arguments?

Then why don't you bring these, instead of the empty rethoric that you did?

Or were you also confronted by illogical reasonings, fallacies, pleas to faith, slights on your character, sophisms, quibbles about definitions... anything but something with convincing power?

Then why you - who should know how you felt when confronted with these - use the same nonsense?

snip the rest

And square two (well, no, you came up with the 'prove to me that God doesn't exist' before the other. Square zero then.)

You ignored it before, and I know already that you will continue ignoring it: all this isn't evidence for the existence of God. Nothing of it.

You talk about disproven Einstein. You talk about not creating RNA in the lab. You talk about experiments not showing the result you think it should show.

But in order to evaluate evidence, to evaluate probabilities, you have to have something to compare it with.

Show me just one experiment that was ever done, one point of date ever collected, one hypothesis ever tested... that points to "God did it".

There is none.

Whatever convinced you, it wasn't evidence. It wasn't probability.