Is denying God moral? (Atheists)

[Hoghead1]

Obvious quote mine is obvious. Full quote with context added in bold:

"God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified." He added with a smile "some centuries ago I would have been burned or hanged. Nonetheless, I would have been in good company."​

What does God look like? I view the universe as the body of God. I don't know any other analogy that does as much justice to God's great intimacy and sensitivity to all things. So, God looks like the universe. That means we really can't make an image or draw a picture of God, as we cannot see the entire universe. A man magnified? I think a God too identical to us would be most uninteresting. However, I also think a God totally alien to us is equally undesirable, too threatening. We all seek a beautiful relationship with God, and beauty means unity in diversity. I understand all knowledge as analogous knowledge; to know, we must generalize from the familiar to the unfamiliar. What we are most familiar with is our human existence. So unless there is some definite likeness or uniformity between ourselves and the rest of reality, including, God, we haven't got an inkling what's going on. Anthropomorphizing is not the problem, it's the ticket, the solution. So when I think of God, I think of God as omnipresent throughout the entire universe, just as I am omnipresent throughout my body. The big difference, and this is a major difference, is that God enjoys a direct, immediate reaction to any and all creaturely feeling, whereas I am in such immediate contact only with my own body. We cannot imagine sensitivity on that grand of scale.

 

[bhsmte]

Obvious quote mine is obvious. Full quote with context added in bold:

"God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified." He added with a smile "some centuries ago I would have been burned or hanged. Nonetheless, I would have been in good company."​

A quote mine. What a surprise.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Cherry picking is when you only pick aspects of a scientific theory that you agree with.

dav: Indeed, as you have been doing in this thread.
An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, but you don't agree with that consensus, do you, while appealing to others. Explain to me the hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy? I have admitted that I have a minority viewpoint because I don't think there is a great deal evidence for macroevolution.

ed: Big difference.

dav: Not one that you have made clear.

I can't help it if your bias clouds your thinking.

ed: There is evidence that they were not anonymous when they were written.

dav: That is why I come here, for gems like these.

It doesn't matter, if they are anonymous today.

No, there is evidence that the traditional authors of the books of the Bible actually were the authors.

ed: Yes, that is what the evidence implies, such as many becoming leaders in the communities and in the churches. If they were insane that would be unlikely to have happened.

dav: Yet we have people that believe all of that running for the top office of your government. Obviously you need not be sane to do that.

I assume you are referring to the campaign for the American presidency. First none of the presently three people running for the office are orthodox Christians and one is a non-practicing jew. But none of people are insane especially including the ones that were eliminated earlier among whom the majority WERE orthodox Christians.q

ed: No, ancient historical documents that have been shown by archaeology to generally reliable in areas that we can confirm

dav: That would be the Spider-man fallacy that we just discussed.

And I refuted that. There is absolutely no evidence that Spiderman was written by eyewitnesses. While there is for the gospels and large sections of the OT.

ed: are generally reliable in areas that we cannot confirm such as one time miracles and individual events that would not show up in the historical record outside the bible.

dav: Which then makes the NT the claim, not the evidence.

No, ancient documents written by eyewitnesses IS historical evidence.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I know, KCYE (Keep Covering Your Ears).

dav: Generally, I use my eyes to read this forum. Either copy and paste from a previous post, provide the post number, or you are conceding that you have not substantiated your opinion.

So what? the acronym still works!

ed: As I stated earlier scientists have done similar things in similar situations so I am in good company.

dav: Appealing to the consensus, when it suits you. More hypocrisy and cherry-picking.

Scientists appeal to consensus all the time when it suits them, so again I am good company. But you have yet to prove me of hypocrisy and cherry picking.

ed: As I explained last post, they were just hypothetical Christians.

dav: More Christian bashing.

ed: As I demonstrated earlier moral judgements coming from you are meaningless they are just based on irrational sentiment for homo sapiens.

dav: Each time you claim to have done something, and fail to point out where it has been done, counts as "I have not actually done this".

You have several times appealed to your concern for other humans and the future of humanity. Don't have time to go back and cut and paste.

ed: No, because if they do not attend church regularly that is strong evidence that they are not Christians, so how can I be bashing Christians?

dav: Passing critical judgment on others that self identify as Christians is Christian bashing. That is why it is contrary to the rules of this forum.
ed: Also, Christ himself was harder on believers such as the Pharisees then He was on unbelievers so I am in good standing.

dav: Do you think he would be proud of the Christian bashing you are doing in these forums?

You have yet to prove I am Christian bashing, but I think He would agree that those who consistently do not follow His commands are not His followers.

ed: He is detectable by the effects He causes, just like black holes and dark matter and many other things that are not visible.

dav: But you cannot present this in the forum of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis, can you?

Yes, as I said earlier if we discover that the universe did not have a beginning, is not expanding, does not operate primarily by natural laws, and is not winding down energetically then that would falsify that the Christian God created this universe.

ed:Outrage based on a non-existent standard is still meaningless.

dav: That would be a misrepresentation of my position. I do find that tactic of yours to be intellectually dishonest.

IIRC you said you do not believe that an objective moral standard exists. If I am wrong then correct me and state your position.

ed: But of course, some of my neighbors are Christians

dav: Are you sure they are "Real Christians"?

While as a finite human I don't know for certain who are real Christians but I can make a likely judgement based on their words and deeds.

ed: so their outrage would not be meaningless because they DO have a standard.

dav: What standard is that? Anything goes, as long as you believe?

The Ten Commandments and the moral teachings of Christ.

dav: Back to that scenario, do you think they would happily dismiss the charges of arson, or not, based on your argument?

Of course not it would be wrong if they did, even those that don't believe in God have a built in sense of morality and justice because they are created in His image. So if I had set the houses on fire, I deserved punishment for justice to be served. But of course, if there is no God then there is no such thing as justice.

 

[Eudaimonist]

No, ancient documents written by eyewitnesses IS historical evidence.

Then you are out of luck. No serious historian believes that the New Testament was written by eyewitnesses. There is insufficient evidence to support that thesis. Even Paul wasn't an eyewitness.

No, there is evidence that the traditional authors of the books of the Bible actually were the authors.

That evidence is?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gene2memE]

No, ancient documents written by eyewitnesses IS historical evidence.

Fine.

Establish that the NT and the OT were written by eyewitnesses, then we can start assessing the accuracy of the claims.

 

[The Cadet]

Fine.

Establish that the NT and the OT were written by eyewitnesses, then we can start assessing the accuracy of the claims.

Why should that matter? I could have an eyewitness alive today who claimed that he saw a zombie rise from the grave, that eyewitness could be my significant other, the person I trust more than pretty much anyone in the world, and I still wouldn't take their word for it.

 

[Davian]

What hypocrisy? I have admitted that I have a minority viewpoint because I don't think there is a great deal evidence for macroevolution.

The hypocrisy arises from your cherry-picking from scientific consensuses not on the science, but your personal preference. You appeal to consensus in cosmology (post #980), but not biology (evolution), for instance. That is hypocrisy.

I can't help it if your bias clouds your thinking.

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

Check the batteries. And change your shirt.

No, there is evidence that the traditional authors of the books of the Bible actually were the authors.

<fails to supply claimed evidence>

I assume you are referring to the campaign for the American presidency. First none of the presently three people running for the office are orthodox Christians

Are you judging Christians again? What does matter, as long as they believe the stories told of talking animals, growing back human eyes, the sun stopping in its orbits around the Earth, walking on water, people rising from their graves? Does it not show that you need not be sane to get into politics?

and one is a non-practicing jew.

Right. Jews are so much worse than those Christians you are so judgmental of.

But none of people are insane especially including the ones that were eliminated earlier among whom the majority WERE orthodox Christians.

Did they not believe the stories told of talking animals, growing back human eyes, the sun stopping in its orbits around the Earth, walking on water, people rising from their graves? Is that sane?

And I refuted that. There is absolutely no evidence that Spiderman was written by eyewitnesses. While there is for the gospels and large sections of the OT.

You moved the goalposts. We were talking of archeological evidence, not alleged eyewitnesses.

No, ancient documents written by eyewitnesses IS historical evidence.

Sure, but ancient documents with stories about claims of anonymous reports of eyewitness testimony is not evidence. It is the claim.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It does if all of the evidence points to earth being the only planet with intelligent life in the universe.

nd: That would be a valid argument if there was a lot of evidence on the subject. But there isn't, as we've barely explored our own solar system.

Actually we know a great deal about what a planet needs to support life. And in this solar system the only one that had a real chance besides earth is Mars and so far there is no evidence that even simple life exists on Mars. And of course, for intelligent life the parameters are even narrower and so far out of several hundred planets that have been discovered in our galaxy, none of them have the right characteristics for intelligent life.
↑

ed: There is no other known planet we could move to and survive.

nd: Out of how many that we don't know of? Again, not a lot of data to formulate an opinion on.

Actually we know of at least several hundred planets in this galaxy and their basic characteristics. Strength of gravity, surface temperature, amount of proper gases like oxygen and nitrogen and etc, and NONE has the right characteristics for intelligent life to survive. Read the book, "Rare Earth".
↑

ed: It doesn't have to change that quickly for us to be wiped out eventually.

nd: It has to change faster than it would if we didn't have a moon though, and that is the point. If the moon suddenly disappeared, climate change would occur over the course of around 10,000 years. We could migrate around that fast in the bronze age, let alone what technology today would let us survive in.

I doubt it would take that long. Do you have any evidence to back this up?
↑

ed: And there are pretty much insurmountable obstacles to interstellar travel.

nd: Not that it has anything to do with my statement, but there was also insurmountable evidence a long time ago that we could build airplanes, so...

Yes, but interstellar space is far more hostile to life than anything on earth. Even life in a spaceship.

nd: The point behind this whole line is that God didn't need to put a moon there for us to live on Earth even without invoking any extra powers or actions by God. The only reason it needs to be there is for evolution to work as well as it did.

While it blocked much of the early meteor bombardment and protected more simple life. It also has protected humans even today when large meteors head our way. And this is in addition to the control of the earths tilt. If it suddenly ceased to exist, then we could not survive for long.
↑

ed: No, most scientist agree that at the BB everything came into existence including the laws of physics. If something breaks down far enough then it no longer exists.

nd: Citation please. And honestly, no offense, but since you claim "most scientists agree" please cite a non-Christian site or article that explains that the laws of physics came into existence and that we have evidence that they could be something other than what they are. Because, again, the phrase "breaking down" doesn't mean "stop existing". My car can break down and stop working as intended, but it doesn't stop existing.

Read Dr. Donald Goldsmiths response to a letter to the editor in the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History. But yes, if something breaks down enough then it becomes nothing. Look for your car in 1 billion years, it will be gone. And also we know from running the BB backwards we come to a point of no dimensions, ie nothing. And if nothing existed then there is nothing for natural laws to operate on so they would no longer exist.
↑

ed: God has told us in His word that people have this innate knowledge.

nd: I think you may be right about this, but for my own personal reference, can I have a verse please? I know the one about God's existence being apparent in the wonder of His creation, but that isn't innate knowledge.

Read Romans 1:19.
↑

ed: And there is even some scientific evidence that human brain is hard wired to believe in God.

nd: Again, citation please.

I will have to look it up, I can't remember it right off. But I remember reading about it.

 

[The Cadet]

Read Romans 1:19.

It's blatantly false, and at best utterly unconvincing to non-believers. I hold Romans 1 to be perhaps the most dishonest and manipulative passage in the entire bible.

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually we know a great deal about what a planet needs to support life.

Life as we know it. Life doesn't have to evolve the same way everywhere. It's like a puddle saying, "look how perfect this pothole is for me!"

And of course, for intelligent life the parameters are even narrower and so far out of several hundred planets that have been discovered in our galaxy, none of them have the right characteristics for intelligent life.

Actually we know of at least several hundred planets in this galaxy and their basic characteristics. Strength of gravity, surface temperature, amount of proper gases like oxygen and nitrogen and etc, and NONE has the right characteristics for intelligent life to survive. Read the book, "Rare Earth".

Several hundred planets that we know of out of how many planets that exist? There's an estimated 100 billion stars in our galaxy and an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the known universe. It would be like living in a cave and saying, "There's no such thing as trees! I've looked all over this cave and never found a single one!" It was bound to happen somewhere in a place as big as this.

I doubt it would take that long. Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Space.com
You'll like it because it says that a moon like ours may be rare in the universe, but to answer your question, there's this excerpt:

The moon has long been recognized as a significant stabilizer of Earth's orbital axis. Without it, astronomers have predicted that Earth's tilt could vary as much as 85 degrees. In such a scenario, the sun would swing from being directly over the equator to directly over the poles over the course of a few million years, a change which could result in dramatic climate shifts.

Such shifts have the potential to impact the development of life.​

So again, the Moon would have helped with evolution, but it doesn't keep the climate in check in order for an already evolved intelligent species to survive. In fact, a few million years would only really impact early life that is incapable of migrating at all.

The meteors thing you brought up is another good point though. It isn't a game changer though. The meteor that killed the dinosaurs didn't kill all the life. We've had plenty of extinction level events happen and life proves to be quite resilient.

But you're forgetting the point behind all this. The moon came to be from completely natural processes. No intelligence required, just dumb luck. I showed evidence that something can come into existence, and serve a purpose, without intelligence required.

Read Romans 1:19.

Yeah, that's the verse right before the one that says we see evidence of God in everything. And depending on your translation (I checked a few translations with BibleGateway.com) it says that God showed us information about Himself, not that He made it innate knowledge.

That's where the Bible made itself into the tailors in "The Emperor's New Clothes". That may have worked a long time ago when people didn't know how mountains were formed or where rain came from, but the goal posts have to get moved all the way back to the Big Bang for it to have significance anymore.

 

[Davian]

So what? the acronym still works!

It is simply another way for you to concede that you have failed to support your claim.

Scientists appeal to consensus all the time when it suits them, so again I am good company.

They do, but they typically do so on the basis of science, not whether is matches with their religion.

But you have yet to prove me of hypocrisy and cherry picking.

We don't prove things in science; you would know that if you ever were a scientist.

The cherry picking was called out in #2201, and the hypocrisy explained in #2248.

You have several times appealed to your concern for other humans and the future of humanity.

What has that to do with anything?

Don't have time to go back and cut and paste.

The point is, when you have never supported a particular claim, you have nothing to copy and paste anyway. You are simply bluffing.

You have yet to prove I am Christian bashing,

Every time you pass judgement on another self-identified Christian, calling their conduct un-Christianlike, or that they are not Christians, that is your Christian bashing. That is why it is against the rules within this forum.

but I think He would agree that those who consistently do not follow His commands are not His followers.

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned...

I gather that you are no longer a follower of Jesus then.

Yes, as I said earlier if we discover that the universe did not have a beginning,

Speculation is unfalsifiable.

is not expanding,

This have not been shown as falsifying the Bible.

does not operate primarily by natural laws,

Primarily? How else does it operate? At the whim of your God? Is that how we get the image of Jesus in our toast, or Mary under a bridge? A powerful god indeed!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faithful-see-image-of-virgin-mary/

and is not winding down energetically

This have not been shown as falsifying the Bible.

then that would falsify that the Christian God created this universe.

Or, it wouldn't, and you have not substantiated your claim. You where never a scientist, were you?

IIRC you said you do not believe that an objective moral standard exists. If I am wrong then correct me and state your position.

I have not seen anyone provide testable criteria for an objective moral.

While as a finite human I don't know for certain who are real Christians but I can make a likely judgement based on their words and deeds.

And again:

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned...

I gather that you are no longer a follower of Jesus then.

The Ten Commandments and the moral teachings of Christ.

In what way are those standards, as long as you believe? As in,believe, or burn? Not much to go on there.

Of course not it would be wrong if they did, even those that don't believe in God have a built in sense of morality and justice because they are created in His image.

Yet another of your unevidenced assertions. And, your god does not do morality and justice, it only cares that you believe.

Regardless of where they came from, they are still only feelings, according to you.

So if I had set the houses on fire, I deserved punishment for justice to be served.

Yet as a believer, you can still go to Heaven. Where is the justice in that?

But of course, if there is no God then there is no such thing as justice.

And if there is your God, murderers and arsonists can go to heaven while the majority of those that ever lived burn forever for reasons beyond their control. Where is this justice of which you speak?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Obvious quote mine is obvious. Full quote with context added in bold:

"God is a mystery. But a comprehensible mystery. I have nothing but awe when I observe the laws of nature. There are not laws without a lawgiver, but how does this lawgiver look? Certainly not like a man magnified." He added with a smile "some centuries ago I would have been burned or hanged. Nonetheless, I would have been in good company."​

Still makes my point. I was in a hurry so I just posted the most relevant section.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Then you are out of luck. No serious historian believes that the New Testament was written by eyewitnesses. There is insufficient evidence to support that thesis. Even Paul wasn't an eyewitness.

Serious historians who do not automatically assume that supernaturalism is false without demonstrating that it is, do believe that parts of the NT (and the OT btw) was written by eyewitnesses. I never said that Paul was an eyewitness of the bodily appearance of Christ. He was an eyewitness of the events recorded in his letters however.

eud: That evidence is?
eudaimonia,

Mark

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/can-the-gospels-be-defended-as-eyewitness-accounts/

Also, "Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke" by John Wenham, "The New Testament Documents" by Dr. F.F.Bruce, and "Is The NT Reliable?" by Paul Barnett among many others.

 

[bhsmte]

Still makes my point. I was in a hurry so I just posted the most relevant section.

LOL

 

[Ed1wolf]

Fine.

Establish that the NT and the OT were written by eyewitnesses, then we can start assessing the accuracy of the claims.

I never said both were completely written by eyewitnesses but large important sections were. See above, post 2254 for the NT. For one little piece of evidence is the Deuteronomic covenant is based on the same structure and form as the Hittite Suzarainty Treaties of the 13th and 14th century BC. So this is just one piece of the evidence that whomever wrote Pentateuch was familiar with that form. No one in the 7th or 8th century BC which is when liberal scholars say it was written, could have known about such treaty forms. For more evidence read K. A. Kitchen's "The Reliability of the Old Testament".

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: What hypocrisy? I have admitted that I have a minority viewpoint because I don't think there is a great deal evidence for macroevolution.

dav: The hypocrisy arises from your cherry-picking from scientific consensuses not on the science, but your personal preference. You appeal to consensus in cosmology (post #980), but not biology (evolution), for instance. That is hypocrisy.

Prove that my citations are based on personal preference and not based on evidence. Anyone that knows anything about science knows that there is much more hard observational or empirical evidence in cosmology than there is in the theory of evolution which is a historical extrapolation.



Media

• nformation

• 

dav: Check the batteries. And change your shirt.[/quote]

Nice selfie!

ed: No, there is evidence that the traditional authors of the books of the Bible actually were the authors.

dav: <fails to supply claimed evidence>

See posts 2254 and 2255 for citations.

ed: I assume you are referring to the campaign for the American presidency. First none of the presently three people running for the office are orthodox Christians

dav: Are you judging Christians again? What does matter, as long as they believe the stories told of talking animals, growing back human eyes, the sun stopping in its orbits around the Earth, walking on water, people rising from their graves? Does it not show that you need not be sane to get into politics?

As theological heretics they do not believe those things ever occurred.

ed: and one is a non-practicing jew.

dav: Right. Jews are so much worse than those Christians you are so judgmental of.

I am not sure what you mean by "worse". But as far as moral behavior, I would say that this particular non-practicing jew is much more moral than the other Democratic candidate for president.

ed: But none of people are insane especially including the ones that were eliminated earlier among whom the majority WERE orthodox Christians.

dav: Did they not believe the stories told of talking animals, growing back human eyes, the sun stopping in its orbits around the Earth, walking on water, people rising from their graves? Is that sane?

Most of them probably believe all those things did happen except for the sun orbiting around the earth since orthodox Christianity does not teach that. By calling devout Christians insane, you do know that you are putting yourself on the same side as Uncle Joe Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao don't you? They all believed that orthodox Christians were insane too. What do you want your politicians in Canada to do, put us all in "Re-education" Camps?

ed: And I refuted that. There is absolutely no evidence that Spiderman was written by eyewitnesses. While there is for the gospels and large sections of the OT.

dav: You moved the goalposts. We were talking of archeological evidence, not alleged eyewitnesses.

The eyewitness accounts are backed up by archaeological evidence too. See post 2255.

ed: No, ancient documents written by eyewitnesses IS historical evidence.

dav: Sure, but ancient documents with stories about claims of anonymous reports of eyewitness testimony is not evidence. It is the claim.

But some of these ancient documents have claims from non-anonymous reports of eyewitness testimony. Both types of reports are common in the field of historical study. In fact without such reports, large swaths of history would be unknown.

 

[Hoghead1]

I never said both were completely written by eyewitnesses but large important sections were. See above, post 2254 for the NT. For one little piece of evidence is the Deuteronomic covenant is based on the same structure and form as the Hittite Suzarainty Treaties of the 13th and 14th century BC. So this is just one piece of the evidence that whomever wrote Pentateuch was familiar with that form. No one in the 7th or 8th century BC which is when liberal scholars say it was written, could have known about such treaty forms. For more evidence read K. A. Kitchen's "The Reliability of the Old Testament".

I beg to disagree. There is absolutely no evidence that nobody in later centuries would have known about Hittite treaties. I have read Kitchen and I fail to be impressed.

 

[Ed1wolf]

It's blatantly false, and at best utterly unconvincing to non-believers. I hold Romans 1 to be perhaps the most dishonest and manipulative passage in the entire bible.

I am sure it does given your views. But there is evidence that the entire bible including the book of Romans is of divine origin.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Actually we know a great deal about what a planet needs to support life.

nd: Life as we know it. Life doesn't have to evolve the same way everywhere. It's like a puddle saying, "look how perfect this pothole is for me!"

But most scientists agree that life can only be similar to life on earth, ie carbon based, and needing things like water and nitrogen. And so we know that if a planet does not have those things among many others then life will not evolve or exist.

ed: And of course, for intelligent life the parameters are even narrower and so far out of several hundred planets that have been discovered in our galaxy, none of them have the right characteristics for intelligent life.

↑
Actually we know of at least several hundred planets in this galaxy and their basic characteristics. Strength of gravity, surface temperature, amount of proper gases like oxygen and nitrogen and etc, and NONE has the right characteristics for intelligent life to survive. Read the book, "Rare Earth".

nd: Several hundred planets that we know of out of how many planets that exist? There's an estimated 100 billion stars in our galaxy and an estimated 100 billion galaxies in the known universe. It would be like living in a cave and saying, "There's no such thing as trees! I've looked all over this cave and never found a single one!" It was bound to happen somewhere in a place as big as this.

I admit that the sample may be small but nevertheless we have not discovered ANY yet. A better analogy would be living out side and seeing all the trees and then trying find a cave with trees in it. On our planet life is abundant, but so far in the rest of our galaxy it is at the very least, extremely rare if nonexistent.

↑

ed: I doubt it would take that long. Do you have any evidence to back this up?

nd: Space.com
You'll like it because it says that a moon like ours may be rare in the universe, but to answer your question, there's this excerpt:

The moon has long been recognized as a significant stabilizer of Earth's orbital axis. Without it, astronomers have predicted that Earth's tilt could vary as much as 85 degrees. In such a scenario, the sun would swing from being directly over the equator to directly over the poles over the course of a few million years, a change which could result in dramatic climate shifts.

Such shifts have the potential to impact the development of life.

So again, the Moon would have helped with evolution, but it doesn't keep the climate in check in order for an already evolved intelligent species to survive. In fact, a few million years would only really impact early life that is incapable of migrating at all.

So you disagree with Al Gore that very slight changes in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air are going to wipe us out in less than 100 years?

nd: The meteors thing you brought up is another good point though. It isn't a game changer though. The meteor that killed the dinosaurs didn't kill all the life. We've had plenty of extinction level events happen and life proves to be quite resilient.

Yes, but I am referring to the Heavy Bombardment period around 1 bya when life was mostly microbial and might not have survived so many meteors, many more than occurred when the dinosaurs were around.

nd: But you're forgetting the point behind all this. The moon came to be from completely natural processes. No intelligence required, just dumb luck. I showed evidence that something can come into existence, and serve a purpose, without intelligence required.

No, when you combine the size, location, type of moon when it was formed, ie see above about the heavy bombardment period and all the other finely tuned "coincidences" as demonstrated in the Anthropic Principle, the odds against it being dumb luck is so great that it could not have occurred by luck. It is similar to someone facing a firing squad and all the guns go off that appear to be pointed at him and yet he lives. What do you think the most rational conclusion is? Obviously they missed him on purpose.

ed: Read Romans 1:19.

nd: Yeah, that's the verse right before the one that says we see evidence of God in everything. And depending on your translation (I checked a few translations with BibleGateway.com) it says that God showed us information about Himself, not that He made it innate knowledge.

No, verse 18 talks about how we suppress the truth in our minds. It is more clear in the original greek.

nd: That's where the Bible made itself into the tailors in "The Emperor's New Clothes". That may have worked a long time ago when people didn't know how mountains were formed or where rain came from, but the goal posts have to get moved all the way back to the Big Bang for it to have significance anymore

Scientists move the goal posts back all the time, especially with the theory of evolution. But see above about the Anthropic Principle. The probability is basically null that all these things occurred by chance.