Famine
Uhhh, that's not how theories work. A solution proposed without evidence is a guess. Ignoring a guess because it has no evidence is sane.
In order to advance a theory, evidence must be provided. To debunk a theory, the evidence must be shown inaccurate. If there's no evidence, there's nothing to be shown to be inaccurate and so it can be rightly ignored.
Umm... not really. By the Judeochristian definition of "god", there cannot be any proof and, more importantly, there cannot be disproof. Their "god" is a non-falsifiable concept, meaning it's utterly foolish to attempt to prove it and utterly worthless to attempt to disprove it.
Non-falsifiable things cannot exist in reality - the usual get-out for this is that God is beyond our reality, which always begs the question as to where their proof (in our reality) comes from, but that's for another, much longer post.
Ultimately believers believe in their belief. If you have uncontestable evidence of something it ceases to be a belief and simply becomes an acknowledgement - if God showed up tomorrow and did undeniably godly things, we wouldn't all start believing in God, rather acknowledging its existence. However, the source of their belief is almost always a Version of a thrice-retranslated anthology (interpreted by a man with a title in a frock) which makes many, many unsubtantiated, unsubtantiatable and ludicrous claims along its way - the only evidence of their God is of poor quality and heresay.
A believer trying to argue that there is evidence for their God is both wrong and not really of very firm faith - belief should be enough as evidence denies belief (or proof denies faith, as God once said). A non-believer can quite rightly point out that there is no evidence, but really is just wasting their time as belief can easily be strong enough to ignore evidence.
Could the existence of a God be proved by the elimination of all other theories? Take the existence of our universe for example, or more specifically, how it was made. If all other theories became false, then that would prove the existence of an intelligent being creating the universe, or am I mistaken?
Forgive me, for I am in my youth and still lack intelligence and wisdom, but I just cannot find our existence possible through a chaotic universe. I believe our existence needs order to continue to survive. If there was a big bang, then surely the universe is chaotic.
I believe that in a chaotic universe, any progress that would have been made towards our existence would constantly be erased or dismantled. Infinite possibility may be true with infinite chances, but only in the right conditions.
I would like to see an Atheist respond to this passage, that I have already posted numerous times already with no response:
From Evolution: Fact or Fiction
Accepting the theory of evolution is much more than an intellectual opinion. It means pinning one's thinking to a materialistic belief-system that reduces everything to nature and natural processes - and this has far-reaching consequences. William Provine, professor of History and Biological Sciences at Cornell University, who calls himself 'a total atheist', gives us more than inkling of where it leads: 'Let me summarise my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear... There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directing forces of any kind. There is no life after death... There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.' This makes it clear that evolution is not some kind of philosophical toy we can bring out occasionally for our interest or amusement. It radically affects every part of life. If the world is 'just there', if life is the result of a fascinating fluke, and if we ourselves are nothing more than biological accidents, we are faced with an avalanche of questions:
• If information came into being by chance, how can we know that anything is true?
• How can evolution account for the universal and invariable laws of logic, on which all our thinking depends? On what basis can we study the world in any coherent way and come to sensible conclusions about it.
• If the brain is nothing more than an accident of biological evolution, why should we trust it's ability to tell us so? How can chance accumulations of atoms and molecules decide that that is what they are?
• How can shrink-wrapped bags of biological elements have any rights to justice, freedom, possessions or happiness - or even to life itself? What gives us any greater value than rocks or reptiles, trees or termites?
• How did the products of a succession if generic flukes learn to remember the past, evaluate the present and wonder about the future?
• If we are what someone called 'computers made of meat', how did we acquire an aesthetic diminution, enabling us to appreciate beauty in nature and art, when doing this makes no contribution to evolution?
• Why should we look for purpose or meaning in life? What is the sense Un genetically programmed machines talking about 'quality of life' and 'values', or concerning themselves with aims or aspirations?
• As it is impossible to jump from atoms to ethics and from molecular to morality, why do we have an unbuilt sense of right and wrong? Where did conscience come from, and why does it have such amazing power? Why do we sometimes feel guilty or ashamed?
• Why do we have a sense of obligation or responsibility to other people? Why should mere blobs of animate matter be concerned for the temporary well-being of other blobs if both are on their way to extinction?
• How can we live - or die - with dignity if our existence is meaningless? Why do we take ourselves so seriously if Richard Dawkins is right to say that we are nothing but 'jumped-up apes'?
• If the survival of the fittest is evolution's greatest prize, why should we care for the frail, the mentally defective, the chronically sick, the senile, or the starving? Should we not give evolution a helping hand by getting rid of them - and the sooner the better?
• If humans are no more than grown-up germs, why are we the only species preoccupied with death? Why should approaching it - or delaying it - be of the slightest concern to us? If we began as a fluke, live out of a farce and end as fertiliser, what hope or help can we give to someone who is dying?
• Why is our sense of spirituality so strong that man has been called 'a religious animal'? Is this something we should expect to happen to dust left around for millions of years?
