: I'm not saying that what functions as an atom may not exist. My point was that what actually exists may one day be recognized as something different.Alright, then I'm not saying that something that avoids functioning in the same way that God avoids functioning may not exist. My point is that what actually does not have any measurable, observable, empirically testable impact on the world may never be measured, observed, or empirically tested. Since measurement, observation, and empirical testing are requirements for justifying a belief (or "failing to falsify" a hypothesis), the existence of God can not be logically demonstrated.
: Stating that God has steadfastly refused to interfere with the world or leave any traces of His existence appears to be a statement of uneducated unbelief.
OK, so now I'm uneducated too? Fine. The fact that you know absolutely nothing about my education and absolutely nothing about my spiritual and/or religious beliefs and/or practices is noted. The fact that you feel fully justified in calling me ignorant and irreligious, despite your fundamental lack of knowledge about me is also noted.
: You don't have to search the history books very far to find out that God has indeed interfered -- from Creation right down to modern history.
One single, unequivocal, example of this intervention is hereby formally requested.
:You may choose not to believe,
It's irrelevant whether I believe or not. If you present a single, unequivocal piece of evidence, I will have to accept its validity. So far, you have not done so.
:and not all things men have done in the name of God have been godly nor right, but I thing evidence is most definitely and most obviously there. Study the history of just the Jewish people and you'll see that.
Again, your assumption that I know nothing about this subject is noted. Now, will you kindly be specific and point me to a single piece of unequivocal evidence that God has intervened in the history of the Jewish people?
: As far as physical evidence for you and for Gideon, another analogy: If you were walking through the woods and came upon a watch, would you assume that it happened to be put together by chance, or that it was made by a watchmaker? Obviously, it was designed and made.
Paley's watch is a swell story told by a man who could have had no idea how to explain the phenomenon of life. It is, philosophically, much more akin to tales of thunder gods and volcano gods than to science. The sylogysm you are using is this:
a) This thing is complicated
b) God, as I invision "Him," is capable of making complex things
c) therefore, God made this thing.
The equifinality issue arises from premise "b." You neglect to question whether other forces are also capable of making complex things. We now know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that non-intentional forces can result in complexity. Therefore your argument is incomplete. You need an "If, and only if" statement here, and you can not ever provide it, for the reasons that Gideon has already, repeatedly, pointed out to you.
: Why then, when looking at something much more complex like cells, atoms, etc., do so many assume they all happened by merely random chance?
Who assumes that cells arose by random chance? Evolutionary theory does not assume this. Quite the opposite, in fact, since natural selection is entirely non-random (why do you suppose they put the word "selection" in the title?).
:It doesn't make sense to me.
Yes, we've established that. Now, can you tell me why you presume that in order for a scientific theory to be valid, you, personally, have to be able to understand it? Did Newton sit at his desk and contemplate your personal ability to understand universal gravitation or the conservation of matter/energy? Did Einstein have something much bigger in mind, but never published because "if it doesn't make sense to Gotch, it must not be true."?
And once again, I repeat my request for one single scrap of unequivocal evidence for the intervention of one or more supernatural entities in the material world.
-Floyd
None.
