I think I do a perfectly fine job of showing the place why there's no good anti-theistic arguments. And I don't see where you've presented one worth much. As a rule, I make it a point to avoid folks who rely to highly on emoticons- but that's a personal bias. I'm watching, and I think someday you and I can talk this out. Start another thread maybe, tell me why you think there's no God, and I'll see what I feel like doing about it!
If you don’t know what a certain word in English means, then we cannot talk at all.
The idea that everything was created by a god, and the idea that a godform exists – are two different ideas.
A theist may wish to believe that all forms of life, gods and men, evolved somehow, from a non-living source.
As I’ve said before, Theism means: belief in higher beings.
US creationism is strictly a bible-based ideology which includes belief in such things as the flood, and some even believe that the earth is less then 10,000 years old, etc. Belief that the age of the earth is x number of years, and belief that life was built quickly by a higher life form – is not strictly theism. Theism partains to a very wide variety of theories about superevolved or superexistent lifeforms, whether physical or amaterial, and also it can be non-literal, thinking that the godform is symbolicly part of nature or higher-self [for example].
Such bull requires no response. You have only shown your lack of knowledge.
Are you talking to yourself for me?
IF YOU DON’T HAVE ANYTHNG TO SAY, THEN DON’T . YOUR DEFINITON OF THEISM IS ONLY YOURS . YOU DON’T FOLLOW STANDARD DEFINTIONS. Creationism is theism. Today I should get my copy of ’ The Follies of the Wise" , from which I shall quote on theistic evloution. Frederick Crews is one of us who combats that form of creationism in the wide sense. Please , those who know how to combat that contribute here. Real knowledge is appreciated , not smart-alecky nonsense. Those like Ruse and Scott might accommodate all they want,but they should leave us who find evolutionistc creationism nonsense alone.
thefreedictionary.com/theism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
Creationism is simply one form of theism, but there are non creationist forms of theism which also exist.
Are you feeling “worked-up” & upset?
I can believe in a god’s existence without believing that a god created anything. Creationism is a wide-spread idea within theism, but theism is not bound to creationism.
Fine,s o you are beyond deism .A god who does not create -interesting.How does that relate to the topic?
Is that the god of Aristotle? =D> 
Theistic evolution is backward causation, puts the effect before the cause and thereby, negates time. 
Please check out the threads arguments about Him- that square circle and the ignostic-Ockham, where I reveal more on why creationistic evolution is that oxymoron. 
I maintain that God contradicts natural causes and so, perforce, cannot be compatible with science. Science gives the why’s and how’s whereas God is God did it, so unimformative and on par with gremlins. 
Nay, to aver that He gives the why of purpose contradicts selection as noted above. 
You are working from a very narrow and silly variation of Theism, and you’re God is very alien to most Theists.
I don’t even know why you care enough to bother writing all this stuff in the first place as it really means little to nothing in general, as saying God isn’t compatible with Natural Selection is like saying the Jesus doesn’t jive with Quantum physics.
Really? Which God exactly are we talking about here?
The chicken or the egg?
Was “God” the original energy source for all evolved-creation, or has “God” evolved as organisms became more complex and developed a “spirituality”?
In the latter, God would then be the combined “spiritual” output of all living things.
Is this a common thought, I cant believe for a minute I am original.
Evolutionary speaking; the egg always comes first.
The Stumps, ah, but indeed it is your God that is incompatible with science. He ,you posit has intention, and can design matters ,a o he works teleologically in the Cosmos,making for pre- ordained outcomes], but science finds only teleonomy [ no pre-ordained outcomes]. Thus not only are He and science incompatible, they are,perforce, contradictory.
Y’all merely assume that He can use selection, but as my friend , Dr. Jerry Coyne rebuts ever so successfully in his " Seeing and Believing," creationist evolution is an oxymoron. He notes there that had we not come along, no comparable species would have come along. He notes that thus Dr. Kenneth Miller errs in claiming that perhaps convergent evolution would have created a comparable species, but nay.To assume that evolution is His way begs the question and contradicts selection. I’ll yet put into that other thread the teleonomic argument.
To find this compatibility from the side of science is to make the new Omphalos argument that He so deceives us into finding no teleonomy as the primary cause!
This marks where we new atheists and the accommodationists depart: we argue on the side of rationalism versus superstition whilst they want to get on the side of creationist evolutionists and help other types of creationists to get with them also. Both approaches have merit, except that the latter should only state that from the side of religion is there that compatibility. ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
As this is a philosophical site, let us reason together. I refer to any God.
What are philosophical reasons rather than Biblical reasons, folks for your responses? And I refer thus to others here besides The Stumps! Stamp your thoughts here.
Hello Skeptic:
He ,you posit has intention
O- Can you tell Job what is God’s intention? Can anyone fathom His ways? God created, but we have no idea about what was His intention for creating anything at all.
— and can design matters ,a o he works teleologically in the Cosmos,making for pre- ordained outcomes], but science finds only teleonomy [ no pre-ordained outcomes]. Thus not only are He and science incompatible, they are,perforce, contradictory.
O- Science enquires about how all came to be not why anything came to be. As such, there is no natural anymosity between the two. You could in effect say that initially science and scientists were trying to find out the ways of God. The contradiction is therefore manufacture rather than inherent. It is an option that you’ve chosen and not an inevitable conclusion.
— As this is a philosophical site, let us reason together. I refer to any God.
What are philosophical reasons rather than Biblical reasons, folks for your responses? And I refer thus to others here besides The Stumps! Stamp your thoughts here.
O- The philosophical reasons of evolution being driven or directed by Divine intervention? Not interested. It makes no sense for one because “philosophical” reasons for such a subject as “God” would automatically become “religious”, if not necessarly “biblical”. But I ask you this: If you’re such a skeptic, why do you believe in science itself?
Religion and science are somewhat methodologically incompatible. That makes them a bit difficult for some people to do at the same time. It’s kind of like trying to read a novel while riding horse back or playing the piano while sleeping… difficult but not impossible.
Talk about a lack of imagination…
Ah, yes, felix dacat as people can grip themselves in cognitive dissonance.
The old Omphalos argument was that He made mountains, fossils and such appear as they do to deceive humankind as to the age of the Earhwhilst the new one avers that He deceives us into thinking that natural causes are the masters whilst He is the primary cause, they the secondary and we the tertiary. Nay, science doesn’t reveal teleology - programmed outcomes but on the contrary, teleonomy- no programmed outcomes as Amiel Rossow in his essay on Kenneth Miller and Jerry Coyne in his essay against teleology ,both @ Talk Reason now.
Coyne notes that had we not evolve, no comparable species would have evolved in contrast to Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson. Convergent evolution was not in the making for such. Lo, now if the flowering plants had not evolved and there was no cooling-of, we would not have evolved. That, mutations and other random forces do not have a program to evolve any species whatsoever! Natural selection, the non-programming, anti-chance agency of Nature reveals no teleology behind it- just a mindless sieve! This is the naturlaist teleonomic argument.
There is no warrant to allege that He interferes in sub-atomic processes or in evolution to tweak it.
Yet, creationist evolutionists delight in finding the pareidolia of sentience and designs, like seeing Yeshua in tortilla, instead of the real natural causes as primary and patterns as the naturalist argument from pareodolia notes.
No, from the side of science, then, perforce, there is incompatibility, but from the side of the superstition of religion, yes, sciennce be compatible with it as it is compatible with both democracy and tyranny1
Again, t’is that dissonance at work!
Creationist evolutionists feel that He uses evolution for His purposes when science reveals no such purposes- no programmed outcomes, which so contradict natural causes Evolution is creative, the creator. Natural causes have no need of the man behind the curtain as the presumption of naturalism so finds. These people cannot overcome the presumption with their obscurantism! Their He did it.
They feel that way,because as Francisco Jose Ayala bleats in his book that were it otherwise than with Him in charge that we ‘d hav eno purpose and values and such. At another time he used the argument from angst that without Him, we’d live in dread and have no purppose: nay, get counseling and make your own purposes! This Sally Field [one] life, human love and purposes suffice; why bleat that one must have a future state and divine love and purpose as Albert Ellis in “The Myth of Sellf-Esteem” and Robert Price, my friend, in ’ The Reason-Driven Life" , n effect so note, and Paul Kurtz, my friend in " The Transcendent Temptation,’ reveals how the parnanormal and the supernatural, twin superstitions have no evidence in their support, and Michael Shermer reveals in ’ Why Do People Believe Weird Things," why that.
Henri Poincare in 1905 stated this truth: Individuals" know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder if the illusions aren’t more conforting? “Yet, the disappearance of divine intent is not cruel , and the illusions of that temptation can ever be so cruel!
This reflects no but only after we naturalists illustrate theistic error, why it so persists as what Sigmund Freud, that fraud himself , calls the universal neurosis of mankind [ See Frederick Crews’s " Follies of the Wise,’ on his frauds and also on creationist evolution.]. :-”
And finally, these people beg the question with this design argument as all teleological and cosmological ones do: here, they assume those planned outcomes. 
Ah, their imaginations, oldschoolhero.
Yes, for those people who delight in cognitive dissonance, they’re indeed compatible!
Thanks everybody!
Ah, yes, felixdacat as people can grip themselves in cognitive dissonance.
The old Omphalos argument was that He made mountains , fossils and such appear as they do to deceive humankind whilst the new one avers that He deceives us into thinking that natural causes are the masters whilst He is the primary cause, they the secondary and we the tertiaary. Nay, science doesn’t reveal no teleology - programmed outcomes but on the contrary, teleonomy- noprogrammed outcomes as Amiel Rossow in his essay on Kenneth Miller and Jerry Coyne in his essay against teleology ,both @ Talk Reason now.
Coyne notes that had we not evolve, no comparable species would have evolved in contrast to Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson. Convergent evolution was not in the making for such. Lo, now if the flowering plants had not evolved and there was no cooling-of, we would not have evolved. That, mutations and other random forces do not have a program to evolve any species whatsoever! Natural selection, the non-programming, , anti-chance agency of Nature reveals no teleology behind it- just a mindless sieve!
There is no warrant to allege that He interferes in sub-atomic processes or in evolution to tweak it.
Yet, creationist evolutionists delight in finding the pareidolia of sentience and designs, like seeing Yeshua in tortilla, instead of the real natural causes as primary and patterns as the naturalist argument from pareodolia notes.
No, from the side of science, then, perforce, there is incompatibility, but from the side of the superstition of religion, yes, science be compatible with it as it is compatible with both democracy and tyranny1
Again, t’is that dissonance at work!
Creationist evolutionists feel that He uses evolution for His purposes when science reveals no such purposes- no programmed outcomes, which so contradict natural causes Evolution is creative, the creator. Natural causes have no need of the man behind the curtain as the presumption of naturalism so finds. These people cannot overcome the presumption with their obscurantism! Their He did it.
They feel that way,because as Francisco Jose Ayala bleats in his book that were it otherwise than with Him in charge that we ‘d have no purpose and values and such The presumption of humanist- covenant morality for humanity- reveals values and such. 
At another time he used the argument from angst that without Him, we’d live in dread and have no purpose: nay, get counseling and make your own purposes! This Sally Field [one] life, human love and purposes suffice; why bleat that one must have a future state and divine love and purpose as Albert Ellis in “The Myth of Sellf-Esteem” and Robert Price, my friend, in ’ The Reason-Driven Life" , n effect so note, and Paul Kurtz, my friend in " The Transcendent Temptation,’ reveals how the parnanormal and the supernatural, twin superstitions have no evidence in their support, and Michael Shermer reveals in ’ Why Do People Believe Weird Things," why that.
Henri Poincare in 1905 stated this truth: Individuals" know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder if the illusions aren’t more conforting? “Yet, the disappearance of divine intent is not cruel , and the illusions of that tempataion can ever be so cruel!
This reflects no but only after we naturalists illustrate theistic error, why it so persists as what Sigmund Freud, that fraud himself , calls the universal neurosis of mankind [ See Frederick Crews’s " Follies of the Wise,’ on his frauds and also on creationist evolution.]. :-”
And finally, these people beg the question with this design argument as all teleological and cosmological ones do: here, they assume those planned outcomes.
Yes, for those people who delight in cognitive dissonance, they’re indeed compatible!
Obscuran
“Why Do People Believe Weird Things”
Sometimes they believe them because evidence shows that they are true. Quantum physics, cuddlefish, and marsupial reproduction are weird. Why do people think that if something is weird it isn’t true?