Does God Exist? [Arguments & Proofs]

[explod]

Twiddle:

Abiogenesis is clearly a very complex subject, I don't think any reasonable person can expect a complete answer at this stage when we are only 60 years on from Watson and Crick discovering the structure of DNA, and only 10 years on from mapping the human genome.

Mankind has always needed the comfort of understanding, in the beginning perhaps the meaning of moon overhead at night. Spirituality, dreaming and fairy tales fill in the gaps and satisfy that need at the base level when the eyes open and the brain kicks in.

Some of us are allowed the freedom to move beyond the tales and measure things for themselves.

Great input again Twiddle, just love checking out the latest posts.

 

[tech/a]

Spirituality, dreaming and fairy tales fill in the gaps and satisfy that need at the base level when the eyes open and the brain kicks in.

That 2Kg of mass is the difference between us and the rest of life.
We KNOW what we are.
Also makes us the most dangerous thing on the planet.

This God character has a lot to answer for---just ask a whale!

 

[Twiddle]

Mankind has always needed the comfort of understanding, in the beginning perhaps the meaning of moon overhead at night. Spirituality, dreaming and fairy tales fill in the gaps and satisfy that need at the base level when the eyes open and the brain kicks in.

Some of us are allowed the freedom to move beyond the tales and measure things for themselves.

Completely agree explod.

 

[Logique]

...need to educate yourself on how the scientific method works as a whole.
Science is all about falsifying hypotheses. In other words trying to disprove an hypothesis. Only once a hypothesis is proven to be robust, and falsification attempts have failed, then it is accepted...

Love hearing this kind of stuff. Great post Twiddle. I also think Explod is on the money in the post above.

To the question does God exist? My answer would be ..define God.

 

[tech/a]

My answer would be ..define God.

My answer everything.--Thats all it can be.

 

[wayneL]

To the question does God exist? My answer would be ..define God.

This is the best and most interesting question IMO.

Why? Because most people are stuck in the binary proposition of either a Godless evolution, or a God in the Christian (or whatever) model, with no consideration of the infinite number of possibilities in between.

My answer everything.--Thats all it can be.

And a most interesting (and best IMO) answer.

 

[Boognish]

It's a great answer because it's so vague as to mean nothing (I mean everything)...

Whatever construct of God you think you have, it has either come directly or indirectly from a "holy" book or books which undoubtedly claim or claimed to be written or dictated by said God.

These books invariably make claims as to the nature of life, the earth, the universe, morality, human history etc. These claims are either accurate (true) or they're not.

Humanity has refined a method of testing ideas and claims made about reality that we call science. Science is subjected to the imperfections of the humans who practice it. Science can make few, if any, definitive claims to hard truth (outside mathematics and physics). However science can build and test models and predict reality, based on observational evidence both in nature and under laboratory conditions. Therefore science can claim to be the best, perhaps the only method humanity possesses to gauge truth claims.

Therefore if a holy book claims that something is the way it is because X, but science can demonstrate that this thing is the way it is because Y, we can only deduce that the holy book is wrong about that fact. Logic then leads us down an obvious path. If the holy book is wrong about claim X, and it's supposed to be an infallible document delivered to humans by a God(s)... something has to give.

Ergo, holy books are worthless to us in these times and simply exist to sow confusion, create differences where none need exist and exert control by proxy among humanity.

 

[Julia]

To the question does God exist? My answer would be ..define God.

Yes, it is a great question, Logique.
I'd add: "If God exists, why?"

Presumably the believer would assert that nothing could exist without said God having created it.

And the non-believer would assert that "God" was created in the mind of humankind to satisfy their need for purpose and/or an entity to which mortals are morally responsible.

 

[Sean K]

God is what we necessarily perceive it to be, perhaps.

 

[explod]

My answer everything.--Thats all it can be.

Yep, cannot toss that. We are all it whatever that it is that makes up everything we percieve.

The saying "thank the lucky stars" have taken on extra meaning to me or perhaps I missed it from the beginning. But as some of you have come to know, a lot of things do go over my head.

Anyway its Friday the dealings been done (good this week too), so time to loosen up for a drink and see what gg may have in store.

 

[bullsvsbears]

Hypothesis for claim b:

If god exists the way the bible says, then God answers prayer.

Attempt to gain evidence/falsiy claim b:
-Prayer studies have been done, which show prayer is not answered.

In the largest study ever undertaken it was shown intercessory prayer does not work.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.06/05-prayer.html

Furthermore, you could pray right now for god to appear in your room, and I guarantee it would not happen. This is not evidence against because god may just be averse to appearing, but it certainly is not evidence FOR god.

So we have at least one hypothesis falsified, we could say that with current evidence it seems that if god exists he does not answer prayer, furthermore since the bible says that he does, perhaps the bible if not true.

Is this enough to rule out a god? Of course not... However, as you can see in the evidence stakes we have a logical reason to tentatively accept proposition a, but not b. Evidence is required for prop b - god exists. Until evidence is provided it is in the same boat as any other claim without evidence.[/QUOTE]


Christ clearly stated in Matthew 4 : 7 - "You shall not test the Lord your God"
So much for Hypothesis B TWIDDLE
which leads me to believe that you used the same flawed reasoning to conclude hypothesis A

 

[Sean K]

Christ clearly stated in Matthew 4 : 7 - "You shall not test the Lord your God"
So much for Hypothesis B TWIDDLE

Your rebuttal is a quote from the bible?

Got me..

 

[explod]

Your rebuttal is a quote from the bible?

Got me..

Me too, we will always regret that we cut down all the trees and gave them jobs in the towns.

 

[Ruby]

Christ clearly stated in Matthew 4 : 7 - "You shall not test the Lord your God"
So much for Hypothesis B TWIDDLE
which leads me to believe that you used the same flawed reasoning to conclude hypothesis A

BVB, you just don't have any answer to Twiddle's wonderfully elegant reasoning. It is not flawed at all - perfectly logical and easy to follow.

Oh, and the biblical quote is "Thou shalt not tempt...." not "Thou shalt not test...."

Great posts, Twiddle, love your logical, easy to understand line of argument.

 

[Twiddle]

Christ clearly stated in Matthew 4 : 7 - "You shall not test the Lord your God"
So much for Hypothesis B TWIDDLE
which leads me to believe that you used the same flawed reasoning to conclude hypothesis A

Because God new it was part of a test he decided to ignore the prayers and let the people with heart conditions die? OK, fair enough.

If you don't like the hypothesis, that is fine, I was just using it to illustrate a point of how the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. A point which you clearly missed... again.

 

[bullsvsbears]

Your rebuttal is a quote from the bible?

Got me..

If you opened your eyes you will see that TWIDDLES hypothesis b is based on a quote from the bible....hence my rebutltal.
Know your bible before you make rash statements based on biblical quotes.

 

[bullsvsbears]

Because God new it was part of a test he decided to ignore the prayers and let the people with heart conditions die? OK, fair enough.

If you don't like the hypothesis, that is fine, I was just using it to illustrate a point of how the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. A point which you clearly missed... again.

Disagree TWIDDLE,
The burden of proof should be upon the Evolutionists, since Creation has been the historic and inherent default throughout virtually all cultures and religions until roughly the last 200 years. Of course, Evolutionists, who view themselves as the only "scientists" in the debate, insist that the burden of evidence be upon the Creationists. Evolutionists reason, we cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch, taste or smell the Creator. Therefore, we are unable to test for the Creator with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. Creationists retort, we cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell the human mind. We cannot test for the human mind with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. When we run an electroencephalogram, we are measuring salt flow and electrical activity within the human brain. We cannot so much as even locate the human mind. Yet we watch as human carcasses run about, making order of disorder, conscious decisions according to subconscious criteria. We see the design and complexity that result from the operation of the brain through the invisible realm known as the mind. Thus, we know with certainty that the human mind exists. Therefore, it's absolutely logical for Creationists to postulate the existence of a Creator based upon the same "evidence." The design we see all around us came from one, grand concept, and such a concept can only come from a complex Mind.

 

[Twiddle]

Disagree TWIDDLE,
The burden of proof should be upon the Evolutionists, since Creation has been the historic and inherent default throughout virtually all cultures and religions until roughly the last 200 years.

Yes, certainly evolution requires evidence. Luckily, it has an overwhelming amount, hence why it is the cornerstone of biological science.

Of course, Evolutionists, who view themselves as the only "scientists" in the debate, insist that the burden of evidence be upon the Creationists.

ANY claim requires evidence. Why should creationism be excepted?

Evolutionists reason, we cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch, taste or smell the Creator. Therefore, we are unable to test for the Creator with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far.

Incorrect.

Examining present and historical life of this planet tells one consistent story. Descent with modification over a vast period of time. This is in direct contradiction with a magical instantaneous creation.

If I claimed I could fly, I jumped out the window and fell to the ground and died. Not only would have failed to provide evidence for my claim, the fact that the opposite of what I was claiming was clearly seen makes my claim likely to be invalid.

Creationists retort, we cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell the human mind. We cannot test for the human mind with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. When we run an electroencephalogram, we are measuring salt flow and electrical activity within the human brain. We cannot so much as even locate the human mind. Yet we watch as human carcasses run about, making order of disorder, conscious decisions according to subconscious criteria.

Aah, but what do we observe when there is no neural activity?

Clearly the "mind" is the product of the brain.

One day perhaps we may know the intricate details of how conciousness arises. The fact that we do not at this stage does not take away from the fact the we can prove it is the result of a physcial system.

We see the design and complexity that result from the operation of the brain through the invisible realm known as the mind. Thus, we know with certainty that the human mind exists. Therefore, it's absolutely logical for Creationists to postulate the existence of a Creator based upon the same "evidence." The design we see all around us came from one, grand concept, and such a concept can only come from a complex Mind.

Non sequitur.

With the human mind you are talking about a falsifiable thing.

Hypothesis; The "mind" results from the brain.

We define our terms and what we mean by "mind", and then we test to see if active brains produce a mind. We test if non active brains produce a mind (This would falsify the hypothesis that the mind is resultant from the brain).

How would you propose we test the creation hypothesis? There is no way to falsify.

You are arguing that we can simply assume the answer; "Looks designed to me... must be then. Thats settled". This assumes you know absolutlely everything possible to know.

Go back thousands of years and people used the same type of logic for things like lightening bolts; At that time there was no natural (scientific) explanation for them so it was incorrecltly assumed it was that it was something supernatural, the god Zeus.

Sorry, science does not work like that. Science requires evidence. The scientific explanation for the diversity of life on the planet is the theory of evolution, because it has supporting evidence.

 

[bullsvsbears]

ANY claim requires evidence. Why should creationism be excepted?

Evolution Evidence: A ......... J ........ C .........Z
now I know my ABC.

 

[Twiddle]

ANY claim requires evidence. Why should creationism be excepted?

Evolution Evidence: A ......... J ........ C .........Z
now I know my ABC.

OK, enough time wasted. Conversation over.

One last thing though BVB, and I mean this sincerely. Please read some books by evolutionary biologists. The list I gave you earlier contains some absolute pearlers. Evolution is not only true, it is also fascinating and wonderful.