Existence of God

The concept 'god' comes from one of two things (IMO).Either:i) Contact between some 'primitive' or 'unsophisticated' society
and a 'sophisticated' or 'technologically advanced' one. Technology
sufficeintly advanced is indistinguishable from magic.ii) Failure to comprehend an explanation for something.Theoretically a god is a possibility -- but I see no evidence for
one. Many of the things previously attributed to god(s) are
now understood.This trend of discovery has gone on for centuries, and I see
no end to it -- and consequently no need to resort to god(s).

quote:

---

You are here making an assumption that you cannot empirically prove in any way (i.e., the assumption is metaphysical in nature).

---

Yes ... that's why I started the post by pointing out that
it was my opinion.I don't feel that this detracts from the suggestion.

quote:

---

So, you are using the highly fallacious argument that our being able to understand/explain things eliminates the existence of God.

---

It increasingly removes the requirement for the hand of God
in the understood aspects of our universe.What I said was, if that trend continues, we push the
requirement for god(s) further and further away.

quote:

---

Lessee... when I was born I didn't even know what the concept of a number was, let alone how to use them. Today I "understand" enough about numbers that I can do all sorts of things with them. So, does that understanding eliminate the existence of all those that created the mathematical system that we have today?

---

This analogy does not match the suggestion given.We do not beleive there to be interaction between the 'maths
god' and our pen every time we do a long division.In former times people DID beleive in divine explanations for
aspects of our world which are now understood ... like thunder
and lightening for example -- Zeus's spears or Thor running amok
in the heavens .. or whatever.As phenomenon in the natural world become understood, the need for
divine intervention disappears.Ultimately IF science finds a way in which the universe could
come into being by purely natural, quantifiable, measurable
means then we won't need to fall back on god(s) ... we may discover
that there is a god by this very same process ... who knows.All I was saying is that rainbows are not a covenant with god
that he will not try to wipe us out again, they are formed by
white light refracting through raindrops and splitting.

quote:

---

Understanding something doesn't do squat towards eliminating the Creator of that something.

---

But it might eliminate the need for supposing a creator.

quote:

---

Besides, who do you think gave you the mind/intellect that enables you to learn?

---

This is exactly the kind of drivel I am talking about ... you
don't understand where intellect comes from so you assume there
must be a god to give it to us!!!The notion is stated, rather than supported.

quote:

---

It has been said, for instance, that if one finds a radio in the wilderness, one must infer design

---

The problem here is that one cannot infer design from the existence
of a radio .... only from one's prior knowledge about manufactured
items.Suppose you were completely alien to this world and had no frame
of reference for objects found here. What about the radio would
suggest design?

quote:

---

Really? Hmmm... there's a recurring theme in your words and I'm forced to call you on it.

​

Would you mind telling me of one thing, just one, that you think science truly understands?

---

As to the really part .... well, yes, increased understanding
of a system/phenomenon/artifact may eliminate the suggestion
of a creator from the list of possibilities.Take deep sea formations, for example, some people suppose that
there are ruins from ancient (circa 11,000 years ago) cities,
while others say they are natural formations.Increased understanding of geology/erosion AND of the structures
themselves will likely lead down one track or the other ...
possibly concluding that they are so likely to be natural as
to discount the other possibility.As to the second point ... I'll be pedantic for a second ...
science understands nothing, people do.The process of science allows us to develop understanding of
the observations that we make. With enough time and effort
(and advancement for some types of observation) we can gain
sufficient understanding of natural events to preclude certain
explanations ... like Thor makes thunder and lightning.Scientific explanations are not always correct, and never complete
I'll give you that, but they are often sufficient. That is there
are no counter-examples that can refute sufficiently 'understood'
aspects of the natural/physical/chemical world.

quote:

---

Science / good reasoning must be guided by the inference to the best explanation. This 'best explanation' should employ accepted rules of logic in combination with the empirical evidence / observations. Given all this, the best inference is that there is a God that is the Creator of all things.

---

You seem to be using 'inference' to mean 'leap of logic'.What observations are there that lead to such an inference?

quote:

---

You say that "the notion is stated, rather than supported" - I totally disagree. The notion is very well supported except that you et al. refuse to accept the support as such and instead interpret the evidence so as to support YOUR chosen beliefs.

---

Problem with evidence .... if you have evidence that genuinely, and
after peer review etc. etc. supports multiple view points
simultaneously then the evidence doesn't provide a conclusive
route ... and alternative evidence must be sought.Science does this (amongst other ways) by taking a hypothesis and considering what observation would make it false. If you find that observation it's back to the drawing board.The problem I see is that the 'evidence' used to support the
existence of a god doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

quote:

---

For example, consider elaborate symbiotic relationships. These are very revealing of a purposeful design - the interconnection of a single creation - yet you choose to see them as an "evolved mechanism for survival". I can't help that you wish to see things a certain way.

---

Biologists can point to examples of 'systems' that are suggestive
of a route to such complex symbionts, they can propose an
evolutionary route, and the suggested routes are often borne
out by other observations. The key point being that by NOT
automatically assuming god one investigates.You on the other hand just keep saying 'This is so obviously the
work of God, that it must be the work of God.'Does that sound logical or systematic to you?

quote:

---

So stop saying that it "isn't supported" - it is amply supported, you et al. merely choose to ignore the evidence via an alternate interpretation that is suited to support your worldview.

---

But my worldview is supported by further evidence ... observations
that are expected from the theory.Your worldview is unsupportable .... that's why you need faith.Premise: 'God created the universe and everything in it.'
Refutation .... ?
Predictions ... ?
Primary Evidence ...?

quote:

---

Not true! In an excavation you may may find thousands of stones yet the stone that has been 'worked' towards a purpose (e.g., to make an arrowhead) stands out.

---

The worked stone stands out only because we have an understanding
of what a worked stone looks like. Eg, stone hendge has stones that
show marks consistent with them being worked.Show a flint arrowhead to a child and they will, most likely,
just think it's a neat stone. Even experts may debate the
manufacturedness of artifacts ... take the undersea structures
I mentioned in the previous post ... the hand of man is not
even easy to identify!!

quote:

---

If you came across the following pattern scratched on the rock of another planet:

​

. - .
..
... - .. - ...
....
..... - ... - .... - .....
......
....... - .... - ..... - .......

​

you would immediately conclude intelligence (i.e., purposeful design) behind the pattern and you'd be logically & scientifically correct in your conclusion since there are no naturally-occurring phenomena that generate such patterns.

---

You might ... I would need to analyse the pattern first.Immediately concluding an intelligence (or even that it IS a
pattern) would be UNscientific and irrational.You have based the assumption of intelligence on the absence
of a phenomenon that we do not KNOW to be absent.

quote:

---

Same difference... God has left His "fingerprints" everywhere except that many people simply prefer to interpret those fingerprints as something else. After all, if they acknowledged them as belonging to God then they are no longer "free" to do their own thing and we can't have that, can we?

---

According to the judeo-christian religions and my meagre observations
of humanity people ARE free to do as they please ... and do
with alarming frequency across the whole of recorded history.I don't see acknowledging a god that says 'Do as you like, I'll
punish you for it but won't stop you' would be a bar to
any kind of behaviour -- do you have children?

quote:

---

Easy - I would see a highly improbable arrangement of highly improbable "components" coexisting for a unified purpose (even if that purpose is unknown).

---

If you do not know the purpose of the arrangement, how do you
know there is one?How do you know that this is the only arrangement of components
that could act in a similar fashion to this object ... and
thus assess the 'improbability' of the arrangement?Without prior knowledge of the 'components' and their frequency
across the universe, how can you assign an 'improbability'
to the components?

quote:

---

A better example than your radio is a single cell : there are hundreds of billions of atoms in a specific arrangement that makes this arrangement a living entity. Change the arrangement in any significant way and the cell dies.

---

Define significant ... don't want to sound too 'it's all how you
define stuff' BUT 'significant is subjective in the extreme.There's plenty you can do to cells without killing them ... you
may change their function, but not necessarily kill the cell.

quote:

---

How did this arrangement come to be? Answer : it's a copy of its "parent".
How did the first arrangement come to be? Answer : "matter arranged itself over millions of years".
Uhhh... you may choose to believe that, we don't!

---

How big is the universe?We can only see a fraction of it, and thet 'visibility' is increasing
at 1 light year per year.If the universe is extremely vast, then the probability of
these arrangements starts to dwindle -- why? There are only
a finite number of quantum states ... someone has estimated that
an EXACT duplicate of our section of the universe MUST exist
within a finite distance (though huge) of us. (There were articles
recently in Scientific American and New Scientist on this).Arguments based upon supposed liklihood are arguments from incredulity, and based upon insufficient knowledge of the
universe to be relied upon.

Can't speak for IrishRockHound (natch) but not agreeing with
the message of the bible and not beleiving in god are two
different things.Personally I feel that the teachings of Jesus in the new testament
are admirable, it's a pity so few people follow those ideas.
I don't believe in Jesus's divinity, and I have strong doubts
over his existence in reality.The christian god doesn't interact ... he promised not to, and
it would mess with his whole 'free-will' experiment ... so
his existence cannot prevent behaviour.I have a suspicion that religions came about as a means of
crowd control.

quote:

---

Have you read Shannon's original work? (I have - I even have my own copy). Do you know what you're talking about above? (It doesn't look like it).

---

Cannot speak for the person to whom you are replying, but I have
read Shannon's paper ... it's freely available on the web, even
if I hadn't read it ten years ago in connection of my first degree.Shannon's measure of information is based upon the maximum number
of valid messages that a channel can communicate.He reduces the information content to the minimum required
for the receiver to accurately reconstruct the message as sent.Semantics are neglected ... as you stated elsewhere.His calculations also rely upon there being a set of UNIQUE
message entities/components ...Shannon information doesn't really seem to be of much use
(even as analogy) to DNA systems ... different sequences of
DNA can code for the same 'information' so Shannon's formulae
are invalid in that context -- hardly suprising when they were
developed to aid a very well specified engineering problem.If you want to try adding a concept of meaning to DNA, then that's
invalid too ... meaning is constructed in the 'mind' of an
'intelligent observer' ... it doesn't exist independently/objectively.There may e very specific definitions of information for biological
system usage, but one must not confuse them with the lay use of the
term.