Existence of God

That's a hoot! How about basing it on something more substantial than some imaginary father figure that resides in the sky! "Imaginary"? Says who? You? And why should we take YOUR opinion on this matter as 'gospel'? And if I were to listen to you, and you are wrong, could you compensate me for my eternal soul?All religion is mythology with only the belief of it's followers to give it power. Opinion noted.Why don't you believe in Apollo or Zeus or any one of thousands of other religions, some with afterlives some with none? Easy - because Apollo, Zeus or any other 'god' or 'religion' is, upon careful examination, found to be completely bankrupt. Only the God of the Christian Bible is able to withstand all tests put to it.

​

Joralex

Kind of disingenuous to make an appeal to numbers and then criticize somebody else for countering with the same, don't you think?Honestly Joralex it's like you forget what you've said each time you make a new post. If you go back and read again - this time for comprehension - you'll discover that I made no "appeal to numbers". You're simply seeing what you want to see - kind'a like the Invisible Rabbit that you later conjure up.

​

My point, for the reading impaired, was that we would have to make a most unreasonable assumption, namely, that people such as Isaac Newton would have to have said sometime in their life : "I know that the Bible contains many contradictions but I'm just going to pretend that they aren't really there and I'll hold that false belief, and continue believing in the Bible, until the day I die."

​

I then asked, would such an assumption make any sense?
Your answer, please...

​

Joralex

Evidence please! Oh, nevermind this is just YOUR totally unsubstantiated narrow minded bogus opinion. Surely you cannot be as naive as your above statement would suggest, right?

​

What is it that you expect me to do when you say "evidence please"? Are you expecting a formal proof as in a theorem of Euclidean geometry? Are you expecting a bolt of lightning from the sky?

​

The 'evidence' is plentiful but people such as yourself fail to acknowledge it as such.
To wit : given our present state of knowledge, what is the most logical, scientific inference : unguided, purposeless natural emergence of life OR guided, purposeful, created life?

​

If you select the former then you must know of some natural mechanism that is able to accomplish this. What's that? You don't know of any? Then, what is your scientific basis for selecting that option?

​

Joralex

I'm only saying that you're accusing evolutionists of being intellectually dishonest, but when Percy asks you to provide evidence supporting your claims, you tell him you're not obliged to do so. I did much more than "tell him I'm not obliged to do so". See here : EvC Forum: Existence of GodSo which is it? If you don't present evidence we assume you believe blindly. However, if you'd like to present evidence we can respond to that instead. Exactly what 'evidence' is it that you (people) have in mind?

​

Joralex[This message has been edited by Joralex, 10-18-2003]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To wit : given our present state of knowledge, what is the most logical, scientific inference : unguided, purposeless natural emergence of life OR guided, purposeful, created life?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------In our present state of knowledge, there is no evidence supporting any 'guide' for natural phenomena. I'm not trying to get you there in one jump - take it one step at a time.

​

The 'best inference', given our present state of knowledge, is that of 'intelligent, purposeful design'.

​

Consider the observation 'life exists in vast complexity and variety' - an observation that we may both make without dispute.

​

Now, not once has life been observed to come from non-life. Not once - despite countless attempts over centuries of labor - has anyone managed to produce life from non-life. Mega/giga-bucks have been and shall undoubtedly continue being spent in this pursuit with no success to date - not even close. Furthermore, there is not even a hint of a natural mechanism that could bridge the gaps that exist between dead matter and a living organism (i.e., beyond Alice-in-Wonderland-type scenarios). Yet, here it is : life in a near-infinite variety and complexity.

​

There is but ONE reason for eliminating the "hypothesis" of a purposeful Creator and, in case you hadn't noticed, that reason isn't scientific.Is there a will behind the formation of biomolecules? God said, "Let there be life, and there was life." Yes, there was a will.Is there an intent behind the adaptation of organisms to their environment? The Creator had the foresight to make organisms "flexible" so that they could adapt to the changes that were to come in a Fallen creation.What evidence do you have that any purpose exists in natural occurrences? Again, the evidence is right there, before your very eyes!

​

I have a feeling that you're talking about one thing when I'm referring to another. The 'purpose' is evident in a creation that, while incredibly diverse, is yet also intricately interconnected/interdependent all the way from the microorganism scale to the giant Redwood scale.

​

You actually don't see purpose/design in the way that the entire Earth's biota including all ecosystems are interrelated, do you? It's no wonder at all that God is "invisible" to you.

​

Joralex

I couldn't have said it better myself. Since intelligent intervention has not been able to create life with the "countless attempts" you speak of, it's reasonable to assume that intelligent intervention was not able to do it in the past. Your evidence makes it pretty clear - life was not created by intelligence. You're joking, right? Or is this maybe some sort of 'New Age' logic that you're using here?On the other hand we've seen time and again how systems employing natural selection + random mutation can give rise to significantly better designs that intelligence, including designs of great emergent complexity and behavior. So it's reasonable to assume that NS + RM are sufficient to produce life, or something life-like. Your "logic" is truly amazing... I am... bedaffled!The wonder is why you can't seem to see that if you're the only one who sees the design, then it's likely that it's just in your head. Design is not a part of objects. It's not a physical phenomenon. It's a quality we ascribe to objects. What's the purpose of a screwdriver in a world without screws? Pllleeezzzz... let's not pretend to be so naive.

​

If you took a hand calculator to the 10th century, everyone there would be clueless as to how this "magic box" works but there would be no doubt in even the most ignorant peasant's mind that this thing is not a naturally-occurring phenomenon. IOW, in this example intelligent design would be obvious even though its origin would be a total mystery.The only way a designer can be "inferred" is by directly observing the designer. You can't infer a designer from an object you believe to have been designed, because objects can be created without design. There's no difference between an object that was designed and one that wasn't. With all due respect, you obviously haven't given this matter much thought.Design may be the most obvious inference to you, but it's certainly not a logical one. Therefore it must be rejected by the logical mind. Using your standards, all forensic-related disciplines are out-of-business, as well as AI, cryptography, archaeology, and SETI.

​

Sorry, Frog, but you are simply way (way!) behind the times.

​

Joralex

I'll just let you compare and contrast those two statements yourself. That's right, Dan - cut and paste quotations so as to make it appear as if there is logical inconsistency. Ugghhh!Regardless... judging by the second statement, your stance seems to be that either there are no contradictions in the bible, That's right.or these intelligent people saw the contradictions and conciously chose to ignore them? Isaac Newton, for example, is known to have spent a great deal of his life studying Scripture (his writings on theology exceed his writings in science/mathematics). Do you seriously believe that an intellect of his magnitude missed what most people easily pick up upon cursory reading?And given that the latter is ridiculous, there must be no contradictions? That is not my conclusion, and you know it.

​

My conclusion is more like this : given that the latter is ridiculous, then it is reasonable to assume that what you regard as a 'contradiction' was examined and resolved in his/her mind and to his/her intellectual satisfaction.

​

I am an example of this - I've resolved (through study) many hundreds of (alleged) Bible discrepancies. I've arrived at the reasonable and supportable conclusion that there is no real substance to the allegations of Bible discrepancies.

​

Failing to arrive at this conclusion you must assume that these people are either outright dishonest or are totally ignoring the facts. If you are ready to do this then be my guest. But I'll tell you, if you do so you are ignoring the truth in the matter whether by accident (ignorance) or by choice (dishonesty).Well then, that's not a numbers fallacy. It's a false dilemna. I see... so when you strike out on one line you shift to another.

​

This is why I seldom spend too much time debating these issues with people such as yourself - you're going to be right no matter what. Once a question is answered you simply twist the question in another direction or you change the subject or you toss out another question (there's an infinite number of those you know). The bottom line is what I call 'invincible ignorance' - there is no possible way to "answer" you to the point where you will admit "Hey, maybe I'm wrong here and maybe I should give the other side some real consideration."

​

I'll move on, thank you.

​

Joralex

Your God has failed all tests I've put to it. Just like the others. And remember, I made these tests when I was still a Christian, like you, and still believed. So you can hardly say I found what I was looking for. I found the opposite of what I was looking for, in fact. Silly Frog - didn't you at least once consider the possibility that the reason why God "failed your tests" was because YOUR tests weren't appropriate? Look and learn...

​

I want to measure your intelligence and to do so I give you one exercise :

​

"Mathematically prove that any even number greater than 2 may be expressed as the sum of two prime numbers."

​

If you are successful then you are 'intelligent'; if you fail then you are a blooming idiot. Fair enough?

​

Now, did you pass or fail the intelligence test OR is this intelligence test absurd?

​

Quit trying to stick God with YOUR faults and limitations.

​

Joralex[This message has been edited by Joralex, 10-19-2003]

"Joralex, what is your criteria for evaluating the intelligence of an intelligent design? Upon what basis, for example, do you detect and qualify the intelligence underlying protista design?" The first (and, to many, only) aim of ID Theory is the detection of intelligent design - not the 'qualification' thereof.

​

The basis for detection of intelligent design is very simple : if one cannot reasonably explain an observation by chance, natural law, or combinations thereof, then the only remaining alternative is intelligent design.

​

As I've stated before, this is something that has been done for a very long time and today is manifest in areas such as forensic sciences, archaeology, AI, cryptography, SETI and others. Yet, the Naturalist avoids acknowledging this fact as much as vampires avoid silver and garlic. Why do you think they would do this?

​

Joralex

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. 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?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. I didn't think it necessary to have to spell it out - I was wrong.

​

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 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.

​

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.

​

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.

​

Joralex

The problem here is that one cannot infer design from the existence
of a radio .... only from one's prior knowledge about manufactured
items. 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.

​

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.

​

Examples of this are literally infinite in number. I assure you, if SETI ever received a signal like the above pattern, they would have no doubt whatsoever that ET is out there even though they'd have no idea of what/who ET is.

​

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

​

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.

​

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!

​

Joralex

Again, this is my question. You give several examples of recognizable patterns. However, we only attribute "intelligent design" to those patterns that exhibit a remarkable similarity to patterns we know to be of human design. The common denominator is not necessarily the correlation to human design. The feature that indicates 'design' is a high improbability with what Dembski terms 'specificity'. How then do we differentiate between these "intelligently designed" patterns and their "natural" surroundings. Wrong contrast. Both of these things that you wish to differentiate exhibit a highly improbable arrangement AND a manifest purpose.IOW, first you say that we can recognize human-like design patterns because they contrast completely with patterns found in nature. I don't think that I said this (I certainly didn't mean it this way) but let's go on...Then you turn around and say that nature must be intelligently designed because its patterns are so similar to human-like design. No. Nature is intelligently designed because it possesses an attribute that is found only in intelligently designed objects - complex specified information (CSI)!The contention is that we can distinguish intelligent human design from natural processes. In many ways this isn't possible. Nature exhibits much of what a super-intelligent (human) being would have done had that being been the creator of that nature. For example, the order, the co-dependence (symbiotic relationships), the fine-tuning of 'natural' constants, the common features amongst the immense variety of living organisms, and others.What more then can be said of natural processes; other than that they do not exhibit the patterns of intelligent human design? We're not smart enough to have 'designed' nature but an entity such as God would have no problem. Also, note how in hindsight we are able to make sense of God's creation - it's called 'science'.

​

Joralex

In the recent past, you gave the eye and vision as such an example, in the thread you started on the evolution of the eye. You dropped all discussion of the example when pressed. Not "when pressed" but rather when I saw that it was going nowhere. How does one convince a person that will stop at nothing to advance materialistic Naturalism? I believe that this isn't possible.Do you concede that the eye does not constitute evidence of design? I believe that you know the answer to that question.If you concede, that's fine with me. If you don't concede, that thread is still waiting. I've posted several reminders of some of the hanging questions. With what purpose?If you feel that symbiotic relations are proof of design, please open a thread on the topic, since a detailed discusssion of symbiosis would be off topic in this forum. No empirical evidence would be "proof" of design (or of natural evolution). The matter is not about "proof", it is about rational justification and inferencing the best explanation. I maintain that materialistic naturalism is not the best rational explanation but rather that it is the preferred explanation. Assuming my hypothesis, it is an easy matter to see why/how the evidence is then interpreted according to materialistc requirements.

​

Joralex

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. You are mixing/confusing apples with blue whales, Peter.

​

If I said that lightning was caused by Zeus and later discovered that it was a 'natural' phenomenon, how does that eliminate the possibility that Zeus created the entire universe including charged particles and physical laws that together produce lightning?

​

It doesn't eliminate the possibility, does it?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. There will always be erroneous interpretations.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. I'm still waiting to hear what you think science or people truly understand.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. Still waiting...Scientific explanations are not always correct, and never complete
I'll give you that, but they are often sufficient. 'Sufficient' for what?That is there are no counter-examples that can refute sufficiently 'understood' aspects of the natural/physical/chemical world. So, what are these????? ONE, please...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'. You mean "leap of logic" as in : we observe variations occurring among existing organisms and from these observations Naturalists LEAP into the supposition that all modern forms originated from a single common ancestor. This is the 'leap of logic' that you mean, right?What observations are there that lead to such an inference? Take your pick among thousands. Ever heard of the "Fine-tuned Universe"? What about the myriad of symbiotic relationships? What about life from non-life? What about the historical evidence for Jesus Christ?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. And the 'evidence' used to support materialistic Naturalism does?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. Peter, you need to listen more carefully : no one is "automatically assuming" anything. The combined weight of the evidence is what allows a verdict in the direction of God - not an "assumption".You on the other hand just keep saying 'This is so obviously the
work of God, that it must be the work of God.' I never have and I never will say such a thing - it's not a logical statement. I will say that after close examination the combined weight of the evidence certainly supports a rational belief in God.Does that sound logical or systematic to you? See above.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. Come now, Peter, you aren't that naive, are you?

​

When the fossil data didn't jibe with the "theoretical expectations", what did Goldschmidt, Eldredge & Gould do? Did they modify their worldview? Did they toss out neo-Darwinism?

​

Of course they didn't - they simply concocted a mechanism that would allow people to 'rationally' justify retaining the (desired) position. These gentlemen would NEVER have proposed Hopeful Monsters (Goldschmidt) or Punctuated Equilibrium (Eldredge & Gould) EXCEPT for the fact that all was not well in Muddville.

​

Let me state this again in question form : Would the notions of Hopeful Monsters or Punctuated Equilibrium EVER had been proposed if it weren't for an intractable discrepancy between evolution theory predictions and the fossil evidence (or lack thereof)?

​

And if it is possible to introduce any 'plausible' ad hoc hypothesis (such as Hopeful Monsters) in order to retain a theory, what does this say about the falsifiability of said theory? This is why in several of my papers I maintain that the present reigning paradigm is essentially unfalsifiable.

​

Now, do you wish to challenge me on this point? Your worldview is unsupportable .... that's why you need faith. We all need faith, Peter - I need faith for my God and you need faith for 'yours'.Premise: 'God created the universe and everything in it.'
Refutation .... ?
Predictions ... ?
Primary Evidence ...? Asked and answered.

​

Joralex

You would not be correct in assuming intelligent interference. You think so, huh...

​

Have you analyzed the pattern that I presented. It contains numerous mathematical relationships that are NOT explainable via any known naturally-occurring phenomena.

​

Of course, you can hypothesize that there is such a 'natural mechanism' out there, capable of producing such a pattern, only that we "haven't yet discovered it" (this technique, BTW, is among the top-ten in the Naturalist's bag-o-tricks). Do you wish to do introduce such a hypothesis? If you came across stone circles like these :would you automatically assume that the hand of man (or tentacle or alien) was involved? Gases percolating from the sub-surface or some other natural phenomena may create rounded shapes as you show here (see the craters on the moon). However, your 'pattern' is at least several parsecs away in information content from the pattern that I presented.If you saw regular hexagonal stones like ones show at the bottom of this page : would you infer divine influence or natural formation? Honey bees create their 'houses' (honeycomb cells) in hexagonal form also. You are presenting simple-minded examples to try and refute my argument - you need to try harder. The feature you need to think about is CSI. There are many naturally-occurring events that produce patterns "suggesting" intelligent design. On close examination, the appearance vanishes.

​

However, there are cases where the pattern does much more than merely provide the "appearance" of design - it confirms it. Carl Sagan, in his book Contact (later a movie), correctly stated that if SETI received a signal containing the first, say, 50 prime numbers in sequence, then... STOP the presses - ET has just been discovered!! There would be no doubt whatsoever of this conclusion because there is nothing in nature that, even in principle, could produce/transmit the first 50 prime numbers - certainly not to the best of our knowledge.

​

Joralex