We know there's a God because...

Darwin and Wallace also came up with the same idea independently: does that mean evolution by natural selection is true?No. It just means that two people can come up with the same idea independantly. Or, as bluegenes puts it here: This essentially supports what iano is saying: people can make their own gods. However, you've also helped us see that two people's gods formed in this fashion can be very similar, or even the same. The problem I'm seeing in this line of reasoning is that it looks at the system (i.e. nature) as a whole, and not at the individual parts, as if nature were undertaking a major project in producing life. This is inherently the same as first assuming God to see if God exists: you have already assumed everything is a coherent, goal-oriented process.The theory of evolution by natural selection states that the various parts of the system are in competition with one another, not working together toward a specified goal. Thus, each organism (and some would take this down to the level of each cell or each gene) can be thought of as selfish. If something else outcompetes you, you generally die off. Thus, nature favors the animal that is more aggressive, not the animal that is more thoughtful. Animals that crave sex do better at reproducing than animals that stop to try to understand why they should have sex.That's where emotions come from.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

I apologize for being so far behind on this: it's been a very busy week. You speak of nature building things and having a certain set of tools to work with (post 36). You ignore that each organism is, essentially, building itself in natural selection theory. You should probably read some evolutionary materials if you weren't aware of this. This is called sexual selection (by some, it's subsumed under natural selection). Male deer in rut, bull elephants in musth, etc. spar with each other under the influence of hormones, and the one who wins gets the girl. You don't win by thinking or being creative: you win by mindlessly doing whatever the female thinks is sexy: intimidating your opponent, kicking their butt, etc (which is accomplished with help from adrenaline and testosterone).What do you think links all the animals' mating seasons for mass spawnings; leads them to congregrate, lek, spar, rut or gather harems; and causes human sex drive? Here's a hint: it's not synapses.Under these observations, I submit that emotions are not evidence for the existence of God. However, this only touches on negative emotions so far. Positive emotions, however, are explained by this (pretty dang good) insight in your post: Ants seem to cooperate with each other because the queen is the mother of all the ants in the colony, and she secretes pheromones that prevent the other females from developing their gonads. Becaused of ant's XX-XO system of sex determination, the queen produces offspring that are more closely related to each other than to her, so it's beneficial for the propagation of the workers' genes to help the queen. Also, she's their only chance for passing on their genes.Wolves eat better when they hunt in packs than if they hunt alone.White blood cells get all their food and nourishment from the bloodstream that they police and protect.Everything else with cooperative behavior receives benefits from the behaviors. At least, everything we've attempted to study up until point. Maybe you'll find an exception in the stuff we haven't yet looked at. So far though, science hasn't found true altruism. Even in humans: would you do anything nice for other people if it didn't feel good to do it? Anyone who says yes is an ignorant and/or lying jackass.A lot of our "positive" emotions can be explained by the social behavior of our common ancestors. So, emotions are not necessarily evidence of God.In fact, I would argue the opposite: intelligence is better evidence for God than emotion. Of all species on earth, only in humans can the nerd in school actually grow up to be the bully's boss. Everywhere else, the nerd gets bullied to death, or at least, out of the gene pool. But, because I'm a human, I have a wife and a son. Abstract intelligence is also harder to explain by natural selection (although it's not impossible, mind you). Remember, CTD, I am a Christian, and I believe in God. I just believe in a laissez-faire God who generally lets nature run its course. I don't believe there's a real rational way to "know" God exists. All the back-and-forth reasoning of the good and bad aspects of life isn't going to discern a God like the one I believe in.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

Here’s the question that this thread is meant to be answering: This is how Cold Foreign Object has “refuted” this thesis: So, you would approach this problem by looking for design in the universe, Ray? If you see design, to you it’s evidence for a Creator?Actually, I think we already know that. The only problem is that alternative explanations have also been put forward for the same observable phenomenon, and these have credible reasons behind them:
1. Aliens
2. Evolution
Now, how do you address these issues, and “know” that there is a God, despite the fact that you haven’t been able to rule out these other two possibilities. Without ruling them out, you can’t just assume your answer is right and expect us to go along with it. Give reasons, blast it!You believe Dennett’s quote about “design” supports you and refutes the other hypotheses. Should I take this to mean that, anytime a scientist says the word “design” in a biological context, it automatically overrrides all the scientific work that has been done on evolution? I like to look at the patterns insects’ wings, and I often refer to them as designs. Does that make me a Creationist?Ray, your refutation is based on interpreting somebody’s usage of the word “design” as meaning “the purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details” and not “an ornamental pattern” (definitions taken from Answers.com). You want us all to accept this is an “invulnerable refutation,” but then call Rahvin’s response mere “lashing out” when he presents the fundamental reason why most of the people on this thread don’t believe your argument: Why does your subjective (and erroneous) interpretation of a single word count as a refutation when Rahvin’s observation of lack of evidence does not? Even if his argument is flawed, it’s logical.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

Another interpretation of this data begs an entirely different question:What are the odds that we'd be here if it didn't happen this way?Have you ever noticed, when you pour milk into a cup, that it has the same shape as the cup? This isn't because the cup managed to have the shape that the milk was going to take, it was because the cup dictates what shape the milk will take. The cup didn't conform to the milk's shape: the milk conformed to the cup's shape.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams

Ray, this is me telling you that everybody already knows what your thought process is. This is NOT me agreeing that you have a good point. You seriously need to up your reading comprehension abilities. Or, take the "me" filters off your glasses, or something. This is an IDist lashing out at a soon-to-be PhD because he can't refute
his argument. God is an almighty, omnipotent, omniscient being who does magic with His voice: you're saying that the existence of mundane beings on another planet is unbelievable? Ray, you're mocking me for drawing your attention to somebody else's argument. You even attributed it to me. You've complained loudly and longly that Rahvin only lashes out and doesn't address your arguments, yet all you've done in response to my arguments is say "evolution is dumb" and "you're a kook." I bet I could dredge up hundreds of millions of persons who could testify to the existence of aliens, if you'd like.Following this message are all the noun definitions of the word "design" (taken from answers.com). After you have read them all and confirmed that some of them do not imply an intelligent designer, I will allow you the privilege of continuing dialogue with me. I have bolded the definitions in question, just to make it easier for you, though I doubt they'll get past your "me" filters.Until then, you're a stubborn jackass who believes it his personal right to accuse everybody else of his own ignorance.1. a) A drawing or sketch.
b) A graphic representation, especially a detailed plan for construction or manufacture.
2. The purposeful or inventive arrangement of parts or details: the aerodynamic design of an automobile
3. The art or practice of designing or making designs.
Something designed, especially a decorative or an artistic work.
4. An ornamental pattern.
5. A basic scheme or pattern that affects and controls function or development
6. A plan; a project.
7. A reasoned purpose; an intent
8. Deliberate intention
9. A secretive plot or schemeEdited by Bluejay, : I lied: I don't have a PhD yet. This line was not meant to be in the final version of this post: it was just a personal gigle that made me feel better. I apologize to Ray and anyone else who may have been affected adversely by this.

---

There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams