Does Anybody Think They Actually Have Evidence for the Existence of God?

Incidentally, it may be worth mentioning that I actually agree with the premise contained in #2. It should be noted that #2 contains not just a premise but also support for that premise:

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

"All codes are created by a conscious mind" is the premise, and I accept it. However, "2) there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information" is intended to support the premise, and I do not agree with it. I think the premise is supported simply by the very definition of the word "code". A code is a symbol, used to represent some other symbol. That representation requires intelligence to make the link. Without intelligence to convert morse code into words, it's just sound waves.

DNA is code too. The DNA code consists of letters that represent the names of chemicals, because writing out the chemicals would be far too time consuming. So, the 'code' here is one that human intelligences use to translate codes like "C-G" into "cytosine-guanine". It's a human code, not one invented by nature. The cytosine and guanine, however, are not a code of any kind. They are just words, again invented by humans, to describe naturally occurring chemicals.

In short, I guess technically it's true that DNA code has an intelligent designer: human beings. The combination of DNA chemicals is what you're really getting at though, and it is NOT a code, it's just a very complicated set of chemicals that, in combination with other chemicals, causes very complicated things to happen.

 

I have been in a one sided debate. I will say that you have attempted to debate, but your methods are invalid. You refuse to abide by common methods of debate. By that I mean you refuse to substantiate your assumptions and personal opinions. You do not recognize the rules of inference even after I described them in detail with dictionary and web page resources. It is you that now has the burden of providing something other than hearsay and opinion to counter my arguments. So far you have unsuccessfully attempted to discredit well known logical arguments and debate methods. ONE MORE TIME , evidence is not proof. Evidence is not empirical evidence. The KCA IS A VALID COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. The KCA is evidence for the existence of God. So are arguments from design. The KCA may not be proof for the existence of God nor may it provide empirical evidence. (but it might), nevertheless the KCA is ‘evidence’ for Gods existence.

The above is a prime example of why you are losing this debate. First what argument? Use quote tags or at least define your statements. I don’t want to waste my time trying to guess what you are referencing? The KCA? Parts of the KCA? Cosmological arguments in general? The KCA's inference? The claim that logical structure is mandatory for good debate?

LOL, how are smoke and mirrors crystal clear? Most of your replies are DECEPTIVELY VAGUE, even if you are not intentionally being deceptive. At least you are providing good example of why Johnny can't debate. Ok, other than your reply being so vague as to be meaningless or impossible to understand you are now implying ‘certainty‘. There is all the difference in the world in being certain about what caused the universe to begin to exist and having evidence for why the universe began to exist. Remember? Proof, evidence, and empirical evidence. The thread and you claimed there was no EVIDENCE for the existence of God or what caused the universe to begin to exist. As for certain no one can be 100% certain of anything, not even of what truth really is. But that is material for another thread.

With all due respect you are doing a good enough job of that yourelf.

Again, a prime example. Has WHAT happened anywhere else? I think I know what you mean, guess that that is? AN ASSUMPTION!!! So, tell me why should I research and prepare a good rebuttal to a vague blundering assumption when I may be assuming wrong. I HATE ASSUMPTIONS. You must be precise when replying or rebutting.

reva

 

The evidence of God (ultimate concern/motivated creative energy) is the passion each argues with in this thread.

At least you're not just sitting by, apathetic, picking your nose!

Questions for everyone:

Did you (yourself) ever define God?
Or are you robotically embracing the God as defined by Orthodox Christianity?

How logical is it to embrace a fairy tale only to argue it?

What is most logical to me is to be honest with oneself & one's daily life - one's habits & one's priorities...
One's personal definition of God (or what is their worship/most important to them) is reflected by that & nothing else.

 

I'd say that brushing them off by denigrating my argumenting ability rather than addressing the arguments themselves is much poorer though.

I said, "And inside my computer are several buses. They are not real buses that ferry people around. Just because we use a word to describe something that it has a strong semblance to, does not make it the same thing." What about that needs more substance? Are you disputing any of those opinions? Do you need me to quote a dictionary to show what a bus is?

Then I said, "I think we can agree that there's no unanimous consensus on how DNA was created, so we don't actually know if this premise is true or not." Are you saying I need to find a way to prove that there's no unanimous agreement on that? How could one go about doing such a thing?

What do you mean, "ONE MORE TIME"? When did you say this to me before? I dont remember that ever happening, and if it did, and you insisted that I respond to it, I'd probably have said the same thing as I'm going to now: IM NOT AN IDIOT, I ALREADY KNOW THAT.

I have actually agreed with that, several times, across several threads you posted it in. Are you sure you're talking to the right person?

(Although, theres a big difference between 'valid' and 'convincing' or even 'useful'.)

The "argument" where you say I "fail to understand the power of words" etc rather than actually arguing the point I made. Which I *did* quote, by the way.

So you think it's smoke and mirrors when I said "I think we can agree that there's no unanimous consensus on how DNA was created"? Because that's where I made it crystal clear that I think nobody knows for certain how the first one came about.

The thread OP might IMPLY that but it doesnt outright state it. And I certainly never stated it, quite the opposite: I granted that things like KCA are evidence - I just find them not to meet my personal standards of evidence.

And yet you're continually saying things like (for just one example) I don't accept the validity of the KCA, when I've stated multiple times in black and white that I accept it as valid. I really hope this sort of thing is a mistake on your part because I actually kinda like you and I'd hate to think that you'd stoop to lying about me just to score cheap points in a debate.

A naturally occurring code. I'm sorry if that wasn't obvious enough for you.

You don't bother with precision when you put words in my mouth or claim to have said things to me that you didnt.

 

Romans 1:20 says “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.” So all men and women everywhere can look at the creation and know that God exists. Psalm 19:1-4 further says that the creation speaks clearly of God in a language that all understand. “There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard” (verse 3). The revelation from nature is clear. No one can excuse himself because of ignorance. There is no alibi for the atheist, and there is no excuse for the agnostic.

 

The universe is more complex than it was in the beginning. It will get even more complex as time passes.

 

Thanks! In my opinion apathy is a death sentence, both mentally and physically. If the brain isn’t used it atrophies as does muscles and organs. I despise apathy and sloth, unless caused by illness.

I am exceedingly happy someone is interested in the precise definition of words! Hot (*)(*)(*)(*) this forum may retain some intellectual integrity yet. To answer your question, yes I have defined God many times. First we should realize that there is a philosophical God not owned by any religion, somewhat like a deistic agent. One that we can refer to in discussion without adding the religious baggage. Then there is the one God that everyone who is spiritual worships. I would add a third which is God of each religion (that is deity based).

The Philosophical God (PG) is already defined. Next is the creator of everything (UCG) Universal Creator God. This God is eternal/atemporal** all powerful, all knowing (Omniscient)*** and imbued with other well known attributes. The last is the God of religion (GOR). The GOR is the UCG with add-ons lol. Each religion adds the attributes that their religion uses to describe their version of God. it’s a simple concept. In other words all religious folk worship the same God. I am guessing no religion is 100% accurate in describing the UCG, I may catch a crap load of static from my Christian friends by saying this, but there is a slight chance that no religion comes close to describing UCG.

I chose Open theism Christianity as my religion after a decade(s) long trial and error period and an also, I suffered an academic stint to get years of book learning about God, specifically the near and middle east religions. This does not count countless hours in the university and public library. Lastly I had a near death experience where God made me an offer I couldn’t refuse (to believe in him). I also believe Christianity is the most logical choice due to the evidences of archeology, philosophy, Paleo Documentation of texts and far more. I say to each his own, do not disrespect my beliefs and I will respect yours. Lastly Christians must minister. I usually simply say I am a born again Christian, others preach on sidewalks or church, or use other methods*****. It’s not being arrogant but rather its requirement of our belief.

(see above)

Hmm' I am having second thoughts about the accuracy of my prior statement, meaning this one ; "Hot (*)(*)(*)(*) this forum may retain some intellectual integrity yet." That is becoming less obvious as the dirty digs demonstrate...As for your question I rebutted that above.

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? That said by Jesus Christ, I can say that I honestly believe it’s far more logical to accept that the universe was created by intelligence than to believe that it just came from absolutely nothing. The current cosmological opinion of how the universe began is God/Christian friendly, to the aghast of secular scientists everywhere. These seculars like Hawking who helped the BB gain overwhelming acceptance by the scientific community are now engaged in desperately attempting to replace the Standard Hot Model Big Bang One Universe theory with a theory that requires no beginning. After over a decade of trying so far they have failed in that attempt.

Wrong, please read this reply carefully then review my prior replies showing there is enough evidence via the KCA and other ontological arguments as well as many other varied evidences for the existence of a UCG, that an educated rational, reasonable unbiased i.e. non-God hating’ person will chose some form of a UCG to explain the universe beginning to exist over secular science’s newest darling every time. I also think positive science will merge with its cousin, metaphysics /religion****** (as per Godel) instead if devolving into a confrontational relationship that was the order of the day in Galileo’s time.

notice; I will post the footnotes ie (****) on the next reply due to the length of this thing !

reva

 

The form (logical) of the argument I use means everything. In your attempts to criticize parts of the logical argument makes the entire thing invalid. Otherwise your debate skill is ok, especially if you would source and substantiate your personal opinion.

Your analogy is 'corrupt' and does not address anything I said. At least I do not see how it applies. I do not use synonyms in the way you present. If you think you are correct and I am wrong post my claim etc that you are referencing, use quote tags and I will show you your errors.

If you answer any way other than the premise is true it invalidates (makes it wrong) the entire KCAs argument. As far as code*, I stand by my claim that all the codes known originate from a conscious mind ;*(code example TCP/IP etc). Saying that there is no 100% agreement of the origins of dna code is a waste of font. If we demanded 100% agreement on anything scientific for science discovery to be accepted there would be no accepted science! So, (I truly detest having to spell this out) since there is no 100% agreement the best we can hope for is THEORY or at least an opinion backed by evidence ie observation, empirical methods, experience, probabilities and stats, etc.

If so again, I am claiming that code such as the example above. DNA i.e. genetic code is another example. If you have ONE example of how the code originates OTHER THAN BY AN INTELLIGENCE, POST IT. OTHERWISE I STAND BY MY CLAIM which is that Code doesn’t occur without a designer, ie by nature. In other words the claim that DNA is created by an intelligence is known by inductive reasoning (Google it) ; every code of the type I gave examples originated from an intelligent mind. Therefore DNA is designed. The latter is the same type of formal reasoning that leads us to formulate the laws of nature for example ; thermodynamics (laws of).

This is getting too long, my (bad) habit of writing lengthy posts are made worse by trying to explain every little detail hoping that you understand the sometimes difficult rules of debate via logic and other things such as the Code issue. With all due respect I hope that this has helped clarify etc. I will reply to the remainder of your post hopefully in a shorter method soon.

reva

 

I had to look this up because I wasn't familiar with the "KCA argument" by name but I was aware of what it's based on even though I didn't know the name assigned to it. It hinges on logical fallacies.

The first "assumption" of the KCA is:

1...Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.

While this could be assumed to be true it would apply to both "god" and the "universe" but we could also assume that whatever begins to exist would begin at the most fundamental level. In short simplicity would be expected as opposed to complexity which builds upon simplicity. Energy, which is the foundation for the creation of our universe, is far simplier than the incomprehensible complexity of "god" and so energy is more logical than god. Whether we address "god" or "energy" both at some point would require spontaneous generation and energy, which is far less complex, is far more likely to result from spontaneous generation that a complexity of the nature of "god" as "god" would require energy to exist.

The second assumption of the KCA is:

2...The universe began to exist.

Which universe? We don't know that our universe is the only universe and both logic and mathmatical models suggest it's not. We would also have to assume that a universe had to exist for "god" to exist. Energy required to create "god" would need to preceed the spontanious generation of "god" and since energy is all that was required to create our universe there is no logical reason to believe that "god' was necessary and it would be illogical to assume that.

The third assumption of the KCA is:

3...Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Once agian this refers to our universe that only required energy to form and that energy could have come from another universe or from spontanious generation. Once agian "god" would require energy to exist and if the energy must come from spontaneous generation in either case there isn't a logical reason to believe that first energy was created and then mutated into "god" at any point. God is unnecessary for the creation of the universe as only the energy is required.

Bottom line if god existed there had to be a source for the energy required by god to create the universe. If that energy source already exists then there is no logical requirement for god to create the universe because the energy itself was all that was required to create the universe. By analogy it would be like saying the automobile would have to exist for iron ore to exist. It's a logical fallacy. Simplicity preceeds complexity and energy is infinately less complex than god and god would require energy to exist.


http://scienceforums.com/topic/19201-the-kca-a-logical-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

 

Hmmm'...From disorder order, isn’t that the reverse of the second law of thermodynamics? Hmm'...

reva

 

Well, every analogy is flawed, it's the nature of analogies and metaphors. In fact using the word 'code' to describe the arrangement of chemicals in DNA (rather than the letter-pair coding system used to record them, invented by humans) is itself a metaphor, just like the 'bus' in your computer is a metaphor. Nothing wrong with using metaphors, as long as you don't take them too far, for example by thinking you can ride the bus in your computer.

Calling the chemical arrangement of DNA a 'code' is fine too, but it is taken too far if you think it's literally a code in its primary sense, ie. a symbolic communication system. Communication systems, by definition, are used to transmit information between two intelligent beings. If you can show a source that intended DNA to be a message, then I'd be impressed, but until and unless you do, we can't know that these chemical patterns are codes in a literal sense, but only in a metaphorical sense.

To reiterate, though, the letter-pair genetic coding system is definitely a code in a literal sense.

By the way, a synonym is where two words have a similar meaning. Did you mean 'homonym'?

I'm saying that the premises are unproven and that I won't accept them until they are. How is that the same as invalidating it? It's withholding validation, not rejecting it.

A fair point. I should have said "broad consensus" or something similar instead of "unanimous".

Is it truly not yet abundantly clear that I do not? I've only said it three times now. In fact some of my arguments are based on the fact that nobody really knows.

Things that look like code can be metaphorically described as code, but they are not literally code unless they are known to have an intelligent originator. Saying that something is a code is assuming that it has a creator - to then argue that it must have a creator because it is a code, is circular logic.

 

Of course. I define god as the absence of chaos and the laws of physics. You might want to call her mother nature. So what?

 

The laws of thermodynamics relate to closed systems but there isn't any evidence that energy is limited to a closed system. There can be mulitple universes and new universes being created every moment. We can't assume a "closed system" in a logical argument.

 

No worries I went took a lot of extra night classes in earning my degrees even after years of study I did not know about the KCA specifically only the form of argument. As for logical fallacies, its just a logical argument with a logical syllogism whos proposition (I am being very general) is central to its validity. Here is a proper dictionary def; In logic a syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning consisting of a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion.

How so? I am not disagreeing, (yet heh heh)... but do not understand what you mean, on one hand it could depend on fallacies but that would be difficult way to show it.

I am not nit picking but as Prof S will attest wording is very important in the weird world of logical arguments etc. What am I speaking of? Unless you are being sarcastic, premise is the correct word for the three that form the core of the KCA. There was some confusion in a prior exchange between Prof and me, but let me say after checking with a friend a premise can be a proposition i.e. a conclusion, or third premise of the KCA. Just updating.

I can’t agree. God being atemporal, existing outside time did not have a beginning. It obvious with a little though why an eternal entity would not need a creator and why this entity would eliminate infinite regression with its existence. I do agree that the universe/singularity had a cause to begin to exist.

I understand what you are saying and it has good allies such as Mr Octomom and his razor as well as the second law of thermodynamics. But there is a fatal problem . According to the Big Bang which is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community energy in all its forms as well as space(time) gravity physical matter, fields, plasmas, in short everything in the physical universe was created in about three min. AFTER the big bang banged. With all due respect you can see how energy being created after God lit the fuse to the big bang is a huge dilemma. The ‘cause’ ie God that caused the universe to begin to exist ‘came before’ the big bang banged.

If energy was not created in the big bang you would have a point. When one considers that (space)time was also created after the big bang, only a atemporal entity or force etc could have existed. That is because all physical processes are time dependent.

The hot model of the big bang suggests this is the only universe. Again it’s the premier theory due to its satisfying observed phenomena and such as well as other agreeing with empirical trials and experiments. The math works too, Hawking now a standard model BB opponent (probably because the BB is so God friendly something he must of overlooked when his paper substantiated the theory in the early 70’s. Now he has submitted a competing theory but it has problems with NO empirical data to buttress the math. It is the same with the MWI or cyclical models. Maybe the BB will be replaced for all the wrong reasons in the future but for now it remains the standard go to theory for scientists and lay people alike.

Why? Craig Koon and many others including yours truly believe that God is atemporal, needing no physical universe, in fact the universe is his creation. God exists outside time but I am getting off topic, however I will mention that Craig believes that God can enter time etc but to be honest I haven’t read that specific paper in its entirety because its too complicated. My beliefs are a bit different concerning Gods being mostly atemporal.

God isn’t created being atemporal God has no beginning no end, nature may abhor a vacuum and infinities but God is one.

You mean the third Premise? Ha ha and its also the proposition in logic speak or conclusion in layspeak lol.

With all due respect I have rebutted all above.

I must disagree for reasons already stated. If that pesky big bang is not correct maybe you will have a argument however, the BB theory is nearly equivalent to the Darwin’s ‘evolution’ theory in overall acceptance by the scientific and lay community alike. Perhaps if Higgs had not had been found some of the fringe theories may have gained a toe hold. Examples ; the MWI (many worlds interpretation ie the infinite parallel universe creations) or the Cyclic universe theory, shot down for lack of mass to stop the universe from expanding to the tune of 92+% missing mass, and more! Thanks for your reply Shiva~

reva

due to the number of references used, to save space etc just ask for valadiaion or source material on anything in my reply that seems questionable or anything you would might be interested in.

 

Paul isn't God, and he's not the judge of the soul of anyone, and neither are you. No one can be condemned because they don't subscribe to your brand of faith. In the same way, you are not going to capitulate to the Muslim faith, or the Hindu faith if they tell you that you are condemned if you don't believe the way they do. You have your perception, they have theirs, and that's the way God made all of us. God made ALL things, that includes ALL the religions. To condemn anyone is to condemn yourself. Judge not.

 

Yes ineedie' our universe if not infinite is a closed system. Add to that the theory of many universes is not an widely accepted theory, at least not as accepted as the one universe hot model Big Bang theory. However, if atheist scientists have their way the BB will be replaced for reasons not related to science by lesser theory or theories. If that happens it would be another indication of why metaphysics would be a good addition to positive’ science, see the Vienna Circle or; http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vienna-circle/

reva

 

You can have Mutli-Universes and each Universe starting with a Big Bang.

As Galaxies collide with each other, the black-holes in each will combine over time. As more Galaxies collide, the bigger the black holes will become. The bigger the black hole, the great gravitation strength is will have. Just because the Universe is expanding today. that doesn't mean it always will be. To toss out Cyclic universe theory this early in the Universe life, is short sighted.

RA, you work on way too many assumptions.

 

Creation ex nihilo - without God (1997)

Energy is always being created, if only for very short periods of time.

 

Yes I agree, I did not deny that it’s possible if not probable*, by that I mean more than one universe is allowed in each theory. There is a reason that I as well as many other interested parties feel the one universe BB theory/model is more likely to be true vs. the competing theories, including the many worlds interpretation (MWI)** and theories that range from fringe to well evidenced*** . The reason that the one universe Big Bang theory, (standard hot model) is my fav ? ; It's supported by better empirical evidence and/or agrees with the empirical evidence. The one universe BB, ie the one we live in, is the only one we can test etc. At this time the BB is the most popular theory, that may change if evidences can be found for multiple universes, however there is no tangible empirical evidence to support such claims.

When debating the KCA with me, someone could end the debate early if they insisted on using that any of the many universe theories. For example the MWI (I feel it’s the best qualified of all the many universe theme). Of course I could still defend the KCA however, it's far more difficult to do so than with the one universe BB model. Besides if true proof or even very good evidence were to emerge I doubt if I would support the KCA. I am not addicted to the thing, it simply represents the best cosmological argument with the current scientific and other evidences.

*probable=as in general discussion, vs. a ‘formal application‘.

I am not tossing out anything. I simply favor the One universe BB as the best chance of being correct. If I am short sighted I am in league with a whole lot of leading astronomers, cosmologists and other learned people that suffer greatly from myopia! Lol! Let me explain; In the 90’s there were only two good theories of the fate of the universe; the big crunch and the big chill. The favorite was the big crunch because as I said there is not enough mass to stop the expansion. Then a decade or so ago some whacky gravitational goings on were spotted, kind of like repulsive gravity , the term dark energy was coined. This gave atheist and secular scientist’s cause to celebrate I suppose. However there is no direct empirical evidence for the stuff, it’s a guess. So we end back at square ONE. The standard big crunch (if you like cosmological slang, BB model is the best supported origins theory IMO or IMAMOOO***. (I am trying to make this short so please no criticisms if I simplify or leave something out its already too long by necessity.
.

Please name ONE. Of course I may make an assumption or speculation by mistake and/or ignorance being human and all. Also, I am not professional astronomer or cosmologist or even philosopher. I am however a professional theist with some ‘formal’ learning in all of the above. If I speculate I try to note so. Eh?

reva

ps I will be happy to source any claim. However, I have made so many that for brevity I ask that anyone wanting a source just ask me and be sure to be specific...and I will link you up!

 

Science has proven to scientists that there is a theory that says God exists.

It follows aturally from the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics.

The basic idea is that everything is in a State of a Wave Function and not actually existing as a material entity until some observer collapses the Wave Functiin.
Like until someone open the Box holding Schrodingeer's Cat, that Cat is both dead and Alive according to the Probabilities.
Once openedm, the Reality manifests as a factual State oneway or the other.

Based upon that, everything that does exist MUST have had an Observer.
So, at the Big Bang, as Matter actually came into being some reviously outside Observer would have necessarily existed.

 

Father Nature is a better euphemism, since Mother Nature was a mythological idea.

 

Maybe if you said energy existed a nano second or two after t-0, I may agree. (t-0 means time zero or the starting point or when the big bang banged). I can not agree that it existed before t-0 at the same time the 'cause' ie God of the KCA existed. The 'cause' means the 'cause' of the universe beginning to exist as per the KCA. Expanded below;

Just before and 'before'* t-0 nothing tangible or of any physicality existed. All forms of energy and everything else including spacetime etc were created fractions of nanoseconds > t-0...by that I mean just after the big bang and up to three min later. After three min the stuff of the universe ie energy gravity matter space time etc. began to form. (I am speaking in very very general terms and not using the technical terminology for brevity). So energy could not have existed before the big bang. I have already rebutted virtual particles not needing a cause as well.

* (before t-0 is a really misnomer, anything that came before the big bang is said to be outside time technically or atemporal, but even atemporal is not completely accurate, because it means independent of or unaffected by time. Not outside time. I use the word 'before' to keep things as simple and short as possible and because most members know what I mean).

reva

 

Multi-verse is speculation and still unfounded by hard evidence.
The hypothesis opens the door to two of everything and even suggests that every act with offers choices could multiple the number of verses.
Like a throw of dice could have 36 outcomes, on in each verse for a similar number of doubles for the dice thrower.



It is getting deep in there with this idea, isn't it?
Multi-verses was an idea suggested as a way to avoid the Copenhagen Interpretation.
The reason for such avoidance was exactly because that Interpretation suggests an Observer existed before the Big Bang.

This means "he" was responsible by such observation for the materialization, i.e.; was The Creator.

 

No.
Energy does not require Space and exists outside of Time.

Once time starts ticking Energy becomes Power in action.

 

Sorry to pester you again about this, but did you manage to find any links to show how what 'lay' people (no pun intended) consider the 'conclusion' is really also a premise? If it turns out that you're right I definitely want to know, as I've been quite sure up to now that the final proposition ought to be a conclusion and not a premise.

Thanks.