Does God exist?

[CGDouglas]

greylorn:

Evolution is not both fact and theory

Fact: Observation

Facts are empirical data, objective verifiable observations.

**Theory: **

A scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions.

Comparison of Evolution and Gravity as theory and fact:

Gravity is seen when an object is falling, an attraction to another object, the pull of bodies to each other. We assign the name ‘Gravity’ to this, hence we can assume Gravity is factual under what we can observe.

Evolution can be seen in the Bacterial Flagella, in which is a perfect to response to the ‘irreducible complexity’ argument
by the fact that a subset of flagellar components can function as a Type III syringe system.
Wikipedia:

Thus, this system seems to negate the claim that taking away any of the flagellum’s parts would render it useless. This has caused Kenneth Miller to note that, “The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own.”

Wikipedia article references:

^ Unlocking cell secrets bolsters evolutionists (Chicago Tribune, 2006 February 13)​

^ Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum (Talk Design, 2006 September)​

With knowing that parts have functions of their own, we can see a build up of this organism over time.

Now for the explanations for the facts:

Gravity went from Aristotle and Galileo, to Newton, then finally Einstein for explanation. With each becoming more tuned as time progresses.

Evolution went from Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis theories which are obsolete, to Darwin, and finally to the modern evolutionary synthesis which is a more tuned and revised version of Darwin

We can explain Gravity by theory, thus it is a working theory, and thus it ‘is’ a theory.

We can notice Gravity by factual observation, thus we can determine it as Fact.

Gravity is thus Theory and Fact.

We can understand the change of organisms over time by the theory of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Thus it is a working theory.

We can notice Evolution by factual detective observation, going back into the past and looking at generational differences, DNA comparisons. Thus we can determine change as fact.

Evolution is thus a Theory, and Fact.

Yes it is a process, but it is a process we can determine as fact by change, generation, DNA, pretty much like detective work.

As for God’s existence, I still think the ‘Five Ways’ are best for God’s existence.

greylorn:

For example, suppose that God is not omnipotent, as I’ve proposed elsewhere. If He chose to create life, He would have to figure out how to do it, and would need to experiment. A non-omnipotent God would not want to be bothered assembling each and every critter one molecule at a time, or even one protein at a time.

It may not be an experiment, but His progress of creation, God is God, I’m sure God can create the way He wishes.

A non-omnipotent God, if He wanted to create an masterpiece of art, I’m sure the method of slowly building up to perfection of what He wishes is allowable rather than an idea of experimentation. The difference is, in the view of art, there is an overall aim, in an experiment, a curious adventure into proving a hypothesis, but this God is still omniscient, so why experiment?

Have you asked Him?

God Bless.

Chris.

 

[punkforchrist]

As far as I know, the letters of Paul date from several decades after Jesus’ supposed death, and Paul, by his own admission, never met Jesus (at least not in physical form – he claimed to have met his spirit on the road to Damascus).

So I’m not really sure what Paul’s letters prove.

Do you agree that Paul was sincere in his belief that Jesus had been raised and appeared to him?

As far as we know, the universe began to assume its current form at the moment of the Big Bang. No one knows what happened before the Big Bang (and in fact “before the Big Bang,” before time, is technically a contradiction in terms). Among many possibilities, it is possible that the universe existed in a quantum state. There’s a good chance that this state (something completely natural) was the “purely actual” or “purely potential” or whatever you’re calling it.

The argument I’m referring to isn’t actually the kalam version of the cosmological argument. I’m not assuming that the universe had a beginning (although I do believe this); instead, I’m arguing that the universe has some sort of sustaining cause. Here’s another way of putting the argument:

1. Everything that exists is either dependent or self-existent.
2. Not everything can be dependent.
3. Therefore, there exists something self-existent.

We all know what “dependent” things are like. You and I are dependent on our organs, on the air we breathe, and so forth. The issue is not centered around a temporal series of dependent things, but rather a hierarchy of dependent things. At any finite period of time, we are dependent on the things I mentioned above. The question is: can this series be infinite, or is it sustained by a first cause, something self-existent (i.e. something that exists by a necessity of its own nature)?

I would argue that this series cannot be infinite, since that would require an infinite series to act within a finite period of time. But, it would take an infinite period of time for any infinite series to do anything. Hence, the hierarchical series of things must be finite. The first cause of this series would have to be self-existent; for, if it were dependent, then it wouldn’t be first.

This confirms our intuition about the necessity of a first cause. If we were to remove the spring of a watch, for example, then no matter how many mechanical parts it has (even infinitely many), it still won’t work. Likewise, if we remove the first cause of being, then we also prevent any dependent things from acting.

 

[Pier]

Yet here we are, not only talking about Him, but telling other people that our Church is the only one that has the “fullness of truth” about Him!

How would algae conduct apologetics?

Maybe they’d discuss it while being scrutinized under a microscope, & not even notice us…

Without looking it up, this reminds me of the verse that says that the clouds are like dust beneath God’s feet - how tiny that makes us! the ones He cared about enough to become like & walk among.

 

[MegaTherion]

While I don’t have time right now to respond fully to everyone, I wanted to underscore the point that evolution is both fact and theory,

Stephen Jay Gould has an excellent essay for laymen called (appropriately enough) “Evolution as Fact and Theory”: stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Facts, laws, and theories all serve different functions in science. They aren’t rungs of an ascending ladder of certainty.

It’s not like a theory is less certain than a fact – a theory is the model that explains observed data, a model based on lots and lots of evidence. To qualify as a “theory,” an idea must first amass a ton of evidence and demonstrate strong predictive power (i.e. be confirmed repeatedly by empirical findings). And again, it is always open to revision as we acquire new data.

The confusion arises because we use “theory” in common speech to mean a “good guess.” A “good guess” is almost the opposite of what “theory” means in science.

And, as Gould points out in his essay, “fact” doesn’t mean “certainty.” Science doesn’t deal in certainties. It deals in evidence, which suggests what is very likely to be true (always subject to revision by new evidence).

Of course, this isn’t a thread about evolutionary theory. If you want to discuss that, please start a thread on it – and let’s try to keep the condescending attitudes to a minimum.

 

[greylorn]

Fact: Observation

Facts are empirical data, objective verifiable observations.

**Theory: **

A scientific theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions.

Comparison of Evolution and Gravity as theory and fact:

Gravity is seen when an object is falling, an attraction to another object, the pull of bodies to each other. We assign the name ‘Gravity’ to this, hence we can assume Gravity is factual under what we can observe.

Evolution can be seen in the Bacterial Flagella, in which is a perfect to response to the ‘irreducible complexity’ argument
by the fact that a subset of flagellar components can function as a Type III syringe system.

Wikipedia article references:

^ Unlocking cell secrets bolsters evolutionists (Chicago Tribune, 2006 February 13)​

^ Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum (Talk Design, 2006 September)​

With knowing that parts have functions of their own, we can see a build up of this organism over time.

Now for the explanations for the facts:

Gravity went from Aristotle and Galileo, to Newton, then finally Einstein for explanation. With each becoming more tuned as time progresses.

Evolution went from Lamarckism, Transmutationism and Orthogenesis theories which are obsolete, to Darwin, and finally to the modern evolutionary synthesis which is a more tuned and revised version of Darwin

We can explain Gravity by theory, thus it is a working theory, and thus it ‘is’ a theory.

We can notice Gravity by factual observation, thus we can determine it as Fact.

Gravity is thus Theory and Fact.

We can understand the change of organisms over time by the theory of the modern evolutionary synthesis. Thus it is a working theory.

We can notice Evolution by factual detective observation, going back into the past and looking at generational differences, DNA comparisons. Thus we can determine change as fact.

Evolution is thus a Theory, and Fact.

Yes it is a process, but it is a process we can determine as fact by change, generation, DNA, pretty much like detective work.

As for God’s existence, I still think the ‘Five Ways’ are best for God’s existence.

It may not be an experiment, but His progress of creation, God is God, I’m sure God can create the way He wishes.

A non-omnipotent God, if He wanted to create an masterpiece of art, I’m sure the method of slowly building up to perfection of what He wishes is allowable rather than an idea of experimentation. The difference is, in the view of art, there is an overall aim, in an experiment, a curious adventure into proving a hypothesis, but this God is still omniscient, so why experiment?

Have you asked Him?

God Bless.

Chris.

Of course I asked. He replied by throwing me off a ladder onto a concrete slab. I have no support from the Creator and am curious that I remain alive.

I appreciate your research and erudition, but you, like many intelligent and erudite individuals, totally miss my point.

It is about distinctions. Biological evolution is a process which left tracks, like a crime scene. Darwinism, etc. are simply human explanations for the tracks.

Sloppy thinkers fail to make the distinction between facts and theories. You come across as someone who’s seen the anti-ID PBS trash and bought into it without reading Michael Behe’s books. Curious, since Behe is on your side.

I’m less impressed by the ability to quote Wikipedia notes, which are often opinions, and more impressed by the ability of a poster to construct grammatically correct sentences on the lucky occasions when that happens. .

If you’ll take the trouble to check your dictionary, you’ll find that “facts” are pretty much what any fool chooses to assert. For example, your aribitrary definition of “fact.” There is a category of information called, “empirical evidence.” Such information is not necessarily factual. It is, simply, empirical evidence. Quite a lot of empirical evidence generated within the scientific community is discarded, most often because it does not validate the theory which the experimenter hoped to prove.

Your assertion about scientific theory reads like a definition from a 7th grade textbook. Before you disagree, explain exactly what evidence supported either of Einstein’s Relativity theories at the time they were presented? You won’t find any. Did his ideas only become a theory after the evidence was in?

 

[greylorn]

QUOTE]For the record, I personally am quite happy there’s no god, but I know other atheists who wish they could believe. Some of these people were at one time believers, and they are disappointed that there is no evidence at all for the existence of god.

There is plenty of evidence for the idea that our universe and our bodies are created by an entity or entities of extraordinary intelligence who is capable of using mind to shape matter.

There is, unfortunately, no successfully marketed theory which translates that evidence into a viable description of that entity or his pals.

 

[MegaTherion]

There is plenty of evidence for the idea that our universe and our bodies are created by an entity or entities of extraordinary intelligence who is capable of using mind to shape matter.

Please present this evidence.

There is a nobel prize waiting for you if you can actually demonstrate what you claim to be able to demonstrate.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Catholics and Christians proclaim that “God exist.” Can it be demonistrated, or in anyway proven?

Here’s what I think. Even​

• if there is a God
• that does mean that the God of the OT is real;
• & even if it did, that would not validate the theological claims in the NT;
• & even if they are valid, that says nothing about the ideas of the Churches generally about God;
• & even if they are valid, that tells us nothing about the claims made by particular Churches;
• let alone about the claims of the CC about God, some or all of which may or may not be true;
• & even if they are all true
• it does not follow that any - let alone all - of them is Divinely revealed
  The distance between “There is a God” & “The CC’s claim about that God are all of them Divinely revealed” is very great.

It really is simpler to proceed on the assumption that God can be ignored - He or it (or they ?) ignores us. These attempts to explain why a supposedly Good, Omnipotent, All-Merciful, Faithful, etc., God allows (or causes pain ?) may be ingenious, but that does not even begin to mean that that they are true statements about a truly existing entity. Applying Occam’s Razor to this supposed entity strongly suggests that either it is is not existent, or, that if it does exist, its existence has no results on anything. So ineffectual an entity is for practical purposes non-existent, so it might as well be treated as such. In practice, God is a mere word that does nothing its worshippers don’t do: it has no existence apart from them - or if it does, there is nothing to show otherwise.

Religious people talk about it a lot - but that is all they are able to do. They can’t show that it is a real being - all they can do is present arguments in favour of its being so. But when did a thousand-page discussion of water ever refresh a man dying of thirst ? This supposedly real being is so good at revealing itself that Muslims, Jews & Christians can’t agree in their descriptions of it - & that is to leave all other religions out of the picture. What could possibly be more ludicrous ?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

But when did a thousand-page discussion of water ever refresh a man dying of thirst ? This supposedly real being is so good at revealing itself that Muslims, Jews & Christians can’t agree in their descriptions of it - & that is to leave all other religions out of the picture. What could possibly be more ludicrous ?

A lot of things are more ludicrous. Among them, the argument that because several people disagree, they must all be wrong.

 

[greylorn]

Please present this evidence.

There is a nobel prize waiting for you if you can actually demonstrate what you claim to be able to demonstrate.

That would be nice, for I could use the money.

You do not understand the difficulty of birthing a new concept which contradicts established teachings, as I did not when I first undertook the project nearly a half century ago. Then, I believed as you do. Since then I’ve written two treatises, five unpublished manuscripts, and finally managed to get a few ideas published in the form of a novel. The book sold a few million copies because the story was good, but the ideas were ignored except by a few perspicacious individuals.

I’m a theorist and do not perform demonstrations. No doubt you recognize that science depends upon two separate components: verifiable data, and a logical theory which explains the data. Good theories integrate the data with a reasonable explanation.

The ongoing squabbles between religions and science might have made it clear to anyone examining them from the outside, without a vested interest in believing one over another, that our current theories and data do not match.

There is no good evidence for either the teachings of various religions, or those of scientific atheism (at least in terms of how the universe came into being, and regarding the nature of man). The evidence supports at least one theory which I know of which differs from all conventional beliefs. It may support others of which I know nothing.

There is no “Nobel Prize” awaiting the presentation of ideas with which the prize judges, who are primarily liberal atheists, disagree. Since existing theories are fundamentally incorrect, the only prize for demonstrating as much is a short lifetime filled with strife, unpleasantness, and anger. I’m near publication nonetheless, and a minor, unpromoted website contains some introductory material.

 

[yppop]

You do not understand the difficulty of birthing a new concept which contradicts established teachings, as I did not when I first undertook the project nearly a half century ago. Then, I believed as you do. Since then I’ve written two treatises, five unpublished manuscripts, and finally managed to get a few ideas published in the form of a novel. The book sold a few million copies because the story was good, but the ideas were ignored except by a few perspicacious individuals.

Hi Greylorn.
After our last encounter, I came away believing you were a nihilist, but I read here that you do have ideas. I would be interested in hearing them. Can you direct me to where I might find them, especially
the minor, unpromoted website.

Send a PM if you want to keep it private. I will give it my best scrutiny and perhaps we might have a discussion instead of a hand-waving dismissal of some ideas I tried to present.

YPPOP

 

[greylorn]

Hi Greylorn.
After our last encounter, I came away believing you were a nihilist, but I read here that you do have ideas. I would be interested in hearing them. Can you direct me to where I might find them, especially
the minor, unpromoted website.

Send a PM if you want to keep it private. I will give it my best scrutiny and perhaps we might have a discussion instead of a hand-waving dismissal of some ideas I tried to present.

YPPOP

I went back to review our conversations, notably Posts 123, 124, which got my “Can God Think?” thread closed. We did get into it, didn’t we?

I trust that you recognize that my “hand-waving” dismissals were applied to “hand-waving” arguments. It seemed fair at the time.

If you’ve read any of my loquacious posts, how can you possibly think me a nihilist? My unwillingness to accept beliefs which make no sense, whether about God or physics, does not imply disbelief in God or physics. Like you, I pulled my offspring out of the bathwater beforehand.

Amid our previous squabbles I was tempted to invite you via PM to peruse my website because your qualifications appeared good, and your orneriness level was definitely upscale. I did not follow through on that because you neglected to reply to any of the questions I posed in #124. Perhaps that was because the thread was closed. Whatever the reason, I am anticipating a follow through so that I can get a better sense of how you think.

If your thoughts will be of value to me, and mine to you, they are best exchanged in public, just in case someone else finds them interesting. I’d like to retry a public dialogue with you, this time on a topic of your choice.

I propose that you pick a key idea from the book you are writing, something potentially controversial, and start a thread on that subject. My threads have such an origin, and I learned much by trying to defend them. I believe that you will also benefit from the process. Somewhere along the line you can reply to #124.

I did not mean to come across as impertinent. Annoying, arrogant, challenging, yes… but I believe that my remarks and questions were pertinent and relevant. Perhaps you meant to call me insolent? I hope not. IMO anyone who uses the word “quantum” in a grammatically correct sentence ought to be willing to elaborate upon and clarify his meaning.

I would love to have a serious exchange of ideas with you, or with anyone suitably qualified to have ideas and exchange them with a measure of clarity. But I don’t have the time to be nice. If I don’t like an idea someone presents, I’ll say so, but only if I think that there is a finite probability of getting through. If you need me to preface my complaints about a poor idea with some, “With all due respect, and IMHO…” drivel, we’re not going to have much fun. If you answer logical questions by resorting to dogma or biblical teachings, we will quickly run out of conversation space.

In the course of life and work I’ve made more mistakes than I’ve gotten things right, but know that it would have been impossible to get anything right without first admitting the mistakes. My few friends are those who’ll tell me straight up when there is a booger in my beard, or when I’ve said or written something really stoopid. .
’
I love exchanging ideas. However, I have developed a complex theory full of many ideas contrary to the normal. I’ve done this over a long period of time. The ideas have been evaluated by some physicists and engineers, and tested by work in the area of the paranormal. I’ve discarded many opinions in the face of evidence, and once revised the entire theory upon recognizing a severe logical error. Because of the time investment I have a certain attachment to my ideas, like a parent to his offspring. But they remain incomplete. The remaining question I’m trying to deal with is the nature of dark matter.

So I’d be interested in anything which sheds light on that subject. I’d also be interested in a competing theory which does everything that mine does and also solves the dark matter problem, because that would mean I could quit work and get in some country dancing before I die.

 

[cpayne]

Religious people talk about it a lot - but that is all they are able to do. They can’t show that it is a real being - all they can do is present arguments in favour of its being so. But when did a thousand-page discussion of water ever refresh a man dying of thirst ? This supposedly real being is so good at revealing itself that Muslims, Jews & Christians can’t agree in their descriptions of it - & that is to leave all other religions out of the picture. What could possibly be more ludicrous ?

G of G, I think you missed it big time here. (By the way, I’m ignoring everything else going on in this thread due to lack of time.) But I didn’t want to pass up on this.

First of all, I agree with the analogy of the water. But the analogy goes even further. We believe in the water of life. Actual water, as you say, is better than pages of description. But you could also ask the question, What good does actual water do to someone who refuses to drink?

Secondly, more importantly–What makes you think Jews, Christians, and Muslims disagree about God? (I know, I know–you could quote headlines about bombs and beheadings and troop movements. But I’m not talking about them.) Think of all the fundamental characteristics a Muslim would predicate of God. There would be nothing, as far as I know, that a Jew and a Christian would not completely agree with. A Christian would go a bit further and say God has revealed Himself as a Trinity, but in the fundamentals, theists of all varieties are pretty much united, are they not? Just for example: “God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and the Creator of all.” Who said that: Jew, Christian, Muslim? Would it matter?

 

[cpayne]

By the way, I did not mean to imply that belief in the Trinity is not fundamental for a Christian. Obviously it is. I am just pointing out that basic theism is the same, in whatever faith it is found.

 

[1holycatholic]

G of G, I think you missed it big time here. (By the way, I’m ignoring everything else going on in this thread due to lack of time.) But I didn’t want to pass up on this.

First of all, I agree with the analogy of the water. But the analogy goes even further. We believe in the water of life. Actual water, as you say, is better than pages of description. But you could also ask the question, What good does actual water do to someone who refuses to drink?

Secondly, more importantly–What makes you think Jews, Christians, and Muslims disagree about God? (I know, I know–you could quote headlines about bombs and beheadings and troop movements. But I’m not talking about them.) Think of all the fundamental characteristics a Muslim would predicate of God. There would be nothing, as far as I know, that a Jew and a Christian would not completely agree with. A Christian would go a bit further and say God has revealed Himself as a Trinity, but in the fundamentals, theists of all varieties are pretty much united, are they not? Just for example: “God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and the Creator of all.” Who said that: Jew, Christian, Muslim? Would it matter?

Wisdom 11:21
21 Yea, and without these, they might have been slain with one blast, persecuted by their own deeds, and scattered by the breath of thy power: but thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight.
This is inconsistent with Islam.

 

[cpayne]

I am missing the point. In what way is the quoted passage a problem?

 

[Valke2]

I believe the the existance of God is independently verifiable to anyone who is willing to perform the experiment necessary to demonstate it.

Jump off a building and ask God not to interfere. That’s one way of confirming.

 

[davidv]

Jump off a building and ask God not to interfere. That’s one way of confirming.

Wrong experiment. That is for Physics class, not for Theology.

 

[PMG]

I certainly hope God exists; I suspect that all of us do. Most of us probably firmly believe that he does. But no belief, however firmly held, is a fact. We’ll never know for sure until we die.