Does science prove gods existence?

[Al_Moritz]

Another huger hurdle to evolution is the fact that getting from the “last universal ancestor”, which was a prokaryote to a eukarote is not an easy tasks given the latter’s susceptibility to horizontal gene transfer as it has no nucleus.

Here is an study whose goal was to understand the nature of the last universal ancestor. It discusses the ominous issue with horizontal gene transfer that would the current model of evolution impossible from a probability standpoint.

“Problematic genes could be removed from the analysis though a fundamental
problem remains [15••]: any site that was free to
evolve over the whole period at, say, 0.5% change per every
million years will become saturated with 20–40 changes per
site. Detecting phylogenetic signal above noise for deep
divergences is thus difficult, making many proteins unsuitable
for such phylogenetic studies [15••]. Other factors
worsen recovery: rate differences between lineages; long
branch attraction; horizontal transfer; unrecognised gene
duplications; changes in nucleotide frequency; and changes
in functional constraints [13,15••,16••].”

google.com.do/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFUQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F222455838_The_nature_of_the_last_universal_common_ancestor%2Ffile%2F32bfe50ca30ba7e15b.pdf&ei=7KAfVOXQFJG1ggSy1IHwAw&usg=AFQjCNEO65WJufxlaQeEkJGTgwS0Sj5fbg&sig2=FSVRsT8Ho7Y6xleJgtbaGQ

All in all what I have pointed out are huge hurdles that have not been addressed with the same rigor that is applied to others areas of science. This is not logical to say the least. I would appreciate your comments .

I don’t think we should hijack this more general thread with discussions about specific technical issues. I have linked to websites that discuss them (e.g., fine-tuning).

So let me just briefly address your claim that the mechanisms of evolution as proposed cannot lead to increased complexity. Gene duplication is a routine phenomenon in evolution. Let’s say, gene A’ is duplicated, resulting in two copies of A’. Since one copy suffices for sustained function in making protein A, the other can mutate without much selection pressure. If something useful emerges, we have two genes, A’ and B’, that make two useful proteins, A and B, instead of just one, protein A. Voila, complexity has increased.

Like you I used to think there are huge hurdles when it comes to evolution. Not anymore.

 

[friardchips]

Fides et Ratio

 

[drac16]

Not necessarily. Science deals with things that are perceptible to the senses, whereas the soul is above the senses. The soul recieves guidance from supernatural sources. How can someone see a beautiful waterfall or tree and not see the creative work of God in it? because there’s so much tar on that person’s soul.

The evidence for God comes from His guidance. When a person’s heart is harder than a rock, they can have all sorts of scientific knowledge and still disbelieve, whereas a person who’s heart is soft and receptive can look at one leaf and sing praises to the Almighty.

 

[friardchips]

Not necessarily. Science deals with things that are perceptible to the senses, whereas the soul is above the senses. The soul recieves guidance from supernatural sources. How can someone see a beautiful waterfall or tree and not see the creative work of God in it? because there’s so much tar on that person’s soul.

The evidence for God comes from His guidance. When a person’s heart is harder than a rock, they can have all sorts of scientific knowledge and still disbelieve, whereas a person who’s heart is soft and receptive can look at one leaf and sing praises to the Almighty.

:clapping:

It is God who fleshes out the heart.

 

[Hee_Zen]

I am a freethinker in the sense that I think for myself unlike many atheists who may call themselves freethinkers but follow like sheep their thought leaders like Dawkins, Dennettt, Hawking etc.

Are you really “free” to deny the assertions and deviate form the teachings of your “thought leaders”?

Also, how can naturalists call themselves ‘freethinker’ when effectively they deny freedom of thought because they perceive their mind to be identical with their brain in which everything is physically determined?

Since you are a scientist, how is it that you seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of emerging attributes? That the higher functions of chemistry cannot be reduced to physics? As a biologist you are aware that biology is not fully reducible to chemistry. No, my friend, naturalists do not deny (effectively or otherwise) the “freedom of thought”. As a matter of fact the world is not even “deterministic”. By the way, you are mistaken, if you think that naturalists equate the “mind” and the “brain”. The mind is the immaterial activity of the brain, just like walking is the immaterial activity of the legs.

I am skeptical of both atheism and creationism, and following the evidence I am a die-hard evolutionist, except of course when it comes to the human soul which, as an immaterial entity, cannot arise by a material process like evolution, but must be a special creation by God.

Demanding evidence is wonderful. What is the evidence for an “immortal soul”? What is the evidence for the “supernatural”? Walking is not a material object either, but one does not need to assume a supernatural entity. There are zillions of immaterial entities, attributes, relationships and actions, but all of them are based upon the existence of ontological objects - and none of them require a supernatural creator. You say that you are die-hard evolutionist (which is very commendable) but which kind of evolutionist are you? The one who professes a “directed” evolution, the one who says that there is “micro-evolution” (comprised of small random changes) but who denies “macro-evolution”, or a true evolutionist who understands that there is only evolution (and not just biological, but also socio-evolution and techno evolution) undirected, random processes, which are sometimes detrimental, sometimes beneficial? Would be nice to know, if you are willing to give the details.

I am also skeptical in other matters, from politics to history to anything. I demand evidence, and I aspire to see the world not in black and white, but in grey as it were – nuanced that is.

Spoken like a skeptic. The point is that while it is incorrect to doubt EVERYTHING (universal skepticism would be dumb), one must be prepared to doubt ANYTHING if there is a good reason to do so. For a true skeptic nothing is beyond scrutiny, nothing is “sacred”. So you profess skepticism, but as long as there are “exceptions”, you are not a “true” skeptic. Of course you are still way above the run-of-the-mill believers, those whose slogan is: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that is the end of it”.

 

[Nixbits]

drac16:

How can someone see a beautiful waterfall or tree and not see the creative work of God in it?

Quite easily. The belief in God needs to come first. Otherwise it’s just a beautiful waterfall or tree. No less awesome, but not attributed to the handiwork of a being that the viewer doesn’t believe in. Believers continually claim that the existence of God is self-evident just by looking at the world around us. But to the non-believer it just isn’t self-evident. So it’s not a true or useful assertion to make.

drac16:

because there’s so much tar on that person’s soul.

If the soul is “above the senses” and immaterial, how do you get tar on it? This makes no sense, so I presume that the ‘tar’ is an analogy. But an analogy of what?

drac16:

When a person’s heart is harder than a rock, they can have all sorts of scientific knowledge and still disbelieve, whereas a person who’s heart is soft and receptive can look at one leaf and sing praises to the Almighty.

Since a heart is a musclar organ for pumping blood I presume that this too is an analogy. A non-believer might counter this by saying: “If a person is truly skeptical then they reserve judgement until sufficient evidence is available, whereas a credulous person will leap to an unjustified conclusion with no evidence at all.”

Debates between believers and atheists are beset by just this sort of divergence of language. Atheists constantly complain that theists use fanciful and imprecise language and can’t define the meanings of the terms they use. I too get frustrated by inexact language and woolly thinking because it gets in the way of useful debate.

 

[clem456]

Help! I’m on the VERGE of losing my faith. I try to look for evidence through philosphy and science but only come up with more questions! The string theory for example, seems like it replaces god! Is it logical to believe god exists!? I’ve looked up EVERY SINGLE PAGE! Please help me!

Science cannot prove God’s existence.
Proofs can be made to show the reasonableness of God’s existence, but God himself is beyond proof.

How do you prove a person and a relationship?
That’s what God is. A person. “I am”. We are called to know him in a relationship, not prove him.

 

[friardchips]

Quite easily. The belief in God needs to come first. Otherwise it’s just a beautiful waterfall or tree. No less awesome, but not attributed to the handiwork of a being that the viewer doesn’t believe in. Believers continually claim that the existence of God is self-evident just by looking at the world around us. But to the non-believer it just isn’t self-evident. So it’s not a true or useful assertion to make.

If the soul is “above the senses” and immaterial, how do you get tar on it? This makes no sense, so I presume that the ‘tar’ is an analogy. But an analogy of what?

Since a heart is a musclar organ for pumping blood I presume that this too is an analogy. A non-believer might counter this by saying: “If a person is truly skeptical then they reserve judgement until sufficient evidence is available, whereas a credulous person will leap to an unjustified conclusion with no evidence at all.”

Debates between believers and atheists are beset by just this sort of divergence of language. Atheists constantly complain that theists use fanciful and imprecise language and can’t define the meanings of the terms they use. I too get frustrated by inexact language and woolly thinking because it gets in the way of useful debate.

In actual fact, the post to which the above poster responds is not purely with the use of analogy and is in actual fact, precise.

The question is whether the one who reads it, reads it one-dimensionally. This does not take away from the Truth in the statement and neither does it mean that the one-dimensional language that you (might seemingly) use is somehow superior; rather, no doubt, inferior, seeing as atheists speak without faith in God and also without the ability to Reason at a deeper level of consciousness and heightened level of existence

 

[Nixbits]

Friardchips, this seems to be an ad hominem argument against all atheists rather than arguing against the points that I made.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The attraction of the naturalistic worldview is that it is simple, its downfall is that it is not just simple, but simplistic.

 

[friardchips]

Sorry. To be more precise, these are the areas in your post I was referring to:

Quite easily. The belief in God needs to come first. Otherwise it’s just a beautiful waterfall or tree. No less awesome, but not attributed to the handiwork of a being that the viewer doesn’t believe in. Believers continually claim that the existence of God is self-evident just by looking at the world around us. But to the non-believer it just isn’t self-evident. So it’s not a true or useful assertion to make.

Agreed.

If the soul is “above the senses” and immaterial, how do you get tar on it? This makes no sense, so I presume that the ‘tar’ is an analogy. But an analogy of what?

Analogy in this case I would imagine?

Since a heart is a musclar organ for pumping blood I presume that this too is an analogy. A non-believer might counter this by saying: “If a person is truly skeptical then they reserve judgement until sufficient evidence is available, whereas a credulous person will leap to an unjustified conclusion with no evidence at all.”

Debates between believers and atheists are beset by just this sort of divergence of language. Atheists constantly complain that theists use fanciful and imprecise language and can’t define the meanings of the terms they use. I too get frustrated by inexact language and woolly thinking because it gets in the way of useful debate.

My post was referring to these last two paragraphs - bits underlined.

 

[Jaaanosik]

http://www.ontariowildflower.com/images/common_burdock_seed.jpg

How did burdock knew that an animal would walk by with a fur and it needs hooks to spread around?

 

[BrassAnkles]

I don’t think we should hijack this more general thread with discussions about specific technical issues. I have linked to websites that discuss them (e.g., fine-tuning).

So let me just briefly address your claim that the mechanisms of evolution as proposed cannot lead to increased complexity. Gene duplication is a routine phenomenon in evolution. Let’s say, gene A’ is duplicated, resulting in two copies of A’. Since one copy suffices for sustained function in making protein A, the other can mutate without much selection pressure. If something useful emerges, we have two genes, A’ and B’, that make two useful proteins, A and B, instead of just one, protein A. Voila, complexity has increased.

Like you I used to think there are huge hurdles when it comes to evolution. Not anymore.

What you are not pointing out is that protein B’s complexity is equal or less than that of protein A, thus no new complexity is increased.

Furthermore, per the evolution criteria, if protein B has no usefulness it will not be passed down to the organism’s offspring.

Also, please take the time to read the article about the major issue with eukaryote and horizontal gene transfer.

Finally, I appreciate your confidence in evolution but between you and me as professionals in science familiar with the scientific method there are more holes in evolution than there are “connections” so it is only correct to say that evolution is an untested theory as opposed to say the Theory of Relativity, which has has parts verified.

Therefore, evolution is embraced by many scientists not because it has been proven but only because it is the most popular. Compared to other much more rigorous theories, such as the aforementioned, evolution should be in the same category as string theory.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So you profess skepticism, but as long as there are “exceptions”, you are not a “true” skeptic. Of course you are still way above the run-of-the-mill believers, those whose slogan is: “Jesus said it, I believe it, that is the end of it”.

I am skeptical that you have adequate evidence to make this claim about “run-of-the-mill believers,” as if you have any way of being certain about what they mean by “that is the end of it,” whether they have warrant for making such a determination, or, even, that such a statement is the prevailing one among Jesus believers.

It might be observed that your claim about "run-of-the-mill” believers - on the face of it, at least - is a “that is the end of it” kind statement arising from your own lack of skepticism, which means neither are you a “true” skeptic, whatever that means beyond seeing things from your POV.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Are you really “free” to deny the assertions and deviate form the teachings of your “thought leaders”?

This appears to be a rather misconceived question.

There is a difference between being free to deny an assertion and being free to question whether an assertion is true. The former borders on being nonsensical.

Why would feeling a need to deny the truth of proposition rather than merely question its veracity be the hallmark of skepticism?

I am not free to deny that I exist. That seems rather self-evident to me. It doesn’t turn me into a profound skeptic merely because I can muster irrational doubt regarding my current indisputable conscious state. So denial, in this case is simply nonsensical and doesn’t make me a better skeptic - just slightly deranged.

Now, questioning exactly what it means to exist is another matter - but that doesn’t require denial of anything. It does require intellectual thirst and honesty to try to apprehend what is missing from my field of understanding.

To my mind skepticism is a positive thing, not a negative. It is not a denial, but rather a seeing of what is missing - taking a kind of gestalt view of the world - an openness to seeing what is being overlooked.

Denial presumes to know what is - a certainty that, I think, is misplaced, because it dismisses understanding prematurely by presuming that what has been grasped is the final word and warrants dismissal of what doesn’t “fit” the current picture.

I submit that your use of the word “deny” - as in “free to deny” - demonstrates your own failing as a skeptic because you have become your own “thought leader.”

 

[Hee_Zen]

My post was referring to these last two paragraphs - bits underlined.

The point is that flowery language and metaphors really belong to poetry. In a serious philosophical discussion it is better to use “dry”, but precise terms to avoid possible misunderstanding.

 

[friardchips]

The point is that flowery language and metaphors really belong to poetry. In a serious philosophical discussion it is better to use “dry”, but precise terms to avoid possible misunderstanding.

For the sake of clear argument, you mean. I have to disagree. Because I don’t see flowery language as ‘flowery language’. I look at what is being termed here to be ‘flowery language’ as the language of God. It is poetical in a way without being strictly poetry. Philosophy often uses such ‘flowery language’. Precision terms present even more boxes that have to be climbed out of. For the person who knows precise terms and recognises terms for being ‘precise terms’ is not going to be someone who is turned on to the reality of God because they are already closing themselves into limited thinking which is why many scientists and philosophers and many others can be extremely clever, geniuses even, and yet God escapes their thinking - because even within their apparently limitless calculations, they are still boxing themselves in within their own ‘precise terms’.

‘If I have all the eloquence of men or of angels, but speak without love, I am simply a gong booming or a cymbal clashing’. (1 Corinthians 13:1)

God does not fit into boxes. I’ll stick to flowers!

 

[Hee_Zen]

For the sake of clear argument, you mean. I have to disagree. Because I don’t see flowery language as ‘flowery language’. I look at what is being termed here to be ‘flowery language’ as the language of God.

The problem here is that we are humans and our communication is conducted in human terms. If God does not fit into this environment, then you cannot speak **meaningfully **about God at all. Your speech becomes gobbledygook. But of course, I don’t accept this. God is human concept. Whether there is an actual real life **referent **to this concept is question to be debated. But the “concept” itself must be discussed in human language and human terms.

It is poetical in a way without being strictly poetry. Philosophy often uses such ‘flowery language’. Precision terms present even more boxes that have to be climbed out of. For the person who knows precise terms and recognises terms for being ‘precise terms’ is not going to be someone who is turned on to the reality of God because they are already closing themselves into limited thinking which is why many scientists and philosophers and many others can be extremely clever, geniuses even, and yet God escapes their thinking - because even within their apparently limitless calculations, they are still boxing themselves in within their own ‘precise terms’.

It is YOUR job to present the concept of God in precise terms. If you cannot do that, then what are we talking about?

 

[friardchips]

The problem here is that we are humans and our communication is conducted in human terms. If God does not fit into this environment, then you cannot speak **meaningfully **about God at all.

I think St. Paul managed it pretty well.

Your speech becomes gobbledygook. But of course, I don’t accept this. God is human concept. Whether there is an actual real life **referent **to this concept is question to be debated. But the “concept” itself must be discussed in human language and human terms.

It is YOUR job to present the concept of God in precise terms. If you cannot do that, then what are we talking about?

I posted this yesterday but it fits here also (one example among many):

A homily by Saint Peter Chrysologus - a Bishop:

‘A virgin conceived and a virgin brought forth her child. Do not be disturbed at this conception or confused when you hear of this birth. Let no one judge in a human way what is done in a divine mystery. Let no one try to penetrate this heavenly mystery by earthly reasoning. Let no one treat this novel secret from knowledge of everyday occurrences. Let no one manipulate the work of love into an insult, or run the risk of losing faith…Blessed is the womb of the Virgin Mary.’

…point being that we can argue ourselves out of faith so let’s talk the language of love instead.

The word here causing a difference of opinion is ‘precision’ and you were dismissing the language of love as imprecise (or the initial poster I was posing an argument to, was).

 

[Al_Moritz]

Since you are a scientist, how is it that you seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of emerging attributes? That the higher functions of chemistry cannot be reduced to physics? As a biologist you are aware that biology is not fully reducible to chemistry. No, my friend, naturalists do not deny (effectively or otherwise) the “freedom of thought”. As a matter of fact the world is not even “deterministic”.

Aah yes, the popular emergence-of-freedom idea. I have debunked that in the second paragraph of my article:

“Naturalism is true”: A self-contradictory statement

Yet under naturalism every thought, just like everything else, is physically determined. Some propose that freedom of thought might be a result of ‘emerging complexity’, but this is based on a misunderstanding of the concept. While emergence results in phenomena that could not be predicted from the basic components of the system on their own, it never violates the physical laws by which these basic components operate. Such a violation would have to occur if free thought could be the result of purely physical processes, which are either deterministic or, at the quantum level, random on a probabilistic basis (yet significant quantum level influence on thought is not feasible under naturalism, since it would just produce random thoughts).

---

Now here is a case of real emergence that does not violate the laws of physics. From my article on the origin of life by natural causes, published on Talkorigins.org, a leading evolution website:

It has been shown (Chen et al. 2004, see also news article) that RNA/vesicle systems that contain more genetic material (which would have resulted from faster RNA replication) develop more internal tension than neighboring vesicles that do not contain as much RNA, and draw membrane material from them. Importantly, this would have allowed for natural selection of vesicles by competition even in the absence of the ability to synthesize their own membrane components and therefore to directly control their own growth. Thus, for the first time, a system would have had the ability to undergo Darwinian evolution by natural selection acting on variation. This would have been a new and crucial emergent property arising at the transition from non-life to life.