Evidence that God Exists

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Is not knowing, a justification for not believing? Some who desire it, would say yes. If you don’t believe in God, then you must be some sort of atheist. Your belief is atheist, correct?

You have no evidence for the non-existence of God, yet amazingly you have chosen not to believe in God and to ignore any calling to having faith in God, and you have faith in the non-existence of God without a shred of evidence to support it! woooow!

Once again. I am not advocating the position that there is no God. That position is also unsupported by evidence. I merely saying that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the belief in God.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I hope the following is not redundant. I have not read all of the previous posts, so it might be. If so, I apologize in advance.

I watched an interesting show the other night concerning the difficulties inherent in “string theory”. It seems to explain how the “big bang” could occur, but it does not work out in other ways. A physicist from Chicago long ago posited that there are 11 dimensions, all of which he mathematically showed to likely exist. Nobody in the physics world bought into his notions until yet another physicist demonstrated, mathematically, (or at least no one has yet proved her wrong) that, yes the 11 dimensions do exist and that there are not “strings” but “membranes” (they like to call them “branes”) consisting in multiple “strings”; that they undulate and meet from time to time and that such a meeting was the cause of the “big bang” that we think we know happened, and likely numerous other “big bangs” that we don’t know about because they occurred (and occur) in other dimensions. The dimensions exist (or can) in an interwoven fashion, so that a parallel universe may exist right within our own, yet remain absolutely beyond our reach and contact. So, indeed, do the “branes” remain utterly separate; yet do, at times “meet”; likely creating universes (perhaps also anti-universes). Two “branes” of which I know nothing could meet in my pocket and create vast universes all around me, and I would perceive absolutely nothing of them.

Now, that’s all mathematics, and physicists seem often to prove each others’ theories wrong or at least incomplete. Yet, scientists and non-scientists buy into those things wholesale. However, not one of them is ever going to see a parallel universe or a “brane”, let alone the meeting of “brane” undulations and the consequent creation of universes. And given all that, and its very wide acceptance by the most skeptical of scientists, and someone has the, well, effrontery, to say there is no God? If we can’t see a parallel universe, yet it is there, and if we can think there are entire dimensions containing universes, and if we can think there are “branes”, so unimaginably vast that their slightest “kiss” creates universes untold, how can anyone possibly preclude the existence of a Being so vast; so utterly “not us” that our only means of knowing about It would be whatever It chose to tell us in ways we can at least somewhat comprehend. We would call such a disclosure “revelation”.

And what is mathematics, after all, that tells us all of this? It is a symbolic system whose formulations are accepted because they remain consistent within that symbolic language. But it can’t show us a “brane” in any way we can see, feel or touch, or ever will, and cannot show one in action. Still, most scientists accept all of that as real. They accept it as real because it “has to be real” in the language of mathematics, and for no other reason at such an abstreuse level.

It seems virtually inescapable that we, of all creatures, are uniquely blessed (or cursed, depending on your point of view) by having seemingly infinite capacity for many things; for knowledge, joy, love, to name a few. No one’s mind ever has been known to shut down because it learned all it could hold, like a saturated sponge that will no longer accept water. No one was ever so happy that he/she just couldn’t be made happier. We long for the infinite, and always have. We might not understand that longing in quite that way, but it is a fact. We would be unique indeed, if we were the only creatures whose single most compelling instinct has no object at all. In the logic, the “mathematics” of human instincts and longing, we would be at a “singularity”. We accept that infinity exists because it “has to be real” to avoid the preposterous conclusion that we are the most absurd creatures who ever existed; all designed for something that isn’t there.

Is that “mathematics”, that language of understanding invalid? Maybe. But then, maybe so is the mathematics with which physicists work. Remember, it is only accepted because (and to the extent) it remains consistent and can explain things that dont fly in the face of everything else that has been “explained” in the same way.

The “mathematics” of very obvious human instinct and, yes, intuition, points in a pretty definite direction; just as the mathematics physicists use now points in the direction of 11 dimensions and “branes”.

I am not a scientist or a philosopher, and I grant that there are whole other ways of looking at the question (miracles, systems of logic, etc.) But without considering those other approaches, (and I do not discount them) I think the above is probably as good as it gets. But then, “branes” are as good as science gets, at least for now, and they can’t view or test a bit of it, and never will.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Fair enough. What form and amount of evidence do you require, and what makes these requirements the correct ones?

I don’t knwo exactly what form the evidence would have to take. to justify the belief in God. Nor could I have said what the form of the evidence to support the theory of photosynthesis would be necessay to justify belief in photosysthesis before I given the evidence and had a chance to evaluate it.

When we are talking about objective facts about the world a neutral analysis of the evidence can allow us to justify beliefs. However, all the evidence presented here to justify the belief in God requires a subjective viewpoint. This fine for justifying subjective phenomenon, but not objective facts.

I assume you believe to an objective facts about the world and not a subjective phenonenon. If you you should be able to lay out an objective case for the fact of God’s existence.

Fine, I was just using verbal shorthand. It makes no difference to my assertion. One God is fewer entities than any other answer, except for answers that also require only one entity. Do you know of other answers that require only one entity? If so, let’s compare.

And no Gods is one fewer.

(Note: William of Ockham believed that religious authority created an exception to the cut of the razor.)

This is only because the answer, no matter what it is, is of a different nature than any other matters. The fact that you have no alternative answer, and do not even suggest how such an answer might be sought, shows I think that you recognize the fundamental difference just as much as we do.

I have no alternative answer to how quantum gravity could work if someone said it works through magic. This does not mean that it works through magic or that it is some special case. It just means that there is not enough to contruct the alternative theory.

Whatever answer one offers as an explanation of everything, will have some of the attributes of God. Any answer will require something (or someone) somehow larger, greater, more, than the entire world. The only question is, what will this larger, greater, more look like? The problem is, every other answer is a form of god, but a rather pathetic god compared to the actual, revealed God. Every other answer is just, well, lame.

That is just a human aesthetic response. Why should the facts humans (or maybe just one human) finds the an answer lame? Does that have anything to do with the truth of the matter?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

I hope the following is not redundant. I have not read all of the previous posts, so it might be. If so, I apologize in advance.

I watched an interesting show the other night concerning the difficulties inherent in “string theory”. It seems to explain how the “big bang” could occur, but it does not work out in other ways. A physicist from Chicago long ago posited that there are 11 dimensions, all of which he mathematically showed to likely exist. Nobody in the physics world bought into his notions until yet another physicist demonstrated, mathematically, (or at least no one has yet proved her wrong) that, yes the 11 dimensions do exist and that there are not “strings” but “membranes” (they like to call them “branes”) consisting in multiple “strings”; that they undulate and meet from time to time and that such a meeting was the cause of the “big bang” that we think we know happened, and likely numerous other “big bangs” that we don’t know about because they occurred (and occur) in other dimensions. The dimensions exist (or can) in an interwoven fashion, so that a parallel universe may exist right within our own, yet remain absolutely beyond our reach and contact. So, indeed, do the “branes” remain utterly separate; yet do, at times “meet”; likely creating universes (perhaps also anti-universes). Two “branes” of which I know nothing could meet in my pocket and create vast universes all around me, and I would perceive absolutely nothing of them.

Now, that’s all mathematics, and physicists seem often to prove each others’ theories wrong or at least incomplete. Yet, scientists and non-scientists buy into those things wholesale. However, not one of them is ever going to see a parallel universe or a “brane”, let alone the meeting of “brane” undulations and the consequent creation of universes. And given all that, and its very wide acceptance by the most skeptical of scientists, and someone has the, well, effrontery, to say there is no God? If we can’t see a parallel universe, yet it is there, and if we can think there are entire dimensions containing universes, and if we can think there are “branes”, so unimaginably vast that their slightest “kiss” creates universes untold, how can anyone possibly preclude the existence of a Being so vast; so utterly “not us” that our only means of knowing about It would be whatever It chose to tell us in ways we can at least somewhat comprehend. We would call such a disclosure “revelation”.

I don’t know of any scientists that believe String Theory has been established because there has no experimental verification or falsification of the theory. That is why so many physicists trying to design experiments that could provide verification or falsification. It also one the reasons there is so much excitement about the Large Hadron Collider.

I don’t know TV show you were watching, but if it was the Elegant Universe there is an interesting exchange with a physicist about testing String Theory where he explains that if no experimental tests can be made in String Theory it will have to be abandoned as science.

 

[freesoulhope]

freesoulhope;1803663:

Is not knowing, a justification for not believing? Some who desire it, would say yes. If you don’t believe in God, then you must be some sort of atheist. Your belief is atheist, correct?

You have no evidence for the non-existence of God, yet amazingly you have chosen not to believe in God and to ignore any calling to having faith in God, and you have faith in the non-existence of God without a shred of evidence to support it! woooow!

Once again. I am not advocating the position that there is no God. That position is also unsupported by evidence. I merely saying that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the belief in God.I guess you didnt read all of it. One more time.

One cannot justifiable “know” there is a God, but one can justifiable “believe”.

I have a reasonable faith that there is a God, simply because atheism to me has no logical ground to stand on, where as theism does, since things at least do appear to be created and concurs reasonably, however indirectly, with the scientific evidence of things such as the big bang, the nature of space and time, D.N.A, and so on and so thorth.

When looking at what science has discovered, though one can say that some “beliefs” of who God may be or what God has been believed to have done historically has been made redundant, One cannot say that God cannot be seen in his creation. Therefore, apart from wilful ignorance, God is the logical option since God is the only option that is reasonably compatible with reality. If there was another option that was just as philosophically reasonable or if atheism could draw just as logical conclusions as theism, then you would have a reasonable leg to stand on. But you do not.

What is more likely to be the case? God or atheism? What other ground is there to stand on? There are no other options other then claiming ignorance. But you would not be asking the God question in the first place if you wanted to remain ignorant. This is the criteria on which to decide. Everything is uncertain to some extent, and this is where faith is justifiable. Its simply about taking reason to its logical conclusion and deciding whether or not you really want to believe. If you don’t, then take a vow of ignorance ( which isn’t very reasonable if you care about where you come from and what the nature of reality is) or you can become atheist and ignore the illogical implications that come with being one, like if time, matter and space are apart of the same mould and are products of the big bang, how can something that needs time( succession of one moment to the next) and space to occur, occur with out something outside of it, above its nature, putting it in motion, cuasing its affect? and how could that thing be physical or contained or bound by temporal time? Maybe theres a scientific answer to that? How can a chain of affects, however long, have no cause? Maybe theres a scientific empirical proof that has a materialistic explanation to that? However, atheism, if we are honest with are selves, does not satisfiably, logically, or reasonably justify are reality or why Im even talking you.

Peace.

In the end, it could be me in error. Thats why its up to you to make a reasonable choice (not an empiral one).

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Everything is uncertain to some extent, and this is where faith is justifiable. Its simply about taking reason to its logical conclusion and deciding whether or not you really want to believe.

It seems like this the basis of your whole position. That a person should believe what he wants. But what we want to be true and even what may be useless to living a fulfilled life does not relate to the truth.

If I have an untreatable condition that will kill me in 6 months, I may not want to believe that I have it. Not believing that I do may even make my life more fulfilling. But it will have nothing to do with the objective fact that I do.

What a person wants to believe has nothing to do the objective facts.

One cannot say that God cannot be seen in his creation.

Why not? You see God because you want to. Atheists see no God because they want to. An honest person will say God could or could not be seen in the universe, but that is not sufficient evidence to justify a belief in God.

All the physical realiies of the universe that can be seen today can be explained by theorectically (in a very rough way) going all the way back to the Plank-epoch after the Big Bang. All the things we see today can be explained without God. The only things we don’t know is what caused the Big Bang, what came before the Big Bang (if that question even makes sense), and why the universe had such low entropy right after the Big Bang. These are genuine mysteries. It does not do any good to just say God did without providing evidence to support that position.

 

[freesoulhope]

It seems like this the basis of your whole position. That a person should believe what he wants. But what we want to be true and even what may be useless to living a fulfilled life does not relate to the truth.

If I have an untreatable condition that will kill me in 6 months, I may not want to believe that I have it. Not believing that I do may even make my life more fulfilling. But it will have nothing to do with the objective fact that I do.

What a person wants to believe has nothing to do the objective facts.

Did i not say reasonably faith? Maybe you do not understand the concept? Or maybe you simply havent read what i have written, because your reply does not reflect as one would who had read and understood it properly.

From you written, i can see that your only intrested it what can proven empirically.

What a person wants to believe has nothing to do the objective facts.

From you written, i can see that your only intrested it what can proven “directly” and “empirically”. Science can only measure what it was designed for in the first place. There for
it will not anwser the God question. Alot of people use this as an excuse not to take reason to it logical conclusion.

I haven’t Got the anwser your looking for. Your gonna have to wait untill you pass-away, hopefully in old age, if you want that kind of evidence, however unreasonable it may be to wait that long for something that it obvious.

peace

 

[ribozyme]

All the physical realiies of the universe that can be seen today can be explained by theorectically (in a very rough way) going all the way back to the Plank-epoch after the Big Bang. All the things we see today can be explained without God. The only things we don’t know is what caused the Big Bang, what came before the Big Bang (if that question even makes sense), and why the universe had such low entropy right after the Big Bang. These are genuine mysteries. It does not do any good to just say God did without providing evidence to support that position.

No, there is plenty that has not been explained yet. For instance the origin of life does not have a satisfactory explanation.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

No, there is plenty that has not been explained yet. For instance the origin of life does not have a satisfactory explanation.

That is why I included the caveats theorectically and in a very rough way.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Did i not say reasonably faith? Maybe you do not understand the concept? Or maybe you simply havent read what i have written, because your reply does not reflect as one would who had read and understood it properly.

Maybe I don’t understand your position. Can you explain how reason alone can justify the belief in things that would have an objective nature if they actually existed? You do claim that God objectively exists and can be shown to exist through reason alone right? If not, can try to explain again what justifies the belief in God as an objective part of reality?

 

[lak611]

I’ve seen some interesting Bible Codes, and with good reason !]http://www.outersecrets.com/real/8_code.htm

They definitely seem to go against the odds of being just by chance occurrences. That means they prove that there are others out there somewhere, and are of vast intellect.

If not, if these codes are not valid, at least the one who proves this to be the case can then pick up the $100,000 dollar reward for providing such proof.

But most likely this will not happen. Believers will simply reject it as real, since believers always place belief above truth !

There are no such things as “Bible codes”. The Bible is written in real languages, originally in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; these have been translated into all the other languages, such as English. The Bible was given to us by God and translated into languages we can understand. We have the ability to understand the Bible by reading it in our own language. There are no “codes” needed for us to understand it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

II don’t know TV show you were watching, but if it was the Elegant Universe there is an interesting exchange with a physicist about testing String Theory where he explains that if no experimental tests can be made in String Theory it will have to be abandoned as science.

This is just so silly that I can’t imagine you actually believe it. Do you really think all scientists have to agree on things before any of them can validly believe anything? I don’t pretend to be a scientist, nor do I memorize the name of everything I see on tv. But I know enough to know that if science really has to abandon everything it holds true if it can’t reproduce it through experimental testing, it is going to have to abandon most of what it holds true about the universe, everything it holds true about evolution and most of what it holds true concerning even the composition of the earth. What you’re doing here is setting up a narrow mechanistic test for validity that science does not reuire of itself and that you know to be impossible to overcome and telling everybody they have to somehow overcome it or give up what they think. You’re, in effect, telling physicists that they have to get a teaspoonful of black hole material under a microscope before you’ll believe anything they say about the subject. Nobody lives in that mental straightjacket anymore, and I doubt you actually do, except when it comes to questions of religion.

 

[VociMike]

I don’t knwo exactly what form the evidence would have to take. to justify the belief in God. Nor could I have said what the form of the evidence to support the theory of photosynthesis would be necessay to justify belief in photosysthesis before I given the evidence and had a chance to evaluate it.

I don’t understand this answer. Given certain data, one should be able to work back to say “a correct theory must provide the following evidence that it accounts for this data”.

When we are talking about objective facts about the world a neutral analysis of the evidence can allow us to justify beliefs. However, all the evidence presented here to justify the belief in God requires a subjective viewpoint. This fine for justifying subjective phenomenon, but not objective facts.

But non-God explanations for the origin of everything are every bit as subjective. Science can tell us what, but not how, and even less, why. It can explain the motion of an electron in an electric field, but it cannot tell us how the field acts on the electron (it can describe the action, but it cannot tell us how the action works), and it cannot tell us why there even are electrons and electric fields and Maxwell’s equations.

So every explanation of the origins of everything must go beyond everything (that is, beyond the material world it seeks to explain). As soon as you go beyond the material world, the rules of scientific evidence no longer apply. Thus, the rules of scientific evidence simply have no place in the explanation for everything. The rules cannot explain themselves, for one thing. Just as the universe cannot account for itself.

I assume you believe to an objective facts about the world and not a subjective phenonenon. If you you should be able to lay out an objective case for the fact of God’s existence.

Yes, the entire world. God explains the entire world (that is, everything that we know “is”) better than any other explanation.

And no Gods is one fewer.

Ah, but no Gods requires something else in its place, not nothing. For the goal is to explain everything, absolutely everything. One God explains this. Remove God and you need a nearly (or perhaps actually) infinite number of fortuitous “wow, it just happened that way!” entities. So the comparison is not 1 vs. 0, it is 1 vs. googol. Even atheists know this, which is why some of them are proposing infinite (there’s that number >>1 again) numbers of universes, of which ours just happens to be fine-tuned to the incredible degree that we observe.

That is just a human aesthetic response. Why should the facts humans (or maybe just one human) finds the an answer lame? Does that have anything to do with the truth of the matter?

Lame in the sense that alternatives require many of the attributes of God, but the result is always much less than God. Alternative god-type explanations are “fuel-inefficient”. That is, they produce much less for what they “take in”. Aesthetic responses to these matters are not wrong. In science, the correct theory is usually considered to be the most beautiful one as well. Science recognizes that there is a strong component of beauty in scientific truth.

I hope I’m remaining coherent in all of this. I sometimes get lost in these long threads.

 

[freesoulhope]

So every explanation of the origins of everything must go beyond everything (that is, beyond the material world it seeks to explain). As soon as you go beyond the material world, the rules of scientific evidence no longer apply. Thus, the rules of scientific evidence simply have no place in the explanation for everything. The rules cannot explain themselves, for one thing. Just as the universe cannot account for itself.

Very Nice! If something like the universe (Which has a begining, succesive states of time, reacts an acts, and has laws which governs how each element reacts to each other under natural conditions) exists, then it demands an explanation for its existents just by existing in the first place. The existents of the natural laws which govern the universe can only satifiably be explained by something that is above them in nature (a supernature) rather then something that is bound by them (the universe).

Am i correct? Am i also correct to say that, unprejudice philosophical reasoning is the key to understanding the origins of “natural” existents as we know it?

Peace.

 

[Valke2]

There are no such things as “Bible codes”. The Bible is written in real languages, originally in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; these have been translated into all the other languages, such as English. The Bible was given to us by God and translated into languages we can understand. We have the ability to understand the Bible by reading it in our own language. There are no “codes” needed for us to understand it.

The Bible code works so well that it can be used on books like Moby Dick.

 

[Lance]

I’ve seen some interesting Bible Codes, and with good reason !]http://www.outersecrets.com/real/8_code.htm

They definitely seem to go against the odds of being just by chance occurrences. That means they prove that there are others out there somewhere, and are of vast intellect.

If not, if these codes are not valid, at least the one who proves this to be the case can then pick up the $100,000 dollar reward for providing such proof.

But most likely this will not happen. Believers will simply reject it as real, since believers always place belief above truth !

http://www.outersecrets.com/real/template/2heads.gif

**What do you see ?

Do you see a Jesus on the Cross,
Two Heads confronting each other,
or do you see all three ?**

I am sure that some where at some time I have seen larger crocks of pure rubbish but I don’t remember when or where!

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

But I know enough to know that if science really has to abandon everything it holds true if it can’t reproduce it through experimental testing, it is going to have to abandon most of what it holds true about the universe, everything it holds true about evolution and most of what it holds true concerning even the composition of the earth.

Both the theory of evolution and theories about the composition of the Earth have been tested experimentally.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Very Nice! If something like the universe (Which has a begining,

How do you know the universe had a beginning?

 

[ribozyme]

How do you know the universe had a beginning?

One can invoke the Borde, Guth, Vilenkin theorem to argue it has a beginning. It states that it is impossible for a space-time to exist that is eternally (both past and future) expanding.

See: arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Ah, but no Gods requires something else in its place, not nothing. For the goal is to explain everything, absolutely everything. One God explains this. Remove God and you need a nearly (or perhaps actually) infinite number of fortuitous “wow, it just happened that way!” entities. So the comparison is not 1 vs. 0, it is 1 vs. googol. Even atheists know this, which is why some of them are proposing infinite (there’s that number >>1 again) numbers of universes, of which ours just happens to be fine-tuned to the incredible degree that we observe.

Even with God you still have all the physical events to explain. You can’t just say God did it and say it has the same explanatory power as a theory that explains all the physical processes. But if there explains all the physical processes, what more does saying God works behind the scenes add to the theory?