Evidence that God Exists

[Jim_Baur]

Thank you!!!

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

An example would be belief in the Christian God. There is evidence of an eminent creative force (Evolution would strongly suggest such eminence),

How is evolution evidence for a eminent creative force? Evolution is a natural process which results in heritable changes in a population spreading.

evidence from ourselves (our desire to understand and reach for the infinite), and evidence from others (an objective moral standard, our battle against death, altruism).

All these things can be explained by biological and cultural evolution.

All of these make a reasonable case, but would never stand up in court. They are insufficient to establish reasonably that a God exists. Yet they suggest one does, and this, coupled with our desire to believe, leads us to faith.

But why say that you know God exists? Why not just say that it is possible that God exists, but there is not enough evidence to jusitify the belief that God exists? How can you say that know God exists if you don’t know? Why not just say that you hope God exists? You seem to know that there is not enough evidence to know if God exists, but you are going to use “faith” as a copout to believe what you want to be true (I don’t mean for that to sound insulting).

 

[Jim_Baur]

I don’t understand why you keep pointing to life.

How does life establish that there is a God?

Why are you so sure the there is not a non-supernatural explanation for life?

You can’t just say life establishes that there is a God without saying how it establishes that there is God.

I stick to life because it is the most basic of all points, and the most impressive of points.

Beings, living beings, intelligent living beings, I am awed by them.

If human life does not impress you, my silly little words can’t.

How does life establish that there is a God?

From my point of view, some superior Being had to make human life. I know that a superior Being had to do it, don’t you?

Whether that Being is the God of Abraham, I do not know.

Whether Christians are correct that God became man, I do not know.

It would be invalid to move from a superior Being and then attribute Biblical qualities to that Being.

Back to the beauty of human life, if your own abstract thinking does not convince you that you are a spiritual being, then my silly little words can’t.

Again, if that pull to do loving and kind actions does not convince you that God exists, then my silly little word can’t.

Don’t you observe abstract thinking in you intellect?

Don’t you feel that pull to love in you will?

What more evidence do you need?

Oh, it is most difficult to remain away from faith when talking about this issue. I have crossed the line when I brought in love, sorry!

Why did you pick Ammonius Saccus? He seems to know that we have a spiritual soul. His school seems to accept a superior Being. His students seem to teach that we can have a personal relationship with that Being.

Also, I did not read most of your posts, what is the intention of your heart?

Congratulations on being a lawyer!

 

[noma]

How is evolution evidence for a eminent creative force? Evolution is a natural process which results in heritable changes in a population spreading.

Absolutely. Yet it contains within it a beauty greater than any art. The variations lead outward like a glorious fractal, not for the good of man, but beyond us, from the smallest of creatures, to the large beasts, the world proclaims a beauty. And this to the point that a fractal symmetry (a beauty) is the driving force in theoretical evolutionary biology, and in string theory (where I have done some work).

Beyond this, it is very unlikely that anyone would have ever evolved to appreciate this beauty. Yet here we are. And evolution does not allow for a watchmaker god who set everything up and let it run. If this were the case, we would still be unlikely, for all the random variations. Rather, evolution suggests an imminent creative force that guided the process so that creatures could exist as a part of the creation, to appreciate the creation.

But we have Hume’s anthropic principle (“if we didn’t exist, no one would make a fuss about it”), and the idea that beauty is a human invention, borne out of the evolutionary process, in order to keep us alive (much like the hyperactive intelligence detector, which invents intelligent agents for random phenomena). These are ways in which the argument for design is insufficient to establish what it intends: God. Yet it still strongly suggests that God exists.

All these things can be explained by biological and cultural evolution.

How do you know that this is so?

But why say that you know God exists?

For the same reason say that they know the universe exists, or that dogs exist, or that their spouses exist. We are not certain of any of these, and cannot be sufficiently certain (this is why philosophers spend so much time worrying about these things). Yet most have faith that the universe, dogs, and spouses exist, and so say “my spouse exists” instead of “my spouse likely exists”.

I have faith that God exists. I desire that God exist, and I find evidence that, though insufficient, suggests that He may indeed be out there.

You seem to know that there is not enough evidence to know if God exists, but you are going to use “faith” as a copout to believe what you want to be true (I don’t mean for that to sound insulting).

No insult taken. And I agree. That is, likely, exactly how it sounds; that I’m copping out. That I’m weak, or psychologically need someone, and so I bought into the God invention to keep myself sane (or secure, or happy, or whatever).

That is how all this sounded to me when I was an atheist three years ago. But exploration led me to accept that the world was far larger than I thought.

I found this article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”, a Christian perspective on evolution, especially helpful (along side G.K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy”).

My largest asset in coming to Christ was my search for truth. Don’t stop searching, and don’t settle for less. Don’t give up wrestling with ideas, and especially asking the hard questions.

I hope this helps, and I will try my best, weak though my intellect is, to answer or point you to the answers for any of your questions.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

I stick to life because it is the most basic of all points, and the most impressive of points.

Beings, living beings, intelligent living beings, I am awed by them.
If human life does not impress you, my silly little words can’t.

From my point of view, some superior Being had to make human life. I know that a superior Being had to do it, don’t you?

I am not really following your reasoning. Can we break down the first of your arguments.

Let’s grant these premises

Life exists
Life is awesome
Human life is impressive
(By the way I do agree with all these things.)

How are you getting to the conclusion that God created life? It seems life your argument is missing some steps.The best I can construct it from what you presented is life (and especially human life) is so impressive that it had to be created by God therefore it was created by God. That seems like a classic petitio principii argument. I am not seeing the content of the argument.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

I am a high school theology teacher, that is all.

From what I can discern…

A.S.
Physical being necessary

J.B.
Physical being contingent

A. S.
Physical being moved itself into existence or always was

J. B.
Physical being moved into existence

A.S.
Physical being uncaused

J. B.
Physcial being caused

A. S.
no grade of being above physical

J.B.
humans physical and spiritual/immaterial

A. S.
Physical being governs self through self evolving laws and stages of being

J. B.
Physical being governed by laws made by a superior being

A. S.
no higher being than physical

J. B.
humans have an immaterial level of being–thought and choice…
The shortest way to demonstrate that is abstract thinking.

I am conscious of my abstract thoughts and chioces.

I truncated the above into the simplest form I could. Physical being cannot account for itself. Human life cannot account for its physical nor immaterial parts.

We disagree or agree.

I am convinced by a preponderance of evidence that the highest level of being on earth cannot account for itself.

The evidence points to a superior Being. Most people call this being God.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

I am a high school theology teacher, that is all.

A. S.
Physical being moved itself into existence or always was

J. B.
Physical being moved into existence

I truncated the above into the simplest form I could. Physical being cannot account for itself. Human life cannot account for its physical nor immaterial parts.

We disagree or agree.

I am convinced by a preponderance of evidence that the highest level of being on earth cannot account for itself.

The evidence points to a superior Being. Most people call this being God.

Seamus Sully, I am not saying that “Physical being moved itself into existence or always was.” I am saying that nobody knows the story of the origin of the universe. Nobody knows what happened prior to just after the Big Bang (or if before even has any meaning in this context).

We do know that taking the condition that occurred just after the Big Bang we can construct a history of the universe that explains how we came to be that does not require any supernatural activity. Why resort to God of the development of human’s intellect? I can see it for the origin of the universe, but for the development of human intellect (and things like alturism) we have a natural process that explains it.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Why did you pick Ammonius Saccus? He seems to know that we have a spiritual soul. His school seems to accept a superior Being. His students seem to teach that we can have a personal relationship with that Being.

I just always liked the name.

 

[Jim_Baur]

My son was using the computer before me and I posted under Seamus’ name. Sorry about the mistake.

I tried to state what I thought was your position (A. S.).

I tried to state my position (J. B.).

“Physical being moved itself into existence or always was.” I am saying that nobody knows the story of the origin of the universe.

I hold that a superior Being accounts for the physical beings and human beings of the universe.

My common sense cannot accept physical being always existed.

My conscious thought tells me I have abstract thinking.

From what I can discern, abstract thinking is immaterial/spiritual.

I hope my position is more clear.

Again, I am sorry about posting under Seamus.

Oh, I am enjoying this, I hope you are too.

Do you believe there is a god?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

My son was using the computer before me and I posted under Seamus’ name. Sorry about the mistake.

Not a problem.

I tried to state what I thought was your position (A. S.).

I tried to state my position (J. B.).

“Physical being moved itself into existence or always was.” I am saying that nobody knows the story of the origin of the universe.

I hold that a superior Being accounts for the physical beings and human beings of the universe.

My common sense cannot accept physical being always existed.

Can your common sense deal with quatum mechanics? My can’t. Even Richard Feynman’s couldn’t. Common sense can mislead us.

I fully admit the origin of the universe is a mystery. One that may never be solved. But to take the fact that is a mystery and just say God had to do it seems to be nothing more than a god of the gaps argument.

It also seems to be a petitio principii argument.

My conscious thought tells me I have abstract thinking.

From what I can discern, abstract thinking is immaterial/spiritual.

I don’t what is so special about abstract thinking. It is just another form of problem solving that evolved. I know you could say God was guiding evolution to create a brain capable of abstract thinking, but God is not necessary in that scenario and can be cut by Occam’s razor. (This does show that God does not exist or did guide evolution. It just shows that is not neccessary.)

Oh, I am enjoying this, I hope you are too.

I am enjoying this, too.

Do you believe there is a god?

No. But I also do not believe that there is not God. There is just not enough evidence to believe either one.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Thanks!!!

I went to the center of the argument, not in a circle.

Being is the center.

I addressed pre-Big Bang, and pre-Big Bangssssssss!

I know that science and math cannot address the nature of being.

The human intellect can.

The human intellect and its entire being can.

This is the center: From where does physical being come?

Also, in the center of the agruement: are we humans spiritual?

Human common sense and intelligence has said yes!

None religious intellectuals of Greece and the natives of the Americas have come to the same conclusions.

There is a god! That god is spiritual.

We too have a spirit.

As you know, they were not children of Abraham.

They were not Christian.

I think the people of the East, North, South, and West have come to the same CONCLUSIONS!

They were people with common sense and intelleigence.

Math and science were made by us humans to measure, count and wiegh physical being.

Human intellect has more tools than math and science.

Math and science cannot get to psychological realities.

Human intellect can.

Human common sense can.

Well, I am still having fun.

I hope I am making sense.

 

[AnthonyM2]

I think there has to be some mystery to life. Just becase we can’t prove something beyond doubt doesn’t mean faith is unwarranted. Even when we have faith in God, we still do not completely understand him or his ways and accept the mystery of the unfathomable. We’re just fragile, mortal beings who look to higher power. Just because we can’t explain everything doesn’t mean everything should be explainable, that’s what faith is for.

 

[Disciple87]

Why? Why do we exist? Why is there existance at all? Why does there have to be molecules and star dust and balls of gas in space? Where did it all come from? Was it just always there? Think about it hard right now. Think into space trillions of lightyears away, think about all of the stuff out there and how it came to be. Where did this matter come from? How could there be rocks and so forth in space? What created these massive rockes and gas balls, What created, that created the rocks and so on and on? Why is there light, Darkness, climate, life? What is the point of all of this. What is the point of life? Why would mother nature create human beings? For what?

 

[Faith1960]

What differentiates us from other creatures on Earth? I would submit to you that it is the ability to think beyond our physical existence. To consider what might be beyond.

We have an eternal seed inside us that begs the question “What else is there?”

Now look at something like this bigskyastroclub.org/pale_blue_dot.htm and consider the odds.

Next, you have the fact that God has revealed himself to us through history, culminating in his real, physical presence here in Jesus Christ our Lord. A real, tangible and historical touchstone we can relate to.

In order to communicate these wonderous things to each other we have an amazing vessel- The Church. A living record that calls out to us through history with the truth. Cardinal Newman taught that truth for it’s own sake has always been the essence of the Church’s message.

The problem is our relationship with God, which is broken. You need to pray, it’s the only way you will discover the truth for yourself. It’s the only way you will find God is really there and really loves you.

God Bless & keep you.

Wasn’t Carl Sagan either athiest or agnostic who thought praying was silly?

 

[Jim_Baur]

The following is a final thought for me, Jim Baur.
I know that one can demonstrate there is a god.
I know that one can demonstrate that there is a part of the human being that is immaterial, or in other words spiritual.
I know that one does this with our natural ability to reason.
Math and science are beautiful creations of the human mind.
They were designed to investigate and comprehend the physical being.
They have intellectual being, but they do not have extramental being.
Many physical scientists have told me: Don’t ask me why there is being.
The human mind has other tools to investigate the nature of existence or being.
Metaphysics and common sense have addressed such basic questions: what is the nature of being?
These are some of the answers.
Being is contingent.
Being can’t cause itself.
Being can’t govern itself.
Being could not move itself into existence.
There are levels or gradations of being.
These principles are applied to pre-Big Bang(s) being.
Peoples from Ancient Greece to the Far East, from North to South, and from the Americas have come to the same common sense conclusions: some Being has to make physical being.
Many of those people call that superior Being god.
This has occurred for millennia.
Epistemology has discovered that one’s intellect and will are immaterial.
This too has occurred over the eras and on all continents.
Some claim that their immaterial parts have experienced this superior Being.
I would find this subjective experience difficult to prove to other people.
If both individuals have experienced it, then I suppose they could share their experiences.
I do not believe in preexistence or transmigration of this immaterial part of the human being, but some do.
They even claim to have subjectively experienced this.
Today there are over 200 schools of psychology.
I think that some of those schools hold an immaterial part of the human being.
Today there are many philosophers that hold that they can demonstrate a superior Being produced all being.
Today there are many philosophers that hold that they can demonstrate we have an immaterial part.
A simple way of explaining this is abstract thinking.
The above points have been done outside the realm of religions over the millennia and on all continents of our planet.
If you agree, amen!
If you disagree, amen!
God Bless and may you share in God’s beauty, love and happiness, now I am in the realm of faith. Make God smile, share His love.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Ammonius,

I’m afraid you’ll have to concede- the New Orleans Saints finally won a playoff game.

Case closed.

Looks like the my Bears are destroying yer another proof for God.

 

[Seamus_Sully]

According to physical scientists, when talking about the origins of the universe they use the word “theory” in analogous sense. For the lay people that should be made real clear.

Next idea: When doing science about the start of the universe, they are implying that it follows the laws of human reason. Actually it is most explicit. It is explicit or they should not trust the ability to reason to solve the problems.

Their tests in this area of study must follow the laws of reason.

Furthermore, their test must follow the laws of math which human reasoning created. Ergo, math is reasonable.

From where did all of this reason in the universe come?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Nathan,

You are making the pragmatic fallacy by passing directly from the value of belief to the truth of the belief. The utility of a belief can be independent of its truth-value. If people use the fruits argument as common sense rule they are just committing this fallacy.

As, to what the West needs to do, that is an interesting question, but not one I wish to address in this thread. Again, even if a Christian worldview would help the West, it would not establish that God exists.

The point is Christianity is the only main religion which teaches a belief in heaven and hell and which is not compatible with human reason. If fact, Christian morality is necessary to perfect our ability to reason!

I don’t think this is what you meant to write.

 

[Freebird]

I understand this is from a while back, but–:

There is an answer the question of the universe, but we do not have the evidence yet to answer it. We may never have the evidence.

I do not have an explanation for the universe. It is a mystery. But you deny that it is mystery and claim to know the answer is God. What is the evidence you have that God created the universe?

…“We may never have the evidence?”
Whoa. Are you saying that there is something outside of our knowledge that did ,obviously, occurr?–(the creation of the universe)?
You denounce the mystery of the Trinity as being a “cop-out”, and then you relate the creation of the universe with that exact word.

I’m not sure if you have heard this argument presented before, but the universe is full of causes. One causes leads to the cause of another, that cause causes another causes, ect, ect (similar to a domino effect). But, what started all of these causes? An uncaused cause, perhaps? Well, where’d the uncause cause come from–another uncaused cause? Then where’d that one come from? That would be impossible, as that would be redundant into infinity. And a caused cause could not have caused the uncaused cause, because that would equate to another slew of causes, caused by…what?. So, the only logical conclusion is that there was an uncaused cause, independent of any other outside influence that initiated causes, and in turn, the universe. We–Christians–call this great uncaused cause, God.

Also, personal experience is a very real part of religion. The Christian religion would not have survived hundreds of years after Christ if the people did not see real results in their life that directly resulted from something else–(prayer).
…Aren’t Muslims and Buddists generally forced into their religions due to their country’s regulations? They may falsely witness out of fear of persecution. Buddists in American are far and few between…and are undoubtably a religious minority in the U.S. Maybe this is due to the fact that they abandon the religion after actually being able to experience/observe Christianity first-hand, leading to the previously unknown realization of the lack of supernatural inervension in their lives.

One last point…why wouldn’t God send an obivous sign to prove he actually IS God? What if you woke up the next morning and the words, “HEY, A.S.! I AM GOD! I DO EXIST!” were written in the sky? Let’s say you believed after that…would you really have faith? Or scientific evidence? Well, you wouldn’t even have true evidence. A plane could’ve written those words in the sky. But you saw it. And what are the chances/reasons someone would write something like that to you in the sky? Who knows–but you still wouldn’t have solid evidence to prove it was, or wasn’t, God. What if those same words were written on the moon? Mankind would likely say something to contradictory to that as well–aliens, a freak storm, whatever, who knows. But science constantly gets tripped up with the explination for the creation of the universe–something so complex it couldn’t just have been created by a freak incident.

In my opinion, that is where faith meets with reason, and the two blend. Science and religion are not opposites-you can have one with the other.

 

[Neithan]

Ammonius Saccus:

Again, even if a Christian worldview would help the West, it would not establish that God exists.

Doesn’t logic do that? I haven’t read this whole thread, but why don’t you accept the quinquae viae?