Reason and faith are two proofs that God exists

[AndyHolland]

Amazing isn’t it? With the click of a button you are looking at pictures of billions of years in the past. Your loooking through billions and billions of miles. Your seeing pictures that every other generation of man could only dream about. Down to the combination of Rockets, satelites, telescopes, computers, flat screen TVs, electricity… i could go on and own. That video is shows exactly why i have so much repect for science. That video was brought to you by SCIENCE, that video is a testament to SCIENCE. With out modern sceince you would be like every other generation that has every lived, and only be able to dream about seeing such things.

But you can dismiss all that at the drop of a hat, and somehow warp your mind into thanking a “god” for that? Don’t thank a god for that, thank the PEOPLE that brought you those images, THANK SCIENCE!

With all our universities, computers, refinaries, factories, we have yet to come close to anything as marvelous, complex, balanced, elegant, adaptive, reproduct and useful as a cell.

Oh you mean the cells discovered by SCIENCE??? Yes they are wonderful products of evolution.

Precisely! You know, obviously, the randomness has nothing to do with Evolution. I mean, put a billion monkeys in a room typing a billion characters per second and the chance of typing, “Mary had a little lamb” since the universe began is only 50-50.

So obviously the universe contains a fantasic marvelous set of laws and order and pattern to overcome informational and organizational entropy to evolve life (from the dust of the ground - as Scripture says and St. Gregory of Nyssa pointed out it was an orderly process from lower to higher forms of life 1500 years before Darwin).

Since cells have chemical factories, electronics, motors, valves, engines, and all sorts of marvelous correcting mechanisms with in them (after all, for every action there is still an equal and opposite reaction) you should be able to construct them to prove their origin. After all, proof of the science is in its application, extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence!

The ancient Church Fathers description of God was “Intelligence simple and compound” - universal because his Icon the Universe contained the uncontainable God in a virgin’s womb. Yet transcendent too - because God is love, and love is transcendent.

So that being the case… extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, construct for me a set of molecular level machines that do what a simple single stem cell do - and then I’ll think maybe you know enough science to dismiss God who made man in His image, with super-computer brains powerful enough to build space telescopes or make beautiful art like Hayden’s Creation.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

In a way, Darwin, and I mean no offense to you personally by this, but at some level I am asserting that mere theism and mere atheism are not exactly different. They both define God in a limited way. What we need is a better way of talking about it. You keep bringing up evidence, as if that could answer it. This leads me to believe that you did not understand the closing paragraph in my post. Since every emerging level of reality cannot be reduced to the former, and because science, regardless of proof, can never explain “why there is something rather than nothing,” the question as to whether the ground of being is personal or not is coincidental with the question of being. This means it can be reasoned about to some degree. Ultimately, however, one must experience it. Read your William James, and you will see belief in God as a reality (not as a particular being) is not in conflict with empiricism. Faith is not belief in something about which you have no evidence, it is an openness to a whole dimension of reality to which you were previously closed. Beyond this, I cannot say much to you Darwin. Further, do not presume that there is only one version of Christianity. Again, this is the mistake I hear so many atheists make. They presume the version of religion defined by their local fundy is it. I recommend reading some Paul Tillich for another picture.

The Apostle John asserts that “God is love.” How foolish would it be to engage in argumentation about whether love exists. Again, the question is not about whether it exists, but about whether we have the courage to live by it, and where that courage comes from.

GM

I’m not open to speculation without evidence. You can posit all you like, but with out evidence all your wishy-washy pondering is meaningless.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Precisely! You know, obviously, the randomness has nothing to do with Evolution. I mean, put a billion monkeys in a room typing a billion characters per second and the chance of typing, “Mary had a little lamb” since the universe began is only 50-50.

So obviously the universe contains a fantasic marvelous set of laws and order and pattern to overcome informational and organizational entropy to evolve life (from the dust of the ground - as Scripture says and St. Gregory of Nyssa pointed out it was an orderly process from lower to higher forms of life 1500 years before Darwin).

Since cells have chemical factories, electronics, motors, valves, engines, and all sorts of marvelous correcting mechanisms with in them (after all, for every action there is still an equal and opposite reaction) you should be able to construct them to prove their origin. After all, proof of the science is in its application, extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence!

The ancient Church Fathers description of God was “Intelligence simple and compound” - universal because his Icon the Universe contained the uncontainable God in a virgin’s womb. Yet transcendent too - because God is love, and love is transcendent.

So that being the case… extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, construct for me a set of molecular level machines that do what a simple single stem cell do - and then I’ll think maybe you know enough science to dismiss God who made man in His image, with super-computer brains powerful enough to build space telescopes or make beautiful art like Hayden’s Creation.

You might want to take a basic biology class.

" I mean, put a billion monkeys in a room typing a billion characters per second and the chance of typing, “Mary had a little lamb” since the universe began is only 50-50." - I laughed my *** off at this. What in earth are you babbling about. Are all creationists as uneducated?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You tell me that the cosmos is beautiful, Charles, but unless the universe contains meaning, it is not. It is ugly as ugly can be, because all it has for me is pain, forever, without ceasing, till I die.

I choose to affirm meaning in the cosmos, and I am not aware of what other source there can be for that meaning except God.

I have no issue with this, as long as you understand that you believe because you want to, not because its true.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I have no issue with this, as long as you understand that you believe because you want to, not because its true.

But this is *always *the case. We do not have control over what we’re convinced of, intellectually. We may seek to educate ourselves – indeed, we are obliged to do so – but our conclusions do not flow out of our intellect.

If we have any control over any of our beliefs, this is only because we have been given the power to do so. I would say that the most reasonable source of this power is God. This is what William James and Immanuel Kant meant by the will, roughly.

Believing in God is a decision. It is nothing like believing in the toaster in your kitchen, which you cannot help but believe in.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

But this is *always *the case. We do not have control over what we’re convinced of, intellectually. We may seek to educate ourselves – indeed, we are obliged to do so – but our conclusions do not flow out of our intellect.

If we have any control over any of our beliefs, this is only because we have been given the power to do so. I would say that the most reasonable source of this power is God. This is what William James and Immanuel Kant meant by the will, roughly.

Believing in God is a decision. It is nothing like believing in the toaster in your kitchen, which you cannot help but believe in.

Fair enough, but evolution is like the toaster in the kitchen and that is why i accept it.

 

[AndyHolland]

You might want to take a basic biology class.

" I mean, put a billion monkeys in a room typing a billion characters per second and the chance of typing, “Mary had a little lamb” since the universe began is only 50-50." - I laughed my *** off at this. What in earth are you babbling about. Are all creationists as uneducated?

Actually, the odds are 1.0/37.98685 doing it by proper math instead of estimated rounding, and using 13.7 billion years for the age of the universe.

The point is, statistical processes are inherently weak unless they are directed. The minute they are directed odds improve considerably, but in order to be directed one needs two things to overcome informational and organizational entropy - and that is intelligence, simple and compound and compelling logos as the ancient Greeks pointed out (e.g. see Fermi-Pasta-Ullam problem).

And as to my qualifications on that, I am sole inventor on a patent for a self-verifying computer language used in the automation and safety analysis of PWR nuclear reactor cores and another set on fast methods for radiation dose calculations for cancer treatment and my boast is the living God - because truly I am very stupid:
US 6243860
US 7197404
and several pending.

As St. John Chrysostum says, and I truly believe, ‘we Christians are the most ignorant of all people.’ In fact, it is our inherent strength. Consider other stupid creationists like Planck, Pascal, Reimann, Maxwell, Paley (Darwin’s best teacher according to Darwin himself), or Van Braun who put up those rockets…

So are all atheists so smart?

Why not consider that people with another point of view might not be stupid, and find out what they are babbling about?

 

[erikd]

Fair enough, but evolution is like the toaster in the kitchen and that is why i accept it.

Did someone make the claim that God could not have been involved with evolution? Here is what Pope John Paul II said to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Oct. 22, 1996:

*"Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory…

The human individual cannot be subordinated as a pure means or a pure instrument, either to the species or to society, he has value per se. He is a person. With his intellect and his will, he is capable of forming a relationship of communion, solidarity and self-giving with his peers. St Thomas observes that man’s likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect for his relationship with the object of his knowledge resembles God’s relationship with what he has created (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 3, a. 5, ad 1). But even more, man is called to enter into a relationship of knowledge and love with God himself, a relationship which will find its complete fulfilment beyond time, in eternity.

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person." *
cin.org/jp2evolu.html

I invite you to read to entire letter, as it very concisely explains the stance of the Catholic Church. It is not wrong to believe in certain aspects of evolution, and it is not wrong to believe in creation. Both are theories, unproven (as of yet) by science. What is wrong is to exclude God from either version.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Actually, the odds are 1.0/37.98685 doing it by proper math instead of estimated rounding, and using 13.7 billion years for the age of the universe.

The point is, statistical processes are inherently weak unless they are directed. The minute they are directed odds improve considerably, but in order to be directed one needs two things to overcome informational and organizational entropy - and that is intelligence, simple and compound and compelling logos as the ancient Greeks pointed out (e.g. see Fermi-Pasta-Ullam problem).

And as to my qualifications on that, I am sole inventor on a patent for a self-verifying computer language used in the automation and safety analysis of PWR nuclear reactor cores and another set on fast methods for radiation dose calculations for cancer treatment and my boast is the living God - because truly I am very stupid:
US 6243860
US 7197404
and several pending.

As St. John Chrysostum says, and I truly believe, ‘we Christians are the most ignorant of all people.’ In fact, it is our inherent strength. Consider other stupid creationists like Planck, Pascal, Reimann, Maxwell, Paley (Darwin’s best teacher according to Darwin himself), or Van Braun who put up those rockets…

So are all atheists so smart?

Why not consider that people with another point of view might not be stupid, and find out what they are babbling about?

Wow thats great.

Now can you just explain to me what “I mean, put a billion monkeys in a room typing a billion characters per second and the chance of typing, “Mary had a little lamb” since the universe began is only 50-50.” has to do with…

Isolated genes pools, random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and speciation?

I suggest you put an equal amount of effort into learing evolution as you have to learning computer code. Initially coding is actually alot harder to grasp, so dont be lazy. I’m sure if you do you will accept evolution in no time.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

As St. John Chrysostum says, and I truly believe, ‘we Christians are the most ignorant of all people.’ In fact, it is our inherent strength. Consider other stupid creationists like Planck, Pascal, Reimann, Maxwell, Paley (Darwin’s best teacher according to Darwin himself), or Van Braun who put up those rockets…

Silly argument…Their religion had NOTHING to do with the method they followed when they made their discoveries.

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I invite you to read to entire letter, as it very concisely explains the stance of the Catholic Church. It is not wrong to believe in certain aspects of evolution, and it is not wrong to believe in creation. Both are theories, unproven (as of yet) by science. What is wrong is to exclude God from either version.

No there not, and to include “god” you would first need to prove there is a god, then you would need to prove he is involved. Evolution has no need for a god all the processes can be prefectly explained naturally.

 

[erikd]

No there not, and to include “god” you would first need to prove there is a god, then you would need to prove he is involved. Evolution has no need for a god all the processes can be prefectly explained naturally.

You would also need to fully explain evolution, as well as the beginnings of the universe (such as the big bang theory) and show me facts that have already been proven (that means that they are no longer theory). Furthermore, you would need to connect the dots in order to fully explain your **“facts” rather than “theory.” **Then you can ask me the question above.

 

[MindOverMatter]

No there not, and to include “god” you would first need to prove there is a god, then you would need to prove he is involved. Evolution has no need for a god all the processes can be prefectly explained naturally.

Didn’t you know that there is proof for God!!!?
You poor soul.

Have you read Aquinas’ five ways?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

You would also need to fully explain evolution, as well as the beginnings of the universe** (such as the big bang theory)** and show me facts that have already been proven **(that means that they are no longer theory). **Furthermore, you would need to connect the dots in order to fully explain your **“facts” rather than “theory.” **Then you can ask me the question above.

Ah ok a couple of points.

Firstly evolution has nothing to other theories. So i don’t. Lets say a god did create the universe. That would still have no bearing on evolution, which gets along just fine with no god.

My main issue is with your misunderstanding of fact and theory. Theories in science do not mean the same as theory in day to day talk. This is a very common misconception amongst those who are not educated in the sciences. In science theories explain the facts.

Only when a principle has been thoroughly tested (I.E follows the scientific method, it based on observable repeatable evidence, has a history of peer review) can it be “promoted” to scientific theory.

In science there is no greater standing than theory.

Answer me a couple of questions if you will?

Germs, fact or theory?

Gravity, fact or theory?

Tides, fact or theory?

Light, fact or theory?

Evolution, fact or theory?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Fair enough, but evolution is like the toaster in the kitchen and that is why i accept it.

I also accept evolution. It does not reach the epistemological certainty of the toaster, in my estimation, but it is just about as clear to me as the electricity on which the toaster draws.

But it is a depressing life, if you can only accept things you can prove. I cannot objectively verify that my wife loves me, for example, though I would claim that I *know *she does. I cannot objectively verify that my life can have a positive impact on others, but I would be in despair if it couldn’t. I cannot objectively verify that my friends are trustworthy, but I would be terribly lonely if I didn’t put my trust in them.

A world where proof is the only standard is a cold, cold world. Please excuse me if I choose to warm my aching limbs in front of the fire of faith. (Side note: I wonder why it would be so comforting to me if it wasn’t real. Oh, that’s right, I’m just lying to myself.)

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I also accept evolution. It does not reach the epistemological certainty of the toaster, in my estimation, but it is just about as clear to me as the electricity on which the toaster draws.

But it is a depressing life, if you can only accept things you can prove. I cannot objectively verify that my wife loves me, for example, though I would claim that I *know *she does. I cannot objectively verify that my life can have a positive impact on others, but I would be in despair if it couldn’t. I cannot objectively verify that my friends are trustworthy, but I would be terribly lonely if I didn’t put my trust in them.

A world where proof is the only standard is a cold, cold world. Please excuse me if I choose to warm my aching limbs in front of the fire of faith. (Side note: I wonder why it would be so comforting to me if it wasn’t real. Oh, that’s right, I’m just lying to myself.)

I have never once said anyone religious is lying to their selfs. I whole heartedly believe that you believe in god. I’m just saying why i don’t. I would argue that one can conclude that their wife loves them, and it would be testable. More so I would argue that its not close to being the same topic, and therefore a meaningless comparision.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I have never once said anyone religious is lying to their selfs. I whole heartedly believe that you believe in god.

I’m sorry for the implication. It’s easy to feel like we’re opponents here, Charles, but we’re both after the same thing: truth. Those who are looking for lies can hang out on political forums.

I would argue that one can conclude that their wife loves them, and it would be testable. More so I would argue that its not close to being the same topic, and therefore a meaningless comparision.

How would I test it? How do I know she’s not just acting like she loves me? I believe it because I want to believe it, not because it’s true. I have cause to affirm a world with certain characteristics, my wife’s love being one of them. I cannot control what I believe.

I agree that the two beliefs are dissimilar – I was just saying that the world was a lonely place if you don’t believe in unverifiable truths.

Out of curiosity, do you feel like you could, if you so chose, freely decide to believe in God? Or is it beyond your choice?

 

[Charles_Darwin]

I’m sorry for the implication. It’s easy to feel like we’re opponents here, Charles, but we’re both after the same thing: truth. Those who are looking for lies can hang out on political forums.

How would I test it? How do I know she’s not just acting like she loves me? I believe it because I want to believe it, not because it’s true. I have cause to affirm a world with certain characteristics, my wife’s love being one of them. I cannot control what I believe.

I agree that the two beliefs are dissimilar – I was just saying that the world was a lonely place if you don’t believe in unverifiable truths.

Out of curiosity, do you feel like you could, if you so chose, freely decide to believe in God? Or is it beyond your choice?

I couldn’t believe in a creater of the universe with out empirical evidence.

 

[AndyHolland]

I couldn’t believe in a creater of the universe with out empirical evidence.

Go to Glastonbury England, and listen to the Holy Thorn of Glastonbury pop at Midnight on Old Christmas. It precesses in accordance with the Old Calendar, yet the new Calendar is seasonally adjusted.

This fulfills a prophecy given in Genesis about Joseph, which is rather deep - but you will find, if you study it deeply, that it is well recorded in the last 500 years and recorded well enough since the 12th Century.

If you want more empiracle evidence, I could take you to a place where you would actually see a phenomena that is yearly - and if you saw it, you would either go insane, or give all you had to the poor and become a monastic.

Seeing is believing. e.g. I had a PhD Nuclear Engineer once prophesy specifics that occurred with precision 20 years later during a Bible study. It does tend to get one’s attention.

God is real - Jesus Christ is God. You can find him if you really want to. Begin with prayer, humility, forgiveness and keep asking, keep digging until you get the answers.

People are willing to fly to the moon for answers, but they aren’t willing to go on a pilgrimage or two. They are willing to exalt themselves, but if you want to find the truth, sometimes you have to dig into the muck of the soul…

 

[Charles_Darwin]

Go to Glastonbury England, and listen to the Holy Thorn of Glastonbury pop at Midnight on Old Christmas. It precesses in accordance with the Old Calendar, yet the new Calendar is seasonally adjusted.

This fulfills a prophecy given in Genesis about Joseph, which is rather deep - but you will find, if you study it deeply, that it is well recorded in the last 500 years and recorded well enough since the 12th Century.

If you want more empiracle evidence, I could take you to a place where you would actually see a phenomena that is yearly - and if you saw it, you would either go insane, or give all you had to the poor and become a monastic.

Seeing is believing. e.g. I had a PhD Nuclear Engineer once prophesy specifics that occurred with precision 20 years later during a Bible study. It does tend to get one’s attention.

God is real - Jesus Christ is God. You can find him if you really want to. Begin with prayer, humility, forgiveness and keep asking, keep digging until you get the answers.

People are willing to fly to the moon for answers, but they aren’t willing to go on a pilgrimage or two. They are willing to exalt themselves, but if you want to find the truth, sometimes you have to dig into the muck of the soul…

That is not empirical evidence, and you still havent explained to me what “I mean, put a billion monkeys in a room typing a billion characters per second and the chance of typing, “Mary had a little lamb” since the universe began is only 50-50.” has to do with…

Isolated genes pools, random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift and speciation?