What is the Most Convincing Argument for God?

[Solmyr]

You provided a perfect example of something that never happened.
Your quote is from a novel.
That conversation never happened.
I guess I missed your point.

Yes, you missed it. That conversation happened in the fictional book.

If you read that fictional conversation again, you will see that the colonel requests Clevinger, “when he did NOT say something”. It is exactly as nonsensical as to request: “when didn’t you stop beating your wife”. How can anyone request evidence for something that did not happen, or does not exist?

It is sensible to request evidence for something that happened, or exist. But evidence of non-existence?

 

[LethalMouse]

That is a nonsensical statement born of ignorance and the classic example of why evolution is a banned topic on this forum. The level of knowledge of the subject is shockingly shallow.

Making such comments only serves to cast serious doubts on anything else you might say on the basis that if you are so monstrously wrong on this matter you are more likely to be talking nonsense on other matters as well.

You do yourself no favours, Tony.

Banned as in through and through no-no OR Banned as in people don’t know how to conduct themselves?

 

[Bradski]

Banned as in through and through no-no OR Banned as in people don’t know how to conduct themselves?

Banned as in we’re not allowed to discuss it. The ban happened before I joined but in my experience, people who argue against it don’t know much about it and things generally get a little personal.

 

[LethalMouse]

Banned as in we’re not allowed to discuss it. The ban happened before I joined but in my experience, people who argue against it don’t know much about it and things generally get a little personal.

Catholics = pro science Christians… what happened to my people? They’re killing me

 

[Aloysium]

. . . you have to be kidding me. To tritely imply that the eye is a miracle of design is, again, showing a limited knowledge of the matter. It is, at the very best, simply suitable for what is required of it. That is, to see well enough to be able to find food and well enough to prevent being food. . . Ye gods, a frog has better vision than we do.

Most have better vision than I do but hey, it’s reality, not some “what if” imagined by a randomly appearing mind, out of nowhere, from a person who has just happened. I guess that’s how those bosons supposedly roll, no other explanation is necessary, not even for their presence.

If the eye doesn’t impress, how about:
Neural Integration Underlying a Time-Compensated Sun Compass in the Migratory Monarch Butterfly - Eli Shlizerman, James Phillips-Portillo, Daniel B. Forger.

All these things that just appear out of the chaos of a couple of handfuls of physical properties, that poof are just there.

BTW: I don’t believe it is trolling but rather coming from their own ignorance that one would say that people who argue against “certainties” of modern science do so out of ignorance. People are not necessarily arguing about the data, but rather its interpretation. There is an obvious denial of reality in those who blindly accept what is simplistic nonsense because it is given the label of “science”. Look around at the world for heavens sake.

 

[yppop]

Banned as in we’re not allowed to discuss it. The ban happened before I joined but in my experience, people who argue against it don’t know much about it and things generally get a little personal.

Bradski
Just out of curiosity, can you tell me something about your background in evolutionary theory. You seem to be dismissing arguments out of hand without any substantive refutation and it’s hard to tell if you have a depth of knowledge in the subject.

What course have you taken, what books have you read?

I am searching for someone that knows evolution and can answer some questions?

Thanks
Yppop

 

[Aloysium]

We can speak of creation that in time sees the coming into being the simplest of relationships between God and all that follows: brilliance of being - light.
Creation resonates through all time-space and all the various relationships that are identified as matter.
Proceeding further, layer of being on being, molecules combine to form a diversity then utilized in the creation of life.
Life flourishes existing in relation to and shaped by the world from which it derives its physical structure, giving of itself to itself.
Plants are not animals; human beings are not animals.
An exponential cosmic explosion of being centred on Existence itself.
Something like that.

 

[IWantGod]

We can speak of creation that in time sees the coming into being the simplest of relationships between God and all that follows: brilliance of being - light.
Creation resonates through all time-space and all the various relationships that are identified as matter.
Proceeding further, layer of being on being, molecules combine to form a diversity then utilized in the creation of life.
Life flourishes existing in relation to and shaped by the world from which it derives its physical structure, giving of itself to itself.
Plants are not animals; human beings are not animals.
An exponential cosmic explosion of being centred on Existence itself.
Something like that.

Its interesting that you say this, because right from the Big Bang itself what we see in physical reality is a relationship between natures and an emergence of new natures with new qualities formed on the basis of their interactions as they move. This continues to occur until the first biological system is formed which in turn gives rise to new biological systems with new qualities and natures and continues to replicate in sync with the environments in which this phenomena exists. And now we have what we describe as human organisms which have feelings, emotions, goals, and intellectual subjects of interest.

What is the source of all this?

It certainly doesn’t look like its happening for no reason or that what I am experiencing is an ontologically meaningless process with no goal. It looks like there is a plan behind all of this.

One is welcome to say that perhaps there is not.

But what I really want to convey is that the theory of “natural evolution” being true provides no rational foundation at all to reject or doubt out-of-hand the idea that the universe exists for a purpose. One can say that we don’t know from a scientific or epistemological point of view, but one cannot say that the idea of purpose is entirely without rational merit as if to say that atheism ought to be the default position of any intelligent or academic person. There seems to be this idea among atheists that because the watchmaker analogy no-longer applies to physical existence that therefore this is somehow a revelation of how pointless and meaningless existence really is beyond our own subjective fantasies. Its just a belief among other beliefs about reality. There really is no scientific or philosophical justification to present that belief as the only reasonable belief about existence. There are many things that we experience in the world to suggest that there is something more profound going on than a meaningless distribution of genetically based information, the existence of which would have to be a brute fact if cannot reduce this information to an ontologically meaningless process.

 

[Aloysium]

Preamble:
If you and I were meeting face to face, this would be more effective.
As it is I am easily ignored, replaced by ideas generated from these words.
My existence is a secondary consideration but in the moment, were we to meet, it would cause a tension.
My most real, let’s say pain since there’s no denying that reality, you would have to imagine.
Myself as myself cannot be imagined other than being something like you in yourself.

TLDNR: What am I getting to is that we are whole beings, as an animal is whole in itself, as are plants as themselves, as is an atom, and as fundamental particle-waves are whole in themselves.

Gazing back through the remains of what was, we see new creation happening in time, in God’s “day”, to which modern science turns a blind eye.
This is obvious when you gaze into your lover’s eyes, when you pet your dog or cat, when you sit at the shore, observing the plants, the birds and the waves.
It is not only a matter of survival of the fittingest infinitely complex combination of subatomic interactions and universal material forces; life came into being in steps later than the second “day” which saw the Big Bang. It transformed itself in myriad forms, each as it’s particular individual being in relation to its environment.

 

[Bradski]

Bradski
Just out of curiosity, can you tell me something about your background in evolutionary theory. You seem to be dismissing arguments out of hand without any substantive refutation and it’s hard to tell if you have a depth of knowledge in the subject.

What course have you taken, what books have you read?

I am searching for someone that knows evolution and can answer some questions?

Thanks
Yppop

I know no more than anyone else who might have an interest in the subject. There is just so much information at your fingertips.

And again, it’s not a topic that can be discussed. I’d rather not get banned.

 

[tonyrey]

The assumption that an immense period of time **alone **

We don’t base our decisions on possibilities but on the most probable outcome. If we cannot replicate the alleged event we are justified in ignoring the hypothesis. To regard it as the fundamental reason for our existence is an irrational leap into the dark…

 

[Nixbits]

tonyrey:

If we cannot replicate the alleged event we are justified in ignoring the hypothesis.

Nonsense. For example, we cannot replicate the formation of the planets in our solar system, but we don’t simply ignore a hypothesis about how they might have been formed. We consider what might be observed if the hypothesis is correct and we go looking for that evidence.

By your system, you should simply ignore the hypothesis that Jesus rose from the dead and later ascended into heaven, because the alleged event can’t be replicated.

 

[IWantGod]

A lot of people in the science VS religion debate really don’t understands what’s at stake.

I am more inclined to fight for the freedom of both science and religion to operate without conflict, contradiction, or stigma from either side. In fact, I don’t see them as opposing forces at all. Science from a theistic perspective is the study of secondary causes in regard to their particular natures and their relationships. The philosophy of theism, assuming that it respects the capacity of science, is about finding the ultimate cause of all secondary causes. There is no point trying to find empirical evidence of a divine designer in nature because this very act is to question the reality of secondary causes. Saying that we cannot find evidence of Abiogenesis is never enough evidence to say that it could not happen naturally, neither does it make sense to admit of a physical existence of secondary causes only to say that God must interfere with physical processes somewhere down the line as that would seem to limit God’s creative power. At the same time it makes no sense to say that because we observe physical secondary causes that ultimately this is evidence that the ground of all beings is physical activity itself.

Science is not the study of ultimate reality, and theism is not the study of secondary causes in terms of their particular natures.

Irreducible complexity can only exist in a universe that has a flawed design to begin with.

A naturally evolving universe is consistent with what we observe.

The intelligent design argument seems to argue for a neo-pagan idea of the universe.

 

[Aloysium]

A naturally evolving universe is inconsistent with what I observe.
I observe persons, cats and dogs, flowers and trees, rocks and supernovae, all of which exist as themselves, mysteries which I can know and love.
There is a jump in the nature of each type of being from its constituent parts.
The parts coming together do not in themselves create the new whole.
You and I exist as ourselves and it is very peculiar the facility with which philosophical systems can abolish what is most real, the person.

 

[IWantGod]

A naturally evolving universe is inconsistent with what I observe.
I observe persons, cats and dogs, flowers and trees, rocks and supernovae, all of which exist as themselves, mysteries which I can know and love.
There is a jump in the nature of each type of being from its constituent parts.
The parts coming together do not in themselves create the new whole.
You and I exist as ourselves and it is very peculiar the facility with which philosophical systems can abolish what is most real, the person.

So what happen to the dinosaurs and other organisms that are now extinct? Animal life today is obviously not identical to what it was in the distant past. Why has biological natures significantly changed in its form over time during the history of life on this planet?

I am not denying the value of human-beings. I’m just saying that the idea of animal life being static in its form and not evolving is not consistent with what science has discovered. Why should I distrust empirical science?

 

[Aloysium]

So what happen to the dinosaurs and other organisms that are now extinct? Animal life today is obviously not identical to what it was in the distant past. Why has biological natures significantly changed in its form over time during the history of life on this planet?

I am not denying the value of human-beings. I’m just saying that the idea of animal life being static in its form and not evolving is not consistent with what science has discovered. Why should I distrust empirical science?

You may be reading things into what I said that I did not intend. Always glad to act as someone’s foil, I still don’t like being misunderstood.

They all, dinosaurs and their avian descendants, have animal souls which make them who they are individually.
There is a big difference being a rock (sit with one sometime) and being a plant.
There is a huge difference between an animal and a human being, however infirm that person may be.

I do not know how God created man, but create him from the dust, He did. And, from one man, we have all arisen and fallen, and through one man who is God, we are saved.

In a previous Hindu/Buddhist mind set, I would have imagined something like a life-force seeking perfection from a ground of matter, organizing itself through successive forms into mankind who could then awaken to its true Divine nature. I wrongly interpreted my coming into being as an evolutionary process. The person is radically different from primates. We are eternal as ourselves. We have a spiritual soul which makes us different from the life around us, and with whom we share a physical nature.

I don’t understand what you are arguing against. I most likely would share your view.
As to distrusting empirical science, that one disagrees with modern, eventually to be supplanted views and interpretations, is to not to lack faith in a method which should not be taken beyond its limitations.

 

[IWantGod]

The person is radically different from primates. We are eternal as ourselves. We have a spiritual soul which makes us different from the life around us, and with whom we share a physical nature.

I agree that it is our soul that makes us different, but that doesn’t mean that our biology is not itself a product of evolution.

I’m sorry if I have misunderstood you.

I don’t understand what you are arguing against. I most likely would share your view.
As to distrusting empirical science, that one disagrees with modern, eventually to be supplanted views and interpretations, is to not to lack faith in a method which should not be taken beyond its limitations.

Well, at the moment empirical science has discovered evidence that supports an evolutionary world view. It does not support an intelligent design world-view.

 

[Aloysium]

It’s all in how one arranges the pieces of the mosaic that is scattered on the ground. I come up with a different picture with the tesserae I have in my hand, and I do have plenty.

I’m not going to enter into a debate about intelligent design vs empiricism because the argument is stacked. Empirical science is an approach and ID is a theory. They are very different things.

Empiricism, I would argue, could very easily include God as many do in their belief of randomness as a source of diversity.

God made molecules to behave the way they, one-celled creatures the way they do. We roll as we do with our free will, capable of more than instinctive thought and emotion - the capacity to give of ourselves. Molecules in themselves do not have the ability to bring into existence a living form, they are merely its components. God did that and maintains them in existence through millions of years.

 

[IWantGod]

Empiricism, I would argue, could very easily include God as many do in their belief of randomness as a source of diversity.

I do not really wish to have a debate either, I’m just pointing out the pointlessness of questioning the scientific method on the grounds that it may not produce evidence in support of intelligent design.

Nothing in nature has the power to do anything without God. It’s irrelevant.

Clearly some theists believe or have a theory that God had to at some point intervene in the physical process to give rise to “biological systems” and this “assumes” that God didn’t give physical being the power from the very beginning to look after itself. Why does an all powerful God need to intervene in physical processes when it was God that created physical reality from nothing!? It doesn’t make sense, and that’s why I cannot support ID theory.

 

[Aloysium]

All of nature reveals the presence of its Creator, the Triune Godhead.
From the smallest to the largest, all exists in relation to all else and to its Source.
An infinite symphony covering the extent of time and space, it all is, as part of His Divine plan.

God is here right now: Father to our existence, the human incarnate Son and Way to communion within the Trinity through the grace of His Holy Spirit.
We are here and now on a journey, participants in time, which He created and began some thirteen billion years ago.

It all started with a universe of light, hotter than the hottest sun, emerging from a single point of infinite density.
As it grew in size, distance-time being one of the basic relational properties of what constitutes matter, the small subatomic particles that existed about half a million years into the process, slowed down and interacted to form the protons, neutrons and electrons that would then come together as atoms.
We see levels of creation, from a substrate of light, “spoken” by God, taking shape over time, as individual expressions of material form are successively brought together, parts of an inclusive whole, which forms the substratum of the next level of creation.

What this means may be obvious.
We as individual persons constitute a whole as we exist in ourselves.
This is far more complex but similar to the whole that is each animal, each plant, each unicellular creature, as they all exist in themselves.
Life is one step up from the unity that are physical, organic and nonorganic substances, which in turn are one step up from the subatomic processes which form their constituent parts.

All that exists does so in relation to everything else.
We see this in the most basic of material structures, in the laws and principles that define what they are and what they do.
In mankind, this relational nature is fulfilled in our capacity to give of ourselves to what is other., which thereby allows us to enter into communion with the Source of all this wonder.