Arguments for the existance of God that don't fall into the "God of the Gaps."

[Harold]

I am sure that I will not be able to explain this correctly but here it goes...


We have a book, the oldest verifiable date is about 400 years before Christ. I believe that is the date given to the dead sea scrolls?


This book dates the coming of Christ down to the letter 400 years before He showed up.


Now I am not going to get into the math about how the chances of just a few of these coming true, not the three hundred or so but just the prophecies about his birth, his life, his miracles, his death, and his resurrection would be as likely as covering the state of Texas two feet deep in silver dollars and finding just one coin out of all of those.


Now I know some people will say He didn't exist even though in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus.


And it is hardly likely that early Christians would have risked their lives on the basis of a myth.


Historian Durant draws the conclusion: 'That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.'


So my problem isn't just that it wouldn't be easy to invent an unusual character and then present a consistent portrait of him throughout book after book but my problem is that the second series of books that make up part #2 was planned to come out 400 years after the oldest copy we know of.


How was the author of the first series of books that make up part 1 able to make book #2 come out 4,000 years later (as predicated) in book #1?

 

[Harold]

You are putting words into my mouth. I am not saying that we will prove that God doesn't exist or even that specific instances of confusion aren't actually the work of the divine, just that we simply do not know yet. I think we should keep searching for physical/natural explanations until we have more information.

I wonder if it the physical and natural explanations could be the problem in our understanding ...

Paul said not to worry about the meaning of the word but to look for the spiritual meaning (Romans 7:6)

“The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.” (2 Corinthians 3:6)

Maybe our problem is that we debate the physical and ignore the spiritual.

 

[leibowde84]

I wonder if it the physical and natural explanations could be the problem in our understanding ...

Paul said not to worry about the meaning of the word but to look for the spiritual meaning (Romans 7:6)

“The letter kills, but the spirit gives life.” (2 Corinthians 3:6)

Maybe our problem is that we debate the physical and ignore the spiritual.

I think there is value in scientific knowledge and discovery. The inherent subjectivity of spirituality would endanger this process, imho.

 

[stevevw]

I have been listening to a lot of debates regarding arguments for the existance of God. I have yet to hear one that goes beyond the "God of the gaps" in any way. Basically, the theist argument comes down to this ... if science and our limited brains/minds cannot fathom an explanation for something, it is reasonable to assume that God had something to do with it. The Ontological Argument is a striking example of this. For a long time there was no explanation for what initiated the Big Bang. Now, however, quantum physics has shown us that causation is not needed when looking at extremely small particles.

So, does anyone have an argument for the existence of God apart from personal experience, scripture, faith, or "the God of the gaps" rationale? I look forward to some interesting responses.

1. God-of-the-gaps arguments use gaps in scientific explanation as indicators, or even proof, of God's action and therefore of God's existence. Such arguments propose divine acts in place of natural, scientific causes for phenomena that science cannot yet explain.

Thats going to be a bit hard. Science itself uses the explanation that it may not completely know what the answer is. But it still assumes that the answer will lie with certain parameters, being a naturalistic cause. So any answer to such a big question as what is the cause of life and existence is going to have an element of the unknown about it. No one can say for sure what the definite answers are.

One angle I have been looking at is similar to what others have said with the complexity of life. With quantum physics we see that a particle can act in two different ways with wave action. We also see how it has this apparent amazing ability to be entangled with another particle and respond to it instantaneously even if it were on the other side of the universe. Another aspect of the quantum world is the many thought experiments that have been made such as with Schrodinger's cat being possibly alive or dead at the same time. This was showing the unpredictable possibilities that the quantum world can present to us. It shows that there can be a point in the quantum state where there can be many possibilities at the same time.

Well to me all these things we are discovering in the quantum world are verified through experiments and act in contradiction to the reality and physics we know of in the world we see around us. Yet the quantum world is probably the more real world for how things began and come into reality. What we see may just be the end result. Scientists are baffled. Its not a case of waiting to find an answer that will make everything have some ordinance and sense. Many say there is no answer to be found that will make everything fall into place and be unified. The answer they come up with will have to be something beyond our reality. Sp maybe we are seeing things the wrong way with how we measure it in our reality. Maybe there is another realm beyond our reality. Some say the answers will be in something called the theory of everything. Some scientists say if we find the theory of everything then we will know the mind of God. So thats how significant this is.

So maybe one of the qualities of God is the quantum world. In the bible it describes God as being all knowing and omnipresent and Omnipotent. So God is able to be in more than one place at the same time and is everywhere. He can make things happen instantaneously even if on opposite sides of the universe. He can take many different forms at the same time. So maybe what quantum physics is describing is God.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What assumptions are you referring to? Imho Theists seem to be making assumptions in that what cannot be explained is believed to be supernatural. Atheists do not necessarily believe that God doesn't exist, that classification merely indicates that they do not have a positive belief in God. Although I am not an atheist, I do hold them in high esteem, as they seem to be the only group that is OK with the answer "we just don't know yet, and we may never know." The God of the gaps argument is based on the assumption that the supernatural should be an option in scientific reasoning, but, in my opinion, that would be a step backwards. If scientific discovery was OK with ending a search when "God made sense," they might miss out on something that can be understood by man. That idea scares me.

Obviously there are a lot of subjective perspectives on this, but I think we can make a clear, important distinction between assumption and assertion

The atheist assumption I'm talking about is just that, it doesn't acknowledge itself as an assertion, a belief at all- that's the problematic part. Lemaitre went out of his way to distance his beliefs from his theory, because he could.
Hoyle in contrast, like many atheists, could not possibly distance a belief they didn't acknowledge existed.

Hence the negative prefix in 'a-theism', it's always easier to scrutinize other people's beliefs than your own is it not? Similarly I could label myself an a-naturalist, 'I make no assertion that needs backed up- I simply reject naturalistic origins of the universe until proven' (and meanwhile default to the obvious alternative).... but like most theists, I don't do this because I'm willing to defend my own beliefs on their own merits.

in other words..

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

 

[leibowde84]

Obviously there are a lot of subjective perspectives on this, but I think we can make a clear, important distinction between assumption and assertion

The atheist assumption I'm talking about is just that, it doesn't acknowledge itself as an assertion, a belief at all- that's the problematic part. Lemaitre went out of his way to distance his beliefs from his theory, because he could.
Hoyle in contrast, like many atheists, could not possibly distance a belief they didn't acknowledge existed.

Hence the negative prefix in 'a-theism', it's always easier to scrutinize other people's beliefs than your own is it not? Similarly I could label myself an a-naturalist, 'I make no assertion that needs backed up- I simply reject naturalistic origins of the universe until proven' (and meanwhile default to the obvious alternative).... but like most theists, I don't do this because I'm willing to defend my own beliefs on their own merits.

in other words..

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

But you are making the assumption that the explanation would be supernatural, when we have no empirical evidence that the supernatural even exists. And, atheists are not assuming anything, as they see it as foolish (for the most part) to do so. It's weird that you claim that they are trying to "take the easy street," but most Atheists will tell you that they just do not have the supporting evidence to believe like you do. You are, again, making an assumption about Atheists, as if you know what they are thinking. That is undeniable.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I believe the intelligent programming in DNA, far superior to any computer program designed by intelligent minds, is proof positive of an intelligent Designer. So did Antony Flew, one time atheist who let the evidence lead him.

It's interesting, that most atheists would accept the simplest numerical sequence floating across the airwaves from outer-space, as proof positive of alien intelligence (and hence that Earth and Humanity are not special)

Yet the countless precisely engineered mathematical algorithms that the universe, and life operates on, may be safely assumed by default to have accidentally blundered into existence for no particular purpose.

A tiny bit of a double standard?

I think fluke is always technically possible, just as it's possible for a monkey to accidentally type War and Peace, but possible does not equal most likely explanation..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But you are making the assumption that the explanation would be supernatural, when we have no empirical evidence that the supernatural even exists. And, atheists are not assuming anything, as they see it as foolish (for the most part) to do so. It's weird that you claim that they are trying to "take the easy street," but most Atheists will tell you that they just do not have the supporting evidence to believe like you do. You are, again, making an assumption about Atheists, as if you know what they are thinking. That is undeniable.

My point was that faith is not an assumption, it's a distinct declaration of one's beliefs, we all have them, whether we acknowledge them or not.

appealing for 'default' status is just a way to avoid having to back those beliefs up, but the label doesn't change the actual belief does it?

We have absolutely no evidence for any auto-universe creating mechanism, all remotely testable models have failed scientific scrutiny, not only is it not a safe assumption, it comes with it's own unique paradox of automated self-creation

We do have evidence though of a remarkable, uniquely creative phenomena, which can transcend nature, achieve what automated systems alone never can- creative intelligence.

 

[leibowde84]

My point was that faith is not an assumption, it's a distinct declaration of one's beliefs, we all have them, whether we acknowledge them or not.

appealing for 'default' status is just a way to avoid having to back those beliefs up, but the label doesn't change the actual belief does it?

We have absolutely no evidence for any auto-universe creating mechanism, all remotely testable models have failed scientific scrutiny, not only is it not a safe assumption, it comes with it's own unique paradox of automated self-creation

We do have evidence though of a remarkable, uniquely creative phenomena, which can transcend nature, achieve what automated systems alone never can- creative intelligence.

But, beliefs by definition are assumptions.

 

[McBell]

It's interesting, that most atheists would accept the simplest numerical sequence floating across the airwaves from outer-space, as proof positive of alien intelligence (and hence that Earth and Humanity are not special)

Yet the countless precisely engineered mathematical algorithms that the universe, and life operates on, may be safely assumed by default to have accidentally blundered into existence for no particular purpose.

A tiny bit of a double standard?

I think fluke is always technically possible, just as it's possible for a monkey to accidentally type War and Peace, but possible does not equal most likely explanation..

Yet you do not even mention the probability of a designer?
Not to mention the probability of it being the designer you prefer.

Yet you whine about double standards?
So much for your alleged higher ground...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's interesting, that most atheists would accept the simplest numerical sequence floating across the airwaves from outer-space, as proof positive of alien intelligence (and hence that Earth and Humanity are not special)

Yet the countless precisely engineered mathematical algorithms that the universe, and life operates on, may be safely assumed by default to have accidentally blundered into existence for no particular purpose.

A tiny bit of a double standard?

You know, something like this actually happened: in 1967, radio astronomers detected a very regular radio signal. At first, one of the hypotheses being floated around was that it was a signal from an alien intelligence (the discoverers even called the signal "LGM-1", for "little green men").

As they observed more, it became apparent that what they were seeing was a natural phenomenon: the pulsar.

An interesting historical tidbit that demonstrates the folly of trying to infer design the way you're suggesting, IMO.

Pulsar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Koldo]

I am sure that I will not be able to explain this correctly but here it goes...


We have a book, the oldest verifiable date is about 400 years before Christ. I believe that is the date given to the dead sea scrolls?


This book dates the coming of Christ down to the letter 400 years before He showed up.


Now I am not going to get into the math about how the chances of just a few of these coming true, not the three hundred or so but just the prophecies about his birth, his life, his miracles, his death, and his resurrection would be as likely as covering the state of Texas two feet deep in silver dollars and finding just one coin out of all of those.


Now I know some people will say He didn't exist even though in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus.


And it is hardly likely that early Christians would have risked their lives on the basis of a myth.


Historian Durant draws the conclusion: 'That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.'


So my problem isn't just that it wouldn't be easy to invent an unusual character and then present a consistent portrait of him throughout book after book but my problem is that the second series of books that make up part #2 was planned to come out 400 years after the oldest copy we know of.


How was the author of the first series of books that make up part 1 able to make book #2 come out 4,000 years later (as predicated) in book #1?

I think the biggest evidence that contradicts your point of view is the very existence of Judaism at this day and age. The huge number of christians we have at this day and age did not come from a massive conversion of jews. What this means is that your claim that such a book predicts the coming of Christ requires, at the very least, a particular interpretation that has been outright rejected by many jews.

 

[chalesdor]

I have been listening to a lot of debates regarding arguments for the existance of God. I have yet to hear one that goes beyond the "God of the gaps" in any way. Basically, the theist argument comes down to this ... if science and our limited brains/minds cannot fathom an explanation for something, it is reasonable to assume that God had something to do with it. The Ontological Argument is a striking example of this. For a long time there was no explanation for what initiated the Big Bang. Now, however, quantum physics has shown us that causation is not needed when looking at extremely small particles.

So, does anyone have an argument for the existence of God apart from personal experience, scripture, faith, or "the God of the gaps" rationale? I look forward to some interesting responses.

1. God-of-the-gaps arguments use gaps in scientific explanation as indicators, or even proof, of God's action and therefore of God's existence. Such arguments propose divine acts in place of natural, scientific causes for phenomena that science cannot yet explain.

I think that there is a lot of evedence that god is real. In nature we see this. There is no end to the universe, oxigin doez not wear out it works over an over in fact all mater works doez not wear out it works over an over forever. Science has no explanition for this. We live in a gient terreum. To science this is imposible. A plumbob points to the exact center of the earth, water balances its self on the earth even tho the moon pulls on it. Something holds mater togather but there is nothing there, no gravity but something holds the stars an planits in place..science has no explanition so they make up excuses that they caul theritys..

 

[leibowde84]

I think that there is a lot of evedence that god is real. In nature we see this. There is no end to the universe, oxigin doez not wear out it works over an over in fact all mater works doez not wear out it works over an over forever. Science has no explanition for this. We live in a gient terreum. To science this is imposible. A plumbob points to the exact center of the earth, water balances its self on the earth even tho the moon pulls on it. Something holds mater togather but there is nothing there, no gravity but something holds the stars an planits in place..science has no explanition so they make up excuses that they caul theritys..

This is a clear example of "the God of the gaps," as your reasoning for God's existence rests on the limits of current scientific discovery. Who's to say that one day we won't find natural explanations for all of these examples? Maybe there are events in the Cosmos that we have no idea occur that would provide answers to these questions. All I'm saying is that lack of explanation from science is not positive proof of the existence of God, imho.

 

[rusra02]

Why do you assume that DNA has "intelligent programming"?

Even if you can clear that hurdle, you're still committing a logical fallacy. Effectively, what you're saying here is that you can't think of any natural process that could result in DNA, so it must have been designed. This is an argument from ignorance (as well as just plain wrong, since all the evidence we have tells us that DNA *can* be created by natural processes.


Wait... Antony Flew? THE Antony Flew?

Never mind what I said - even though your arguments seem to have no merit at all, if Antony Flew accepted them, that's good enough for me.

Forget what I said earlier. There's no way that the great and powerful Antony Flew could be wrong!

"Even if you can clear that hurdle, you're still committing a logical fallacy. Effectively, what you're saying here is that you can't think of any natural process that could result in DNA, so it must have been designed. This is an argument from ignorance (as well as just plain wrong, since all the evidence we have tells us that DNA *can* be created by natural processes."

I won't address your doubt that DNA has intelligent programming, except to say look at what the code produces.
Soooo, a person coming upon an extraordinarily clever computer program is ignorant to deduce there must be a clever programmer who caused it, since one cannot think of any natural process that could result in it? I see. No, I don't.
As to Antony Flew, he followed the evidence. That is all.

 

[rusra02]

To the point where almosty every scientist accepts the ToE ? Really ?

I don't think almost every scientist accepts the ToE, but I do think many scientists are afraid of the consequences to their career if they express their doubts publicly. And with good reason, I think.

 

[leibowde84]

"Even if you can clear that hurdle, you're still committing a logical fallacy. Effectively, what you're saying here is that you can't think of any natural process that could result in DNA, so it must have been designed. This is an argument from ignorance (as well as just plain wrong, since all the evidence we have tells us that DNA *can* be created by natural processes."

I won't address your doubt that DNA has intelligent programming, except to say look at what the code produces.
Soooo, a person coming upon an extraordinarily clever computer program is ignorant to deduce there must be a clever programmer who caused it, since one cannot think of any natural process that could result in it? I see. No, I don't.
As to Antony Flew, he followed the evidence. That is all.

A computer is man-made, and DNA exists in nature. I'm missing the connection. Can you please clarify?

 

[rusra02]

Even the Pope acknowledged that it is undeniably the best explanation that we have.

I think that reveals more about the character of one who claims to follow the Christ than it supports the ToE.

 

[rusra02]

It's interesting, that most atheists would accept the simplest numerical sequence floating across the airwaves from outer-space, as proof positive of alien intelligence (and hence that Earth and Humanity are not special)

Yet the countless precisely engineered mathematical algorithms that the universe, and life operates on, may be safely assumed by default to have accidentally blundered into existence for no particular purpose.

A tiny bit of a double standard?

I think fluke is always technically possible, just as it's possible for a monkey to accidentally type War and Peace, but possible does not equal most likely explanation..

Exactly.

 

[rusra02]

A computer is man-made, and DNA exists in nature. I'm missing the connection. Can you please clarify?

I should think the connection is obvious. Both exhibit evidence of intelligent design. Saying something "exists in nature" doesn't change that, IMO.