Evidence God Is

[blü 2]

Grown ups know that intelligent design theory would exist if the bible did not exist. Therefore.....

Intelligent design arguments were particularly powerful among the better educated up to the 18th century, because there seemed no alternative explanation. While God came under pressure on a number of fronts in the latter 18th century on, the cake was iced by Darwin's book 1859. It didn't introduce the idea of evolution but it suddenly gave it massive credibility across all classes.

Evolution has the additional advantage of explaining things by means of testable (ie falsifiable) statements.

Intelligent design, by contrast,

explains nothing, since it relies on magic without offering any credible demonstration that magic exists, or any credible hypothesis how magic works, and

proceeds by assertion and not by demonstration, and

attempts to use fallacious arguments, not least the argument from ignorance (you can't explain that, therefore God did it)
​

and so on.

 

[nPeace]

It's been offered it's out there do your hands work? You want it handed to you on a silver platter only to slap it down, I'm not wasting more of my time.

I'm here to debate.
That's what debate forums are for.
I'm not here looking for information. Nor asking for any.
The forums are not a school where people jump on and play teacher, and look down their noses on others as students - thinking others don't know what they know.
Actually, I feel sorry for those who are here with that mentally.
Or perhaps it's a tactic to try and demoralize their opponent.
Try to debate ... When all else fail... Try to degrade.

 

[nPeace]

Intelligent design arguments were particularly powerful among the better educated up to the 18th century, because there seemed no alternative explanation. While God came under pressure on a number of fronts in the latter 18th century on, the cake was iced by Darwin's book 1859. It didn't introduce the idea of evolution but it suddenly gave it massive credibility across all classes.

Evolution has the additional advantage of explaining things by means of testable (ie falsifiable) statements.

Intelligent design, by contrast,

explains nothing, since it relies on magic without offering any credible demonstration that magic exists, or any credible hypothesis how magic works, and

proceeds by assertion and not by demonstration, and

attempts to use fallacious arguments, not least the argument from ignorance (you can't explain that, therefore God did it)
​

and so on.

I wonder if you can give an example of magical.
If I assume that nothing brought forth something would you consider that magic?
How about existing matter moving without a mover?
If I speak of chaotic gas as dust being pulled together into an orderly system by something I can't explain, and have no idea what it is, is that magic?
If I make assumptions about things for which I do not know, nor can demonstrate, except by supposition, is that an appeal to magic?

If I speak of what is known, for example, design, and it requiring a designer, is that a fabricated fallacious argument?

 

[DustyFeet]

This is why we have chaos in equal proportion to order. God is about experiencing unimaginable possibilities.

if i replace "chaos" with "random" does it change the meaning of what you said?

edit: "randomness" instead of "random" maybe

 

[sayak83]

Scientists give suggestions based on their suppositions and inferences about scientific studies. All of that is involved in science.
The overwhelming and vast evidence you speak of, is arrived at by using those suppositions.
Why do you speak of it as though it is proven, and therefore everyone should believe it?

I'll let you show me.
Give me the procedures used to arrive at these explanations - how about the nervous system.
I'll help a little...

On the Origin of The Nervous System
Summary
Peering back through the ages for a glimpse of the first nervous systems is no easy trick. In the seventh essay in Science's series in honor of the Year of Darwin, Greg Miller discusses some tantalizing clues that scientists have recently gained about the evolutionary origins of nervous systems. They've found that some of the key molecular building blocks of neurons predate even the first multicellular organisms. By looking down the tree of life, they are concluding that assembling these components into a cell a modern neuroscientist would recognize as a neuron probably happened very early in animal evolution, more than 600 million years ago. Most scientists agree that circuits of interconnected neurons probably arose soon thereafter, first as diffuse webs and later as a centralized brain and nerves. But the resolution on this picture is fuzzy. The order in which early branches split off the animal tree of life is controversial, and different arrangements imply different story lines for the origins and early evolution of nervous systems. Scientists also disagree on which animals were the first to have a centralized nervous system and how many times neurons and nervous systems evolved independently.

I've presented evidence myself. Isn't that the title of the thread?
Why don't you show me why my evidence is not strong.


I am openly are fairly debating - giving everyone a chance to present their arguments.
I have not seen any tsunami of evidence in the first place. Did you present any?

Let me look

That was your offer. Was that an attempt at debating? Was I supposed to debate that? How?

So why are you here, if it's not to debate?

Do you wish to discuss how the evolutionary process satisfactorily explains the origins and subsequent development of the nervous system? I am happy to discuss this. Would you like me to start a new thread on that specific topic? I worry that this thread has too many divergent conversations going and will distract from a sustained discussion on the subject.

 

[blü 2]

I wonder if you can give an example of magical.
If I assume that nothing brought forth something would you consider that magic?

Magic is the altering of reality independently of the rules of physics, usually just by wishing. Miracles are therefore a subset of magic.

How about existing matter moving without a mover?

Moving relative to what?

If I speak of chaotic gas as dust being pulled together into an orderly system by something I can't explain, and have no idea what it is, is that magic?

If I were in that position, and uncomprehending, I'd put it down to my ignorance, not to magic. Magic is essentially not credible, there being not one authenticated example anywhere, so you have to exhaust all the other options, even the most grossly improbable ones, before magic can be the answer.

If I make assumptions about things for which I do not know, nor can demonstrate, except by supposition, is that an appeal to magic?

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I guess it could be the supposition of magic. I don't see any way it could actually be magic.

If I speak of what is known, for example, design, and it requiring a designer, is that a fabricated fallacious argument?

Depends what you mean by a designer. As for inanimate things, should we think that every snowflake is designed and made by some tiny sentient master-craftsthing with nothing better to do? As for living things, evolution is well described, its conclusions constantly tested and retested, and evolution accounts for the fact that particular living things have the particular qualities they do. We know why flowers gain from being colorful, why surviving long enough to reproduce is the central essential of life, why humans bond, and the biochemicals involved, and so on ─ no designer needed at any point.

 

[leroy]

I'ma come back. Give you a perspective, I was sick most my childhood in hospital etc and wasn't raised in a religious household and environment. I went to church a couple years on my own and studies the bible but nothing spiritual. The closest spiritual thing I got at high school was hanging around with my Catholic friend for years.

About six years ago I had became Catholic or the wrong reasons. I knew more about spirituality through those years than my whole life. But I never asked where we came from and had a deep non superficial philosophical prayer about who and what god was.

Later in life, I started respecting religious truths and religions in general. I stopped going to church cause I felt it wrong to commune without being part of communion.

A lot of it was not spiritual in the sense that i believed what others did. I had my own interpretation until I accepted I do not believe deities exist no matter the design and how much I stare at the sky and am grateful being alive through surgery. Just isn't there.

When I came on RF I found people with many views and seekers and evangelist with so many views it got me interested in Why people believe as they do.

I've practiced Dharma for five some odd years off and on through a few lineages. The death question came four years back when my grandmother passed away and I experienced a mystic moment a week after. My aunt/my friend passed this year.

So, that's how I got to the "big questions" but I'm not a seeker of religions. I'm just me.

With the design, origin, god, and wonders of the universe apart from earth and self I never pondered away from the telescope.

So this and many conversations here are actually new. Sometimes I pick up a new spin on a repeated topic. But depends on how patient the other is and open to discuss.

Take your time reading this. Just give you background. I'ma find that video somewhere in my YouTube ones and some others you may like and return to your post.​

That is my point, why do you ponder about the big questions? Why do you care if there are other planets when you look in your telescope? humans what to know and understand stuff just for the sake of knowing and understanding, sometimes we waste money, energy, brain power in finding answers for useless questions.

Imagine 2 communities of apes.

Community one: is intelligent, they can solve practical problems, for example if they need to travel faster, they would invent a vehicle that would allow them to travel faster, but they don’t have the capacity nor the curiosity to answer the “big questions” they simple don’t care.

Community two: Is also intelligent and good in solving practical problems, but it also wonders about the “Big Questions”

From an atheist perspective, Natural selection would select “community 1”, because “Community 2” has unnecessarily complex brains and wastes precious energy in useless philosophical stuff. Any member of community 2 would be less likely to evolve and less likely to survive.

Given that we are like “community 2” we can say that atheism is likely to be wrong

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Woah. Didnt know you did this so soon. I just got online.. Anyway....

That is my point, why do you ponder about the big questions? Why do you care if there are other planets when you look in your telescope? humans what to know and understand stuff just for the sake of knowing and understanding, sometimes we waste money, energy, brain power in finding answers for useless questions.

I dont. I wasnt raised in a household that asked questions like that, and only just recently have I lived in a 100 percent christian environment.

I love geology or the study of the earth. Ima nature fanatic but you can say its spiritual, but Im just me.

I think youre talking about other people who do this. I dont have the time and energy in my head to ponder the universe and god and so forth.

Imagine 2 communities of apes.

Community one: is intelligent, they can solve practical problems, for example if they need to travel faster, they would invent a vehicle that would allow them to travel faster, but they don’t have the capacity nor the curiosity to answer the “big questions” they simple don’t care.

Community two: Is also intelligent and good in solving practical problems, but it also wonders about the “Big Questions”

From an atheist perspective, Natural selection would select “community 1”, because “Community 2” has unnecessarily complex brains and wastes precious energy in useless philosophical stuff. Any member of community 2 would be less likely to evolve and less likely to survive.

Actually, thats a generalization. I just dont believe in deities. ALl what you mentioned doesnt apply to me. Big questions arent aligned with god. Many worldviews, philosophers, and religious address these questions. Not all of us feel the need to but its interesting nonetheless.

Given that we are like “community 2” we can say that atheism is likely to be wrong

How so?

How do you define a deity to which any person can know without experience?

In other words, if deities exist, can you explain it from a universal standpoint or only personal?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You can search in YoutTube for: our brain creates reality
A lot of interesting stuff

We all wonder about deep (and useless) philosophical stuff. .where did the universe came from? Are there other universes? Does God excist? ... I am sure you have wondered about these stuff.

No. I never asked that. The universe wasnt created. Everything changes and forms within each other. Im not into astrology, so I dont know the mechanics.

I remember hearing about aliens and maybe we can live on Mars.

As for god, no. I mean, think about it? If god is not in your reality, how can you just make-one-up just because you hear other people believe it and read it in books?

However these stuff is selectivly useless, who cares if we ever answer those questions , that won't help our specie to survive.

Many people care. Its not useless just it never entered my worldview for many reasons.

So why did evolution and natural selection select unecesairly complex brains capable of wondering about useless philosophical stuff? Why wasting so much energy in the production of unecesairly mental processes?

Think of it another way. Since god (as said) created the universe, why would you not think he did so by evolution and natural selection?

Do you think evolution and natural selection are random??

It depends on what you want to accomplish. I dont see it a waste of time. I like studying the workings of the mind when I have the terminology to understand what Im interested in. Why-this. Why-that. If I went to The Dharma, The Buddha mentions not to even think about things like that. Even the afterlife he put aside because it doesnt lead to the goal of enlightenment. These questions are distractions.

If naturalism (and darwinism) where true, humans would not be capable of wondering about useless philosophical stuff ... however you are thinking about useless philosophical stuff when you make these "atheist arguments"

Useless??

Atheist arguments??
What arguments do atheist make offline??

I mean, Im an atheist but without going on RF, what arguments am I supporting all because I dont believe in god?

What you said doesnt make sense.

Just to be clear: with "useless" I mean useless in the context of evolution and natural selection , something is useless if it doesn't make us more likely to survive and reproduce.

If you change your perception, natural selection and evolution could be how god created life.

I like going to this museum. Its interesting when it talks about evolution The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program The thing is, why is this a threat to some god-believers?

Does it try to disprove god???

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You can search in YoutTube for: our brain creates reality
A lot of interesting stuff

We all wonder about deep (and useless) philosophical stuff. .where did the universe came from? Are there other universes? Does God excist? ... I am sure you have wondered about these stuff.

No. I never asked that. The universe wasnt created. Everything changes and forms within each other. Im not into astrology, so I dont know the mechanics.

I remember hearing about aliens and maybe we can live on Mars.

As for god, no. I mean, think about it? If god is not in your reality, how can you just make-one-up just because you hear other people believe it and read it in books?

However these stuff is selectivly useless, who cares if we ever answer those questions , that won't help our specie to survive.

Many people care. Its not useless just it never entered my worldview for many reasons.

So why did evolution and natural selection select unecesairly complex brains capable of wondering about useless philosophical stuff? Why wasting so much energy in the production of unecesairly mental processes?

Think of it another way. Since god (as said) created the universe, why would you not think he did so by evolution and natural selection?

Do you think evolution and natural selection are random??

It depends on what you want to accomplish. I dont see it a waste of time. I like studying the workings of the mind when I have the terminology to understand what Im interested in. Why-this. Why-that. If I went to The Dharma, The Buddha mentions not to even think about things like that. Even the afterlife he put aside because it doesnt lead to the goal of enlightenment. These questions are distractions.

If naturalism (and darwinism) where true, humans would not be capable of wondering about useless philosophical stuff ... however you are thinking about useless philosophical stuff when you make these "atheist arguments"

Useless??

Atheist arguments??
What arguments do atheist make offline??

I mean, Im an atheist but without going on RF, what arguments am I supporting all because I dont believe in god?

What you said doesnt make sense.

Just to be clear: with "useless" I mean useless in the context of evolution and natural selection , something is useless if it doesn't make us more likely to survive and reproduce.

If you change your perception, natural selection and evolution could be how god created life.

I like going to this museum. Its interesting when it talks about evolution The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program The thing is, why is this a threat to some god-believers?

Does it try to disprove god???

 

[sealchan]

natural, non-intelligent design.... natural, non-intelligent design....
In order to understand this, I had to take out non-intelligent. So what is natural design?
First, I think, one has to ask the question what is design, then ask the question, can design occur naturally?
What are your thoughts?

In order to claim something is designed, without the designer showing up and claiming credit, you need a method for determining what is and what is not designed. If everything is designed because there is an intelligent designer behind it, then there is no way to distinguish and the claim is effectively meaningless.

I could give MY understanding but this OP is about yours.

So can you provide an example of something that is not designed or not the result of an intelligent designer? If not, then I think this OP is self-negating and does not provide any useful insight into the nature or origin of anything.

Without dark there is no light. Without non-design there is no design.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That mental work went into its programming and operation. Objectives and functions are carried out. My intuition says there is reasoning in the makings. Maybe its all adapting on the fly, or it was preprogrammed to adapt.

I cant yet see it being totally haphazard

You are a theistic evolutionist, then?

 

[leroy]

I like going to this museum. Its interesting when it talks about evolution The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program The thing is, why is this a threat to some god-believers?

Does it try to disprove god???

That is my point, why do you go to museums? …you answer would be:

Well because you like to learn for the sake of learning, you simply what to understand stuff about our past. You are simply curios in knowing and understanding this stuff.

But this type of curiosity requires an extra layer of complexity I our brain, which is useless from the point of view of natural selection and consumes a lot of energy. (Therefore it would be selectively negative, and unlikely to be selected by natural selection),

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That is my point, why do you go to museums? …you answer would be:

Well because you like to learn for the sake of learning, you simply what to understand stuff about our past. You are simply curios in knowing and understanding this stuff.

But this type of curiosity requires an extra layer of complexity I our brain, which is useless from the point of view of natural selection and consumes a lot of energy. (Therefore it would be selectively negative, and unlikely to be selected by natural selection),

No. It's like any subject. If I study psychology that doesn't mean I have some secret reason to understand why religious are religious.

There is nothing special in interest in topics regardless of what they are. That doesn't make sense. Religion isn't special unless we use it to better our lives. If it's academic, then thats as fat as it goes.

 

[leroy]

No. It's like any subject. If I study psychology that doesn't mean I have some secret reason to understand why religious are religious.

There is nothing special in interest in topics regardless of what they are. That doesn't make sense. Religion isn't special unless we use it to better our lives. If it's academic, then thats as fat as it goes.

Grate, but that is not my argument.

My argument is that humans are curios creatures who what to learn stuff, just for the sake of learning, for example scientists what to understand what dark matter is, just because they are curios. Agree….yes or no?

This type of curiosity requires an extra layer of complexity in our brain……..agree? yes or no?

This extra layer of complexity demands additional energy (complex brains require more energy than simple brains)……agree? Yes or no?

This type of curiosity is selectively useless, (understanding dark matter would not make our specie better in surviving and reproducing) agree? yes or no?

“Godless Natural selection” is unlikely to select an attribute that is useless and consumes a lot of energy agree? Yes or no?

If you grant these points it follows that the human brain, who has these type of curiosity, is not likely to evolve by a mechanism of “Godless Natural selection”

 

[osgart]

You are a theistic evolutionist, then?

I dont believe in an omnipotent being.

 

[David T]

Intelligent design arguments were particularly powerful among the better educated up to the 18th century, because there seemed no alternative explanation. While God came under pressure on a number of fronts in the latter 18th century on, the cake was iced by Darwin's book 1859. It didn't introduce the idea of evolution but it suddenly gave it massive credibility across all classes.

Evolution has the additional advantage of explaining things by means of testable (ie falsifiable) statements.

Intelligent design, by contrast,

explains nothing, since it relies on magic without offering any credible demonstration that magic exists, or any credible hypothesis how magic works, and

proceeds by assertion and not by demonstration, and

attempts to use fallacious arguments, not least the argument from ignorance (you can't explain that, therefore God did it)
​

and so on.

Therefore the topic exists independwnt from the bible and has zero to do with the bible. A simple child like understanding of the topic of ID is " we exist in a virtual reality." that is false.

 

[blü 2]

Therefore the topic exists independwnt from the bible and has zero to do with the bible.

I don't agree, and the court in the Dover trial 2005 didn't agree either, ruling that ID was just a mask for creationism with fingers crossed that it could avoid the pre-existing rulings of SCOTUS and be taught (as "science"! unbelievable!) in schools.

The Intelligent Designer has to be God, and since its proponents are Creo Christians, the Creo Christian God. If the ID is not a god then ID doesn't propose a solution, merely an infinite regression: how did the ID evolve to the point where it could get into the ID business, when humans can't? Their evolution must have been modified by an earlier ID, who not being God, must have evolved with the assistance of an earlier ID, who not being God, must have &c &c &c.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Grate, but that is not my argument.

My argument is that humans are curios creatures who what to learn stuff, just for the sake of learning, for example scientists what to understand what dark matter is, just because they are curios. Agree….yes or no?

This type of curiosity requires an extra layer of complexity in our brain……..agree? yes or no?

This extra layer of complexity demands additional energy (complex brains require more energy than simple brains)……agree? Yes or no?

This type of curiosity is selectively useless, (understanding dark matter would not make our specie better in surviving and reproducing) agree? yes or no?

“Godless Natural selection” is unlikely to select an attribute that is useless and consumes a lot of energy agree? Yes or no?

If you grant these points it follows that the human brain, who has these type of curiosity, is not likely to evolve by a mechanism of “Godless Natural selection”

Everything yes but the godless comment. Natural selection could be gods way of creation, true?

Creation doesn't need the supernatural to be an act of God.

 

[Looncall]

Grate, but that is not my argument.

My argument is that humans are curios creatures who what to learn stuff, just for the sake of learning, for example scientists what to understand what dark matter is, just because they are curios. Agree….yes or no?

This type of curiosity requires an extra layer of complexity in our brain……..agree? yes or no?

This extra layer of complexity demands additional energy (complex brains require more energy than simple brains)……agree? Yes or no?

This type of curiosity is selectively useless, (understanding dark matter would not make our specie better in surviving and reproducing) agree? yes or no?

“Godless Natural selection” is unlikely to select an attribute that is useless and consumes a lot of energy agree? Yes or no?

If you grant these points it follows that the human brain, who has these type of curiosity, is not likely to evolve by a mechanism of “Godless Natural selection”

General curiosity would certainly be a useful trait as it would assist in knowing about one's environment.

Various traits are side effects of useful ones. For example, infants learning from parents, while necessary for practical matters, also makes them vulnerable to scams like religion.

Your argument is specious.