Evidence of God existence

[PureX]

There does not have to be a “why”.

There already is a why. We just don't know what it is. The why was built into human nature by those same processes that you claim "explain" everything. And yet we can't even explain why we're asking why.

 

[stvdv]

27 jul 2018 stvdv 020 47

God is the Creator of the Universe
His Creation is the best evidence

How is that evidence for a god?

I started a thread about "definition of God"
Result was that all have a personal definition of God

Atheist = Lack of believe in God
Theist = Personal Believe in God

So as far as I know an Atheist has not a definition of God. So he need not be bothered about evidence for a God
We theists all have a personal definition of God. And according to the definition we find our evidence

I do not believe there is a need for God to realize your goal in life
Both atheist and theist are okay for me; So I don't evangelize at all

So I feel no need to convince an Atheist that it's important to know God
And naturally someone with "lack of believe in God" can't convince me not to believe in God

When starting my spiritual Quest I didn't even want to hear other's evidence for a God
For 30 years I gathered my own experiences and that is proof enough for me

 

[stvdv]

Do you include the Ebola virus and parasitic wasps in that?
Ciao

- viole

Sure. Aids also.

 

[viole]

Sure. Aids also.

Cool. That surely cries for a designer.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Apologes]

The arguments of natural theology seem to me to be the most persuasive thing one could offer as evidence for theism. None of these arguments (much like the ones for atheism) are uncontroversial nor do they establish their conclusion with absolute certainty (as some people here seem to want) however depending on the amount of mechanisms which you are willing to accept as plausible and which undergird these arguments you may find them more plausible than not.

 

[Walterbl]

Why? Reality doesn't conform to our commonsense experience of cause and effect. Actual reality, it turns out, is wildly counterintuitive.

Still. Basic logic dictates that something can't come out of nothing. It is impossible.

Causes may be overrated.
We don't know, entirely. This is an active area of research, but postulating an invisible, supernatural being working magic isn't a reasonable "explanation."

It is a perfectly good explanation, and the most basic one to the origin of the universe.

Is this a Poe? Evolution is one of the best supported, most consilient facts in history. The germ theory or heliocentrism are wild speculation in comparison.

It is not. A ton of it is pure speculation. There are lots of problems with it.

Why is abiogenesis "statistically impossible?" The elements of life are known to form naturally. Why is self assembly and life unbelievable?

Because of the insane complexity of even the most basic form of life. It not only requires the blocks of life to be there but to assemble themselves into an incredible complex way.

Do you believe there was once a time when there was no life on Earth? Do you believe Earth now has life? If so, the statistically probability is demonstrated to be 100%, and you, yourself, believe in abiogenesis.

By abiogenesis it means life assembling itself. It don't believe that.

No. Theism is unsupported, and atheism cannot be "true" because it makes no assertions. Validation requires something to be validated. Atheism is a default, not a belief.

Incorrect. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

Validation requires consistent, testable, tangible, repeatable facts. These spiritual experiences are all over the board, as are the 'spiritual beings' these people report.

They have a lot of things in common.

Quite the opposite. There are no first person accounts of Jesus, and the gospels are inconsistent and contradictory.

They are not. The so called contradictions can be harmoized with the proper interpretation.

Hearsay and folkore are not considered accurate evidence by historians.

Gospels are not considered folkore by historians.

Why not? Lots of myths and myth-based religions become persistent and widespread. You argue ad populum.

Not in the context christianity did. And no single religion matches anywhere near the success christianity achieved.

Which year is it?

Our existence can be explained by natural means. No magic required.

A fully material explanation for all of existence is far from complete.

 

[Willamena]

what is the best evidence of God existence?

For me, nothingness is the best evidence.

All that can be explained is how we got to be the way we are. But we still have no idea at all WHY we are the way we are. WHY we are here at all. Or WHY ANYTHING ELSE exists. We know nothing of the origins of existence, nor of it's purpose. And I see no logical reason to accept a little bit of information about the process by which our physical nature has been defined as an explanation for our existence. Especially when we have been designed, it seems, by nature itself, to be curious, and to seek out such knowledge.

There is something because there is nothing.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

All material things are concrete but some concrete things might be immaterial. Shadows and holes have locations and durations but they are not made of anything material. There is extraneous light in shadows and extraneous matter in holes; but these are contaminants rather than constituents. Cracks can spread, be counted, and concealed. Once we acknowledge the existence of cracks, we get an unexpected transcendental explanation of why there is something: If there is nothing then there is an absence of anything. Therefore, there exists something (either a positive concrete entity or an absence).​

 

[PureX]

For me, nothingness is the best evidence.

There is something because there is nothing.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/

All material things are concrete but some concrete things might be immaterial. Shadows and holes have locations and durations but they are not made of anything material. There is extraneous light in shadows and extraneous matter in holes; but these are contaminants rather than constituents. Cracks can spread, be counted, and concealed. Once we acknowledge the existence of cracks, we get an unexpected transcendental explanation of why there is something: If there is nothing then there is an absence of anything. Therefore, there exists something (either a positive concrete entity or an absence).​

"When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn't possess,
acts but doesn't expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever."

Few humans understand that the dualistic world they see all around them is an illusion created in the human mind by the way the human mind perceives itself and then tries to make sense of it. Reality is the singular whole, not the particularly perceived parts. The truth is as much about what 'is' as it's about what 'isn't'. In fact, the truth is that there is no 'is or isn't' until our minds start trying to make sense of itself, and of the world it imagines that it inhabits.
​

 

[MonkeyFire]

Possessing faith.

 

[Audie]

Still. Basic logic dictates that something can't come out of nothing. It is impossible.



It is a perfectly good explanation, and the most basic one to the origin of the universe.




It is not. A ton of it is pure speculation. There are lots of problems with it.



Because of the insane complexity of even the most basic form of life. It not only requires the blocks of life to be there but to assemble themselves into an incredible complex way.



By abiogenesis it means life assembling itself. It don't believe that.



Incorrect. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.



They have a lot of things in common.



They are not. The so called contradictions can be harmoized with the proper interpretation.



Gospels are not considered folkore by historians.



Not in the context christianity did. And no single religion matches anywhere near the success christianity achieved.

Which year is it?



A fully material explanation for all of existence is far from complete.

Do you know what the most basic form of life is?

Could you describe- be as technical
as you like, I've an organic chemist handy-
what "the blocks of life" are? I am not familiar
with the term.

You spoke of self-assembly as an
oddity, or improbability?

Could you identify any molecule that did
not self asdemble-outside of a lab, that is?

Finally, regsrding basic life, could you identify
the bright line distinction between life, and
non life?

You spoke with great certainty on these matters,
so I am confident that you can provide this information.

 

[Audie]

"When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn't possess,
acts but doesn't expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever."

Few humans understand that the dualistic world they see all around them is an illusion created in the human mind by the way the human mind perceives itself and then tries to make sense of it. Reality is the singular whole, not the particularly perceived parts. The truth is as much about what 'is' as it's about what 'isn't'. In fact, the truth is that there is no 'is or isn't' until our minds start trying to make sense of itself, and of the world it imagines that it inhabits.
​

This is what you think you see
As now you perceive things to be.

 

[Valjean]

All that can be explained is how we got to be the way we are. But we still have no idea at all WHY we are the way we are. WHY we are here at all. Or WHY ANYTHING ELSE exists. We know nothing of the origins of existence, nor of it's purpose. And I see no logical reason to accept a little bit of information about the process by which our physical nature has been defined as an explanation for our existence.

Agreed. All we can explain is mechanism and function. Those are within the purview of science. Once you attempt to insert intentionality, with questions about purpose, you've left the reservation. You've created a straw man.
"How" can be studied. "Who" could potentially be studied, but, as yet, there's no evidence to work with.

"Why," on the other hand, is an extraneous, artificial requirement that presupposes intention -- and an intender. It's a priori. It's an unnecessary, stealth injection of God into the equation as a premise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Especially when we have been designed, it seems, by nature itself, to be curious, and to seek out such knowledge.

But that design feature, like bipedalism and an opposable thumb, is functional and selective, there's nothing special about it.

Doe not require at "first cause". By definition, God IS the "first cause"; the primary cause, and the only cause. The fact that we cannot understand this beyond our own questions does not negate the term, the mystery, or the concept.

So you're 'defining' yourself out of the logical requirement you place on everything else?
I'm still waiting for any real evidence of a God, other than a desire for purpose and meaning.

 

[Valjean]

There already is a why. We just don't know what it is. The why was built into human nature by those same processes that you claim "explain" everything. And yet we can't even explain why we're asking why.

But you invented why. It's a psychological opiate. "What is man, that thou art mindful of him?"

People are disturbed by insignificance, and they invent all sorts of mythology putting themselves at the crown of creation. They 'invent' cosmic significance and purpose to bolster their own egos.

 

[Walterbl]

Do you know what the most basic form of life is?

The most basic known form of life is bacteria.

Could you describe- be as technical
as you like, I've an organic chemist handy-
what "the blocks of life" are?

Aminoacids

You spoke of self-assembly as an
oddity, or improbability?

As very improbable. Even the most simple cell contains many aminoacids assembled in an specific arrangement, The odds of even the most simple form of life randomly assembling itself is practically zero.

could you identify
the bright line distinction between life, and
non life?

Life is characterized by functions such as reproduction, metabolism, growth, among others. I guess any self replicating molecule would be the most basic form of life.

 

[Valjean]

The most basic known form of life is bacteria.

As very improbable. Even the most simple cell contains many aminoacids assembled in an specific arrangement, The odds of even the most simple form of life randomly assembling itself is practically zero.

But the components of life: amino acids, cell walls. &c. arise spontaneously all the time, through simple chemistry. high school biology classes create them all the time as teaching exercises.
There is a continuum: inorganic molecules, lifelike molecules, self replicating structures, proto cells to recognizable organisms.

Where did you come up with this probability assessment? Doesn't the fact of life's existence point to a 100% 'probability'?

Life is characterized by functions such as reproduction, metabolism, growth, among others. I guess any self replicating molecule would be the most basic form of life.

Not full life, but on the spectrum.

 

[Audie]

The most basic known form of life is bacteria.



Aminoacids



As very improbable. Even the most simple cell contains many aminoacids assembled in an specific arrangement, The odds of even the most simple form of life randomly assembling itself is practically zero.



Life is characterized by functions such as reproduction, metabolism, growth, among others. I guess any self replicating molecule would be the most basic form of life.

Amino acids aint all that tough to make,
as they do self assemble under a variety of
conditions. Like even on a comet, say.

Nobody has successfully defined life, so dont
expect yourself to be able to. In the event,
I asked for something else- the bright line
distinction between living and non living.

Nobody knows that either. I will let you work
out how that affects your ideas.

If self replicsting =life, then artificial life is
already a reality in the lab.

The stats and "randomly assembling" things
are creationist canards that get no respect
among biochemists.


Canard, or strawman, nobody proposes that life started
as a cell randomly assembling itself.

On stats, btw, if you take 330 million cubic miles of
water, lots of simple-to-more complex organic molecules
spontaneously self assembling under avariety of condotions,
you've got a lot to work with.

You do recognize that organic molecules do spontaneously
self assemble..?

Then , take into account that reactions tend to happen
pretty fast, multiply the fast and the slow by, oh, a billion
years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The most basic known form of life is bacteria.

Not necessarily. Some count viruses as being alive. And today's bacteria have been evolving for over three billion years. Of course they are going to be more "complex" than the earliest of life. It is a gross error to assume that the earliest of life would be as complex as today's life.

Aminoacids

And they form naturally under all sorts of conditions.

As very improbable. Even the most simple cell contains many aminoacids assembled in an specific arrangement, The odds of even the most simple form of life randomly assembling itself is practically zero.

What mkes you think that self assembly is random? The laws of chemistry limit what can form. It is not totally random as creationists try to claim.

Life is characterized by functions such as reproduction, metabolism, growth, among others. I guess any self replicating molecule would be the most basic form of life.

By that standard man is very close to reproducing abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is a complex problem that could barely have begun to be tackled until we understood how life works itself.

 

[Milton Platt]

I started a thread about "definition of God"
Result was that all have a personal definition of God

Atheist = Lack of believe in God
Theist = Personal Believe in God

So as far as I know an Atheist has not a definition of God. So he need not be bothered about evidence for a God
We theists all have a personal definition of God. And according to the definition we find our evidence

I do not believe there is a need for God to realize your goal in life
Both atheist and theist are okay for me; So I don't evangelize at all

So I feel no need to convince an Atheist that it's important to know God
And naturally someone with "lack of believe in God" can't convince me not to believe in God

When starting my spiritual Quest I didn't even want to hear other's evidence for a God
For 30 years I gathered my own experiences and that is proof enough for me

Interesting. I must have missed that thread.

The only reason atheists "worry" about a definition of god is that theists continually attempt to proselytize. If nobody did that, I agree, I would not really care.

 

[Milton Platt]

There already is a why. We just don't know what it is. The why was built into human nature by those same processes that you claim "explain" everything. And yet we can't even explain why we're asking why.

I'm okay with answering how, and we are answering more of the "hows" all the time. How do you know that there is a "why"?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't know of any evidence that shows that God exists. I know that many people claim many things are evidence for God, but none that I have heard about definitively tell us that God exists. I have faith, but my faith is not evidence that God exists. It is evidence that I have faith God exists. My reasons for believing are my own, but even I could not use them to show that God exists.