Evidence That the Absence of a God is Not Possible

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's what I'm saying too.

Using reason and logic we hypothesize from best sources and refine that over time. That is how human reasoning addresses new things and grows in understanding.

From Vedic Science, Theosophy and modern parapsychology I am refining my worldview. That is better than not reasoning and waiting for proof. A scientific mind will create hypotheses in the face of things science doesn't currently understand.

Making things sound "sciency" by (incorrectly) using scientific terminology, doesn't make your faith based bare claims science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Without an intelligent God how would it be possible to come up with a code like DNA?

It's just a molecule. There's no need to "come up with" molecules. Nature / chemistry produces complex molecules all the time.

When scientists call it a "code", they mean it metaphorically.

Could you develop a computer code that would perform any reasonable function, just by making random changes to the code and keeping anything that seemed to be an improvement?

Yes. It's called "genetic algorithms".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Almost as if God is just like an ordinary human programmer who's out of Redbull and struggling to get through his shift.

To be perfectly honest, a human programmer would do a better job.
A human programmer wouldn't include such extreme redundancy as it is wasteful.
(s)he also wouldn't make a product line that falls into a nested hierarchy as that is also extremely resource hungry, with loads of redundancy which in fact causes more problems then solutions.


Any human engineer who would create products in such a manner, would be fired instantly due to incompetence.

 

[1213]

False Dichotomy

Please tell, what is the third option?

 

[anotherneil]

Very good. The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is a physical being. Lack of physical evidence could be deemed as "no physical evidence" for agnosticism. Also physical means it's a physical being with a birth. I am sorry they preach you about this physical being as God in your church but one could use their intellect rather than having absolutely blind faith.

So it's actually possible to scientifically analyze your God. Unlike a metaphysical necessary being.

LOL I think you're taking my post the wrong way; I'm not religious, and I mean for real not religious; I'm not an evangelical Christian or anything like that being dishonest or unwilling to communicate by pretending that religion is something other than evangelical Christianity, or anything like that.

I'm essentially making light of this notion of proving God by showing that the absence is not possible by pointing out the flaw or problem demonstrated by the use of Bobby Henderson's version of Russell's teapot analogy, etc.

 

[Andrew Stephen]

Peace to all,

The logic of The Absence of Failure.

Bobby states, "I don't have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science. If there is a god and he's intelligent, then I would guess he has a sense of humor". Bobby Henderson

"The only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma", states Henderson.
To me in logic, pondering the Gifts of The Holy Spirit and the 277 or so Dogmas of the Faith helps one see the spiritual significance of Creation.

And to help Bobby in posing religion as science, we can use Logic to help derive the intelligence of Creation, using logic.

In logic “Every man who exists has a mother, and The New Eve is the Immaculate Conception delivering the Christ through the Virgin Birth becoming brothers and sisters with all mankind, from the Cross when The Christ said, "Ecce Mater tua", "Disciple, Behold Your Mother", the human race has a mother…”

In 0AD, Anno Domoni, Latin for the Beginning of Church Time, Mary said, "Let it become to me not my will but your will be done."

The new creation in the Code, in the intelligence will have absence of failure, or any chance to defile. In logic, static unfailing yet dynamically eternal fulfilled love will manifest creation in the Will of God. Fiat is Latin for "Let it be in the Control of The One in Power." The becoming Power will be the intelligence in the image and will not consist of choice, for the intelligence is the will that manifests immortality, uncorruptible and not able to fail, to defile the new creation, Heaven. In logic there will be No chance of failure in the new intelligence, the spotless image, free of sin, and there will be no temptations for any chance of failure from choice to fail and choice will be absent in the reimaged intelligence, reimaged from a New Mother, becoming immortal and incorruptible and the Mind, the intelligence from a New Father becoming again, glorified and transfigured.

Peace always,
Stephen Andrew

 

[McBell]

Please tell, what is the third option?

1. It started with an electric spark.
2. Molecules of life met on clay.
3. Life began at deep-sea vents.
4. Life had a chilly start.
5. The answer lies in understanding DNA formation.
6. Life had simple beginnings.

7 Theories on the Origin of Life

The answer to the origin of life remains unknown, but here are scientists best bets

www.livescience.com

I can start delving into mythology if that is not enough for you.

Though the six provided above shows you presented a false dichotomy...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you deem the Jewish God anthropomorphic? Just curious. Thank you.

All gods are personifications: ways to make otherwise-unrelatable things relatable.

In the case of the Jewish God, some of the specific things that make him an anthropomorphism is that he's described as having:

- a gender
- emotions
- a will
- the capacity for language
- a literal face and a literal butt

 

[Balthazzar]

I use the term "God" quite a bit during the day. God dammit. I'm all for using it it in this context.

It is the cultural habit of treating the ideas of gods as if they are real and true, nd relevant as a fact when it isn't. My interest is the search for truth, not the reinforcement of a tradition of religious belief that is laregly obsolete.

It was pretty much a fact until the age of reason, and then when science became the best way to decribe what is true about how things are, with gods not being included. God lost its purpose as an explanation, but has remained as a cultural element. It's caused a lot of rift in the USA between those educated in science versus creationists who reject biology. This Chritian extremism has expanded into being anti-vaccine and denying climate change, and even to rejecting expertise.

The universe was there and observed by humans well before they invented any of the many ideas of God. Humans had questions, but no way to answer them. So gods were invented to explain the magic of earthquakes, the seasons, floods, thunder, etc.

Religions have been relevant and still are to many citizens in all parts of the world. These are traditions of belief. These ideas get passed down to the next generation through social learning. Science is knoweldge and practical, and there's an interest in understanding it for the sake of advancing civilization.

I have no contrary position. I'm critical of how many still assign meaning to the word when there is nothing that correlates to the word God. I've studied the psychology of religion and it is explained how religious ideas are tied to the emotional security of believers to a degree that they can't easily let go of the idea and meaning. In essence they are trapped in an emotional box and can't escape it. Many aren't aware they are trapped, they believe they have the truth.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Well pride can sting the ego.

The mechanics of life and how each part, piece, element, etc. effects the operation of its many other parts connected to one another, I would think qualifies as something worth investigation if answers and truth are to be considered. Scientific terms are now utilized in some circles, which in times past were attributed to the gods and God, each god holding different positions, being responsible for the many actions and events that take place in life. A different language and common among most people like mathematics. Gods are the human equivalent to specific vocation and list of job duties, utilizing a long list of terms and names from past to present. This happens to be my point with the usage of little g god in contrast to the universal big G God, but the comparisons aren't always met with acceptance.

We've increased ability to understand micro-operations, the intricacies involved between the actions and events (physics) of objects and it may be in this that so many forget the application from when gods were as real as we are, and no less common than anything else prevalent in our societal structures and human understanding of how life operates. Making the connections may or may not be worthwhile for everyone but for some of us, we couldn't imagine living life any other way. Letting go of these concepts and ideals, and how our ancestors' understood life isn't anything I would be so quick to demand.


History is a fascinating subject, even more fascinating than history, in my opinion, is human history and the many implications associated with us. We're still making effort to put the pieces together in attempt to form a more coherent understanding of the origins of life, which is to suggest the birth of the universe and the events that spurred the development of the cosmos. I don't think many in our scientific communities would be all that eager to leave developed theories and our understanding derived from them where they stand, never to search for more precise answers to the mysteries that surround us.

 

[Nakosis]

Without an intelligent God how would it be possible to come up with a code like DNA?

Why do you think it is necessary to have an intelligent being about for DNA to develop?

Could you develop a computer code that would perform any reasonable function, just by making random changes to the code and keeping anything that seemed to be an improvement?

DNA doesn't do anything to "keep" improvements. DNA randomly mutates. Sometimes when DNA mutates, it doesn't survive. So no one is keeping the "improvements" around. Some mutations can survive slightly better in their current environment than other mutations. The more likely a mutation can survive, the more likely it can replicate itself. We end up with mutations, not improvements, which are more likely to survive. And, we are still suffering from this. Depending on random mutation would be a bad design. If someone intelligent were behind it, you'd think they could do a better job since the way it currently works there is a lot of wasted effort. A lot of life has to suffer needlessly.

( Answer: No - you couldn't even get the code to work to begin with, if you didn't know anything about it. )

Thankfully, no one had to. However if an "intelligent" being did go about it, maybe they weren't all that intelligent.

 

[firedragon]

LOL I think you're taking my post the wrong way; I'm not religious, and I mean for real not religious; I'm not an evangelical Christian or anything like that being dishonest or unwilling to communicate by pretending that religion is something other than evangelical Christianity, or anything like that.

I'm essentially making light of this notion of proving God by showing that the absence is not possible by pointing out the flaw or problem demonstrated by the use of Bobby Henderson's version of Russell's teapot analogy, etc.

Brother. You are absolutely evangelical. That's why you are here.

Anyway, my answer still prevails as a response to your argument. Bertrand Russel is no God my friend. So you should use your reason instead of worshiping him.

Thus, rather than ignoring what I said, you being a nice person, why not looking at what I said and actually responding to it?

Thank you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Without an intelligent God how would it be possible to come up with a code like DNA?

Ow, and also: textbook argument from ignorance.


"I don't know / understand how DNA can come about, therefor my god dun it!"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please tell, what is the third option?

For starters, option 2 is, at best, a very juvenile and inaccurate description of current several abiogenesis hypothesis. Next to that, I'ld figure there are loads of other abiogenesis options that haven't been thought up yet for one reason or another.

As for your first option, there is no reason to consider that a valid option in the first place.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Brother. You are absolutely evangelical. That's why you are here.

Anyway, my answer still prevails as a response to your argument. Bertrand Russel is no God my friend. So you should use your reason instead of worshiping him.

I didn't see anyone "worshipping" anybody in that post.
Sounds like you are trying to use that word simply to dismiss the argument instead of dealing with the argument.
A passive aggressive ad hom, if you will.

Thus, rather than ignoring what I said, you being a nice person, why not looking at what I said and actually responding to it?

More of that passive aggressiveness, I see.
He did respond. Looks like you just didn't like the response and are trying to play the person to seemingly avoid actually dealing with the response.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Without an intelligent God how would it be possible to come up with a code like DNA?

With God, how would it be possible... other than the mechanisms that wouldn't require a god?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

DNA Isn't a code.

Yes. But that is irrelevant, because DNA isn't a code.

Hogwash - DNA is a code type sequence with intelligence behind it.

 

[McBell]

Hogwash - DNA is a code type sequence with intelligence behind it.

That is a right nice bold empty claim.
Now all you gotta do is prove it.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Why do you think it is necessary to have an intelligent being about for DNA to develop?



DNA doesn't do anything to "keep" improvements. DNA randomly mutates. Sometimes when DNA mutates, it doesn't survive. So no one is keeping the "improvements" around. Some mutations can survive slightly better in their current environment than other mutations. The more likely a mutation can survive, the more likely it can replicate itself. We end up with mutations, not improvements, which are more likely to survive. And, we are still suffering from this. Depending on random mutation would be a bad design. If someone intelligent were behind it, you'd think they could do a better job since the way it currently works there is a lot of wasted effort. A lot of life has to suffer needlessly.



Thankfully, no one had to. However if an "intelligent" being did go about it, maybe they weren't all that intelligent.

I totally disagree with you. We have sight, smell, taste, and all kinds of other wonderful features that wouldn't just randomly appear.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

That is a right nice bold empty claim.
Now all you gotta do is prove it.

If you can't tell there is intelligence behind DNA I don't think I am going to be able to help you.

 

[Balthazzar]

If you can't tell there is intelligence behind DNA I don't think I am going to be able to help you.

I couldn't argue the logic in that statement. The question then becomes about a designer being responsible for the associated intelligence.