INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[McBell]

Been doing this most of my life.
Got an IQ of 125.
Trained in argument and logic.
Believe in God because of science.
Been here at the forum four and half years.

Go for it.

Hey!
there is a Eros room for all that ego masturbation.

 

[nash8]

Would you like me to disassemble your claim and show you how absurd it is? I can do it, I just doubt that it would mean a thing, you'll likely just ignore it and continue on making the same ridiculous claims.

The ole' I could do it if I wanted approach. I've saw this approach once when I was a rookie.

Been doing this most of my life.
Got an IQ of 125.
Trained in argument and logic.
Believe in God because of science.
Been here at the forum four and half years.

Go for it.

Well aren't you Mr. Cool guy.

Hey!
there is a Eros room for all that ego masturbation.

Considering the remark made to elicit this response, I would say the ego masturbation was quite called for, and I forsee the result of said action ending up all over the oral cavity of a particular newly joined member.

 

[philbo]

Believe in God because of science.

How does that work, then?

 

[metis]

Regardless the source of the account....someone had to be first.

Narratives like this tend to evolve over time, so it's pretty much impossible to determine exactly when and how it first started. The most important points are the teachings in regards to morals and values and not so much as to whether the narrative is objectively correct. All scripture in all religions tend to be highly subjective.

That the Genesis account includes selection of a specimen, ideal living conditions, anesthesia, surgery, cloning and genetic manipulation...
strong indication of interference by Something Greater...

You seeing a lot more than I see being covered in Genesis, and what I see missing in the above is any accounts as to the basic teachings that tell us what we should value and how we should act.

The Genesis account is an introduction.
It would be the introduction that a Greater Power....has been here.
There was interaction.
That interaction resulted in the making of Adam....and Eve.

Unless it's allegorical, which makes much more sense, imo.

Did you notice?
Eve had no navel?

:run:

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Narratives like this tend to evolve over time, so it's pretty much impossible to determine exactly when and how it first started. The most important points are the teachings in regards to morals and values and not so much as to whether the narrative is objectively correct. All scripture in all religions tend to be highly subjective.




You seeing a lot more than I see being covered in Genesis, and what I see missing in the above is any accounts as to the basic teachings that tell us what we should value and how we should act.




Unless it's allegorical, which makes much more sense, imo.



:run:

SMH...told you.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall at this point. I mean, seriously, you're still telling me that in order for macroevolution to have occurred, some animal would have had to give birth to a completely different animal.

And you are telling me that it takes millions upon millions of years for macroevolution to take place, so that no one that is alive today will ever witness these voodoo changes occur. You don't see the the scam invovled in that? You are basically saying "We've never seen it happen, and no one alive will ever see it happen, but...it happens" Please.

You don't understand evolution, that is clear. And it's probably why you don't accept it.

All I know is dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. To believe anything other than that is pure religious speculation which I reject on the same grounds that you reject my religion.

Have you ever seen an undomesticated, wild banana?

The answer I will give you is the same answer you will give me if I asked you have you ever seen a dog produce a non-dog.

Your personal belief stands in direct opposition to all known science, from virtually every single scientific field of inquiry. It's not my personal hypothesis or belief that you disagree with, it's ALL KNOWN SCIENCE. Evolution is the one of the most, if not the most well supported and attested scientific theories in existence.

Evolution is well supported based on what scientific observation??

It is fact. You can personally believe whatever you like, just know that all it is, is your belief. And it runs counter to known facts.

No, here is the facts; dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Why would you believe that millions of years ago, animals would BEGIN to start producing different kind of animals? You cannot base this belief on anything that is observed today, so what are you basing this belief on?

 

[metis]

Even though it is not a scientific site, this Wikipedia article on "speciation" does provide links to science sites: Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bottom line is that evolution has been observed creating new species even over relatively short periods of time in some cases.

Secondly, what supposedly would stop speciation from creating new "kinds"? Certainly not the d.n.a. since the vast majority of geneticists well understand how evolution works and, therefore, have no trouble accepting it.

The reality is that those who oppose the evolution of "kinds" do so, not for scientific reasons, but for religious reasons.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The bottom line is that evolution has been observed creating new species even over relatively short periods of time in some cases.

New species are created within the same kind of animal. You can have 20 different species of cats, but they will all be CATS. No new kind of animal is being created, only a different variety within the kind.

Secondly, what supposedly would stop speciation from creating new "kinds"?

The same thing that is stopping humans from creating "man-dogs". There are limitations to the change.

Certainly not the d.n.a. since the vast majority of geneticists well understand how evolution works and, therefore, have no trouble accepting it.

So I would like you or a geneticists to tell me how would humans eventually start creating non-humans. What will have to happen for this to occur?

The reality is that those who oppose the evolution of "kinds" do so, not for scientific reasons, but for religious reasons.

So are you saying a dog is the same "kind" of animal that a snake is???

 

[metis]

New species are created within the same kind of animal. You can have 20 different species of cats, but they will all be CATS. No new kind of animal is being created, only a different variety within the kind.

Provide evidence for this? Let me save you the trouble of trying to think of an answer-- you can't.

The same thing that is stopping humans from creating "man-dogs". There are limitations to the change.

That's a non sequitur as this is not how evolution works.

So I would like you or a geneticists to tell me how would humans eventually start creating non-humans. What will have to happen for this to occur?

Another non sequitur.

So are you saying a dog is the same "kind" of animal that a snake is???

Depends on how one defines "kind".

It's very obvious that you are not working from any kind of scientific paradigm but a religious one instead. On top of that, even the religious paradigm seems to be terribly flawed as you appear to be taking a view of the creation accounts that simply don't make any sense based on what we now know. Jewish scholars and most Christian theologians simply do not see any kind of conflict between evolution and the creation accounts as long as it's understood that God was behind it all.

 

[Cephus]

Been doing this most of my life.
Got an IQ of 125.
Trained in argument and logic.
Believe in God because of science.
Been here at the forum four and half years.

Go for it.

This is likely not the correct forum for it, I don't want to derail an existing topic, so if you'd like me to, please start a new topic in the appropriate forum, make whatever claim you'd like me to evaluate and I'd be happy to.

Oh, and please PM me where you put the discussion, I don't have time to read every forum and I'd hate to miss it. Thanks.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yet it is completely dependent on it.

You can't simply stipulate that a scientific theory (such as the ToE), with a specific domain (such as the diversity of species), is responsible for or "dependent" on claims that fall outside this domain. The theory of evolution is not a theory about "generating reality" anymore than the theory of gravity is about human psychology.

Evolution explains why there are different forms of life. That's all.

Evolution according to it's most widely adopted model exhibits slow change based on mutation of genes over time and the selection of those that confer survival or breeding advantage. What about that is consistent with entire body types arriving without significant evolution almost instantaneously? There are evolutionary trees, bushes, forests and whatever other plant arrangement made evolution more palatable but not one is consistent with the Cambrian explosion.

The explosion refers to an explosion of fossil evidence, not an explosion of speciation.

Of what use is a description that describes whatever is found using the most theoretical guesswork? I object to terminology on the basis of being so general as to be unmeaning full. Of what use is the theory of anything that is found? We already have universe, and everything, why more redundancy?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

No it isn't but just out of curiosity what do you specifically mean by forceless. Maybe you have another purpose for the term than I do. If I came up with a term that describes whatever might be found consistent or not of what use is the term?

Since your criticism is based on a false premise, it carries no force.

This was a discussion of eye evolution and had nothing to do with ID.

We were talking about irreducible complexity, a notion that has been thoroughly discredited, and "ID" was a typo... ("IC"- irreducible complexity)

I believe it true and no it can't possibly account for all of reality. IF you pick your favorite here we can get detailed. I can't get specific with so many issues at once.

Since its your argument, why don't you pick your favorite. I have no idea what you have in mind.

This is either incoherent or so close to being that I did not get it. Be obtain what?

Good gravy... I said "there are states of affairs inconsistent with the truth-conditions of evolutionary theory. These states of affairs just turn out not to be obtain." and "be" was a typo- obviously its that "these states of affairs just turn out not to obtain".

You really couldn't figure that out on your own?

I actually ran this by a PhD in information theory and engineering at lunch and they agreed. If I did X. Then "X did it" is a perfectly expectable explanation of what produced X. If I said how said X happened by description Y, but my term Y meant anything that happened or is ever found to happen. Then I have described nothing by using Y as a label. God is a source not a process. Sources do not require separate process descriptions. Evolution is a process and requires boundaries and things that exist outside it to define it. I do not get the contention at all. If asked how I got to work "a car did it" is a perfectly adequate answer and would satisfy anyone without an agenda. If asked how that car got me here "motion" would not be an adequate process description and would satisfy no one.

The point is that, if you don't already know that "a car did it", you can't infer that a car did it simply because, for whatever reason, a bike could not have done it- perhaps they took the bus. Similarly with God. If evolution can't do it, this doesn't entail that God did it, because it could have been something else- this is why argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. (of course, this is a moot point since it has not been shown that "evolution can't do it")

 

[Thief]

How does that work, then?

Cause and effect.
Science would have you believe in 'singularity'.

But the equations break down and there are no labs large enough for the experiment.
You just have to think about it.

And at that point of singularity....which came first?
Spirit?...or substance.

If substance then all that you are is a chemical reaction....and terminal.
There would be no explanation for the existence of Man.
Spirit means nothing.
Eternal darkness of the grave awaits all of us.
and no hope.

I don't believe that.
Each occasion of this human form renders a unique spirit.
All of this humanity...and it all ends up in dust?
I say...we were made to become spirit.
This life is just a means of formation.

So back to the singularity.
A means to say...."I AM!"
I think so.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Cause and effect.
Science would have you believe in 'singularity'.

But the equations break down and there are no labs large enough for the experiment.
You just have to think about it.

And at that point of singularity....which came first?
Spirit?...or substance.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think he meant to ask "Substance abuse or spirit abuse?"

 

[ResistETIntervention]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

The terms first and last are that which can be understood in the physical reality where the concept of time exists because of separation of materials by distance. Beyond this reality, such terms are immaterial. God is God of all universes and dimensions of which the physical reality is only a small fraction.

 

[philbo]

Cause and effect.
Science would have you believe in 'singularity'.

But the equations break down and there are no labs large enough for the experiment.
You just have to think about it.

And at that point of singularity....which came first?
Spirit?...or substance.

If substance then all that you are is a chemical reaction....and terminal.
There would be no explanation for the existence of Man.
Spirit means nothing.
Eternal darkness of the grave awaits all of us.
and no hope.

I don't believe that.
Each occasion of this human form renders a unique spirit.
All of this humanity...and it all ends up in dust?
I say...we were made to become spirit.
This life is just a means of formation.

So back to the singularity.
A means to say...."I AM!"
I think so.

When you said "I believe in God because of science", and give the above as a rationale, all I can do is misquote The Princess Bride:
"You keep using this word, 'Science'. I do not think it means what you think it means"

Saying "there are some things science doesn't know, therefore my specific flavour of god, with all his rules and regulations".. that isn't exactly a logical step. You're believing, not because of science, but because of an ingrained indoctrination leaving you with a viewpoint you want to use to fill in the blanks as soon as science says "we don't know". There is nothing even the teensiest bit scientific about this, and you really ought to be honest with yourself about it.

 

[1robin]

You can't simply stipulate that a scientific theory (such as the ToE), with a specific domain (such as the diversity of species), is responsible for or "dependent" on claims that fall outside this domain. The theory of evolution is not a theory about "generating reality" anymore than the theory of gravity is about human psychology.

You seem to indicate things that would only be true of evolution if it its entire scope was that of a theory only. I am discussing what it is in reality. It is dependent on abiogenesis if it is used in an argument contending with God. If it is a hypothetical exercise in academics then I agree it is not dependent on life coming from non-life. It is proposed as a reality devoid of God then it is entirely dependent on abiogenesis.

Evolution explains why there are different forms of life. That's all.

Are you debating a word or reality?

The explosion refers to an explosion of fossil evidence, not an explosion of speciation.

The only record we have of reality is in that record. A record that shows no meaningful development is inconsistent with the theory. Again are you having a debate about terminology or reality. Cases depend on evidence. A case without evidence or contrary evidence is not much of a case.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

A term that describes everything actually describes nothing.

Since your criticism is based on a false premise, it carries no force.

Until you prove it is a false premise it does have force.

We were talking about irreducible complexity, a notion that has been thoroughly discredited, and "ID" was a typo... ("IC"- irreducible complexity)

IC most certainly has not been shown false. It is inherent and intuitive to anyone who works in design. I am aware of the principle claim to its being disproven. The biological syringe is not an argument to even the flagellum argument but is not what I am using, nor is Dawkins eye drawings. To use an easily discussed analogy why would a biological organism retain a cylinder without a block? I think your confusing a (bad) argument or assertion with proof.

Since its your argument, why don't you pick your favorite. I have no idea what you have in mind.

How about Godless evolution with out dependence on abiogenesis.

Good gravy... I said "there are states of affairs inconsistent with the truth-conditions of evolutionary theory. These states of affairs just turn out not to be obtain." and "be" was a typo- obviously its that "these states of affairs just turn out not to obtain".

Let this serve as an example of what I mean by terminology replacing an argument. Evolution if used in a theological debate mandates life coming from non-life. Reality will not bow to rhetoric. Life will not arrive from terminology. This is like saying the implications of the cross have nothing to do with whether Christ is a historical figure.

You really couldn't figure that out on your own?

No.

The point is that, if you don't already know that "a car did it", you can't infer that a car did it simply because, for whatever reason, a bike could not have done it- perhaps they took the bus. Similarly with God. If evolution can't do it, this doesn't entail that God did it, because it could have been something else- this is why argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. (of course, this is a moot point since it has not been shown that "evolution can't do it")

There are process descriptors and source descriptors. I used the correct terminology for both I believe.

 

[metis]

The ToE says or implies literally nothing about God or Gods. Darwin himself was a lay Anglican minister, although he later became agnostic.

 

[1robin]

The ToE says or implies literally nothing about God or Gods. Darwin himself was a lay Anglican minister, although he later became agnostic.

I would agree. I was debating a use it is put to by others, not claiming I agreed with the use, if you were addressing me. I believe both God and evolution exist but that evolution alone can't have produced reality as we know it.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You seem to indicate things that would only be true of evolution if it its entire scope was that of a theory only. I am discussing what it is in reality. It is dependent on abiogenesis if it is used in an argument contending with God.

Not really. Even if evolution, or abiogenesis, was conclusively disproved, this wouldn't constitute proof of creationism. This is a false dilemma. Thus, evolution is not dependent upon the validity of abiogenesis in any dispute with creationism with respect to the domain of the ToE- the diversity of species.

Are you debating a word or reality?

Um, what?

The only record we have of reality is in that record.

Right. But we can't pretend we don't know what factors play into what is recorded and what is not. The lack of transitional fossils is consistent with evolutionary theory, since this could simply represent a lack of the conditions required for fossilization.

A term that describes everything actually describes nothing.

Ok, sure.

Until you prove it is a false premise it does have force.

You're probably using "prove" as a weasel word here, but its easy to state some things that would falsify the ToE- "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian", to use the popular phrase. Species out of order with respect to the fossil records- if we were dating Neanderthal fossils as being older than homo ergaster fossils, that would be a problem. If we were finding species that, according to their DNA, didn't share a common ancestor, that would be a problem. If it was shown that mutations are not inherited, that would be a problem. I could go on here, but it's unnecessary. Your claim that the ToE is consistent with everything is patently false, and is a matter of public knowledge.

IC most certainly has not been shown false. It is inherent and intuitive to anyone who works in design. I am aware of the principle claim to its being disproven. The biological syringe is not an argument to even the flagellum argument but is not what I am using, nor is Dawkins eye drawings. To use an easily discussed analogy why would a biological organism retain a cylinder without a block? I think your confusing a (bad) argument or assertion with proof.

I guess if you want to stick your head into the sand, nobody can force you to see. The only people who don't feel that IC has been conclusively refuted are a small group of fundamentalist Christians, which is a bad sign. And if you think that IC is still a credible hypothesis, please refer me to at least one peer-reviewed publication from a respectable academic science journal that accepts or utilizes irreducible complexity from the last, say, 20 years. I won't hold my breath.

How about Godless evolution with out dependence on abiogenesis.

Sounds good, go for it.

Let this serve as an example of what I mean by terminology replacing an argument. Evolution if used in a theological debate mandates life coming from non-life. Reality will not bow to rhetoric. Life will not arrive from terminology.

If you don't understand, ask for clarification. But don't come back with this "reality will not bow to rhetoric" nonsense. If its true its true, and if its false then show or say why.

There are process descriptors and source descriptors. I used the correct terminology for both I believe.

That's good. Unfortunately, the problem is a matter of logic, not terminology. The inference simply doesn't follow.