INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[angellous_evangellous]

Is not the eye one of the most debated issues in evolution?

No. It is, however, a common topic that Christians and others bring up when debating against evolution.

I believe that Darwin himself pointed out some weaknesses in his argument, including the eye and beehives. If I recall. I do know that the arguments against evolution have not improved since the original protests from Charles Hodge and others... and they wouldn't know the weaknesses had Darwin not told them.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

But when has that ever stopped robin from being right and the rest of us from being idiots? Attributing any qualities that fit your argument to an unseeable, untestable entity that cannot and will never be proven to exist is indeed a valid science...

A concept of an entity which can be proven to not exist, you mean.

The Christian God is a conceptual bundle of mutually-exclusive predicates. No such thing could ever exist any more than a round square or a being that is completely white and completely red all over could exist.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolution is a blind creator. I have never heard a evolutionist say that if we started over we would have anything identical to what we have. Only engineers intend to solve things the same way. Random mutation should have created as many solutions as problems. 10 (for instance) independent random actions should never produce identical results over and over and over. For that matter why would independent genes select the exact components necessary for our eye and the exact visual cortex and optic nerves necessary to create a whole within the same time frame, and even if managed once it would have had to do the same vastly improbable thing a million times over to explain reality (actually trillions and trillions). Convergent design is not a symptom of random events even if selection is present. It is however a universal element in design. I will give you credit for improving your civility in this post.

This is not the way it is said to have occurred, and I’m not really sure why you think it is.
Each creature that developed some sort of an eye didn’t have to start from scratch each and every time. The eye is not said to have developed independently in isolated populations over and over again from scratch every single time. To assert such a thing is to ignore the common ancestry of all living things. The science shows that most of the various different types of eyes in existence today evolved from a common, simple precursor which is referred to as a “proto-eye.” In other words, the basic genetic components involved in eye development are present in all animal phyla, and have been built upon over time to produce all the different variations of the eye we see today. As I mentioned earlier, every known stage of eye development/evolution is present in modern living creatures.
Please read:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/e/evolution_of_the_eye.htm
http://physics.okstate.edu/axie/courses/4313/2012fall/C7_B2_reading-evolution-of-eye-2011.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/eyes_02
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20120205191851data_trunc_sys.shtml
http://www.ucp.pt/site/resources/documents/ICS/GNC/ArtigosGNC/AnaMariaAbreu/1_GeKa99.pdf

 

[1robin]

Considering we know nothing about this supernatural world you speak of, which at this point is basically just made up, we can't say anything at all about it. We agree on that much. Then why do you go ahead and make all sorts of claims about this supposed world and about your god?

I disagree with some of this. I do not know the specific physical applications of the supernatural but no claim I made that I can remember requires I do so. I have claimed:

1. The rules known to govern natural law have no known application the supernatural. The supernatural is defined as that which in non natural. There is no reason what so ever to think what applies to the natural applies to the supernatural. The statement it does is not even coherent. The supernatural is often categorized as a suspension of natural law. Something can't apply where it is suspended.
2. I claim many philosophical things about the supernatural which there exists no reason to think do not apply though it is not a proven fact they do.
3. I can also posit supernatural truths revealed in theology as truths as likely as the integrity of the texts used.

 

[1robin]

But when has that ever stopped robin from being right and the rest of us from being idiots? Attributing any qualities that fit your argument to an unseeable, untestable entity that cannot and will never be proven to exist is indeed a valid science...

You packed quite a bit of wrong into one statement. Do not attribute some sarcastic judgment to me about others. I never report anything and have always just absorbed sarcasm at the absurd level your side relies upon it, but I will report insinuations of offensive terms or judgments made to others or about others by me, I never made. If honor does not prevent you from doing so then the administrators will be asked to. I think many arguments are idiotic I do not insinuate the people making them are. When you can even get historical figures records right (Luther for example) then you can tell me what I might have to do with a supernatural being. BTW why did you not respond to my post showing your Luther comments were as wrong as wrong gets in these debates. It is rare a claim is so easily and exhaustively shown to be the diametrical opposite of historical fact.

 

[1robin]

No. It is, however, a common topic that Christians and others bring up when debating against evolution.

I believe that Darwin himself pointed out some weaknesses in his argument, including the eye and beehives. If I recall. I do know that the arguments against evolution have not improved since the original protests from Charles Hodge and others... and they wouldn't know the weaknesses had Darwin not told them.

Even if true your contention (or complaint) is a genetic fallacy. A claim is not wrong because of how it began. The eye is a challenge to evolution at this point even if I read it on a cereal box.

 

[1robin]

This is not the way it is said to have occurred, and I’m not really sure why you think it is. Each creature that developed some sort of an eye didn’t have to start from scratch each and every time.

That is not the way I understand it. Some creatures split from a creature that had a visual functionality some did not. However even if every creature with an eye split from one having, let's say a light sensitive patch on it's head it still would not explain why each branch evolved a similar eye structure eventually.

The eye is not said to have developed independently in isolated populations over and over again from scratch every single time.

No but it did many times. BTW the eye was just a single example. There are thousands of these things. There is even a term for them called divergent evolution I believe.

To assert such a thing is to ignore the common ancestry of all living things.

That is inapplicable unless every later commonality had an original primitive source. Many things have no record past a certain point that lies beyond a split.

The science shows that most of the various different types of eyes in existence today evolved from a common, simple precursor which is referred to as a “proto-eye.”

Let's say that is true overall for convenience. Why di most creatures evolve from that very very primitive light sensitive group of cells to create so many eyes with identical parts.

In other words, the basic genetic components involved in eye development are present in all animal phyla, and have been built upon over time to produce all the different variations of the eye we see today. As I mentioned earlier, every known stage of eye development/evolution is present in modern living creatures.

Please read:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/e/evolution_of_the_eye.htm
http://physics.okstate.edu/axie/courses/4313/2012fall/C7_B2_reading-evolution-of-eye-2011.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/eyes_02
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20120205191851data_trunc_sys.shtml
[URL="http://www.ucp.pt/site/resources/documents/ICS/GNC/ArtigosGNC/AnaMariaAbreu/1_GeKa99.pdf"]http://www.ucp.pt/site/resources/documents/ICS/GNC/ArtigosGNC/AnaMariaAbreu/1_GeKa99.pdf[/URL]

I will get to your links if I ever get caught up. However I have read many explanations of this difficulty. Some do give a reasonable explanation to a percentage of cases. (Not a proven solution but at least a reasoned response). However no theory solves what we see in reality. Dawkins was asked this once and he ruined his already low credibility with me. He literally drew a cartoon and say there you have it. Even if his cartoon was logical (it wasn't) how is a cartoon evidence?

 

[1robin]

A concept of an entity which can be proven to not exist, you mean.

I appreciate the sentiments in this line.

The Christian God is a conceptual bundle of mutually-exclusive predicates. No such thing could ever exist any more than a round square or a being that is completely white and completely red all over could exist.

However this line troubles me. What is it that you are trying to say here?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No. It is, however, a common topic that Christians and others bring up when debating against evolution.

Which is ironic- that the eye is so frequently touted as an example of "intelligent design", when it is anything but- the human eye is basically built upside down and backwards for Christs sake!... Not what you would expect from any intelligent (i.e. conscious) designer...

And it actually is the perfect disproof of irreducible complexity- that a complex organ like the eye, not only can evolve as the result of successive advantageous adaptations, but it looks just like that's what happened- rather than following any coherent design or plan, the organ evolved using whatever resources it had at its disposal- resulting in a functional, albeit imperfect, biological structure.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

You packed quite a bit of wrong into one statement. Do not attribute some sarcastic judgment to me about others. I never report anything and have always just absorbed sarcasm at the absurd level your side relies upon it, but I will report insinuations of offensive terms or judgments made to others or about others by me, I never made. If honor does not prevent you from doing so then the administrators will be asked to. I think many arguments are idiotic I do not insinuate the people making them are. When you can even get historical figures records right (Luther for example) then you can tell me what I might have to do with a supernatural being. BTW why did you not respond to my post showing your Luther comments were as wrong as wrong gets in these debates. It is rare a claim is so easily and exhaustively shown to be the diametrical opposite of historical fact.

What Luther comments were these? I never once mentioned Luther and think you might be confusing me with someone else...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I appreciate the sentiments in this line.

I'm glad to hear that, if slightly at a loss as to why that should be so.

However this line troubles me. What is it that you are trying to say here?

Struck me as fairly plain. I'm saying that the predicates that are ascribed to the Christian God are mutually exclusive, and that their conjunction is unintelligible- no less than the conjunction of "round" and "square" are mutually exclusive and unintelligible.

The obvious example is the classic problem of evil. But omnipotence also trivially includes the capacity for self-destruction which contradicts God's purported necessity, atemporality precludes the ability to change or effect change, and there other similar logical conflicts. Probably worst is the fact that transcendence, in a metaphysical sense, which is typically the sine qua non of God or theistic gods generally- entails non-being. I've mentioned this at more length on the "Atheism does not exist" thread (here- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/148345-atheism-does-not-exist.html), but transcending conditions/relations entails transcending the preconditions or distinguishing features of being or existence itself.

 

[1robin]

I'm glad to hear that, if slightly at a loss as to why that should be so.

Never mind this let's get to the good stuff.

Struck me as fairly plain. I'm saying that the predicates that are ascribed to the Christian God are mutually exclusive, and that their conjunction is unintelligible- no less than the conjunction of "round" and "square" are mutually exclusive and unintelligible.

So far it is just an assertion so I will move on to the reasoning.

The obvious example is the classic problem of evil.

IN what way do you believe they are incompatible. I have even heard secular philosophers argue they are not. The ones who argue they are incompatible usually make the mistake of confusing capacity with purpose.

But omnipotence also trivially includes the capacity for self-destruction which contradicts God's purported necessity, atemporality precludes the ability to change or effect change, and there other similar logical conflicts.

I have never heard this one before. Are you saying omnipotence means God can destroy himself? BTW you do not think a necessary being implies he must exist do you?

Probably worst is the fact that transcendence, in a metaphysical sense, which is typically the sine qua non of God or theistic gods generally- entails non-being. I've mentioned this at more length on the "Atheism does not exist" thread (here- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/148345-atheism-does-not-exist.html), but transcending conditions/relations entails transcending the preconditions or distinguishing features of being or existence itself.

Once we tackle the first two please remind me of this one or we are going to wind up with something unmanageable. I applaud you for posing the first truly scholarly argument I have seen in a while.

 

[1robin]

What Luther comments were these? I never once mentioned Luther and think you might be confusing me with someone else...

I will look it up. I am certainly not omniscient and my memory sucks. If you are right I withdraw those statements and apologize but let's see. Actually I just remembered who it was and it was not you. I am sorry. Let this apply to all threads where I mentioned this.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

I will look it up. I am certainly not omniscient and my memory sucks. If you are right I withdraw those statements and apologize but let's see. Actually I just remembered who it was and it was not you. I am sorry. Let this apply to all threads where I mentioned this.

Just read this; disregard my post in the other thread lol

 

[1robin]

Just read this; disregard my post in the other thread lol

No sweat.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

IN what way do you believe they are incompatible. I have even heard secular philosophers argue they are not. The ones who argue they are incompatible usually make the mistake of confusing capacity with purpose.

I'm aware of some of the wild stretches theologians make in attempts to construct a theodicy, but prima facie, the attributes of omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence would preclude the existence of such rampant suffering. Not only does the standard "free will" line miss the mark- because an inability to cause suffering or do evil would not entail a lack of free will in any robust sense (seeing as most of our choices and exercises of our free will do not involve choices between moral options- our choice of what car to drive, what job to have, and so on, are NOT choices between good and evil)- it completely fails to address the problem of natural evil.

I have never heard this one before. Are you saying omnipotence means God can destroy himself? BTW you do not think a necessary being implies he must exist do you?

Sure- omnipotence would (logically) entail, trivially, the capacity for self-destruction. But a necessary being is a being whose non-existence is contradictory. Thus, it is a logical impossibility that God not exist. Thus, God could not have even the capacity for self-destruction. But the problem runs deeper than this, the more technical we get.

In modal terms-

"x is necessary" means that in every possible world P, x is the case in P
"x is possible" means that there is a possible world P, so that X is the case in P

Now, an omnipotent being would mean that there is one (logically) possible world P such that this being does not exist in P (as a logical consequence of omnipotence including the capacity for self-destruction, self-modification, etc.)- but a necessary being must exist in every possible world. Thus, logically, a necessary being cannot be an omnipotent being.

(there are worse problems with the notion of "necessary being", but we'll stick with this for now)

 

[godnotgod]

I'm aware of some of the wild stretches theologians make in attempts to construct a theodicy, but prima facie, the attributes of omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence would preclude the existence of such rampant suffering. Not only does the standard "free will" line miss the mark- because an inability to cause suffering or do evil would not entail a lack of free will in any robust sense (seeing as most of our choices and exercises of our free will do not involve choices between moral options- our choice of what car to drive, what job to have, and so on, are NOT choices between good and evil)- it completely fails to address the problem of natural evil.

Sure- omnipotence would (logically) entail, trivially, the capacity for self-destruction. But a necessary being is a being whose non-existence is contradictory. Thus, it is a logical impossibility that God not exist. Thus, God could not have even the capacity for self-destruction. But the problem runs deeper than this, the more technical we get.

In modal terms-

"x is necessary" means that in every possible world P, x is the case in P
"x is possible" means that there is a possible world P, so that X is the case in P

Now, an omnipotent being would mean that there is one (logically) possible world P such that this being does not exist in P (as a logical consequence of omnipotence including the capacity for self-destruction, self-modification, etc.)- but a necessary being must exist in every possible world. Thus, logically, a necessary being cannot be an omnipotent being.

(there are worse problems with the notion of "necessary being", but we'll stick with this for now)

To refer to God as a 'necessary' being is to make God a subject of duality, as making him subject to destruction or non-destruction also does. The true nature of God is beyond the confines/dualities of necessary/unnecessary; creation/destruction. You cannot encapsulate God within these concepts. To do so is to render a dead God.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The true nature of God is beyond the confines/dualities of necessary/unnecessary; creation/destruction. You cannot encapsulate God within these concepts. To do so is to render a dead God.

Right- so God transcends these things in a metaphysical sense, not only qua ineffability? In other words, it is not only that our concepts- of necessity, generation/corruption, ec.- fail to adequately describe God, it is that God's nature is in some sense beyond these features of the world entirely?

 

[1robin]

I'm aware of some of the wild stretches theologians make in attempts to construct a theodicy, but prima facie, the attributes of omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence would preclude the existence of such rampant suffering. Not only does the standard "free will" line miss the mark- because an inability to cause suffering or do evil would not entail a lack of free will in any robust sense (seeing as most of our choices and exercises of our free will do not involve choices between moral options- our choice of what car to drive, what job to have, and so on, are NOT choices between good and evil)- it completely fails to address the problem of natural evil.

The attributes of omniscience, Omni benevolence, and omnipotence are indication of capacity and essence they are not indications of will or purpose. People love their children completely and have the capacity to prevent their making some mistakes yet they allow the mistake because of the purpose to teach them a lesson. Saying I can pick up a rock is not to say I will. To say that I do not wish that anyone trip over that rock is not to say I may have a benevolent purpose that makes me allow them to trip. You are basically saying that anything less than optimality is proof this God can't exist. Well if optimal God would only be able to create redundant God's alone. That is not his purpose. His purpose was to create a being with freewill that can freely choose him or deny him and all the negative effects of that choice are to serve as proof that it is the wrong choice. Just as we allow our loved ones to suffer for the lessons to be learned if teaching is dismissed, so does God. Freewill is not free if it can't be used to produce suffering.

Sure- omnipotence would (logically) entail, trivially, the capacity for self-destruction. But a necessary being is a being whose non-existence is contradictory.

A necessary being is one that is independent of cause (non contingent) not one that must exist. A concept can be necessary and non-existent. God as a concept cannot cease to exist. It is like asking him to create a round square. God can do anything possible but it is impossible that if he exist that he can cease to exist. That is not to say he exists, only that if he does he always will.

Thus, it is a logical impossibility that God not exist. Thus, God could not have even the capacity for self-destruction. But the problem runs deeper than this, the more technical we get.

I believe God does exist but I do not know why (in secular terms) he must exist.

In modal terms-

"x is necessary" means that in every possible world P, x is the case in P
"x is possible" means that there is a possible world P, so that X is the case in P

I hate modes of being but have seen a few very good philosophers debate it. Not one of them said God must exist. They said his existence is not contingent.

Now, an omnipotent being would mean that there is one (logically) possible world P such that this being does not exist in P (as a logical consequence of omnipotence including the capacity for self-destruction, self-modification, etc.)- but a necessary being must exist in every possible world. Thus, logically, a necessary being cannot be an omnipotent being.

(there are worse problems with the notion of "necessary being", but we'll stick with this for now)

This last argument is predicated on what I believe to be a flaw in your premise as I have stated above.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The attributes of omniscience, Omni benevolence, and omnipotence are indication of capacity and essence they are not indications of will or purpose. People love their children completely and have the capacity to prevent their making some mistakes yet they allow the mistake because of the purpose to teach them a lesson. Saying I can pick up a rock is not to say I will. To say that I do not wish that anyone trip over that rock is not to say I may have a benevolent purpose that makes me allow them to trip. You are basically saying that anything less than optimality is proof this God can't exist. Well if optimal God would only be able to create redundant God's alone. That is not his purpose. His purpose was to create a being with freewill that can freely choose him or deny him and all the negative effects of that choice are to serve as proof that it is the wrong choice. Just as we allow our loved ones to suffer for the lessons to be learned if teaching is dismissed, so does God. Freewill is not free if it can't be used to produce suffering.

Omnipotence as a capacity works- the potential to enact any state of affairs, but not necessarily actually enacting all states of affairs- and perhaps even omniscience (although a being that not only has the capacity to know everything, if it should choose to do so, but in fact does know everything would be more "all knowing" than one that merely has the capacity to know everything)... But it won't work with omnibenevolence; benevolence is a feature of intentions, motives- it does imply purpose. Thus, a being that has the capacity for being all-loving or all good, but does not do so, is clearly not as benevolent as one that is maximally loving or good in actuality.

Furthermore, the conjunction of these three attributes excludes the sort of "parent" situation you describe; no such "tough love" or "hard lessons" are required for a being with omnipotence- in other words, no suffering or evil is necessary to achieve any of the goals omnibenevolence may dictate. Being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent would mean you can make omelets without breaking any eggs.

A necessary being is one that is independent of cause (non contingent) not one that must exist.

A necessary being (and the only being that is ever really said to be necessary is God) is often said to be "independent of cause" as well, but that isn't what "necessary being" means. It means no more and no less than that God "must exist"- the logical sense I've described.

...The “classical” conception of God includes God's necessary existence (see Plantinga 1974a, 1974b, 1980; Morris 1987a (in particular chapter 7, “Absolute Creation,” written with Christopher Menzel), 1987b; Wierenga 1989; Adams 1983; and MacDonald 1991). Perhaps the strongest motivation for thinking that God exists necessarily is perfect-being or Anselmian theology. On an “Anselmian” conception of God, God is the greatest possible being; it is in the very nature of God that he essentially (and necessarily) possess all compossible perfections. Necessary existence is a perfection, it is thought, and therefore God must possess it. One should note that denying God's necessary existence does not entail that God or anyone else can commit “deicide.” It is far more plausible to think that for any world W that is such that God exists at some time in W, God exists at every time in W. Anselmian theists also typically think that God is essentially (and thus necessarily) omniscient, omnipotent, and maximally good.

A second reason for accepting the necessary existence of God would be available if one took the ontological argument to be sound. There are, of course, many versions of the ontological argument. But, all of them entail that God exists necessarily. The most sophisticated version of the argument has been formulated by Alvin Plantinga (1974a, 1974b, 1990). This motivation (the soundness of the ontological argument) is, of course, closely tied to the first motivation (Anselmian theology).

(plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being)

Thus, your claim is clearly mistaken.

I hate modes of being but have seen a few very good philosophers debate it. Not one of them said God must exist. They said his existence is not contingent.

The theologians and philosophers mentioned above have argued that God "must exist"- including contemporaries like Plantinga, Hartshorne, Thomists like Gilson, as well as all the historical writers (like Anselm, Godel, etc.).

This last argument is predicated on what I believe to be a flaw in your premise as I have stated above.

As we have seen, you are apparently not especially acquainted with the relevent portion of the literature. It is traditionally held that God is a logically necessary being- that is, that he exists necessarily. (it is also traditionally held that God is uncaused/self-caused, but this is not the same claim as his necessary existence)