INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

The so called "fine-tuning problem" doesn't really have any bearing on evolutionary theory, nor does the plausibility of abiogenesis.

Yes it does. That is an evolutionist trick. Some that depends on something else is very related. That is kind why a body is related to murder, why intentionality is related to mind, and why legs are related to stools. However my comments were not made only within the context of evolution nor should they have been anyway. They were commentaries on things consistent or inconsistent wit two theories.

1. Theistic evolution.
2. Evolution without the presence of God.

Not necessarily a flaw or a problem for evolutionary theory at all, much less a fatal one.

I did not say fatal I said inconsistent. As I said a General once said to defend everything is to actually defend nothing. Evolution is a term with an open-ended description. It becomes whatever is found. The theory evolves more than the life it describes. When something describes everything it actually means nothing. A sports field without boundaries and measurements is an ambiguous plane.

Not that I'm aware of; clearly there are things which, prima facie, seem "contrary to survival" but which, upon closer analysis, have a specifiable adaptive function (altruism and morality, for instance).

That would follow within the above heading. We can use the old homosexuality to point to debate this one if you wish.

Why not?

Breeding should not be defined so markedly in nature if evolutionary models were true. It should look more like a graduated cylinder than separated test tubes that differ widely in shape and form. We should not have a bunch of cats and a bunch of dogs we should have graduated ratios of catdogs.

You're going to have to be less vague than this; what do you mean "the encoding in nature of rationality, law, information and constants"? And regardless, supposing that things having no "theoretical natural sources" entails divine agency is, once again, an example of "God of the gaps" reasoning (which is an argument from ignorance)...

It is not used a proof of God nor proof against evolution. It is consistent with God. Me arguments are more often than not used for purposes never intended nor even foreseen by me. A God of the gaps is a motivational claim. Good luck proving that.

That complex structures such as the eye can and are produced by successive, beneficial adaptations has been shown; irreducible complexity is a discredited hypothesis.

It has never been shown. The only thing shown are creatures that have vastly varying visual detectors. The other 99% is faith based guessing.

Evolution renders God's role in the explanation of the diversity of species superfluous- not "less likely".

No it does not. Evolution is balanced on a razors edge as fine as the universe and that can be shown using only secular evolutionist quotes and papers.

An objection that clearly doesn't apply to evolutionary theory, since evolutionary theory does not "explain everything", since it is has specifiable truth-conditions- or, more pertinently, specifiable conditions which falsify it.

If I said theory x is true and you asked what it was and I said it covers anything ever discovered. Would X mean anything? Evolution has no prohibitions. It posits gradual change but includes rapid change. It posits survivability, yet includes lethality. It posits random corruption but includes intentional organization and information. It should be called the theory of anything we find.

Ironically, "God did it" is a perfect example of an explanation that "explains everything"- and thus explains nothing.

It's function is not to be scientifically useful. It is a description of theoretical fact whether meaningful in academic settings or not. God did it is a general explanation, evolution is a specific description of a specific process. I have heard many scientists say that God did it was invalid because it did not allow science to be done. So freaking what? The term is true or false regardless of the science that can be done with it. Is the arbiter of all truth what a scientist can do with a term? God did it is not an argument or meant to describe a process. Evolution is.

This is due to the fact that "God did it" is apparently consistent with any set of facts- meaning, it has as its truth-conditions every possible state-of-affars; it is unfalsifiable, and tells us exactly nothing in most cases.

Its purpose is only to convey the ultimate cause not any process of execution. No supernatural claim could offer more in a theological context. Would explaining to an ant how calculus works be of any use to the ant? Evolution is has a different purpose. It is a descriptor of a process. When that description includes even mutually exclusive concepts does it have any value as a descriptor? God is causal, evolution is a derivative descriptor.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yes it does. That is an evolutionist trick.

This is silly. Evolutionary theory doesn't speak to cosmological fine-tuning or the absence thereof, nor does it speak to the origin of biological life. Trying to advance arguments about these points as criticisms of evolution is the only "trick" here.

I did not say fatal I said inconsistent.

Inconsistent with what?

Evolution is a term with an open-ended description. It becomes whatever is found. The theory evolves more than the life it describes. When something describes everything it actually means nothing. A sports field without boundaries and measurements is an ambiguous plane.

This is a vague and forceless objection.

That would follow within the above heading.

In other words, that it is also a forceless pseudo-objection?

We can use the old homosexuality to point to debate this one if you wish.

Or altruism.

Breeding should not be defined so markedly in nature if evolutionary models were true. It should look more like a graduated cylinder than separated test tubes that differ widely in shape and form. We should not have a bunch of cats and a bunch of dogs we should have graduated ratios of catdogs.

Why?

It is not used a proof of God nor proof against evolution. It is consistent with God.

I don't even really know for sure what "it" is in the first place...

It has never been shown.

Somebody is a decade or two behind on their literature, I see... ID it is not a credible hypothesis, it has been refuted.

No it does not. Evolution is balanced on a razors edge as fine as the universe and that can be shown using only secular evolutionist quotes and papers.

Again, I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but yes, it is a patent fact that, if evolution is true, as it almost undoubtedly is, it fully explains the diversity of biological life. Thus, attributing any role in this diversity to anything else is redundant.

If I said theory x is true and you asked what it was and I said it covers anything ever discovered. Would X mean anything? Evolution has no prohibitions. It posits gradual change but includes rapid change. It posits survivability, yet includes lethality. It posits random corruption but includes intentional organization and information. It should be called the theory of anything we find.

Unfortunately, this is nonsense and anyone familiar with even the basics of evolutionary theory is well aware that there are states of affairs inconsistent with the truth-conditions of evolutionary theory. These states of affairs just turn out not to be obtain.

It's function is not to be scientifically useful. It is a description of theoretical fact whether meaningful in academic settings or not. God did it is a general explanation, evolution is a specific description of a specific process...

Its purpose is only to convey the ultimate cause not any process of execution. No supernatural claim could offer more in a theological context. Would explaining to an ant how calculus works be of any use to the ant? Evolution is has a different purpose.

Ah, now the backpedaling and goalpost-shifting begins, since the charge you've mistakenly leveled at evolutionary theory turns out to be far more applicable to your preferred "God did it" explanation... A major "oops!" moment there!

 

[1robin]

This is silly. Evolutionary theory doesn't speak to cosmological fine-tuning or the absence thereof, nor does it speak to the origin of biological life. Trying to advance arguments about these points as criticisms of evolution is the only "trick" here.

Yet it is completely dependent on it. You must have missed the part about what the choices are. Evolution generating reality without God, evolution being part of reality with God. Fine tuning makes a God very likely, it was not intended to prove evolution unlikely. Again you are using an argument for a purpose it was not intended for then declaring failure.

Inconsistent with what?

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.
BTW how do you spell your name phonetically and where did it come from?

This is a vague and forceless objection.

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?

In other words, that it is also a forceless pseudo-objection?

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?

Or altruism.

Your choice as many aspects of either are inconsistent with evolutionary principles.

Why?

Evolution posits gradual change in general. Creation or creative guidance is far more consistent with widely separated groups of things.I think my catdogs the clearest example possible. I can't simplify it or do not know how. There should be a bunch of whalecows in gradually changing rations. Not groups of cows and groups of whales. That would only be true in general as isolation and natural events could produce some exceptions. However the exceptions within evolutionary theory are the rule in nature.

I don't even really know for sure what "it" is in the first place...

My claim you responded to is it.

Somebody is a decade or two behind on their literature, I see... ID it is not a credible hypothesis, it has been refuted.

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

Again, I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but yes, it is a patent fact that, if evolution is true, as it almost undoubtedly is, it fully explains the diversity of biological life. Thus, attributing any role in this diversity to anything else is redundant.

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.

Unfortunately, this is nonsense and anyone familiar with even the basics of evolutionary theory is well aware that there are states of affairs inconsistent with the truth-conditions of evolutionary theory. These states of affairs just turn out not to be obtain.

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

Ah, now the backpedaling and goalpost-shifting begins, since the charge you've mistakenly leveled at evolutionary theory turns out to be far more applicable to your preferred "God did it" explanation... A major "oops!" moment there!

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.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Thief]

The vast majority of experts claim that common descent is very probably true. Do you agree, or disagree with that?

Do you believe that irreducible complexity is very probably true?

So attempts to affirm an existence of God always come back to evolution?

Let's say there was a beginning.....not necessarily that of Man.
And from that beginning all things came forth.
Start wherever you care to.

Something' had to be first.
That's fine.

But to set the existence of the Creator aside because of an argument of evolution?....nay.

I find it easy to say...God did it.

Which is greater?....creating the universe (one word)....?
Or creating life and all of it's complexity?

And if able one or the other....why say ....nay?

 

[Agnostic75]

So attempts to affirm an existence of God always come back to evolution?

No, since I am an agnostic, I believe that it is reasonably possible that a God exists.

I am arguing for common descent, and so do millions of Christians.

 

[Thief]

No, since I am an agnostic, I believe that it is reasonably possible that a God exists.

I am arguing for common descent, and so do millions of Christians.

I have no problem with the notion that somewhere on this earth...millions of years ago...
life began.

And that beginning would be no more than a spot of chemistry in a puddle of hot mud.

It had to be started 'somewhere'.'

But no discussion of evolution can dismiss the existence of God.

Shall we agree?... the Creator's Hand is likely the 'spark'.

 

[Agnostic75]

But no discussion of evolution can dismiss the existence of God.

Shall we agree?... the Creator's Hand is likely the 'spark'.

I believe that it is reasonably possible that a God does, or does not exist.

 

[Thief]

I believe that it is reasonably possible that a God does, or does not exist.

Sitting on the fence....is a valid stance?

So you're participation is to promote a lack of decision?
Or do you seek to make the choice?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Thief]

The vast majority of experts claim that common descent is very probably true. Do you agree, or disagree with that?

Do you believe that irreducible complexity is very probably true?

The earth is not fine-tuned for life. The sun will eventually go nova. Millions of species of life have become extinct. Humans might become extinct way before 1,000 years in the future because of global warming. Most humans die before age 100. Millions of humans, and millions of innocent animals, have died of starvation, and much of that could not have been prevented by humans. Many babies have died in childbirth, or have been born with serious birth defects, and much of that could not have been prevented by humans,

All life forms are programmed to die, not to live, with the possible exception of a species of jellyfish, according to a Wikipedia article at Turritopsis nutricula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

It is impossible to reasonably estimate the mathematical odds of life existing elsewhere in the universe, and of the existence of other universes.

Obviously, the fine-tuning argument is a religious argument, not a scientific argument.

Actually...it may be quicker than you think.

One of those science documentaries had a gathering of 'experts', each proposing his perspective of the pending event.

Only one held any credibility as far as I am concerned.
His speculation comes from the earth's known chemical content.
So much water...so much carbon....etc...etc...etc...

Earth can support 9billion people....so he claims.

If I live to age of my grandfather...I shall see 12billion people trying to survive.

When I was in grade school the number crossed 3billion.
Forty years later, 6billion.
Now 7billion.
At this rate 9billion as I approach what should be my retirement age.

Too old to fight the current.
I will see hardship.

 

[McBell]

Sitting on the fence....is a valid stance?

If the need/want for one or the other for the mere sake of sedating ones fear is a valid stance, then "sitting on the fence" is also a valid stance.

 

[Agnostic75]

So you're participation is to promote a lack of decision?
Or do you seek to make the choice?

It takes adequate information to make a choice beyond a reasonable doubt. Many famous, intelligent people were agnostics, or are agnostics. Many of then are mentioned in a Wikipedia article at List of agnostics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Since many religious people claim many things about God, who is right?

 

[Agnostic75]

What are you doing? I have claimed countless things in this forum and your not contending against any of them. What conclusion are you trying to bait me into. I have said several times what I believe about evolution and nothing you have said has challenged that.

The vast majority of experts claim that common descent is very probably true. Do you agree, or disagree with that?

Do you believe that irreducible complexity is very probably true?

The earth is not fine-tuned for life. The sun will eventually go nova. Millions of species of life have become extinct. Humans might become extinct way before 1,000 years in the future because of global warming. Most humans die before age 100. Millions of humans, and millions of innocent animals, have died of starvation, and much of that could not have been prevented by humans. Many babies have died in childbirth, or have been born with serious birth defects, and much of that could not have been prevented by humans,

All life forms are programmed to die, not to live, with the possible exception of a species of jellyfish, according to a Wikipedia article at Turritopsis nutricula - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

It is impossible to reasonably estimate the mathematical odds of life existing elsewhere in the universe, and of the existence of other universes.

Obviously, the fine-tuning argument is a religious argument, not a scientific argument.

Please make a post in my new thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/153419-evidence-other-universes.html, and in my past thread at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...52974-does-god-bible-give-everyone-least.html.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Or perhaps "You've been hovinded" or "A gish best served cold... or never!"

Ahaha! I love it! I've been hovinded a few times on this thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I will tell you this.

God is by far and pretty much the only reasonable solution concerning life's origin and its basic make up. 2.3 billion bits of data do not arrange themselves in the right order by chance over and over and over, but that is one it's least problems.

What are you talking about?

Nature is full of information. No known source for information beyond intelligence is known. I work with a information specialist so I can get as complex as you wish.

What "information" are you referring to?

After that I am not sure what happened (and do not think anyone does to any meaningful extent until the Cambrian when all major body types exploded on the scene in a geological instant with little to know significant evolution.

I’ve already responded to this and debunked it, and here you are repeating the claim again. The Cambrian explosion is thought to last somewhere between 10-40 millions years, so I don’t know how sudden that really is and we know evolution continued to occur within that timeframe.

Instead of just repeating myself and explaining it all to you again, I’ll just give you a link. Please read so you can stop repeating your factually incorrect claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

It's is personally a big blur until humans.

Maybe you should read some textbooks or something then.

I have no real objection to humans coming from other primates but many things cause me to pause. The almost infinite intelligence gap is one. There is no slow steady improvement. There (if true) are huge leaps in much shorter time frames that general evolutionary change rates.

Brain organization, not overall size, may be the key evolutionary difference between primate brains, and the key to what gives humans their smarts, new research suggests.
http://www.livescience.com/28209-brain-organization-key-to-intelligence.html
8 Humanlike Behaviors of Primates
http://www.livescience.com/15309-humanlike-behaviors-primates.html

 

[SkepticThinker]

You keep talking about the lack of life elsewhere, when that is completely irrelevant. The Penrose equations are in regards to THIS universe, and even if there is life elsewhere then that life would also require fine tuning.

I AM TALKING ABOUT THIS UNIVERSE. WHERE IS ALL THE LIFE? Most of the universe is hostile to life. How do you factor that in?

I am asking you a very simple question and you just keep giving me the run around. We are talking about this universe, this universe that you keep telling me is fine-tuned for life. WHERE IS ALL THE LIFE? If you mean that the entire vastness and emptiness of the universe is fine-tuned for life to specifically exist only on earth, then say so. That would bring me to another question, that being, why did your creator waste so much space if he only intended to create life on one miniscule dot in this entire vast universe full of empty space?

Instead of worrying about things that we have no evidence for as of yet, how about focusing on what we DO have evidence for, and that is that our universe is life permitting when the odds were astronomically against it, yet it beat those odds, and we are here. It is hard enough for you to offer an naturalistic explanation for our universe, yet you are so concerned about life elsewhere.

I’m concerned about LIFE IN THIS UNIVERSE which is what we’re talking about.

No one is saying that every single place in the universe is fine tuned for life. The argument is there shouldn’t be life ANYWHERE if you start off with a big bang unless the low entropy conditions needed for human life was an initial condition of the singularity (or otherwise).

You are saying the universe is fine-tuned for life, and yet it’s mostly empty space. Life did not have to happen, it simply did. We got lucky.

Planet earth and its inhabitants are in the best possible location when you consider the galaxy as a whole. We find ourselves in the best place for life to be even permissible, let alone created.

Speculation.

The Penrose calculation applies regardless.

Not if it’s not accepted science, it doesn’t.

It just doesn’t matter how much life there is in the universe or how much life there isn’t…what matters is the probability of THIS universe being life permitting at all, and those odds are so astronomical that it takes just as much faith to believe that those odds were overcame than it does to believe in any religious deity I know of.

Why? If those “odds weren’t overcame[sic]” then we wouldn’t be here to speculate about it. Or some other beings would be here possibly speculating about it. So what?

So you don’t see the irrelevance? Even if we can positively confirm that there is another universe out there besides our own, that just doesn’t help the situation because it isn’t as if this other universe will have any barren on the probability, at least in the way you might think it does. However the case may be, the odds were beat. No naturalistic explanation can be given as to how this universe can be not only fine tuned for human life, but to also actually have human life.

Argument from incredulity.

It just so happens that every single process discovered on earth (and in the universe) to date, has been found to have a naturalistic explanation behind it. Thousands of years ago you could have said “no naturalistic explanation can be given as to how lightning operates or where it comes from so we must assume there is an invisible deity creating it when he gets upset with us.” Good thing there were people who actually cared enough to investigate lightning’s origins, rather than to just leave it at that.

There are many naturalistic hypotheses as to how this universe was formed. We don’t have to employ god-of-the-gaps simply because we don’t know everything yet.

Remember, these are two separate issues here, because it is one thing to have all the parts needed to build a car, but it is another thing to assemble all the parts together to make a car. So if cosmologists found another universe out there, how does that in any way affect Penrose’s calculations?

Well, if another universe was found, it would give us something to compare THIS universe to. For starters.

If I can’t personally build a car with all the available parts provided to me, does that mean it’s impossible to build a car?

It doesn’t matter!!! The calculations apply to OUR universe. If there are other universes out there, how would the calculation be affected? In fact, postulating other universes may make it even more improbable because the more you add, the higher the probability will be to make life permissible, when it is improbable enough with just the one universe that we know about!!!

Of course it matters. Having another universe to compare this one to would take us a long way in understanding what conditions need to be present for life to be permissible, how many available conditions there are in which life could be permissible, how many different ways the universe could have formed, etc.

How do you get specified order from a chaotic event?

What is specified order??

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have no idea who Gish is but my points did not come from whoever it is. Nor do I see even a bad attempt to show they were wrong which is kind of the more important issue. It is not my business what you plaster your wall with. But if you are doing so with this type of information whether wrong or right there is a flaw in your slaw.

They are old canards that have been ripped to shreds several times over. That's why you don't see anyone bothering to counter them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well we now have a great idea who you hold disdain for (not that I used or borrowed from either of them, or have heard of them, or they had originated the ideas, or anything relevant) and not one scrap of information why anything I said was the slightest bit inaccurate. Is theatrics a substitute for scholarship? Keep shooting messengers I did not use if you wish but let me know when the actual claims will be dealt with.

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Breeding should not be defined so markedly in nature if evolutionary models were true. It should look more like a graduated cylinder than separated test tubes that differ widely in shape and form. We should not have a bunch of cats and a bunch of dogs we should have graduated ratios of catdogs.

What on earth are you talking about? Catdogs??