There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Robert.Evans]

That is just projecting a creator where there is nor need for nor evidence of any.

Your privilege, but don't expect that to have any meaning for anyone else.

I think the quote 'anyone else' is somewhat misleading seeing as though we are on a religious forum.

There is necessity for Him as everything is far too complex to come about by sheer luck. Just because he is invisible is not an answer

 

[Robert.Evans]

Where is there any intelligence "snuck in" ?

As Dawkins says of evolution, It is grindly creakingly obvious that life will not come about through higidly-piddly luck. That is why you need 'processes'. They become the AI that you need. It is a replacement for God. It becomes your god.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You keep saying luck vs design. I just don't understand the question or point.

therein is the problem I think. If I build a house with intelligence, it will probably be better than one built without. Would you not say?
How would I build it without? I would have to make some kind of 'processes' that would 'artificially' build it for me. Luck is not going to do it, it is too complex, and that is just a house.

Ok. So all things, ultimately, are luck then. Is that right? Whatever processes come up, they come about by luck. Yes?[/quote]

Do you know how caves form?

haha... I love the way you keep thinking that explaining physical processes actually shows anything. I think you still don't see the problem.

Let me start again. I am saying that it is luck or intelligence. You are saying that there is a middle ground. That middle ground you call processes. That it your AI. You need it, as chaos is not going to produce anything, that is why it is chaos. Randomness is randomness as it brings about random things, not order. You have to have something that brings order... hence your processes. I have no problem with that. But, those processes have to be explained. If they are 'natural', then how is it that they can come about in such a way as to bring about something else?

You have luck creating processes to sort randomness.

How is that a better answer that evolving consciousness?

 

[adi2d]

I think the quote 'anyone else' is somewhat misleading seeing as though we are on a religious forum.

There is necessity for Him as everything is far too complex to come about by sheer luck. Just because he is invisible is not an answer

Not to be picky but this is a religious education forum and you are in the debate section. Just saying it could be a God is not evidence

 

[Robert.Evans]

No difference. God must be natural. God is natural. In my belief, God and Nature is one.


Sure.

Conscious about what though? The temporality of consciousness is undeniable and unavoidable. And so is the spatial aspects too, and material. Being conscious means that you are conscious about something, in a temporal space. Which means you can have one without the other.


??? What is just going to happen?

Am I annoying you by the way? Since you suddenly are throwing that "sir" at the end? It comes off a bit awkward.

haha, sir, (i put it at the beginning) I thought it might be more polite to speak in such a way, seeing as there is no body language etc present. Backfired on me, hey, sir... haha. No problem.

What is going to happen? I can't recall now. I think it relates to something just 'naturally' happening.... whatever that means. Now what usually happens is I get a long list of processes. They are said to answer it. The problem is, they are natural. So what have we explained?!?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Do we yet know what natural is in the greater scheme of things?

In simple terms (like me):
It appears to me it is energy (for the sake of the argument) changing into something else, by sheer luck. Some of those things are random and some of those things are not. The things which are non-random act on those which are random. Even some of those things have to form some sort of order or laws to make other things work. Is that it?

If so, is that really an acceptable answer as to where everything comes from?

Does this make sense? It sounds contrived to me.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Not to be picky but this is a religious education forum and you are in the debate section. Just saying it could be a God is not evidence

Not quite sure what your saying. If you wish to see a physical God you will not... he is metaphysical. Invisible things are not seen by definition.

There are many things which have to be added up to form the logic of what is right or acceptable. For example, is natural an answer as to where all things come from? I see no answer yet as to it being that.

 

[Sonofason]

Not to be picky but this is a religious education forum and you are in the debate section. Just saying it could be a God is not evidence

God is not evidence of existence. Existence is evidence of God. Just as many people do not accept particular biological claims as evidence for evolution and others do, some people including myself see existence as evidence of God. There are many evidences of God, but most atheists do not accept them as evidence. That is fine. Evidence only exists for those who have been convinced that it is indeed evidence. It also includes that which has the potential to convince.

 

[Ouroboros]

haha, sir, (i put it at the beginning) I thought it might be more polite to speak in such a way, seeing as there is no body language etc present. Backfired on me, hey, sir... haha. No problem.

Oh. Ok. It felt at the moment as a backhanded thing, but I don't think you meant it to be offensive. So no worries.

What is going to happen? I can't recall now. I think it relates to something just 'naturally' happening.... whatever that means. Now what usually happens is I get a long list of processes. They are said to answer it. The problem is, they are natural. So what have we explained?!?

Well, the term "natural selection" is really a misnomer. Nature doesn't really "select" consciously or intentionally. We have artificial selection, which is when humans pick on purpose offspring to reproduce. But in nature, those who survive to copulate are those who will have offspring. It's a very simple and straightforward rule. It's so obvious that it can be used as a basic axiom for how nature works.

Put it this way. If someone dies in childhood before they get to reproduce, did they reproduce? The answer is logically "no". Because the first part of the sentence clearly states that the child died before he/she was able to reproduce. With natural selection, it's almost as simple as that. Those who survive long enough to reproduce, and reproduced, they reproduced. Those who didn't survive to reproduce or didn't reproduce for other reasons, didn't reproduce. That's "natural selection" in simple terms. What what guides who survives and reproduces? Natural phenomenon, like food, water, heat, protection, speed, strength, size, etc. All different abilities. Unfortunately, most of these abilities might be contradictory to each other. For instance, you can't be big and small at the same time. If a certain niche of environment favors large size, then a large size animal will do better in surviving. If the niche favors small size, then a small size animal will do better. I'm just throwing this together for you to explain it in simple terms. I hope that helps.

 

[Ouroboros]

Do we yet know what natural is in the greater scheme of things?

Reality as a whole. There are different terms, all just as vague. But in a sense, we don't know the totality of it all.

In simple terms (like me):
It appears to me it is energy (for the sake of the argument) changing into something else, by sheer luck.

If the world is deterministic, then there's nothing that's truly lucky, random, or by chance. We don't know if it is truly deterministic or not.

Have you ever played Yatzee!? In that game you roll dice. That's the sheer luck part. Then you pick the dice you want to keep and roll the others. Repeat that max 3 times. And you can then select which row to put the sum into. That's the selection part. Luck -> Selection -> Result.

Do you know how a sieve works? Throw some sand in there--that's the luck part--and the sieve will filter our the smaller grains and disallow the bigger grains passthrough. That's the selection part. It works. That's how the world works.

If there is some supernatural God who planned all these things, he could have created Evolution as the process to produce life.

The key here, is there enough evidence to convince us that evolution is actually happening? Yes, there is. There's a lot of evidence of natural selection for instance. We also know how and why genes mutate. We don't know everything yet, but there's nothing in evolution that is totally outrageous simply because there's too much evidence to support it.

Take another topic, like quantum mechanics. A lot in QM is strange, mystical, counter-intuitive, and sometimes so crazy that we can't believe it's true. But it still is. By tests and experiments many of the properties and rules of QM are true, even if they don't make sense to our mind.

Some of those things are random and some of those things are not. The things which are non-random act on those which are random. Even some of those things have to form some sort of order or laws to make other things work. Is that it?

All depends on if the world is deterministic or not. Truly random would suggest that it's indeterministic. Is it?

If so, is that really an acceptable answer as to where everything comes from?

Where it comes from is perhaps not the same question as how does it work.

Where a car comes from (factory) is not the same issue as how the engine works. Evolution is true. It's evident. Why it is here, and how the world became that way, that's another question.

Does this make sense? It sounds contrived to me.

Not really. It's contrived to put two different questions into one and force the same answer to both.

May I ask, the stars, planets, galaxies, supernovas, meteor showers, etc. Are they natural or planned, executed, and process by a controlling force? Is physics, chemistry, nutrition, etc natural or controlled by a supernatural being?

If you say they're natural, that means you accept that some things that God created are by design natural. Evolution is also natural, the same way as stars forming in nebulas. Gravity pulls the particles together over millions of years and the pressure builds up and eventually you have a reaction that lights the newborn star up (newborn that took millions of years). Is that by natural "chance" or by Godly control? Is God sitting with trillions of joysticks and playing games with the planets or are they rotating around the Sun based on gravitational force? If you believe those things to be natural (even though by design), the same goes for evolution. Evolution works on natural principles, and perhaps those principles are designed by a God... or not... but that's another question. Evolution is true regardless if God created evolution or not.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the quote 'anyone else' is somewhat misleading seeing as though we are on a religious forum.

Thanks for pointing that out, because that is a core point of our disagreement: your conception of God is yours alone. It neither needs nor can reasonably be expected to make any sense for anyone else, even another theist.

Deities are personal like that.

There is necessity for Him as everything is far too complex to come about by sheer luck. Just because he is invisible is not an answer

Indeed. Deities are never an answer, except perhaps at a purely emotional level.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is also presumptive to assume that nature exists without a creator.

But saying that there must be a creator is no answer at all, except perhaps to some esthetical sense. Where would that creator come from?

Ultimately, existence simply is. I realize that many people feel some degree of need for a "cause" or "creator", but that is not a solvable need.

Saying that a god did it is not a solution either; it is just an appeal to exceptionality, that if anything works better without the claim of a creator God.

When you see a building, you don't assume it is there accidentally. You assume it belongs to someone. Like this earth. I do not assume that it exists accidentally.

Yet the available evidence all but assures us all that it has indeed turned out to form accidentally.

I assume it has an owner, a responsible being in charge.

I don't think I will ever truly understand the theistic drive. Whatever causes it, from all appearances I have been spared.

Perhaps it belongs to an unknown, and unperceived designer. Please stick to the facts, and acknowledge that there may be absolutely nothing that occurs without intent.

"Nothing"?

Why on Earth would anyone say such a think when we know that it is not true?

It's okay to say, I don't know if it was created or not. Do not assume the answers you do not know.

That is my line, pal.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is not an answer. I always think when people start answering in such ways, it is because they do not have an answer.

Not an answer good enough for your need, apparently.

That is ok.

 

[Looncall]

If one is saying that all things are natural, then are they not saying that 'natural did it'? If not, what then did?
They do not have to use those exact words. So I think there is no need for straw

Why do you insist on something like anthropomorphizing processes? Why it not enough to consider that the universe and the things In it have properties and what happens is the working of those properties? If there is gravity, a ball rolls downhill without need of intention on the part of any entity at all.

God-thinking disables human intellect.

 

[Sonofason]

But saying that there must be a creator is no answer at all, except perhaps to some esthetical sense. Where would that creator come from?

I personally believe the account of the origin of God to that which is written in the Bible by the Prophets. God is eternal. He was, He is, and He always will be. That which is eternal exists with no need of an explanation. You know, just like your present Big Bang theory, or your big idea that energy/matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Not

"Although Einstein wasn't religious, and didn't believe in a personal God, he called the genius behind the universe “an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”"
Has Science Discovered God?

Ultimately, existence simply is. I realize that many people feel some degree of need for a "cause" or "creator", but that is not a solvable need.

No, it isn't. This is what I'm talking about. Your making a claim without knowledge. You are working from a lack of knowledge. You cannot say with any certainty whatsoever that "ultimately, existence simply is" You have absolutely no idea of the possible consequences to existence. And you certainly cannot say with any certainty what the importance is of having a creator. Whether it is solvable for you, or not.

I already know there is a creator. And so I have a pretty good understanding with regard to the significance of knowing that a creator exists.

Saying that a god did it is not a solution either; it is just an appeal to exceptionality, that if anything works better without the claim of a creator God.

Saying that God did it answers the question how to some degree and the question of why to a greater degree. All that a scientist can do is try to figure out how it all works. And apply that existing property of this God created universe to his advantage, or disadvantage, whatever it may be. They add nothing to it, and they take nothing from it. God makes the tree, and the scientist cuts it down to make a boat out of it. Scientists marvel at themselves for creating a map, yet God creates that which is mapped, whatever it is, whether it be the earth, a planet, or DNA, etc.

Yet the available evidence all but assures us all that it has indeed turned out to form accidentally.

No it doesn't. It all but assures us that God created everything. Beyond that it tells you absolutely nothing. The absence of evidence can be evidence that something does not exist. But a lack of evidence is very poor evidence, especially for someone claiming to have a scientific mind and scientific understanding.

Let me see you accidentally create life. You can never do such a thing by accident. Such things are done purposefully, and with intent. Try it, and you will see. Employ your scientific method, and see if you can create life accidentally.

I don't think I will ever truly understand the theistic drive. Whatever causes it, from all appearances I have been spared.

God causes it. God created us for Himself. Why an atheist should desire to be spared the love of God, I will never understand.

"Nothing"?

Nothing!!

Why on Earth would anyone say such a think when we know that it is not true?

Oh, if that were only true.




That is my line, pal.[/QUOTE]

 

[LuisDantas]

Unfortunately, I am just not seeing sense on your claims, Son.

The existence you describe is not the one I know.

 

[Sonofason]

Unfortunately, I am just not seeing sense on your claims, Son.

The existence you describe is not the one I know.

I'm sorry, I have no power to undo that. That is God's department. It seems to me we all get to that place at some point in our lives. The question is, what did we do with that when it happened to us?

God has taken hold of me, and I promise, I'm not looking back. I don't care what's behind me. The past is no constraint upon me.

 

[Bunyip]

Well sir, that is your opinion. I do not speak of my own here, this is science that says this. So you argument is with them. To dismiss odds is foolish I think sir. Perhaps you woudl like to explain why you do not like the argument in the first place.

Science is not on your side here Robert.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well, the term "natural selection" is really a misnomer. Nature doesn't really "select" consciously or intentionally.

Correct. Funny how they would use such words though.

We have artificial selection, which is when humans pick on purpose offspring to reproduce. But in nature, those who survive to copulate are those who will have offspring. It's a very simple and straightforward rule. It's so obvious that it can be used as a basic axiom for how nature works.

Sir, it is not that simple when you consider it somewhat more deeper, and look at the different processes that must be in place to make things happen a certain way in the first place. Very easy to say that an automatic machine does something. Try explaining who and what made the machine, and where it came from, rather than using it as a way of explaining away the designer in the first place.

Put it this way. If someone dies in childhood before they get to reproduce, did they reproduce? The answer is logically "no". Because the first part of the sentence clearly states that the child died before he/she was able to reproduce. With natural selection, it's almost as simple as that. Those who survive long enough to reproduce, and reproduced, they reproduced. Those who didn't survive to reproduce or didn't reproduce for other reasons, didn't reproduce. That's "natural selection" in simple terms. What what guides who survives and reproduces? Natural phenomenon, like food, water, heat, protection, speed, strength, size, etc. All different abilities.

And there it is: that word 'natural' again. You see how many 'things' you have to bring in to make the whole event work. Anyone can do anything if there are enough parameters with it. If i made a human being, i could make sure it lived by giving it an appetite. But what has been done?

Unfortunately, most of these abilities might be contradictory to each other. For instance, you can't be big and small at the same time. If a certain niche of environment favors large size, then a large size animal will do better in surviving. If the niche favors small size, then a small size animal will do better. I'm just throwing this together for you to explain it in simple terms. I hope that helps.

Not really... haha Thanks for the effort. Perhaps you haven't read allthe posts yet. Don't blame you. I don't have a problem with evolution. Though I do see that everything is evolving consciousness, so I wouldn't.

But to use the word natural in some magical god like way, is doing what? How is this better than saying God did it. You are giving different processes and making an environment to show that everything will evolve. But cannot I do the same? Cannot I make a ball roll down a slope into a bucket? All I need is gravity a plank with sides, and ball and bucket. So what? To say all of that does what it does, means what? If you are saying that someone did it, fine. But if you are saying it does it itself, then it is natural. So what then is natural? What is this magical property that can bring about a multiverse/universe, big bang, atoms, stars, planets, evolving life, idiots sitting behind screens arguing about it?
Now if you tell me the whole thing in conscious, then it makes sense. But to say that luck does it... no. Won't do. Luck has to make the environment, and the processes that are needed to put us in a position to misunderstand scripture and say there is no God, just because we can explain it physically, and that somehow the parameters are now there that we don't need a God to be involved.
But to do that just puts the magical power of creation into the lap of natural. So what has changed? Now you have to explain what natural is, where it is, what it was doing before it was natural, how it exists, how it can become conscious, why it allows suffering, why there is death, what the meaning of life is.
The main answer from a skeptic is ..... its natural. haha.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Reality as a whole. There are different terms, all just as vague. But in a sense, we don't know the totality of it all.


If the world is deterministic, then there's nothing that's truly lucky, random, or by chance. We don't know if it is truly deterministic or not.

Have you ever played Yatzee!? In that game you roll dice. That's the sheer luck part. Then you pick the dice you want to keep and roll the others. Repeat that max 3 times. And you can then select which row to put the sum into. That's the selection part. Luck -> Selection -> Result.

Do you know how a sieve works? Throw some sand in there--that's the luck part--and the sieve will filter our the smaller grains and disallow the bigger grains passthrough. That's the selection part. It works. That's how the world works.

If there is some supernatural God who planned all these things, he could have created Evolution as the process to produce life.

The key here, is there enough evidence to convince us that evolution is actually happening? Yes, there is. There's a lot of evidence of natural selection for instance. We also know how and why genes mutate. We don't know everything yet, but there's nothing in evolution that is totally outrageous simply because there's too much evidence to support it.

Take another topic, like quantum mechanics. A lot in QM is strange, mystical, counter-intuitive, and sometimes so crazy that we can't believe it's true. But it still is. By tests and experiments many of the properties and rules of QM are true, even if they don't make sense to our mind.


All depends on if the world is deterministic or not. Truly random would suggest that it's indeterministic. Is it?


Where it comes from is perhaps not the same question as how does it work.

Where a car comes from (factory) is not the same issue as how the engine works. Evolution is true. It's evident. Why it is here, and how the world became that way, that's another question.


Not really. It's contrived to put two different questions into one and force the same answer to both.

May I ask, the stars, planets, galaxies, supernovas, meteor showers, etc. Are they natural or planned, executed, and process by a controlling force? Is physics, chemistry, nutrition, etc natural or controlled by a supernatural being?

If you say they're natural, that means you accept that some things that God created are by design natural. Evolution is also natural, the same way as stars forming in nebulas. Gravity pulls the particles together over millions of years and the pressure builds up and eventually you have a reaction that lights the newborn star up (newborn that took millions of years). Is that by natural "chance" or by Godly control? Is God sitting with trillions of joysticks and playing games with the planets or are they rotating around the Sun based on gravitational force? If you believe those things to be natural (even though by design), the same goes for evolution. Evolution works on natural principles, and perhaps those principles are designed by a God... or not... but that's another question. Evolution is true regardless if God created evolution or not.

There's that word again... 'natural'. What does it mean?