There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Subduction Zone]

Chemistry is code.

Define your terms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This discussion proves the existence of God. But you want physical proof of a physical God because you know you won’t get it. Isn’t that right?

It does not come close to it. At best it only demonstrates your ignorance of the sciences so far. The good news is that it does not refute a god either. So there is that for you..

 

[AnthonyGiarrusso]

What? I talked to God yesterday.

Thank You Kenny!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

This discussion proves the existence of God. But you want physical proof of a physical God because you know you won’t get it. Isn’t that right?

"This" discussion? What discussion is that?

I'm simply saying that there is a high bar as to what qualifies as evidence. Scientific research is good evidence. And arguments that obey all the rules of logic are good evidence. Personal experience is not. Religious texts are not.

 

[AnthonyGiarrusso]

God is real. God helped me reach my dreams.
Thank you God for mysterious ways.
Love Anthony Giarrusso.

 

[Polymath257]

Chemistry is code.

Not in any conventional sense of the words.

 

[Unfettered]

Well, in the case where chemical spontaneously assemble in such a way that information is coded into their arrangement, the end result is NOT self-organized (because it didn't organize itself), but there is no 'coder' because no conscious entity 'wrote' the code.

Logically, questions of spontaneous assembly are secondary to the origins of the processes responsible for the animation of those assembled elements. In fact, the assumption of spontaneity prejudices the question of the nature and origin of the coding involved. It certainly doesn't address the question, and it absolutely does not answer it. It ignores it entirely. The most logical source of coding is a coder. Correct? Again, don't prejudice the question with an assumption of consciousness or intention. If the evidence eventually points there, or not, it will point where it points.

So that is yet another logical error. You leave something undefined and jump to the conclusion that what you (supposedly) found is the target. In essence, you are begging the question.

I disagree. It is not necessary to identify anything or anyone involved in order to hypothesize that something coded the chemicals to react a certain way. My only interest is the truth, so I have no dog in the fight. No position to defend. How, then, is it not most prejudicial to the observable evidence—the existence of a code (animate information) and a compatible compiler (as evidenced by the reaction of the chemicals to the assembled code)—to conclude (not merely assume, but conclude) that there was no coder involved on some level?

So, for example, the term 'god' typically is restricted to either supernatural or very powerful natural entities. An alien race would usually NOT be considered to be a 'god'. So, your shifting of the definition is a type of logical error.

Second, the term 'God' is usually restricted to a being that makes the universe, not just modifies life on one small planet. So it is reasonable to question your use of a term that already has strong connotations.

Then let's remove the distracting word, because I understood we were looking at the question logically. Ultimately, the evidence points to a coder; that's what I'm saying; that's what I'm looking at; that's what I'm inviting others to scrutinize with logic.

Really? How is it not accounting for what we actually see? For example, we know there is more than one version of the DNA code (mitochondria have a modified code). We know that the *actual* detials of the code isn't in the DNA itself, but rather in the transfer RNA (tRNA) that binds to both codons and amino acids. We know that that code is rather arbitrary *because we know how to change it*.

We're not focusing here on what we see, but rather than we don't see. We're applying what we see to arrive at the thing to which it points. At least, that's what I understand us to be doing. Perhaps you are engaged in some other exercise. I don't know. You'll have to say.

So the fact that we can change the code, manipulate it, modify the conditions around it, etc., to change things, does not change that in it's natural form, it is a code. Is it possible that the code was not coded? That no part of any code, pattern or system we observe in the universe derives from anything but spontaneous assembly? Sure, it's possible. But it's the least likely explanation. So such a position is highly prejudicial to the evidence.

The mistake you make is assuming that code that does not write itself is written by a 'who' as opposed to simply coming from natural processes. You also make the mistake of identifying that 'who' with a term that already has some standard connotations.

I do not judge it to be a mistake to follow observable evidence that points to coded natural processes. On the contrary, in my judgment it is a mistake to prejudice the possibility of coded natural processes with the least probable explanation—spontaneity uninfluenced by coding. I've yet to see any argument for the latter that conforms to all the observable evidence. Rather every argument in favor of such spontaneity prejudices the evidence against other explanations. I'd just as soon we not do that, but subject all explanations to the same objective scrutiny, and admit every missing piece of the puzzle as we encounter gaps. That is logical. Any suppression of possible explanations suggests bias and abandonment of logic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Logically, questions of spontaneous assembly are secondary to the origins of the processes responsible for the animation of those assembled elements. In fact, the assumption of spontaneity prejudices the question of the nature and origin of the coding involved. It certainly doesn't address the question, and it absolutely does not answer it. It ignores it entirely. The most logical source of coding is a coder. Correct? Again, don't prejudice the question with an assumption of consciousness or intention. If the evidence eventually points there, or not, it will point where it points.

No, spontaneous assembly is what is witnessed. There is no prejudice. And you are back to your equivocation fallacy again. The genetic code does not appear to be written by a coder. You are making an equivocation fallacy again. It is not that sort of code. I thought that you were not going to do that.

I disagree. It is not necessary to identify anything or anyone involved in order to hypothesize that something coded the chemicals to react a certain way. My only interest is the truth, so I have no dog in the fight. No position to defend. How, then, is it not most prejudicial to the observable evidence—the existence of a code (animate information) and a compatible compiler (as evidenced by the reaction of the chemicals to the assembled code)—to conclude (not merely assume, but conclude) that there was no coder involved on some level?

I do not think that you know what a hypothesis is. If you do not have a test based upon predictions made by your model that could possibly refute it then by definition you do not have have a hypothesis. By definition a hypothesis has to be falsifiable. And without a proper hypothesis at the very least you do not have evidence.

Then let's remove the distracting word, because I understood we were looking at the question logically. Ultimately, the evidence points to a coder; that's what I'm saying; that's what I'm looking at; that's what I'm inviting others to scrutinize with logic.

No, it seriously does not. Have you heard of the Dover trial? That is where the Discovery Institute tried to dishonestly introduce Intelligent Design into a high school curriculum. The judge for that trial was a conservative Republican appointed judge. He was the dream judge for the ID side. But even he, without any scientific training could see the obvious. There was no evidence for ID. And though the judge may not have had training in the sciences, he did have a training in evidence and he could see that ID had none.

But go ahead. Form a proper scientific hypothesis that makes predictions and tell us how those predictions could possibly refute it if it was wrong. If you cannot do that then you do not have any evidence.

We're not focusing here on what we see, but rather than we don't see. We're applying what we see to arrive at the thing to which it points. At least, that's what I understand us to be doing. Perhaps you are engaged in some other exercise. I don't know. You'll have to say.

So the fact that we can change the code, manipulate it, modify the conditions around it, etc., to change things, does not change that in it's natural form, it is a code. Is it possible that the code was not coded? That no part of any code, pattern or system we observe in the universe derives from anything but spontaneous assembly? Sure, it's possible. But it's the least likely explanation. So such a position is highly prejudicial to the evidence.

You have it backwards. We can observe, proper test, and confirm that evolution is natural. You on the other hand are predicting that it was magic. Magic is the always the least likely answer. You do not even have any evidence for your claims.

I do not judge it to be a mistake to follow observable evidence that points to coded natural processes. On the contrary, in my judgment it is a mistake to prejudice the possibility of coded natural processes with the least probable explanation—spontaneity uninfluenced by coding. I've yet to see any argument for the latter that conforms to all the observable evidence. Rather every argument in favor of such spontaneity prejudices the evidence against other explanations. I'd just as soon we not do that, but subject all explanations to the same objective scrutiny, and admit every missing piece of the puzzle as we encounter gaps. That is logical. Any suppression of possible explanations suggests bias and abandonment of logic.

And once again you use your equivocation fallacy that you said that you would not use. I am getting a bit disappointed in you.

 

[Unfettered]

No, spontaneous assembly is what is witnessed. There is no prejudice.

I have not contested spontaneous assembly but the leveraging of that observation to dismiss another observation—that what is witnessed is the creation and transmission and replication of genetic code.

And you are back to your equivocation fallacy again. The genetic code does not appear to be written by a coder. You are making an equivocation fallacy again. It is not that sort of code.

"Does not appear to be" isn't the kind of language one uses when the claim being made is understood to be definitive or unimpeachable. I cannot say whether or not that was intentional on your part, but I don't hesitate to respond that code is code. That languages, structures, environments, etc., in which code is written, found and executed are clearly not uniform doesn't change the fact that it's all code. Nor is a belief that genetic code is "written" necessary to agree that it is code. It's code.

I do not think that you know what a hypothesis is. If you do not have a test based upon predictions made by your model that could possibly refute it then by definition you do not have have a hypothesis. By definition a hypothesis has to be falsifiable. And without a proper hypothesis at the very least you do not have evidence.

I do know what a hypothesis is, but your calling it out here is appropriate. My use of the term has been sloppy. I should have been referencing a theory, not a hypothesis. And while we're here, it should be clarified that I understand us to be engaged in a logical discussion, not a scientific experiment.

No, it seriously does not. Have you heard of the Dover trial? That is where the Discovery Institute tried to dishonestly introduce Intelligent Design into a high school curriculum. The judge for that trial was a conservative Republican appointed judge. He was the dream judge for the ID side. But even he, without any scientific training could see the obvious. There was no evidence for ID. And though the judge may not have had training in the sciences, he did have a training in evidence and he could see that ID had none.

You'll have to explain why you included this. I don't see that it has any relevance to anything I'm doing here.

But go ahead. Form a proper scientific hypothesis that makes predictions and tell us how those predictions could possibly refute it if it was wrong. If you cannot do that then you do not have any evidence.

Again, scientific vs logic. I started out in this thread because someone (I don't remember who) invited proof of the existence of god through ought but flawless logic. I hadn't ever seen such an invitation before, so I joined. That said, I've not even reached the point in discussion where the logical argument being presented is prepared to make the final assertion. That time may never come. Do I believe that the existence of god can be proven through flawless logic? Yes. Can I do it? I don't know. That's what were working through. And though there is clear crossover into scientific considerations here, if you've been under the impression that we should be applying scientific standards to everything, this isn't that discussion. At least, not for my part.

You have it backwards. We can observe, proper test, and confirm that evolution is natural. You on the other hand are predicting that it was magic. Magic is the always the least likely answer. You do not even have any evidence for your claims.

I think I've address the scientific standard question. No idea why you're bringing magic into it. Logical analysis doesn't need magic; it either is logical or it isn't. Binary.

And once again you use your equivocation fallacy that you said that you would not use. I am getting a bit disappointed in you.

LOL, I'm not here to impress you or measure up to some standard you use to measure fellow posters or their views, though I do learn a lot as I discuss things. The most valued learning, however, is never gained from things said by those who make it personal. I appreciate the time you take to respond. When it feels like you're producing unique thoughts on behalf of the discussion, I find the overall investment of time and effort to be rewarding and worthwhile, whether or not we agree, and regardless of whether I have made the best argument I could have (not all hits are home-runs; and not all swings are hits!). I suggest we not make it personal. What say?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science has a standard for what constitutes "proof." So does the legal profession. Presenting proof that lies outside those standards results in a rejection or dismissal of the proof.

Establishing a standard of proof between participants in a discussion forum seems entirely reasonable to me.

The standards for evidence are pretty much universal.

First you need a testable idea. "Testable" means that the idea has aspects / predictions naturally flowing from it that can be independently verified.
Evidence would then be data that explicitly matches or contradicts these predictions.


In other words, before you can even begin to talk about evidence, let alone proof, you actually need a well defined idea that makes testable predictions.


Untestable / unfalsifiable ideas are infinite in number and should be rejected at face value.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Self-originate" means what it implies: the thing brought itself into existence.

Does that clarify what I meant? If not, I'll try to explain again.

@Polymath257 has just explained to you that it is a strawman to describe it like that.

For example, a planet forms through gravity from the left over debris of star formation in the accretion disc.
Do planets "self-form"? No, they don't.
They are rather the result of gravity acting upon matter.

No one made a claim about it.

Ow so you know that? You are aware of arguing a strawman?

I'm suggesting that the examination of the idea in a logical process yields a reasonable conclusion supporting the existence of a god.

It doesn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In nature there is self-replicating code, such as DNA. The fact that it self-replicates begs the question "Did it also self-originate"? If the answer is "No,"

@Polymath257 has already given you the answer "no". You yourself in reply to that acknowledged that you actually KNOW that nobody claims this.
So why are you suggesting this and / or using it as a premise? You are setting yourself up for massive failure.

then it something wrote that code—and wrote it to self-replicate.

DNA is a molecule. It forms through a chemical process. There is no "writing".

If that is flawless logic, then the coder would be "god" and the flawless logic is the proof of god's existence.

First, even IF we would bend over backwards and assume it required "writing" (it doesn't), then still this is not at all "proof of god".
You are just assuming your conclusion. You have not demonstrated AT ALL that
1. there is a god
and
2. she did the writing

You are just asserting it. Without evidence.
You need to actually demonstrate the causal link.

Of course, god's identity and characteristics could not be known through the same logic, only the fact of god's existence.

False. It's just a bare assertion.
"it was written" doesn't get you to "therefor god".

On top of it all, it wasn't even "written" in the first place. It's a MOLECULE. A CHEMICAL COMPOUND. Not a book.

Further investigation would be required to identify god.

There is nothing there to investigate. All you have is a bare assertion.
I could just as well assert it was extra-dimensional aliens, unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters,... and it wouldn't make any difference.

Also, what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

If the answer is "Yes," then wouldn't the thing, itself, be "god?" Seems like logic points to the existence of god either way.

"heads I win, tails you lose".

And in neither case does it make sense.
Your assumed conclusion, circular reasoning and bare assertions are noted. And subsequently rejected as the fallacious nonsense that it is.

I don't know; what do you think?

I think you wouldn't recognize "flawless logic" when it came up and hit you upside the head.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No one here has; correct.

No one, anywhere.

Except dishonest creationists who use it as a strawman.

I understand. I was not including skepticism or caution in the approach, as those weren't asked for. Just flawless logic.

Conclusions that don't follow and bare assertions are the opposite of "flawless logic". As logic, that is as flawed as it gets.

And there is no flaw in the logic that code comes from a coder (whether the coder is unconscious, or not, of its coding, the coder yet remains "god." Questions of identity require a different logical exercise to address.

But you did pretend it identifies. You said it was a god.
Make up your fallacious mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have not contested spontaneous assembly but the leveraging of that observation to dismiss another observation—that what is witnessed is the creation and transmission and replication of genetic code.
"Does not appear to be" isn't the kind of language one uses when the claim being made is understood to be definitive or unimpeachable. I cannot say whether or not that was intentional on your part, but I don't hesitate to respond that code is code. That languages, structures, environments, etc., in which code is written, found and executed are clearly not uniform doesn't change the fact that it's all code. Nor is a belief that genetic code is "written" necessary to agree that it is code. It's code.

You mean the genome. Yes, that is very well understood. Perhaps instead of making bad arguments you should concentrate on learning for a while.

I do know what a hypothesis is, but your calling it out here is appropriate. My use of the term has been sloppy. I should have been referencing a theory, not a hypothesis. And while we're here, it should be clarified that I understand us to be engaged in a logical discussion, not a scientific experiment.
You'll have to explain why you included this. I don't see that it has any relevance to anything I'm doing here.

I don't think that you understand what a hypothesis is either. Scientific advancement is done through forming and testing hypotheses. Hypotheses tend to deal with very specific problems in the sciences. A theory is formed when one finds a series of related confirmed hypotheses and ties them together. The theory of evolution does that with all of the related confirmed hypotheses on different steps in evolution.


Please note "confirmed" does not mean true. It is only likely to be true. It means that a hypothesis has been tested and found to be correct for at least one proposed test. Later tests may still refute it.

Again, scientific vs logic. I started out in this thread because someone (I don't remember who) invited proof of the existence of god through ought but flawless logic. I hadn't ever seen such an invitation before, so I joined. That said, I've not even reached the point in discussion where the logical argument being presented is prepared to make the final assertion. That time may never come. Do I believe that the existence of god can be proven through flawless logic? Yes. Can I do it? I don't know. That's what were working through. And though there is clear crossover into scientific considerations here, if you've been under the impression that we should be applying scientific standards to everything, this isn't that discussion. At least, not for my part.

This thread is about evidence for God. Evidence is not "proof". Technically proof is a mathematical term. Science only does evidence and has to have an open mind that it may be wrong. That is why you should try to learn what is and is not evidence, at least in a scientific sense.

As to logical proof of God, no one has come even close. That doesn't mean that there is no God, but if one is honest one has to admit that things do not look good for a god.

I think I've address the scientific standard question. No idea why you're bringing magic into it. Logical analysis doesn't need magic; it either is logical or it isn't. Binary.

Because you are arguing for magic. And you are not making a logical argument for anything else.

LOL, I'm not here to impress you or measure up to some standard you use to measure fellow posters or their views, though I do learn a lot as I discuss things. The most valued learning, however, is never gained from things said by those who make it personal. I appreciate the time you take to respond. When it feels like you're producing unique thoughts on behalf of the discussion, I find the overall investment of time and effort to be rewarding and worthwhile, whether or not we agree, and regardless of whether I have made the best argument I could have (not all hits are home-runs; and not all swings are hits!). I suggest we not make it personal. What say?

Do you not want to be honest? You appear to be failing at that. That should matter to you. You complained earlier how others always end up attacking you. If you claim to be trying for an honest discussion and then veer from honesty it is not a personal attack when that is mentioned to you.

Don't take corrections personally. Just make the correction and move on. If you do that there will not be what you are falsely claiming to be personal attacks.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What? I talked to God yesterday.

Cool.

Ask her how to marry special relativity with quantum physics. How to unify gravity with the other forces.
It's something that has stumped physics for about a century now. Surely your god will know the answer to that.


I suspect that this god you claim to talk to, doesn't actually know more then you do.
I know exactly why that is the case though. Do you?

 

[Haru13]

I don't believe in god but I took god/messenger stories as lesson and keep the notes of do's and don't in life. The god/his messengers, many of them had a hardership in their life because they always looked at a bigger picture and not just think about themselves and their profits. I'm not someone great like them but being a normal guy, I try to learn from those stories what should be a human deed and what can end you up in chaos.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't know ;it seems to me that the label goes beyond mere analogy in the sense that DNA is actually "written."

Again, it is not. DNA is a molecule.
It doesn't require any "writing" any more then H2O does.

That chemistry plays a part is not in dispute.

In DNA, chemistry does not just "play a part". DNA is 100% (bio)chemistry. It is a molecule.

The problem with introducing this additional element

It's not "additional". It's the ONLY element.

is that one has to now account also for how the rules (or code) that govern simple chemistry (as simple chemistry governs DNA) were written. For simple chemistry is coding, too.

And again we arrive at the fallacious "heads I win, tails you lose".

That it does not appear to be logic to you does not mean it isn't logic. Do you agree?

What is and isn't logical is not a matter of personal opinion

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God is real. God helped me reach my dreams.
Thank you God for mysterious ways.
Love Anthony Giarrusso.

I am so glad your god is taking care of your dreams of personal riches / wealth with ludicrously expensive cars and likely other luxury items while children in africa are dying of hunger and diarrhea.

You should be proud.




Personally though, I'ld be ashamed. But that's just me and my pesky humanist atheist godless ethical standards.

 

[Unfettered]

You mean the genome. Yes, that is very well understood. Perhaps instead of making bad arguments you should concentrate on learning for a while.

I learn, though not always what is expected.

I don't think that you understand what a hypothesis is either. Scientific advancement is done through forming and testing hypotheses. Hypotheses tend to deal with very specific problems in the sciences. A theory is formed when one finds a series of related confirmed hypotheses and ties them together. The theory of evolution does that with all of the related confirmed hypotheses on different steps in evolution.

Thank you for that, but I do understand the terms.

Please note "confirmed" does not mean true. It is only likely to be true. It means that a hypothesis has been tested and found to be correct for at least one proposed test. Later tests may still refute it.

Not a firm foundation for anything beyond the transitory, of course, but understood. Science has its limits.

This thread is about evidence for God. Evidence is not "proof". Technically proof is a mathematical term. Science only does evidence and has to have an open mind that it may be wrong. That is why you should try to learn what is and is not evidence, at least in a scientific sense.

As I said, I do learn...

As to logical proof of God, no one has come even close. That doesn't mean that there is no God, but if one is honest one has to admit that things do not look good for a god.

I understand why you'd have that perspective.

Because you are arguing for magic. And you are not making a logical argument for anything else.

Doubling down doesn't change the fact that I'm not arguing for magic or failing to make a logical argument. It does suggest that one of us is disinterested in good-faith discourse.

Do you not want to be honest? You appear to be failing at that.

Am I failing, or do I just appear to be? I wish someone with authority would tell me…

That should matter to you.

Well, if anyone would know whether it does or doesn't, it would be you, right?

You complained earlier how others always end up attacking you. If you claim to be trying for an honest discussion and then veer from honesty it is not a personal attack when that is mentioned to you.

I don't claim to be trying for an honest discussion. I am engaged in an honest discussion. I admit, at this point, that I don't really know what you're engaged in. I have some ideas, but I don't claim to know with certainty.

Don't take corrections personally. Just make the correction and move on. If you do that there will not be what you are falsely claiming to be personal attacks.

I have things to correct, but none of them have you identified in this thread. Wait, that's not true. I was sloppy in my use of the word "hypothesis." You called me on that with good reason. I can see how carelessness there could lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Thanks for not letting that slide. That's it, however. Whatever else it is you're referring to when you talk about corrections...I have no idea what it is your talking about. Don't take that personally, though. Just go with it. Not every shot goes in.

--------------------
Also, I won't again respond to condescension. I've given you everything you're going to get unless you can curb your desire to insult.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

God is real. God helped me reach my dreams.
Thank you God for mysterious ways.
Love Anthony Giarrusso.

I think you must be speaking tongue in cheek. God doesn't give a hoot whether you have a sports car.