Your Best Argument for God's Existence

[Looncall]

No one said the sun could overtake the moon! Anyhow astronomy is still in an abysmal ignorance. What mankind know about it is nothing compared to the facts out there (You were only given a tiny bit of knowledge); Quran addressing humans. Prophet of Islam Mohammed made a prophecy 14 centuries back, it says: one of the sign of the advent of the resurrection day is the rising of the Sun from the west (instead of the east). This is a different astronomy to come. We as Muslims believe in this.

Thanks for your post

Different astronomy? The earth will reverse its rotation? What guff! So much the worse for Muslims.

 

[Jollybear]

All the good things to those who wait.

First we need to settle the fact that random errors can actually improve things, and that such improvements can be persistent and replace the original "design". If you do not agree, please tell me why.

Ciao

- viole

Ok, watch this, im gonna type a paragraph of information, then type it again, but faster, which will cause alot of typos. Then ill ask you if you can read and make it out. Then ill type it a third, then fourth time, but as fast as i can. The second time you will probably be able to work with it. But the third time you wont be able to comprehend it as much, the fourth mayby not at all.

Ok, here goes.

I woke up this morning, got coffee. In a bit will make eggs and oats. Will wait an hour or so, then go to the gym.

I woke up this morning, got coffee. In a bit will make eggs and oats. Will wsit an hour or so, then go to the gym.

I woke up yhis mpr ing, got coffee. In a vjit will makr eggs and oats. Will waite and hour o r so, then go to gym.

I wp ke up tjis morning, goy c9 ffee. In a bit will .kake eggd and osts. Eioll waite hpur so tjen go tp gym.

Ok, the fourth i typed it out as fast as my fingers could possibly move.

As you can see, the mistakes did not create information, it destroyed it.

Also, notice the origin of the information? Me, which me is a "mind".

 

[viole]

Ok, watch this, im gonna type a paragraph of information, then type it again, but faster, which will cause alot of typos. Then ill ask you if you can read and make it out. Then ill type it a third, then fourth time, but as fast as i can. The second time you will probably be able to work with it. But the third time you wont be able to comprehend it as much, the fourth mayby not at all.

Ok, here goes.

I woke up this morning, got coffee. In a bit will make eggs and oats. Will wait an hour or so, then go to the gym.

I woke up this morning, got coffee. In a bit will make eggs and oats. Will wsit an hour or so, then go to the gym.

I woke up yhis mpr ing, got coffee. In a vjit will makr eggs and oats. Will waite and hour o r so, then go to gym.

I wp ke up tjis morning, goy c9 ffee. In a bit will .kake eggd and osts. Eioll waite hpur so tjen go tp gym.

Ok, the fourth i typed it out as fast as my fingers could possibly move.

As you can see, the mistakes did not create information, it destroyed it.

Also, notice the origin of the information? Me, which me is a "mind".

Yes, most errors destroy information (your definition thereof).

But as my example with the recipe shows, changes could also improve things.

I mean, it is obvious. If the possible space of changes comprises:

1) neutral changes: the change does not improve the product/phenotype
2) detrimental changes: the change weakens or destroys the product/phenotype
3) beneficial changes: the change improves the product/phenotype

Then, even if space 3 is tiny, a random change has a NOT zero probability to hit exactly there. And no matter how tiny it is, a zillion of such errors will increae the probability accordingly that at least one will hit there, as long as said probabilty is bigger than zero.

This is just basic probability theory. The only way for you to defeat it, is to show that given any phenotype constructed by a certain chain of DNA, then changes on that DNA cannot possibly improve the product/phenotype.

In other words: that all organisms are perfect and cannot possibly be improved.

Is that what you think?

Ciao

- viole

 

[loganonekenobi]

Here's mine:
Proof God exists is SUPER EASY for anyone to understand (sadly, the stubborn denier is the exception):

1) Each DNA contains 100 million pages worth of instructions to build the entire body. Do instructions write themselves? Nope. Instructions don't write themselves. Behind every instruction is an 'instructor' who authored it. Carl Sagan said: "The information content of a simple cell has been established as around one trillion bits, comparable to about 100 million pages of the Encyclopaedia Britannica."

2) Every genome is written as a quaternary molecular digital code: "All present life is based on digitally-encoded information." (American Academy of Sciences). Do digital programs write themselves? Nope again.

3) Each cell contains hi-tech miniature organs (organelles - nucleus, golgi bodies, mitochondria, chloroplasts, etc.) - none of which are naturally found elsewhere - hence no natural explanation for their existence.

4) Who can write a 100 million pages worth of instructions and then stuff it into every cell of our body? This hyper-intellect is who we will face on Judgment Day.

With item (1) almost every reasonable person acknowledges that they have never seen nor heard of instructions writing themselves. This is common sense to most people although not all.

Some argue they see all the above occur in nature when cells reproduce. However, there is still no explanation how the very first living cell came about with all those instructions in its DNA, and although some theorize that organelles were first formed by bacteria invading a host 'cell', we've never seen organelles produced by such a mechanism nor has such a mechanism ever been DEMONSTRATED and VALIDATED by any study.

Anyway, I would like to hear your argument for God's existence. Thank you.

My only point with these arguments is that even if i admit that there may be a creator the question then becomes can you demonstrate that it is your particular creator and not some one else's idea of a creator. I dont have a probelm with the deistic point of view. The problem comes when a theist says my creator exists there for kill all who dont believe it. This is an extreme example but not far fetched.. I can not know for sure that our reality is not "created" but so far the only thing your argument amounts to is an argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You dont even believe any God exists?

I don't believe in gods.My mind could be changed if someone presented some evidence for any.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Where did reason and logic come from?

Animals that have developed frontal lobes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because if he did everything for them, hed cripple them.

Can you elaborate on that? So God requires human beings to murder on "his" behalf??

 

[SkepticThinker]

“Magic?” No.
Unless you mean wisdom by an intelligent designer. No magic involved, just science.

What science?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What science?

What fields would be involved if scientists created life? Probably engineering and physics?

Or would you call that, 'magic'?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What fields would be involved if scientists created life? Probably engineering and physics?

Or would you call that, 'magic'?

Chemistry. And no.

 

[Baroodi]

Different astronomy? The earth will reverse its rotation? What guff! So much the worse for Muslims.

No not the earth. It is the Sun dear. No Wonder, God is Omnipotent, He does what he judges. It may sound weird but not to a believer in the Creator.

 

[Baroodi]

Why does the Sun rise in the east and set in the west?

Have a look here Looncall. People may wake up and see the sun rising from the west one day. We are not sure how this can happen. Prophets receive divine messages.

 

[Baroodi]

sorry I got the wrong link

 

[Baroodi]

Different astronomy? The earth will reverse its rotation? What guff! So much the worse for Muslims.

 

[Valjean]

Ok, watch this, im gonna type a paragraph of information, then type it again, but faster, which will cause alot of typos. Then ill ask you if you can read and make it out. Then ill type it a third, then fourth time, but as fast as i can. The second time you will probably be able to work with it. But the third time you wont be able to comprehend it as much, the fourth mayby not at all.

Ok, here goes.

I woke up this morning, got coffee. In a bit will make eggs and oats. Will wait an hour or so, then go to the gym.

I woke up this morning, got coffee. In a bit will make eggs and oats. Will wsit an hour or so, then go to the gym.

I woke up yhis mpr ing, got coffee. In a vjit will makr eggs and oats. Will waite and hour o r so, then go to gym.

I wp ke up tjis morning, goy c9 ffee. In a bit will .kake eggd and osts. Eioll waite hpur so tjen go tp gym.

Ok, the fourth i typed it out as fast as my fingers could possibly move.

As you can see, the mistakes did not create information, it destroyed it.

Also, notice the origin of the information? Me, which me is a "mind".

A book or essay is not a work in progress, it's a done deal. It can't evolve.
Organisms are constantly changing. They reproduce with variation. A chance mutation that would be harmful in most situations might confer Malaria or Plague resistance. It might increase oxygen utilization, or the ability to digest nylon. Utility is often determined by environment.

But most variation, of course, is just reproductive. A drought forces a population to migrate North. Are the pups born with longer fur and more compact bodies going to have more reproductive success than their short-haired siblings? Is the trait not going to increase in the population? Is this not the same trait that would be disadvantageous had the population moved South? Agasin: environmental selection.

What fields would be involved if scientists created life? Probably engineering and physics?

Or would you call that, 'magic'?

No, that would be engineering, utilizing known, observable, repeatable laws of chemistry or physics.
Magic is when there's no apparent mechanism and an effect is achieved in violation of natural laws.

 

[Jollybear]

A book or essay is not a work in progress, it's a done deal.

Thats not true. The english language has evolved over time. Plus, pappers that have a set message also can evolve there ideas over time as well. This debate evolves over time.

It can't evolve.
Organisms are constantly changing. They reproduce with variation. A chance mutation that would be harmful in most situations might confer Malaria or Plague resistance. It might increase oxygen utilization, or the ability to digest nylon. Utility is often determined by environment.

But most variation, of course, is just reproductive. A drought forces a population to migrate North. Are the pups born with longer fur and more compact bodies going to have more reproductive success than their short-haired siblings? Is the trait not going to increase in the population? Is this not the same trait that would be disadvantageous had the population moved South? Agasin: environmental selection.

If i did a bunch of typos to the point of no recognition, you would naturally select it away by saying type my message again.

Mutations are gonna be naturally selected out.

But, heres the kicker, natural selection and mutations or mistakes or typos to information, NONE of that explain the origin of the information itself.

 

[Jollybear]

Animals that have developed frontal lobes.

Ok....so how did the frontal lobe get made?

And since we both have one, why do you trust yours more then mine?

 

[Jollybear]

My only point with these arguments is that even if i admit that there may be a creator the question then becomes can you demonstrate that it is your particular creator and not some one else's idea of a creator. I dont have a probelm with the deistic point of view. The problem comes when a theist says my creator exists there for kill all who dont believe it. This is an extreme example but not far fetched.. I can not know for sure that our reality is not "created" but so far the only thing your argument amounts to is an argument from ignorance which is a logical fallacy.

Most theists, including this one, dont desire to kill others that disagree. What we propose is intellectual accountability. ASPEASALY to the scientific community.

 

[Jollybear]

Yes, most errors destroy information (your definition thereof).

But as my example with the recipe shows, changes could also improve things.

A bunch of misspells and typos to the recipe instructions would not improve the recipe. It would destroy it.

Any improvements to the recipe would come about from a person doing cooking experiments and then adding to the recipe. Hence, the evolving of the recipe comes from intelligence (the cooker).

I mean, it is obvious. If the possible space of changes comprises:

1) neutral changes: the change does not improve the product/phenotype
2) detrimental changes: the change weakens or destroys the product/phenotype
3) beneficial changes: the change improves the product/phenotype

I guess id like to see direct evidence that mutations can give beneficial change to DNA.

Then, even if space 3 is tiny, a random change has a NOT zero probability to hit exactly there. And no matter how tiny it is, a zillion of such errors will increae the probability accordingly that at least one will hit there, as long as said probabilty is bigger than zero.

This is just basic probability theory. The only way for you to defeat it, is to show that given any phenotype constructed by a certain chain of DNA, then changes on that DNA cannot possibly improve the product/phenotype.

In other words: that all organisms are perfect and cannot possibly be improved.

Is that what you think?

Ciao

- viole

I think organisms can adapt slightly (moderate change) but thats within its already information. And any change that happens to an organism or even to the information still does not account for the origin of the information itself.

Just like the recipe. A change to the recipe does not account for the origin of the information itself, which is MIND or intelligence.

 

[Valjean]

If i did a bunch of typos to the point of no recognition, you would naturally select it away by saying type my message again.

You get my meaning. You're comparing apples and air conditioners. Books aren't printed with variations.

Mutations are gonna be naturally selected out.

You're still assuming mutations are harmful, plus you're ignoring other mechanisms of evolution.
Most gene mutations are neutral, some are beneficial, some harmful. Why would a change that didn't impede reproductive success be weeded out? By what mechanism?

But, heres the kicker, natural selection and mutations or mistakes or typos to information, NONE of that explain the origin of the information itself.

They're typos in the genetic code.

Now you're changing the subject -- to abiogenesis.
Have you read anything about this field? You seem to assume it's a complete unknown. You also seem to assume that if science can't explain something, it's evidence that Goddidit.