Anyone got proof of God

[nine dog war]

I have heard all the retohric, the Bible versus etc etc etc

What Im looking for is proof to the hypothesis of God. I would love to see tangible proof or if not at least one logical argument. So far I have not seen nor heard either.

Please note the words "Tangible" and "Logical". If wish to use quotes from the religious texts then please prove the vadility of the source. e.g. If you quote from the Bible book of Luke please provide proof Luke existed and was not completly stark raving mad.

Blessed is the mind too small for doubt for it is easily filled with faith.

[McCulloch]

Funny for the N.T. to be "debunked" as you say, it's doing quite well sales wise. Still outselling any book in or out of existence.

That is evidence that lots of people want the book. Nothing more.

Also the overwhelming evidence for it's accuracy to the "Autographs" is unequaled for "any" book from antiquity.

This is evidence that it has been preserved well. That does not make it inerrant.

I say the Bible is not debunked! I say it's inerrant!

Yes, we know that you say that. We still have no idea why.

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi josh,

I think Ken Miller of Brown University Here gves the evolutionary explanation of blood clotting. However, I’m guessing you have already read Miller or something similar. Which I think goes some way towards explaining the methodological restriction you add at the end of your post

--Given the evolutionary process is time driven and takes many different mutations to derive a change to the physiological make-up of a life form it must be presented that the conception of blood clots must have happened on the first try not several million trys down the road. The reasoning is that a life form cannot survive without being able to create a blood clot.-- Assuming that it was not created by something at one setting would be to say that the fittest could not survive because it did not have the basic of the basic survival capabilities. Ergo, the beginning of the species will also be its end.

Control: ("Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.") Argumentatively, our present day blood should be used as a control basis. Any other alterations to our blood that would give us clotting capabilities have never been observed thus they would be deemed unscientific.

If I get you right you are saying that we can only use the presently observed function of blood clotting as a model. Alternative functions and scaffolding type arguments are then neatly placed offside. So you are already tying one arm behind the back of the evolutionist. Nice work. However, that is not the scientific method. In science you are allowed to dream up any model you wish as long as that model makes predictions and can be tested. It is the prediction bit of the method that is the best bulwark against interpretive frameworks that have a tendency to be opportunistic with the data. Also the prediction bit means there has to be some implication for present phenomena that can be observed.

But that is Miller's point.

There are many other tests and predictions that can be imposed on the scheme as well, but one of the boldest was made by Doolittle himself more than a decade ago. If the modern fibrinogen gene really was recruited from a duplicated ancestral gene, one that had nothing to do with blood clotting, then we ought to be able to find a fibrinogen-like gene in an animal that does not possess the vertebrate clotting pathway. In other words, we ought to be able to find a non-clotting fibrinogen protein in an invertebrate. That's a mighty bold prediction, because if it could not be found, it would cast Doolittle's whole evolutionary scheme into doubt.

Not to worry. In 1990, Xun Yu and Doolittle won their own bet, finding a fibrinogen-like sequence in the sea cucumber, an echinoderm. The vertebrate fibrinogen gene, just like genes for the other proteins of the clotting sequence, was formed by the duplication and modification of pre-existing genes.

So the evolutionary account of blood clotting is predictive. I’ll also draw your attention to this point.

In other words, we ought to be able to find a non-clotting fibrinogen protein in an invertebrate.

Yu and Doolittle then have found an alternative modern empirically observed fibrinogen protein not involved in clotting.

[Biker]

Hello all,

It is my intention to show empirical evidence using the scientific method to show the existence of a god and maybe in latter post's to show the difference between the Christian's God and all the other gods that society has produced. I will show only one proof of evidence per post. I encourage anyone to refute my subject matter and I am open to peer review. As goes the scientific method I will quote the descriptions from Wikipedia:

Purpose of this particular post is to show certain biological functions cannot happen with out a higher being or designer. This proof must point to a god of some sorts. Specifically, I will examine blood and its clotting process.

Observation: ("A constant feature of scientific inquiry.") The following quote is from http://library.thinkquest.org/C0115080/?c=clotting#How. "When you get a cut or bruise, your blood exposed to the air will clot. The clot seals the wound to prevent excessive blood loss while at the same time preventing foreign invasive particles from entering your bloodstream."

Description: ("Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).") The following is quoted from the previous stated website. "When blood vessels are severed/damaged, the enzyme thrombokinase is secreted by the damaged tissues and blood platelets in the bloodstream. Thrombokinase converts the prothrombin which a soluble protein in the bloodstream into thrombin. Calcium ions must be present before this can take place. Thrombin is an enzyme that catalyses soluble fibrinogen into a network of insoluble fibrin over the wound. Other essential elements that include the presence of vital minerals and vitamins (i.e. vitamin K)"

Prediction: ("Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.") A sufficient prediction can be drawn from the presented facts.
--Given the evolutionary process is time driven and takes many different mutations to derive a change to the physiological make-up of a life form it must be presented that the conception of blood clots must have happened on the first try not several million trys down the road. The reasoning is that a life form cannot survive without being able to create a blood clot.-- Assuming that it was not created by something at one setting would be to say that the fittest could not survive because it did not have the basic of the basic survival capabilities. Ergo, the beginning of the species will also be its end.

Control: ("Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.") Argumentatively, our present day blood should be used as a control basis. Any other alterations to our blood that would give us clotting capabilities have never been observed thus they would be deemed unscientific.

Hi Josh,
I think I may have learned something here in this post!
Wow, a unique occurence.
Anyway, welcome to the fray Josh.

Biker

[Biker]

Funny for the N.T. to be "debunked" as you say, it's doing quite well sales wise. Still outselling any book in or out of existence.

That is evidence that lots of people want the book. Nothing more.

Also the overwhelming evidence for it's accuracy to the "Autographs" is unequaled for "any" book from antiquity.

This is evidence that it has been preserved well. That does not make it inerrant.

I say the Bible is not debunked! I say it's inerrant!

Yes, we know that you say that. We still have no idea why.

Mac,
Your such a humorist, at least its never boring.
I would say that folks still place great value in it, because they recognize what it is.
It is very well preserved, and still the source of truth.
Why, because it tells the truth in all it talks about, the primary subject being, Jesus.
I believe the document itself is proof.

Biker

[bernee51]

Hi Josh,
I think I may have learned something here in this post!
Wow, a unique occurence.
Anyway, welcome to the fray Josh.

Biker

Biker learning something is a 'unique occurence'.

I'm glad HE said that.

[bernee51]

I believe the document itself is proof.

Biker

And that is still a circularity?

You obviously haven't learned that.

[otseng]

No, his arguements seem to be more in line with of the puddle that is amazed that the hole it is in fits it so perfectly. It is sort of like taking a bow and arrow, shooting it up into the air at random, and then drawing a bullseye right where it lands, and be amazed it hit the target so perfectly.

Actually, Denton argues convincingly that the target is drawn before the arrow is shot.

Well, from what I have read of what he said, the only way you can be convinced is if you were convinced before hand.

Well, you might be surprised to find out that Denton did not start off writing the book with having a designer in mind. It was only as he was writing the book did it become a book in natural theology.

So, probably the opposite is more accurate. The only way you would not be convinced is if you were determined before hand.

[FinalEnigma]

Well, you might be surprised to find out that Denton did not start off writing the book with having a designer in mind. It was only as he was writing the book did it become a book in natural theology.

That's an odd one. So, did he start off trying to write a book having something else in mind, and noticed "hey! this book is doing a great job of showing a designer" and turned it into that?

He must have gone back and changed previous chapters then in order to point to a designer, because, from the quotes you guys have been posting in the other thread and the way you have been talking about it it would seem he was attempting to semi-gently prod you in that direction from the beggining.

[melikio]

Kudos to melikio for answering semi-honestly. The rest of you gave the same horrid showing I've come to expect from theists on this subject.

Duke,

Thanks for the "kudos".

But I contend with the description implying that my personal views are "semi-honest". I can assure anyone that while I don't believe that I expressed absolute or perfect truth, I do live in accordance to the words I shared in the post being referred to.

After many years of the "flavors" of certain types of "Christian" indoctrination, it has been interesting to think and decide for myself for the last 5 years or so. Being familiar with much of Christian culture (not merely the facts/myths surrounding it), I know what it is for a human being to QUESTION what's "real" to them (even if it's intangible to others). Honest inquiry about such things can be painfully difficult, and because we are "human" (all of us) the path to was is true may not be as clear-cut to one person, as it may be to another (despite the "facts").

When it comes to "proof" and "evidence" (as people have generally defined it here), the "human" factors need to be consciously regarded by all sides in the discussion or argument. With humans, what is "proof" or what may be "evidence", is not necessarily equal to what convinces one or many people (humans).

Arguments and mindsets to support many types of viewpoints can be created and sustained by human beings; so in my mind, there is more to the whole issue (related to belief and unbelief) than simply "knowing" various facts. We generally understand just how unique individuals can be, and in a world full of those individuals (humans) it takes more than what's merely fact, or tangible to "convince" people of things period. There are few to no shortcuts; no easy ways to convince a person to the CORE of their being of what is absolutely or universally true/right. That's hard to accept, no matter which direction we are coming from in the argument.

People are people; period. And that is why I understand that basic rules which support mutual benefit matter; whether it involves working to respect the belief/unbelief of another, or simply driving out autos down the road.

-Mel-

[The Duke of Vandals]

Let's see here. Lots to reply to:

Josh-
Your argument fell apart here:

"Given the evolutionary process is time driven and takes many different mutations to derive a change to the physiological make-up of a life form it must be presented that the conception of blood clots must have happened on the first try not several million trys down the road. The reasoning is that a life form cannot survive without being able to create a blood clot."

Not only have we been presented with an evolutionary explanation for a blood clot, there are millions of species of life forms that do not have clotting blood (plants, bacteria and single celled life forms come to mind...). You have made an assertion without the slightest bit of evidence to back it up. All ID arguments have this moment; debunking them is just a matter of reading through them to find it.

otseng-
I love when you Christians abandon your particular claims of god in attempt to prove any god... as though the deist god or Zeus also died for our sins. It's a horrible way for you to argue as we all know (by virtue of the fact you're a Christian) gods are not interchangeable. Don't argue lazy, my friend. Argue for your god or not at all.

As for Denton's argument... it suffers from the flaw Goat and I pointed out. The one I mentioned is common to all ID arguments without exception.

Biker-
Igave the links I did to demonstrate the invaldity of the Jesus claim without spiraling the thread off-topic into yet another dismantling of the absurdist christ claim. McCulloch dispelled your claims quite nicely, but not to put too fine a point on it Scientology, Mormonism and a host of other BS cults are doing GREAT in sales. More specifically, your argument is an appeal to popular opinion which is a logical fallacy.

melikio-

In a base 10 system, if I challenge you with "1+1=?" and you come back with "4" then you have the wrong answer. No amount of 'human factor' or culture will ever yield '1+1=4' nor would we want it to.

Individuals such as yourself are actually the pinnacle of Christian indoctrination. You're intelligent, well-spoken, have found the flaws in Christian dogma and don't care about them. This is why your reply is semi-honest. I sincerely believe you see no problem with '1+1=4'. The problem is '1+1=4' is still a lie.