What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

[McCulloch]

The problem with that position in logical terms is that they are unable to specify what they mean by evidence which would convince them that GOD exists.

Rather they demand that those who do believe that GOD exists, should show them the evidence as to WHY those who believe so, say so.

And when those who believe so say so, the common response is to say 'that is not evidence' and through that, argue that the theist should become atheist.

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

[Mithrae]

Reproducible variation subject to selective pressures is probably the most profound and important process we've discovered: Whether as biological evolution, as regulated free market dynamics or as imagination and thinking more generally.

With a few possible hurdles - according to Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion the beginning of life itself, the development of eukaryotic cells, and above all (my qualifier) the supposed origin of consciousness - biological evolution stands on its own merits, and while unsurprising it's disappointing that the "intelligent design" movement set itself up in opposition to evolution.

However it's worth noting that in attempting to account for the development and particularly the specificity in a number of parameters observed in our universe (so-called 'fine-tuning'), some folk make appeals to a hypothetical "cosmic evolution," while others simply hypothesize a quasi-infinite number of other universes of which the one we actually inhabit and observe just happens to be one.

But since we have no clear evidence or proof of materialism/physicalism in contrast to idealism/mental monism, it's worth bearing in mind that the latter is far more plausible and coherent in opening up this mechanism of reproducible variation for the cosmos as a whole. That is the third point which I've mentioned previously:
C > provides a more elegant and comprehensive explanatory framework, in that alongside biological evolution thoughts are the only thing we know which can explain complexity from simpler origins.

See also Skyhooks and cranes - Richard Dawkins makes a case for panentheism


Edit: Though I should add that as far as this argument goes, the omni- omni- omni- god of Christianity is implicitly excluded as not being a simpler origin! It implies a Mind which grows and learns.

[Bust Nak]

Yet I have shown in my own use of ID, that it is not necessary to denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution, so therefore your statement of absolutism is demonstrated as being a fallacy.

That just mean you've made a mistake. Would you think 5 x 5 isn't absolutely 25 just because someone mistakenly used it to mean 20?

The thing is, these are terms and Theistic Evolution must in itself propose the notion of an Intelligent Designer, otherwise it would not be 'theism'. This is clearly another example of using language inappropriately, and besides the point for that.

Of course theistic evolution propose the notion of an intelligent designer, that's the point. That's why you should use "theistic evolution" when you don't mean to disparage the theory of evolution. How is that inappropriate?

What happened? Did Christians take ownership of the term 'Intelligent Design', and did non religious theists decide it was better to let them have it and create another term for - what amounts to being the same thing?

No. Young Earth Creationists coined the term "Intelligent design" and by default has ownership of it. The thought the word "creationism" has a bad image and seeked to rebrand themselves with a new label.

They came up with it to distinguish themselves from "theistic evolution," which had been in used by both theists and non theists alike long before YEC came up with the term 'intelligent design.'

And now one cannot use the phrase 'Intelligent Design' because it has been used as a device to try and denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution?

It had always been used as a device to disparage the theory of evolution, there had never been a time where it was appropriate to use the phrase "intelligent design" when you actually meant theistic evolution.

What the phrase really denotes - and why I think it acceptable to use it, is a conscious intelligent self aware creative entity is directly involved with the process of evolution. Indeed the process of evolution is the representation of the handiwork of this creative intelligence.

But there is already an accepted term for that - "theistic evolution."

That idea of itself does not denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution...

Maybe in isolation, if one is not aware of the entire reason why the phrase was coined in the first place - to distinguish the evolution denial stance from theistic evolution. "Intelligent design" may not explicitly exclude evolution, but it is a loaded term with clear implications and that had been the case since its inception. There is no reason for you to continue using that term now that you are aware of Its sole reason for existing in the first place.

[Danmark]

'Theistic evolution' is in some ways even more obtuse than ID since it claims, "Well, uh... yes, i guess there IS some subtle change going on by natural biological processes, but since we know there must be a God because the Bible tells us so, when we can't figure out some changes, then . . . GOD DID IT! Yay!"

[marco]

alongside biological evolution thoughts are the only thing we know which can explain complexity from simpler origins.

As long as they remain as thoughts! The Russian poet Tyutchev wisely observed that the thought once spoken is a lie.

Khayyam, reincarnated as Fitzgerald, says:

"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door as in I went.


Thought produced Thor. As aeons have passed thought produces cleverer gods who wield no axes. The advantage of the old gods over the new is that they offered instructions on how to act on Mondays and Fridays; today's silent universalities provide a congratulatory tap on the shoulder as we ignore them.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 104 by marco]

Thought also produced cars, vaccines, space travel, computers and Harry Potter. Belittling it purely because some of humanity's earlier metaphysical hypotheses were not entirely elegant seems a curious approach.

[marco]

[Replying to post 104 by marco]

Thought also produced cars, vaccines, space travel, computers and Harry Potter. Belittling it purely because some of humanity's earlier metaphysical hypotheses were not entirely elegant seems a curious approach.

Of course I am not belittling thought, else I would not be writing anything. We are dealing with thought producing gods or God. I was tracing the various attempts by man at divine creation and I was simply musing that our latest ventures in that area may have more sophistication than the old but they do nothing for us, except to provide avenues for communication not far removed from angels on a needle point.

We leave no wiser than we were when we came in. But some of us actually think heaven wants us to murder, just a Yahweh wanted Abraham to do. Inventing gods may produce no good but it can generate evil.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 104 by marco]

Thought also produced cars, vaccines, space travel, computers and Harry Potter. Belittling it purely because some of humanity's earlier metaphysical hypotheses were not entirely elegant seems a curious approach.

Of course I am not belittling thought, else I would not be writing anything. We are dealing with thought producing gods or God.

I think you may have misunderstood my post #101, which viewed thought in terms of a mechanism; the only one besides biological evolution that we know to use reproducible variation subject to selective pressures, and hence the only ones known to convincingly explain complexity from simpler origins. In looking at the remarkable universe in which we find ourselves, it seems strange that this mechanism is frequently dismissed with such a cavalier attitude by some folk.

[marco]

I think you may have misunderstood my post #101,

I think I came in towards the end of the film. But I had an intriguing odyssey through the thousand biological terms that make prokaryotes and eukaryotes Eleusinian mysteries for me. I am no biologist. Dawkins is, but he's also a secular Billy Graham and, for me, he moves to the other extreme of pronouncing interesting ideas as solid fact.

As regards the OP question, is the "mechanism" of thought some sign of God's existence or are we to travel, via monism, into the area of "we are all gods" or a tiny ripple of God?

The idea of a universe of universes, of matter arising and vanishing, is taken from the mathematics and physics encountered in quantum theory. Virtual particles can apparently become real particles. But a I said earlier, we exit by the same door we came in, no wiser.

For me the important words on our standard are: "I do not know." Maybe God does.

[William]

[Replying to post 102 by Bust Nak]

Young Earth Creationists coined the term "Intelligent design" and by default has ownership of it.

Did they also create the word 'Intelligent' and 'Design'?

No they did not.

Most likely this is no more or less than an argument of semantics which is attempting to steer the debate a certain way.

Not only that, but the way in which this has been attempted is dubious at best. The points I made regarding the idea of intelligent design which apparently have nothing to do with any "Young Earth Creationists" show there was (and still is) no need to have brought this into the debate.

'Biological evolution is the result of intelligent design' is the focus of my argument. In that I have not made claims about any particular religions ideas of GOD, as being the intelligent designer. Nor did I denigrate or disparage the theory of evolution.

So what is going to happen? Are you going to ignore my argument because - in your opinion - I am not using the 'correct' terms?
Theistic evolution involves the notion of intelligent design. I think the best way around this as a compromise, is for me to not use capital letters when speaking about intelligent design. Maybe that way we can get back to the focus of the debate?

Otherwise if you are unwilling to proceed unless I change the terms I use, I am fine with that. What I have said has not been seriously challenged as being contrary to science anyway. The issue is simply a semantic one.

If it annoys you that much, you can always create a thread about it and see what can be sorted from that.
Definition of Intelligent Design
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?


Even in this small piece from an ID website:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution...



...Intelligent design implies that life is here as a result of the purposeful action of an intelligent designer, standing in contrast to Darwinian evolution, which postulates that life exists due to the chance, purposeless, blind forces of nature.

Shows that ID is not about denigrating or disparaging the theory of evolution. It is about disagreeing with how it is interpreted. (exactly what I have been arguing all along.)

If that is what the courts decided, then the courts are wrong in their decision and their reasons are very questionable on that count.
In this, there is no difference in how the church of old made their decisions based, not on truthfulness, but on bias.

What the courts have said is that anything which disagrees with the theory which postulates that life exists due to the chance, purposeless, blind forces of nature, 'is denigrating or disparaging the theory of evolution and shall not be tolerated within the esteemed institutions of materialist education.'

Whoop de do.

Is this the idea? Is this what is being meant by 'denigrating or disparaging the theory of evolution'? If so then it is a pathetic argument which has no merit in regard to truthfulness.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 102 by Bust Nak]

Young Earth Creationists coined the term "Intelligent design" and by default has ownership of it.

Did they also create the word 'Intelligent' and 'Design'?

No they did not.

William, have you considered actually researching the things you write before you say they are so?
"the creationist insists that an intelligent design must have been there in the first place. The first systematic use of the term, defined in a glossary and claimed to be other than creationism, was in Of Pandas and People, co-authored by Davis and Kenyon."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellige ... f_the_term

"Both authors had previously written young Earth creationist publications referring to biological design: a 1967 book co-written by Percival Davis referred to "design according to which basic organisms were created", and in an 1984 article as well as in his affidavit to Edwards v. Aguillard, Kenyon defended creation science by stating that "biomolecular systems require intelligent design and engineering know-how"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People