What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Mon Sep 04, 2017 9:09 am

William wrote: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.

William · Post by **William** » Sun Sep 24, 2017 11:38 pm

[Replying to post 110 by Danmark]

Danmark

Do you want to continue to argue semantics or address my posts which are focused on "What would constitute evidence that God does exist?" as per the OP, which started off with a quote from me from another thread, and in that context, is something I have continued to address in this one?

I mean - do you think that for someone to have a different interpretation to how the evolution of biological life forms came to be in this universe than the interpretation that 'it just happened without the necessity of intelligent design being responsible' (a mindless act') rather than "it only could have come about through theistic evolution involving - of course - an intelligent designer" [or designers for that matter]. (a mindful act), is somehow inappropriate or besides the point?

Do you think that the interpretation of what is evident on earth to being that of a mindful act is somehow 'denigrating or disparaging the theory of evolution' or is it simply critical of those who interpret the theory of evolution as being a mindless act, based on the fact that the process itself appears well and truly to being a mindful one?

I think that being critical of the belief in the theory of evolution as being a mindless act, is not in itself indicative or evidence of the being 'denigrating or disparaging the theory of evolution'

Neatras · Post by **Neatras** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 2:14 am

William wrote: I think that being critical of the belief in the theory of evolution as being a mindless act, is not in itself indicative or evidence of the being 'denigrating or disparaging the theory of evolution'

Alright, here's your answer man. And just because your personal incredulity might cause you to want to divert the course back to asserting that a mindless act is the equivalent of "magical thinking," I'm going to go ahead and predict that your response will not contain any technical evidence or even a basic comprehension of chemistry. This isn't an insult to your intelligence, it's a genuine prediction that any answer you come up with will be based entirely on your metaphysical presuppositions. The problem with that is that in science, metaphysical presuppositions mean so little as to be inconsequential. It's not that science is going to dismiss the literally infinite potential explanations depending on some supernatural psyche playing puppetmaster behind the cosmic veil, it's just that such concepts are so egotistically driven that any person who believes they can advance an argument based on "self-evident truths" is really just trying to play make-believe and pretend everyone else should have the exact same epiphany.

Do you know why biological evolution is not driven by a master intelligence? Because you have no method of conceptualizing how that might have an impact on the physical world. Let's run through some options.

The intelligence somehow causes specific mutations in DNA.
The intelligence controls when an organism dies or reproduces, selecting for chosen candidates to pass on genetic data.
The intelligence initially set up the universe so that it would get the desired result on the first shot.
The intelligence is some kind of panentheistic force that permeates all of existence and by some force of intent is making living organisms exist and want to reproduce.

1. Wrong, we know that there are chemical and nuclear forces at work that are entirely mechanistic and rely on absolutely no intelligence, resulting in changes to DNA. There is no intelligence here, or at least there is no way you'll suddenly bring in evidence to the contrary. The most you can argue is "the intelligence behaves as an entirely mechanistic or deterministic process, but secretly it's pulling the strings in a way that makes it indistinguishable from a mindless process." In which case you're simply making a baseless claim that is indistinguishable from a nonexistent claim, and ought to be dismissed simply due to it being wishful thinking. I won't presuppose this is your answer, I'm just giving you a little preview on what kind of answers you should expect to receive the next time you use metaphysical reasoning to assert that an observed, physical phenomenon in reality is controlled by whatever god you think exists or "is".

2. Unless your "intelligence" driving biological evolution is sadistic or just really clinical, it's done quite a bit of matchmaking and dinner preparations, somehow coercing every organism that ever lived to dance along with some kind of mad choreographed dance that consists ultimately of producing some organism later down the line it especially likes. Again, we can observe through entirely mechanistic principles what will happen when we put a collection of organisms in an ecosystem: Predictable, reliable models that show an entirely physical process independent of some kind of divine intervention. I won't presuppose this is your answer either. This response is to show you that our ability to predict future data based on mechanistic or deterministic principles will always outstrip your scientifically useless metaphysics. Your dismissal of "randomness" behind life is entirely your own problem to deal with, stop pushing your insecurities with regard to biology onto the rest of us. We're still doing science, we're still learning more about exactly how life functions, and in none of it are we seeing an intelligence. Unless you'd like to make a clear, clinical definition of what it means for an intelligence to "drive" biological evolution. Right. Now. Because I'm tired of tap-dancing around the issue. Is the "driving" a chemical, radioactive, molecular, behavioral, or ecological stimulus that is causing an effect in living organisms? Because in all cases I can tell that you aren't equipped to give satisfactory answers, and so it leads me to believe that all this time you've seen life as being some kind of ephemeral presence in the universe that can only exist if it's being played like a VCR tape on some god's TV set. William, this is the first and last time I'll say it: Just because something sounds simple, and sounds like it can be easily explained, doesn't make it so. There are so many factors involved in life that asserting an intelligence is behind all of it doesn't explain anything. At all. It is a non-answer, a blatant disregard for the amount of work required to understand the field and its nuances. It's hard to convey just how badly you're distorting the argument by continuing to act as if your "intelligent force driving biological evolution" is anything other than a thought experiment you cooked up to explain the intricacies you have never posed any interest in learning about while on this forum.

3. If the intelligence set up the universe for some goal... Y'know what? I'm not gonna bother with this one, it's so boring and laughable. Sure, big bang caused by god, why not? It's completely disconnected from the discussion because it offers no technical explanation for how life behaves in the past or present. You're definitely not making this argument, so I won't waste my time. This section is to highlight how thorough I'm trying to be, both in figuring out what in the world you're actually arguing, and how nonspecific, vague, and easily misinterpreted it is in the grand scheme of all the time you've been here, positing without proving, arguing without explaining.

4. This is the one I actually think you're making an argument for. And to be perfectly honest, I don't care. That intelligence is not "deciding" anything. It doesn't decide that a boulder rolling down a cliff will exhibit a force in the direction of the accelerating force of gravity based on its mass and velocity; it doesn't decide that the sun emits a certain amount of radiation per second. It doesn't decide the amount of chlorophyll in a plant either. This is still entirely mechanistic. If your "intelligence" is so brain-dead that modern physicists can pick apart the great underlying machinations of this intelligence and show how utterly causal it is, by only ever following physical laws that would still be obeyed by all matter in the universe whether there is some disembodied mind or not, then what you're advancing still isn't a coherent argument. The intelligence isn't doing anything of note. It's not changing the trajectories of comets, it's not suddenly turning stars off and on again in order to advance some kind of scheme. But you still believe it is inherently interconnected with living biological organisms whose bodies are made up of organic chemicals which are made up of physical particles. You believe that there is some kind of "driving force" behind biological evolution that is not random, and that wouldn't even be such a problem if you didn't make such a ridiculous claim that not presupposing an intelligence behind evolution was "magical thinking." Do you know why this is such a huge blunder on your part, that has made me lose any interest in your arguments or debate position? Because that is you lashing out against scientists who spend all their lives showing how little magical thinking they tolerate in the lab. People whose methods for understanding the truth about the universe takes such effort and humility that your insults and denigration is toward their methodology. And methodology is the one way that we can all come to a consensus on any aspect of the universe. And methodology, specificity, even basic knowledge about a scientific field you go to such lengths to make grandiose claims about is something you have not shown at all on this forum.

If you took any kind of biology class, if you actually learned about the fields of evolutionary biology, you would have to do some serious mental gymnastics to maintain this notion that there is an intelligence "driving" (and again, that verb is so non-descriptive as to be meaningless; it's a layman's method of prescribing some kind of force they can't even begin to articulate while still expecting everyone to listen to them over scientists whose experiments have shown no signs of intelligence on any of the physical levels making up the biodiversity we see in nature) evolution. That's how I can make so many assertions about your argument. It comes from a place of ignorance; being able to learn about other scientific fields is the most crucial element of any scientific theory because at any time some scientist may propose a theory that conflicts with the data currently categorized in another field, requiring them to rework the theory to be consistent with data collected previously. You lack the methodology to try and make your argument consistent with reality, instead using "intelligent driving force" as a band-aid solution to a worldview filled with glaring holes that you can only hope that real scientists may someday fill while not knocking over your flimsy model's pivotal assumptions.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:05 am

William wrote: Did they also create the word 'Intelligent' and 'Design'?

No they did not.

That's moot since that does not change the fact that they coined the term "intelligent design."

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

There is a easy way to end this argument of semantics - adopt a common language, stop saying "intelligent design" when you mean "theistic evolution."

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.

All the more reason to stop using Young Earth Creationists' terminology then, isn't it?

So what is going to happen? Are you going to ignore my argument because - in your opinion - I am not using the 'correct' terms?

If you think your argument is being ignore in favor of an semantics argument, let me repeat my suggestion of a easy fit - stop stop saying "intelligent design" when you mean "theistic evolution."

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?

How about you stop completely?

Otherwise if you are unwilling to proceed unless I change the terms I use, I am fine with that.

Fine, but I am not willing to stop asking you to use the correct terms.

What I have said has not been seriously challenged as being contrary to science anyway. The issue is simply a semantic one.

Right you are - an issue that is easily resolved - use the correct terms. Why would you want the argument to stagnate over semantics?

Definition of Intelligent Design
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?...

Those are all creationist talking point, you've fallen for their propaganda.

Is this the idea? Is this what is being meant by 'denigrating or disparaging the theory of evolution'?

Yes. Quit it.

If so then it is a pathetic argument which has no merit in regard to truthfulness.

It seems you are buying the creationist talking points without knowing. This is beyond just semantic when you are actually suggesting that those creationists have a point.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 10:29 am

William wrote:
Danmark

Do you want to continue to argue semantics or address my posts which are focused on "What would constitute evidence that God does exist?"

It is hardly mere semantics when you attempt to distance Young Earth Creationists from the origin of "intelligent design," their euphemism (or misleading label) for creationism.
It IS semantics when you attempt this by dividing "intelligent design" into separate words, thus completely changing the meaning as well as the subject.

Creationism itself does not "disparage" evolution, it is its opposite. The disparagement comes from the creationists in their efforts to undermine science itself. Creationism is completely opposed to evolution because evolution demonstrates the diversity of species without resort to a designer, i.e, a 'god' or magic. This is the essence of the debate.

If you COULD demonstrate that evolution or any other natural phenomenon (or is it 'all' other phenomena?) absolutely require a god/designer then you'd have your evidence. This is why creationists works so hard to deny science.

The scientist, the natural man, has the opposite approach. He accepts evidence and takes it where it leads him or her. He does not try to remake truth to fit it into his religious belief. "God" by definition is an explanation for the natural world without resort to nature/science/observation. "God" is a magical label pasted on to man's ignorance in lieu of actually studying nature.

That is why there is no evidence of a god's existence. "God" is an inherently non evidentiary conclusion.

William · Post by **William** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:13 pm

[Replying to post 112 by Neatras]

[Replying to post 113 by Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 114 by Danmark]

This thread was created in order to get an answer to the question

"What would constitute evidence that God does exist?"

I have skimmed through the thread and haven't found any post of yours where the OP question has ben answered.

Do you have an answer to the question. Yes? No?

If you do, what is your answer?

If you don't, what have your posts in this thread got to do with the thread topic?

Please show some connect.

Thanks.

W

Neatras · Post by **Neatras** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 1:23 pm

[Replying to post 115 by William]

What a cheap "get out of jail" tactic. You're the one making blatant assertions, and we're the ones tearing it to pieces. Don't go acting like we're out of line by maintaining a dialogue on a topic you've been veering toward your own preferred brand of "intelligent design" ever since you showed up. This isn't even a detour, it's a defensive and transparent attempt to make sure you don't have to put any effort into this discussion.

EDIT: And if you think redirecting the thread away from intelligent design will give you space to breathe, try this on for size:

All your assertions about intelligent design still don't constitute evidence for any god because you can't properly define it. If you could make a coherent definition that is consistent with reality, we could analyze it and see if you've just put forward evidence for a god.

Alright mate, your turn.

William · Post by **William** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:53 pm

[Replying to post 116 by Neatras]

So the answer is 'no' then. You do not have an answer to the thread question;

"What would constitute evidence that God does exist?"

Fair enough.

marco · Post by **marco** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:36 pm

William wrote:

This thread was created in order to get an answer to the question

"What would constitute evidence that God does exist?"

And the question of intelligent design was raised. The problem with the word design is that it begs the question: design by its etymological make-up suggests a designer. But that is because we have used terminology that invited our conclusion.

One might ask: Can order arise from chaos? And the answer is yes. To determine some sort of intelligent order we would possibly employ statistics but that would also be problematic since our testing would use methods that were based on finite populations. The number of "trials" involved to produce a certain arrangement might be billions upon billions - but we actually have that type of high number when we are dealing with such things as galaxies and number of atoms.

If order is once introduced, it may well beget order, rather than chaos. The entire corpus of matter may be - possibly is - linked along the lines of the butterfly effect. These are not absurdities and they are certainly concepts no stranger than we find in quantum theory.

The thinking, feeling, judgmental God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is a human creation to which we attach personal pronouns. But it is reasonable to believe that such a being would set up communication lines with us that were quite unambiguous and clear. We can communicate over vast distances and make ourselves understood. A god of the Abrahamic type would do so as well.
The fact he has "communicated "with what appear to be polygamous barbarians does not auger too well. The mythology surrounding Christ and Muhammad - incarnations and resurrections and cave encounters of the third kind - is just an embarrassment.

So we would require a communication that all intelligent folk on Earth accepted as undeniably from a super-being. That may not be God, as our ancestors have known him, but it would allow us to move from our cosy belief that we are top of the intelligence heap.

William · Post by **William** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:55 pm

[Replying to post 118 by marco]

The problem with simply naming the idea of GOD one is interested in is that argument can be exclusively focused upon that idea and not other ideas.

In relation to so-called 'chaos', this too is something of an interpretation of the universe and even if it is a correct interpretation one can understand that we are only at the beginning stages of its unfolding and even so, what appears to be 'chaos' from our perspective, with the realistic assumption that things would progressively become more and more orderly, this does not in itself signify that there is no intelligent designer(s) at work within the unfolding process.

It cannot be truthfully denied that biological evolution is not an intelligent process, and the argument that the science can only be interpreted as showing a mindless process is not valid.

But I am repeating myself yes?

In relation to the OP question;

What would constitute evidence that God does exist?

What is your answer? Do you have an answer?

If so, is your answer only focused upon one idea of GOD?

If so, then it excludes the Panentheist idea of GOD, and in doing so, this limits the scope of what one might give as an answer.

Taking the Christian idea of GOD, if such were to appear on the planet, showing itself as this:

or this:

would it convince you that GOD exists? Would you consider that to be something which would constitute evidence that GOD does exist?

Personally I wouldn't. But what say you?

marco · Post by **marco** » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:07 pm

William wrote:
The problem with simply naming the idea of GOD one is interested in is that argument can be exclusively focused upon that idea and not other ideas.

I agree, but one must first address the God that billions worship. Focussing on other ideas allows us to be generously vague. I think we cannot dismiss the notion of God but I believe we cannot genuinely call into existence a God by playing with the kaleidoscope of our intellect.

William wrote:
What is your answer? Do you have an answer?

If so, is your answer only focused upon one idea of GOD?

Of course concentrating on one idea of God is wrong. But as I say, debating many ideas gets nowhere either. I think I would be passive in the business of what would convince me - an external being would cause my mind to be convinced by indubitable evidence, as yet - obviously - beyond my imagination. Disney can produce images in the sky akin to your glorious Michelangelo-type figure, so like you I am not persuaded by visual displays.

Incidentally, if we are capable of portraying, say, Alllah in the skies, it might be a way of de-converting those millions who prostrate themselves five times daily; and then we could have clouds with a Renaissance-style Christ sailing on them, sword in hand, and Christianity would be at our beck and call. Do we need bombs?

Expectation is great convincer, as Cortez discovered.