Belief in existence of God scientific. Denial - unscientific

[theStudent]

The length of the thread, in the link below, is largely due to repeated questions.on the contained information. The following is open for debate.
Belief in the existence of God is scientific. Denial - unscientific.

For those who disagree with the above, please state why, and/or provide evidence for the following:

• God does not exist.
• God exists only in the mind of the believer.
• Miracles do not happen.
• The Bible is a book of myths.

[Clownboat]

Post 254:
So much (insert work of your choice), where to begin?

First you ask questions about how were complex things in the universe formed and then you ask how water got to earth.

You have two choices theStudent, you can admit that we don't know for sure, begin to put in work to figure it out, or you can do what man has done for thousands of years and invent or accept an already invented god concept in order to provide yourself with answers. One way takes a lot of work, your way takes zero. God did it! So I understand the motivation.

Then you talk about leaves in the trees swaying.
Let me guess, if you didn't have knowledge about wind currents, you would think a god was behind the leaves swaying right? Nah, you would probably just credit your god for putting in place the NATURAL processes that cause such things like you have for snow flakes. We now know that snow flakes don't require intelligence, so what are you forced to do? You are forced to credit a god concept with putting the natural processes in place.
Your beliefs and preconceived biases are what forces your hand here, not logical thought.

You then compare the making of a wrist watch with biological reproduction.
TheStudent, please show me a wrist watch that has come about via biological reproduction. If and when you can't, you need to understand that you are comparing things that come about via completely different mechanisms. To compare the two is nonsensical.

Then you ask how did brains form.
Again, you can either put in the work yourself to understand such a thing, or you can take the easy route, pick a god concept and credit it with anything you could possibly want an answer to.
Are we surprised to find man creating god concepts all throughout time? I for one am not, it supplies easy answers for those that want them after all.

Then you claim that many god truths (as if there is such a thing) are beyond science.
What you fail to grasp though, is that if a god concept interacted with out physical reality in any way, such interactions would be detectable. Why can't we detect any god concept interacting with our reality?

None of what you have said points to a god IMO, nor is any of it actual evidence for a god concept. You have only evidenced that there are things that you/we don't understand and you are willing to insert "god did it". The easy road is the attractive road to take, but don't be afraid to put in the work yourself.

Examine everything carefully, hold on to that which is good.
I just can't hold on to any of your "god did it" explanations above. Sure it's an easy answer, but it just is not a 'good' answer IMO so I cannot hold on to them.

Occom's Razor
- How are snowflakes formed. Dust and chemicals doing what they naturally do form them.
- Or... Dust and chemicals doing what they naturally do form them, but there was also a god concept involved, not just any god either, it was the Biblical god and he put the natural laws in place that snowflakes happen to follow.

Which explanation requires less assumptions?
Do 'I' know what a rhetorical question is?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 255 by Neatras]

The observation that intelligence is required to create sandcastles is an observation, not an explanation.

"Sandcastles are too complex to form under natural processes without also including intelligent processes."

I would then define "intelligence" and "intelligent processes" as "behaviors associated with the accumulation and application of knowledge and skills."

I also define "complex" phenomena as complicated, interconnected systems of intricate parts or elements; that is, they are distinct from simple phenomena.

Thanks.
I only answered my question because no one answered. It wasn't meant to be better than anything - just an honest answer.
Am I not allowed to give an answer, or an input?

I observe snowflakes. Are they ruinous?

Is a snowflake an element?
I don't think so. So how could I be referring to a snowflake causing ruin?

That does not logically follow! You cannot REASON a god into existence, especially with such faulty logic.

If a sandcastle requires an intelligent mind to build it, as a house does, then what of the other complex things in the universe?
I'll be more specific.

• time
• space
• water
• neurons
• electrons
• protons
• atoms
• amino acids
• sponges
• bacterial flagellum
• biological system|cell|DNA/information found in DNA
• consciousness
• the brain
• languages
• matter|antimatter|energy
• laws of the universe
• .......................

Would they not require a intelligent designer?
The answer, reasoably is yes, isn't it?
Since, reasnably that intelligence cannot possibly be a natural intelligence, what is the most logical conclusion?
Natural scientist Irving William Knobloch

I believe in God because to me His Divine existence is the only logical explanation for things as they are.

Physiologist Marlin Books Kreider

Both as an ordinary human being, and also as a man devoting his life to scientific study and research, I have no doubt at all about the existence of God.

Yes. A supernatural intelligence - a creator.
Based on all the other evidence both from science and the Bible, it is sensible to believe in the existence of God - the first cause.

You know what's also frustrating? The fact that you think any answer is automagically the right one if it convinces you and you alone. Just because theology made up an answer millennia ago doesn't mean it's the right one. Scientists are still working to find answers, and you know where we've NEVER found a single, compulsive answer about the nature of reality? Your holy book.

I don't know how the universe started, but I'm not foolish enough to claim I do simply because the lack of an answer scares me, or goes against my preconceived notions of what a god is.

I get the impression that Neatras seem to think that anyone on these forums who have a different view to his, are the only ones who hold these views.
Really, many people, as I presented the results already - 95% of Americans believe in a supernatural, and three in four believe the Bible to be the word of God.
Their reasons for believing in God and the Bible, are not because they lack common sense, or good judgment. On the contrary, they rationally accept what is evident - therefore logical, reasonable.
According to physics professor Henry Margenau

if you take the top-notch scientists, you find very few atheists among them.

You see Neatras, just because we don't want to accept evidence, or we are opposed to something, it doesn't mean that those who believe it, are making claims. Going by facts are not making claim.
If it were just claims, you should be able to bring something - BRAM! - case closed to those claims. But you can't. Why?
You can't refute facts.

Right now, to admit that you and experts in the field of study of the known universe do not have the answers to questions like how the universe started, how life originated, how water formed, and a whole heap of other unanswered questions about the brain, consciousness etc., when the answers were already written down centuries ago in a book it's writer attribute to the creator - God, is to me... well, I'll leave it at that.

Saying "they don't know, therefore I know" is a weak argument, and falls to scrutiny. You cut and pasted several definitions and articles you found on google, yes, but none of them support your conclusion. That's not evidence.

And what argument is that?
That they don't know how water formed?
Well that's exactly my argument. Threfore, my cut and paste material does support my argument.

Loaded phrase, and doesn't necessarily follow; personally, I believe that the processes of life are undirected and unintelligent, but that's just me. You still haven't justified that snowflake formation is the SAME as the development of biological organisms. Those are leagues apart, both in complexity and in the processes involved. You are making a false equivalency. Second strike.

Biological organisms are complex. Actually more complex than a sandcastle, or a house.
Therefore, as I said above, biological organisms logically require an intelligence.

No, YOU claim that "my book says it is the result of intelligence" and then, fullstop, decide it is truth.

This is simply not true.
When I said that the Bible says God did it, I use evidence to show that scientific discoveries, as well as historical discoveries, verify that fact.
If I had really done what you claim I did, how could I get away with that, on these forums? I couldn't.
So I would like to suggest please, that you post my quote, when claiming I said something.
I find that's happening a lot with my quotes. They are getting twisted.

No. You have come to this conclusion entirely by your own failed logic, and in order to justify your holy book. You haven't arrived at this conclusion using anything other than loaded phrases and a misunderstanding of what science is. Don't try to peddle your nonsense here when your claims can so easily be torn apart. Do better.

So if these statements are nonsense.

"Natural" processes are all governed by laws...
Complex forms require an intelligence to construct them.

Don't just criticize them, provide something which makes sense.

Your tactics, I see, have incorporated using "logic, reasonableness, sensibility, and true science" repetitively in order to make authoritative, sweeping statements. But this is just a variation of your old tricks, which I've very readily torn apart your flimsy assertions. You can't just claim you have authority on an issue by using buzzwords, you need to actually demonstrate it. You have only the most basic form of respect granted to you here; if you want respect associated with expertise, you'll have to earn it.

So now my tactics are the focus, rather than the information here presented?
Is that because the information is correct and undisputed?
Thank you.
I guess that's why there is no strike here.
It would have been good to hear from you, if this point is true or false, but your failure to consider that is acknowledged as...

It is illogical to think that the brain could have come into existence without an intelligence.
Therefore, logically there is evidence of a supernatural creator.
There is no need to say anything further until this can be shown to be false.

Re-what?

[Neatras]

theStudent has demonstrated that an unfalsifiable claim is hard to dispute. What he says isn't "necessarily wrong" when he says a brain requires intelligence, because stating that such a claim is false would require a stupendous amount of research. Theists will rely on science's blind spots to assert silly things.

You can bet, however, that if I were to assert that intelligence can be a result of natural evolutionary mechanics, theStudent would bring hell down upon me, requiring me to provide evidence for every step of the process leading up to our current generation. No rock would be left unturned.

And yet, he can so whimsically state "intelligence cannot possibly be a natural intelligence." This would obviously apply to evolution as well. But no, he shouldn't be expected to back up his statement. It's on the scientists to prove him wrong. The double standard is appalling.

I could bring up RNA world hypothesis, chemical evolution, biological evolution, and the evolution of intelligence, but unless I'm capable of producing every fossil of every living creature, theStudent's standards will not be met.

Back to the matter at hand.

Would they not require a intelligent designer?

Demonstrate they need an intelligent designer.

Irving's opinion and beliefs are not evidence.

Marlin's opinion and beliefs are not evidence.

Based on all the other evidence both from science and the Bible, it is sensible to believe in the existence of God - the first cause.

In all of our talks, you have not once provided the evidence you claim exists. Another assertion. In your view, evidence is compounding entirely because you say it is; if evidence exists, you have no need to present further evidence. Sadly, assertions about evidence are not evidence.

95% of Americans may believe in the supernatural, but 99% of scientists understand and accept evolutionary theory, and don't believe that humans were specially created with brains and all.

Their reasons are founded on far more than a single holy book.

if you take the top-notch scientists, you find very few atheists among them.

Those same top-notch scientists would rather tear out their own hair than side with you on the issue of evolution, I assure you.

And what argument is that?
That they don't know how water formed?
Well that's exactly my argument. Threfore, my cut and paste material does support my argument.

Your argument is that them not knowing gives your opinion on how it got there validation. But that's just a god of the gaps argument. Not supported by any real scientists.

When I said that the Bible says God did it, I use evidence to show that scientific discoveries, as well as historical discoveries, verify that fact.

No, you quoted various wikipedia articles about scientific fields, none of which you connected to your argument, then asserted it's all because of God and therefore you're right, I'm wrong. The number of non sequiturs you provide is astounding.

"The universe exists, therefore God exists" would not hold up in any debate. But if you believe I'm quote mining you of all people, feel free to correct me. Meanwhile, I'll keep pointing back to that embarrassing time you quoted a wikipedia article on dualism, with the final sentence stating flatly that "this is evidence that our minds are the result of physical processes." We can see where the real quote mines are.

"Natural" processes are all governed by laws...
Complex forms require an intelligence to construct them.

Certain complexities but you never actually made the distinction between those and all other complexities. Biological organisms have a habit of randomizing, adding, and selecting for various gene sequences. I gave you the "certain complexity" of sandcastle design as requiring intelligence. I never let you have the assertion that biological systems require intelligence to construct them. Since you've NEVER actually made a coherent point in the distinctions, I can only realize that you've been relying on loaded language to get your point across, rather than making an intelligible case for Creationism (which is really your argument in a nutshell).

And yes, I'm going to focus on your tactics, because conmen have a habit of demonstrating significant characteristics. Pointing them out is just another method of showing their limited debate capabilities.

If you actually got a handful of experts to come in and congratulate you, saying that your words were "sensible, reasonable, logical, and scientific," I would have reason to actually consider them to be so. Sadly, you've put the label there yourself for imaginary authority on an issue you still haven't properly backed up. I'm still waiting for you to describe how ERV's can form without evolutionary mechanics. RonE is still waiting for you to address his challenges. man is still waiting for you to answer his challenges.

It is illogical to think that the brain could have come into existence without an intelligence.

Nope. It is damaging to your position that the brain could have come into existence without an intelligence, so you dismiss it by using loaded language.

Try something else.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 258 by Bust Nak]

I am saying you cannot conclude "an intelligent mind designed the intelligent minds of humans" from the premise "an intelligent mind designed the intelligent minds of robots" because robots and humans are as different as sand castle and sand dunes.

What
A human is in no way comparable to a sand dune!
Wow. Is that how we treat the most sophisticated living organism on earth.
Man. Bust Nak, admittedly, this is one of the most shocking moments I have ever had.

That picture below certainly looks chaotic.
It doesn't indicate careful, and specific design, at all.
Unlike the biological structure, and the chemical makeup of man.

And unlike these:

[RonE]

[Replying to post 264 by theStudent]

[font=Comic Sans MS]At some point here you will need to reply to my previous request as seen below.
It's time you man-up and said "RONE I just don't have any credible scientific evidence to present" instead of continuing to dodge my repeated requests.

I think it's cool that this topic has been viewed over 4,600 times, what do you think those viewers make of your blatant stalling tactics? What do they make of your refusal to provide evidence for that which you proclaim so loudly? What do you think your god thinks of your failure to stand up and defend him? Or, are you of the group of Christians that believe anything is justified for your supernatural unproven god?

In the end this will go the way your previous topic "What if" went, you'll move on to other topics and tactics never to acknowledge your having failed to provide evidence of your claims and therefore having lost the debate. [/font]

[Replying to post 224 by RonE]

[Replying to post 221 by theStudent]

I decided to break my response to your post #221 into two parts because it was getting rather long.

You have several unanswered calls for evidence of your claims. Mine in post #212 goes all the way back to post #183 has been requested several times. Others in post # 213 & post #215. I know it's really inconvenient to keep getting hounded for evidence but YOU made claims and on this site you must be prepared to provide the evidence to support your claim or to withdraw your claim.

You have gotten your answer.

Well, no, I haven't because you have still not provided any credible scientific proof of your god.

Also, if you are following the thread, you are getting added information.

Extra? I don't see you've provided anything other that what I asked for and only some of that

I don't know why you are not replying to any of it, but keep repeating your request.

Please send me any post #'s where you've asked for something that I've not responded to.

In the mean time I assume you will get right on that list of your credible evidence of god to backup your extraordinary claims of your supernatural god. Since you gave me less than 45 minutes before you hit the impatient button I'll give you an hour before sending you a reminder.

I still find it interesting that in a topic headed "Belief in existence of god scientific..." that you have yet to provide any credible evidence of your god.
Instead of 45 minutes you've now had 4 days to form your response. Is that where this topic dies? You claim something is scientific, fail to provide any evidence and then just quit the debate. Sounds like you lost.

[Blastcat]

What
A human is in no way comparable to a sand dune!
Wow. Is that how we treat the most sophisticated living organism on earth.
Man. Bust Nak, admittedly, this is one of the most shocking moments I have ever had.

[center]
What does your shock have to do with scientific proof of God?
When are you going to get to that?[/center]

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 262 by theStudent]

Would they not require a intelligent designer?
The answer, reasoably is yes, isn't it?

[center]Perhaps it's reasonable to you, theStudent, but you are being challenged right now to produce scientific evidence for God. How do you know that what you believe in is true?[/center]

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 258 by Bust Nak]

I am saying you cannot conclude "an intelligent mind designed the intelligent minds of humans" from the premise "an intelligent mind designed the intelligent minds of robots" because robots and humans are as different as sand castle and sand dunes.

What
A human is in no way comparable to a sand dune!
Wow. Is that how we treat the most sophisticated living organism on earth.
Man. Bust Nak, admittedly, this is one of the most shocking moments I have ever had.

That picture below certainly looks chaotic.
It doesn't indicate careful, and specific design, at all.
Unlike the biological structure, and the chemical makeup of man.

And unlike these:

You observe one species (humans) designing complex structures and mechanisms. You conclude that all complexity therefore require design. How can you form such a grand conclusion based on observing ONE species known for complex design? This is about as reasonable as concluding that "all flying animals have feathers" after seeing a bird for the first time.

[Bust Nak]

What
A human is in no way comparable to a sand dune!

Wow. Is that how we treat the most sophisticated living organism on earth.
Man. Bust Nak, admittedly, this is one of the most shocking moments I have ever had.

Is that how you treat some of the most sophisticated structures on earth? A sand dune is hugely complex. The point is we are closer to sand dunes than we are to sand castles in terms of complexity.

That picture below certainly looks chaotic.

Does it? I think the pattern is quite striking.

It doesn't indicate careful, and specific design, at all.

Why not? We see the same patterns in sand dunes as you can with these:

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 263 by Neatras]

Certain complexities but you never actually made the distinction between those and all other complexities

I have - in the same post you are replying to, but you seem to have missed them.
However, you haven't provided one piece of evidence for a biological organisms that came into existence on it's own.
Is that because it requires faith, to believe that such a thing can happen?

The gene itself is comple, so before one can speak of what it does, one has to determine how it came.
And since it is evident that intelligence is required for particular complexities - such as instructions/language, then conclusively all these processes are the product of the careful design of an intelligence.

The sheer complexity of our genetic blueprint moved a U.S. president to say

...we are learning the language in which God created life.

One of the chief scientists involved in the genetic decoding humbly remarked:

We have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.

Furthermore, the brain is complex - even moreso, what the brain involves, such as our ability to use language and thought etc.
What Distinguishes Humans from Other Animals?

There's no consensus on the question of what makes us special, or whether we even are. The biggest point of contention is whether our cognitive abilities differ from those of other animals "in kind," or merely in degree. Are we in a class by ourselves or just the smartest ones in our class?

Charles Darwin supported the latter hypothesis. He believed we are similar to animals, and merely incrementally more intelligent as a result of our higher evolution. But according to Marc Hauser, director of the cognitive evolution lab at Harvard University, in a recent article in Scientific American, "mounting evidence indicates that, in contrast to Darwin's theory of a continuity of mind between humans and other species, a profound gap separates our intellect from the animal kind."

Author William Rees-Mogg said:

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, any more than it can prove or disprove any moral or aesthetic proposition. There is no scientific reason to love ones neighbour or to respect human life . . . To argue that nothing exists which cannot be proved scientifically is the crudest of errors, which would eliminate almost everything we value in life, not only God or the human spirit, but love and poetry and music.

The Religion of Science
Scientists theories often seem to rely on premises that require their own kind of faith.
For example, when it comes to the origin of life, most evolutionists adhere to ideas that require faith in certain doctrines. Facts are mixed with theories. And when scientists use the weight of their authority to impose blind belief in evolution, they are in reality implying: You are not responsible for your morality because you are merely the product of biology, chemistry, and physics. Biologist Richard Dawkins says that in the universe there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference.
To uphold such beliefs, some scientists choose to ignore the extensive research of other scientists who contradict the theoretical foundations for their theories on the origin of life. Even if we allow for billions of years of time, the accidental forming of the complex molecules required to form a functional living cell has been shown to be a mathematical impossibility. Thus, the dogmatic theories on the origin of life that appear in many textbooks must be considered invalid.
Belief that life originated by blind chance demands more faith than belief in creation does. Astronomer David Block observed:

A man who does not believe in a Creator would have to have more faith than one who does. In declaring that God does not exist, a person makes a sweeping unsubstantiated statement " a postulate based on faith.

Scientific discoveries can induce a reverential attitude in some scientists. Albert Einstein admitted:

You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a religious feeling of his own. . . . Religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.

While science involves a way of knowing, it is not the only source of knowledge. The purpose of science is to describe phenomena in the natural world and to assist in answering how these phenomena occur.
Science provides us with insights into the physical universe, meaning everything that is observable. But no matter how far scientific investigation goes, it can never answer the question of purpose " why the universe exists in the first place.

If there is a Creator behind the universe, we cannot expect to comprehend him [God] or his purposes by using telescopes, microscopes, or other scientific instruments.
Think of a potter and a vase that he has formed. No amount of examination of the vase itself can give an answer as to why it was made. For that, we must ask the potter himself.

Molecular biologist Francis Collins explains how faith and spirituality can help fill the void science leaves:

I would not expect religion to be the right tool for sequencing the human genome and by the same token would not expect science to be the means to approaching the supernatural. But on the really interesting larger questions, such as Why are we here? or Why do human beings long for spirituality?, I find science unsatisfactory. Many superstitions have come into existence and then faded away. Faith has not, which suggests it has reality.

True religion, in answering the question of why and in dealing with the purpose of life, also offers standards for values, morals, and ethics as well as guidance in life. Scientist Allan Sandage expressed it this way:

I dont go to a biology book to learn how to live.

Author Tom Utley concludes:

It seems . . . clearer than ever that science will never satisfy the human hunger for answers.

Scientific knowledge, far from disproving the need for a God, has only served to confirm what a fantastically complex, intricate, and awe-inspiring world we live in. Many thinking people find it plausible to conclude that the physical laws and chemical reactions as well as DNA and the amazing diversity of life all point to a Creator. There is no irrefutable proof to the contrary.


Some people assume that most scientists avoid issues of spirituality and theology because they are not religious or do not wish to involve themselves in the science-versus-religion debate. That does describe some scientists but by no means all.
Consider statements of following scientists.

Ken Tanaka, planetary geologist at the U.S. Geological Survey.

The universe had a beginning but what scientists cant explain is why. The answer is God. I see the Bible as a book of truth and divinely inspired. There has to be an intelligence behind the complexity of life.

Enrique Hernndez, researcher and professor at the Department of Physics and Theoretical Chemistry, National Autonomous University of Mexico.

The gap between the various kinds of knowledge (scientific and religious) is rather artificial. . . . Knowledge about the Creator and knowledge about creation are closely related.

Duane T. Gish, biochemist.

As we develop all this information [about the human genome], it will reveal the complexity, the interdependence of all this material. It will point to the origin as the result of an intelligent creator, an intelligent agent.

D.H.R. Barton, professor of chemistry, Texas.

There is no incompatibility between science and religion. Both are seeking the same truth. Science shows that God exists.

*