Evidence for God #1

[DaveD49]

Two of the constant things I have heard from atheists on other sites is that first "There is no proof of God" and "There is no evidence for God". The first can be dismissed because to the total impossibility of there being "proof". The ONLY things that can be scientifically proven are within the universe. Anything outside of the universe or non-physical can only be theorized about, but NO "theory" is proof of anything. So, just as there can be no "proof" for God, nor can there be proof of alternate universes, membranes producing endless universes, etc. etc. In as far as the second assertion, that there is no evidence for God, that one is blatantly false as evidence for Him exists in many, many different categories. It is my intention to list some of them one at a time so as to get everyone's reaction as to the viability or lack thereof of the evidence presented. I realize that some, if not all, of these you have heard before and may have actually responded to. I already listed a few of the in a response to a earlier question, but I think that they will only get the attention they deserve if listed individually.

Topic for Debate: Do you agree or disagree with the following being evidence for the existence of God?
In answering please state clearly whether you agree or disagree
Your reasoning for doing so
Please rate from 1 to 10 with 10 being the strongest what you feel the strength of the evidence is.
If you have something further to add please let me know.

#1 The Existence of Scientific Laws

Everything about mathematics involves intelligence. One cannot add 1+1 without the intelligence to do so. Randomness cannot produce intelligence. No matter how many monkeys you have banging away on typewriters for whatever length of time, it is highly unlikely that any of them will ever produce the complete works of Shakespeare. They won’t produce even one of his sonnets. But even if they did that would be a semblance of intelligence, not the real thing. Intelligence would only be shown if the task could be repeated many times.

Therefore, the very existence of scientific LAWS, such as the Law of Gravity or the Law of Thermodynamics, is firm evidence of an intelligent being who is in some way responsible for the existence of everything. In our society are human laws just random words on a piece of paper? No. They show purpose and meaning which positively proves an intelligence behind them. In reality man-made "laws" are not laws at all, but rather rules which can be broken. However scientific laws can not be broken thus making them unlike civil laws. But they BOTH show a purpose. But in the case of scientific laws without them the universe could never exist. There is no reason why a universe created by randomness should be compelled to obey ANY laws, let alone display complex mathematics. Intelligence is absolutely necessary.

[Miles]

Everything about mathematics involves intelligence. One cannot add 1+1 without the intelligence to do so. Randomness cannot produce intelligence. No matter how many monkeys you have banging away on typewriters for whatever length of time, it is highly unlikely that any of them will ever produce the complete works of Shakespeare. They won’t produce even one of his sonnets. But even if they did that would be a semblance of intelligence, not the real thing. Intelligence would only be shown if the task could be repeated many times.

Therefore, the very existence of scientific LAWS, such as the Law of Gravity or the Law of Thermodynamics, is firm evidence of an intelligent being who is in some way responsible for the existence of everything. In our society are human laws just random words on a piece of paper? No. They show purpose and meaning which positively proves an intelligence behind them.

First of all, your choice of green print on a buff background is not only difficult to read, but is a real turn-off. I almost gave up on your post.

That said, I find your reasoning falling quite short of being anywhere close to being convincing. Your "therefore" here does not follow from anything you previously said. Just because we have discovered a way to state an observable occurrence in nature that appears to always be true hardly means it's evidence of an intelligent being---Gotta show your work. Moreover, just because we have found that such a law is meaningful and may have a purpose certainly doesn't "prove" anything about "an intelligence behind them."

In reality man-made "laws" are not laws at all, but rather rules which can be broken.

Actually, man-made "laws" are laws. They're simply a different kind of law than natural laws. (Look up "law" in any comprehensive dictionary.)

However scientific laws can not be broken thus making them unlike civil laws. But they BOTH show a purpose.

I'd say they "have" a purpose rather than "show" a purpose.

But in the case of scientific laws without them the universe could never exist. There is no reason why a universe created by randomness should be compelled to obey ANY laws, let alone display complex mathematics. Intelligence is absolutely necessary.

You're confounding scientific law, which is a statement, with the phenomenon it describes.

As for rating your evidence for the existence of God, I can't give it any more than a 1 simply because none of it supports god's existence. Better luck with your Evidence for God #2.

.

[TRANSPONDER]

Two of the constant things I have heard from atheists on other sites is that first "There is no proof of God" and "There is no evidence for God". The first can be dismissed because to the total impossibility of there being "proof". The ONLY things that can be scientifically proven are within the universe. Anything outside of the universe or non-physical can only be theorized about, but NO "theory" is proof of anything. So, just as there can be no "proof" for God, nor can there be proof of alternate universes, membranes producing endless universes, etc. etc. In as far as the second assertion, that there is no evidence for God, that one is blatantly false as evidence for Him exists in many, many different categories. It is my intention to list some of them one at a time so as to get everyone's reaction as to the viability or lack thereof of the evidence presented. I realize that some, if not all, of these you have heard before and may have actually responded to. I already listed a few of the in a response to a earlier question, but I think that they will only get the attention they deserve if listed individually.

Topic for Debate: Do you agree or disagree with the following being evidence for the existence of God?
In answering please state clearly whether you agree or disagree
Your reasoning for doing so
Please rate from 1 to 10 with 10 being the strongest what you feel the strength of the evidence is.
If you have something further to add please let me know.

#1 The Existence of Scientific Laws

Everything about mathematics involves intelligence. One cannot add 1+1 without the intelligence to do so. Randomness cannot produce intelligence. No matter how many monkeys you have banging away on typewriters for whatever length of time, it is highly unlikely that any of them will ever produce the complete works of Shakespeare. They won’t produce even one of his sonnets. But even if they did that would be a semblance of intelligence, not the real thing. Intelligence would only be shown if the task could be repeated many times.

Therefore, the very existence of scientific LAWS, such as the Law of Gravity or the Law of Thermodynamics, is firm evidence of an intelligent being who is in some way responsible for the existence of everything. In our society are human laws just random words on a piece of paper? No. They show purpose and meaning which positively proves an intelligence behind them. In reality man-made "laws" are not laws at all, but rather rules which can be broken. However scientific laws can not be broken thus making them unlike civil laws. But they BOTH show a purpose. But in the case of scientific laws without them the universe could never exist. There is no reason why a universe created by randomness should be compelled to obey ANY laws, let alone display complex mathematics. Intelligence is absolutely necessary.

This search for ID in natural things is fruitless (though the Fibonacci series requires a bit of work ). The argument I use is like the one i use to validate Occam's razor as based in natural occurrences. If you take one stone and another stone, you have two stones. Basics of numbering. To turn this into the basic system of mathematics by drawing a picture of commodities and numbers of dots totalling them as the Sumerians and independently Egyptians (c 3,500 - 3000 B.C) and others did, apparently for tax purposes, as part of the evolution of society, is a matter of human intelligence, not a god's.
.
So while one might ponder about whether mathematics up to algebra and calculus is based on natural physics, so to speak or human rules that happen to convey these ideas (like writing), neither involves a god.

Like many other attempts to find gaps for a god, mathematics will not do it. As I say, this apologetic will be fruitless.

[DaveD49]

Everything about mathematics involves intelligence. One cannot add 1+1 without the intelligence to do so. Randomness cannot produce intelligence. No matter how many monkeys you have banging away on typewriters for whatever length of time, it is highly unlikely that any of them will ever produce the complete works of Shakespeare. They won’t produce even one of his sonnets. But even if they did that would be a semblance of intelligence, not the real thing. Intelligence would only be shown if the task could be repeated many times.

Therefore, the very existence of scientific LAWS, such as the Law of Gravity or the Law of Thermodynamics, is firm evidence of an intelligent being who is in some way responsible for the existence of everything. In our society are human laws just random words on a piece of paper? No. They show purpose and meaning which positively proves an intelligence behind them.

First of all, your choice of green print on a buff background is not only difficult to read, but is a real turn-off. I almost gave up on your post.

That said, I find your reasoning falling quite short of being anywhere close to being convincing. Your "therefore" here does not follow from anything you previously said. Just because we have discovered a way to state an observable occurrence in nature that appears to always be true hardly means it's evidence of an intelligent being---Gotta show your work. Moreover, just because we have found that such a law is meaningful and may have a purpose certainly doesn't "prove" anything about "an intelligence behind them."

First off I chose to use the green because of situations such has this where trying to reply to one section of the dialogue at a time, if it is all in the same color sometimes what is said can be missed. I tried to pick a color which I thought would be non-offensive as green is a mellow color. All black leads to confusion over who is saying what.

Your response does not say at all in what way the existence of universal laws does not show intelligence. These laws were not created by men, they were discovered by them and existed long before they or the Earth existed. And yes, they do display an extremely fine understanding of Mathematics. While the "settings" of the strength of these laws is another item of evidence it is acknowledged by all scientists that they are extremely fine-tuned. Even atheistic scientists acknowledge this. They also acknowledge that IF other universes do exist the natural laws of that universe could be different than our own. This in and of itself might preclude the existence of other universes as the exactness of these laws might make them improbable.

Once again I was not trying to "prove" anything as proof of something beyond our universe is impossible. Nor was I writing a scientific discourse which needs "work" to be shown. I was providing evidence based on the existence of natural laws which scientists acknowledge exist. Intelligence can be seen in them. Intelligence does not occur by randomness. Therefore there had to be an intelligent being who created them.

Dave: In reality man-made "laws" are not laws at all, but rather rules which can be broken.

Miles: Actually, man-made "laws" are laws. They're simply a different kind of law than natural laws. (Look up "law" in any comprehensive dictionary.)

Dave: However scientific laws can not be broken thus making them unlike civil laws. But they BOTH show a purpose.

Miles: I'd say they "have" a purpose rather than "show" a purpose.

As I said the key difference between man-made laws and scientific laws is that anyone can break a man-made law if he wishes to, but scientific laws govern the way that the universe runs. The ONLY being who break these laws is the Being who created them.

Dave: But in the case of scientific laws without them the universe could never exist. There is no reason why a universe created by randomness should be compelled to obey ANY laws, let alone display complex mathematics. Intelligence is absolutely necessary.

Miles: You're confounding scientific law, which is a statement, with the phenomenon it describes.

Once again you say that I am confounding scientific laws without showing in what way I am doing so.

As for rating your evidence for the existence of God, I can't give it any more than a 1 simply because none of it supports god's existence. Better luck with your Evidence for God #2.

.

I am sorry you feel this way, but most definitely you are incorrect. The laws display an intelligence and intelligence means a BEING.

[DaveD49]

Two of the constant things I have heard from atheists on other sites is that first "There is no proof of God" and "There is no evidence for God". The first can be dismissed because to the total impossibility of there being "proof". The ONLY things that can be scientifically proven are within the universe. Anything outside of the universe or non-physical can only be theorized about, but NO "theory" is proof of anything. So, just as there can be no "proof" for God, nor can there be proof of alternate universes, membranes producing endless universes, etc. etc. In as far as the second assertion, that there is no evidence for God, that one is blatantly false as evidence for Him exists in many, many different categories. It is my intention to list some of them one at a time so as to get everyone's reaction as to the viability or lack thereof of the evidence presented. I realize that some, if not all, of these you have heard before and may have actually responded to. I already listed a few of the in a response to a earlier question, but I think that they will only get the attention they deserve if listed individually.

Topic for Debate: Do you agree or disagree with the following being evidence for the existence of God?
In answering please state clearly whether you agree or disagree
Your reasoning for doing so
Please rate from 1 to 10 with 10 being the strongest what you feel the strength of the evidence is.
If you have something further to add please let me know.

#1 The Existence of Scientific Laws

Everything about mathematics involves intelligence. One cannot add 1+1 without the intelligence to do so. Randomness cannot produce intelligence. No matter how many monkeys you have banging away on typewriters for whatever length of time, it is highly unlikely that any of them will ever produce the complete works of Shakespeare. They won’t produce even one of his sonnets. But even if they did that would be a semblance of intelligence, not the real thing. Intelligence would only be shown if the task could be repeated many times.

Therefore, the very existence of scientific LAWS, such as the Law of Gravity or the Law of Thermodynamics, is firm evidence of an intelligent being who is in some way responsible for the existence of everything. In our society are human laws just random words on a piece of paper? No. They show purpose and meaning which positively proves an intelligence behind them. In reality man-made "laws" are not laws at all, but rather rules which can be broken. However scientific laws can not be broken thus making them unlike civil laws. But they BOTH show a purpose. But in the case of scientific laws without them the universe could never exist. There is no reason why a universe created by randomness should be compelled to obey ANY laws, let alone display complex mathematics. Intelligence is absolutely necessary.

This search for ID in natural things is fruitless (though the Fibonacci series requires a bit of work ). The argument I use is like the one i use to validate Occam's razor as based in natural occurrences. If you take one stone and another stone, you have two stones. Basics of numbering. To turn this into the basic system of mathematics by drawing a picture of commodities and numbers of dots totalling them as the Sumerians and independently Egyptians (c 3,500 - 3000 B.C) and others did, apparently for tax purposes, as part of the evolution of society, is a matter of human intelligence, not a god's.
.
So while one might ponder about whether mathematics up to algebra and calculus is based on natural physics, so to speak or human rules that happen to convey these ideas (like writing), neither involves a god.

Like many other attempts to find gaps for a god, mathematics will not do it. As I say, this apologetic will be fruitless.

You overlook one very important fact. Man did not create these laws, they discovered them, and it took them perhaps over 200,000 years to do so. The laws existed before man and before the Earth existed. This suggests an intelligence from OUTSIDE the universe.

[Miles]

Everything about mathematics involves intelligence. One cannot add 1+1 without the intelligence to do so. Randomness cannot produce intelligence. No matter how many monkeys you have banging away on typewriters for whatever length of time, it is highly unlikely that any of them will ever produce the complete works of Shakespeare. They won’t produce even one of his sonnets. But even if they did that would be a semblance of intelligence, not the real thing. Intelligence would only be shown if the task could be repeated many times.

Therefore, the very existence of scientific LAWS, such as the Law of Gravity or the Law of Thermodynamics, is firm evidence of an intelligent being who is in some way responsible for the existence of everything. In our society are human laws just random words on a piece of paper? No. They show purpose and meaning which positively proves an intelligence behind them.

First of all, your choice of green print on a buff background is not only difficult to read, but is a real turn-off. I almost gave up on your post.

That said, I find your reasoning falling quite short of being anywhere close to being convincing. Your "therefore" here does not follow from anything you previously said. Just because we have discovered a way to state an observable occurrence in nature that appears to always be true hardly means it's evidence of an intelligent being---Gotta show your work. Moreover, just because we have found that such a law is meaningful and may have a purpose certainly doesn't "prove" anything about "an intelligence behind them."

First off I chose to use the green because of situations such has this where trying to reply to one section of the dialogue at a time, if it is all in the same color sometimes what is said can be missed. I tried to pick a color which I thought would be non-offensive as green is a mellow color. All black leads to confusion over who is saying what.

Your response does not say at all in what way the existence of universal laws does not show intelligence.

Because the burden of proof lies with those making the assertion (in this case, you ), and not foisting the responsibility to prove you're wrong upon those who don't believe you.

These laws were not created by men, they were discovered by them and existed long before they or the Earth existed.

Again, you're confusing a scientific law with the phenomenon it describes.

Once again I was not trying to "prove" anything as proof of something beyond our universe is impossible. Nor was I writing a scientific discourse which needs "work" to be shown. I was providing evidence based on the existence of natural laws which scientists acknowledge exist. Intelligence can be seen in them.

Where? Just what do you see as intelligence? Making claims is not the same thing as showing evidence, and so far all you've done is to make claims.

Please show us this evidence you have provided

Intelligence does not occur by randomness.

Did someone say it does?

Therefore there had to be an intelligent being who created them.

Then how about evolution creating them? Thing is, if you can make assertions without evidence so can I.

Dave: In reality man-made "laws" are not laws at all, but rather rules which can be broken.

Miles: Actually, man-made "laws" are laws. They're simply a different kind of law than natural laws. (Look up "law" in any comprehensive dictionary.)

Dave: However scientific laws can not be broken thus making them unlike civil laws. But they BOTH show a purpose.

Miles: I'd say they "have" a purpose rather than "show" a purpose.

As I said the key difference between man-made laws and scientific laws is that anyone can break a man-made law if he wishes to, but scientific laws govern the way that the universe runs. The ONLY being who break these laws is the Being who created them.

You also said "In reality man-made laws are not laws at all," which I pointed out was false.

. . . .but scientific laws govern the way that the universe runs. The ONLY being who break these laws is the Being who created them.

Errr, isn't this "being" you mention the same god whose existence you're going to prove? Sorry, but until you prove his existence you can't use him in any claim.

Miles: You're confounding scientific law, which is a statement, with the phenomenon it describes.

Dave: But in the case of scientific laws without them the universe could never exist. There is no reason why a universe created by randomness should be compelled to obey ANY laws, let alone display complex mathematics. Intelligence is absolutely necessary.

Once again you say that I am confounding scientific laws without showing in what way I am doing so.[/color]

Sorry, I thought you might figure this out on your own. Here:

The phenomenon: Gravity: "the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass."

The law:

F=G{\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}}
F = force
G = gravitational constant
m_1 = mass of object 1
m_2 = mass of object 2
r = distance between centers of the masses

The phenomenon has been in existence since it is thought to have decoupled from the other forces nearly immediately after the Big Bang,

The law of gravity was not formulated until 1687 by Isaac Newton.



As for rating your evidence for the existence of God, I can't give it any more than a 1 simply because none of it supports god's existence. Better luck with your Evidence for God #2.

[DaveD49]

Everything about mathematics involves intelligence. One cannot add 1+1 without the intelligence to do so. Randomness cannot produce intelligence. No matter how many monkeys you have banging away on typewriters for whatever length of time, it is highly unlikely that any of them will ever produce the complete works of Shakespeare. They won’t produce even one of his sonnets. But even if they did that would be a semblance of intelligence, not the real thing. Intelligence would only be shown if the task could be repeated many times.

Therefore, the very existence of scientific LAWS, such as the Law of Gravity or the Law of Thermodynamics, is firm evidence of an intelligent being who is in some way responsible for the existence of everything. In our society are human laws just random words on a piece of paper? No. They show purpose and meaning which positively proves an intelligence behind them.

First of all, your choice of green print on a buff background is not only difficult to read, but is a real turn-off. I almost gave up on your post.

That said, I find your reasoning falling quite short of being anywhere close to being convincing. Your "therefore" here does not follow from anything you previously said. Just because we have discovered a way to state an observable occurrence in nature that appears to always be true hardly means it's evidence of an intelligent being---Gotta show your work. Moreover, just because we have found that such a law is meaningful and may have a purpose certainly doesn't "prove" anything about "an intelligence behind them."

First off I chose to use the green because of situations such has this where trying to reply to one section of the dialogue at a time, if it is all in the same color sometimes what is said can be missed. I tried to pick a color which I thought would be non-offensive as green is a mellow color. All black leads to confusion over who is saying what.

Your response does not say at all in what way the existence of universal laws does not show intelligence.

Because the burden of proof lies with those making the assertion (in this case, you ), and not foisting the responsibility to prove you're wrong upon those who don't believe you.

It seems that you like to nitpick. What "burden of proof" do I need when I am not trying to "prove" anything? I made no specific scientific claims, I do not need to know what the scientific formulas are for gravity or any of the other universal laws to know that they are based on math as you showed a little further down, and that math requires intelligence. The fact that the universe runs by these laws and that these laws have existed from the beginning of the universe's time-line is evidence that a mega-intelligence was responsible in some way for the beginning of the universe. It is a simple logical conclusion.

These laws were not created by men, they were discovered by them and existed long before they or the Earth existed.

Again, you're confusing a scientific law with the phenomenon it describes.

Once again I was not trying to "prove" anything as proof of something beyond our universe is impossible. Nor was I writing a scientific discourse which needs "work" to be shown. I was providing evidence based on the existence of natural laws which scientists acknowledge exist. Intelligence can be seen in them.

Where? Just what do you see as intelligence? Making claims is not the same thing as showing evidence, and so far all you've done is to make claims.

Please show us this evidence you have provided

Simple. 1+1=2 and 2x2=4. All the scientific laws can be broken down to a mathematical formula which creates a pattern or prediction. Man did not create these formulas as they were present almost at the very beginning of the universe. They were not made by man, merely discovered by him. This is extremely strong evidence for the existence of a mega-intelligence that was responsible in some way for the existence of the universe, as any other universe you want to talk about.

Intelligence does not occur by randomness.

Did someone say it does?

Therefore there had to be an intelligent being who created them.

Then how about evolution creating them? Thing is, if you can make assertions without evidence so can I.

Sorry, the monkeys banging away on typewriters and coming up with all the scientific laws of the universe is really a pretty tough point to take. The was no "evolution" of scientific laws. Or better yet, seeing that you HAVE made a scientific claim, what is YOUR evidence that the scientific laws evolved?

Dave: In reality man-made "laws" are not laws at all, but rather rules which can be broken.

Miles: Actually, man-made "laws" are laws. They're simply a different kind of law than natural laws. (Look up "law" in any comprehensive dictionary.)

Dave: However scientific laws can not be broken thus making them unlike civil laws. But they BOTH show a purpose.

Miles: I'd say they "have" a purpose rather than "show" a purpose.

As I said the key difference between man-made laws and scientific laws is that anyone can break a man-made law if he wishes to, but scientific laws govern the way that the universe runs. The ONLY being who break these laws is the Being who created them.

You also said "In reality man-made laws are not laws at all," which I pointed out was false.

Here is another example of nitpicking. I am not referring to man made laws at all other to explain what is evident to everyone.... that they came from an intelligent mind. Every intelligent mind can figure that out. Why do you see man-made laws as warranting attention in a discussion concerning scientific laws?

. . . .but scientific laws govern the way that the universe runs. The ONLY being who break these laws is the Being who created them.

Errr, isn't this "being" you mention the same god whose existence you're going to prove? Sorry, but until you prove his existence you can't use him in any claim.

One more time.... I am showing evidence of God's existence, and am not attempting to provide any of the impossible proof you continually ask for.

Miles: You're confounding scientific law, which is a statement, with the phenomenon it describes.

Dave: But in the case of scientific laws without them the universe could never exist. There is no reason why a universe created by randomness should be compelled to obey ANY laws, let alone display complex mathematics. Intelligence is absolutely necessary.

Once again you say that I am confounding scientific laws without showing in what way I am doing so.[/color]

Sorry, I thought you might figure this out on your own. Here:

The phenomenon: Gravity: "the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass."

The law:

F=G{\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}}
F = force
G = gravitational constant
m_1 = mass of object 1
m_2 = mass of object 2
r = distance between centers of the masses

The phenomenon has been in existence since it is thought to have decoupled from the other forces nearly immediately after the Big Bang,

The law of gravity was not formulated until 1687 by Isaac Newton.



As for rating your evidence for the existence of God, I can't give it any more than a 1 simply because none of it supports god's existence. Better luck with your Evidence for God #2.
[/quote]

Thank you for pointing out that what I said is true. I said that all scientific laws can be explained by complex math that existed long before man did. So what did you do? You gave the mathematical formula for gravity. Are you seriously telling me that you do not think that an intelligence was behind this?

[Miles]

Everything about mathematics involves intelligence. One cannot add 1+1 without the intelligence to do so. Randomness cannot produce intelligence. No matter how many monkeys you have banging away on typewriters for whatever length of time, it is highly unlikely that any of them will ever produce the complete works of Shakespeare. They won’t produce even one of his sonnets. But even if they did that would be a semblance of intelligence, not the real thing. Intelligence would only be shown if the task could be repeated many times.

Therefore, the very existence of scientific LAWS, such as the Law of Gravity or the Law of Thermodynamics, is firm evidence of an intelligent being who is in some way responsible for the existence of everything. In our society are human laws just random words on a piece of paper? No. They show purpose and meaning which positively proves an intelligence behind them.

First of all, your choice of green print on a buff background is not only difficult to read, but is a real turn-off. I almost gave up on your post.

That said, I find your reasoning falling quite short of being anywhere close to being convincing. Your "therefore" here does not follow from anything you previously said. Just because we have discovered a way to state an observable occurrence in nature that appears to always be true hardly means it's evidence of an intelligent being---Gotta show your work. Moreover, just because we have found that such a law is meaningful and may have a purpose certainly doesn't "prove" anything about "an intelligence behind them."

First off I chose to use the green because of situations such has this where trying to reply to one section of the dialogue at a time, if it is all in the same color sometimes what is said can be missed. I tried to pick a color which I thought would be non-offensive as green is a mellow color. All black leads to confusion over who is saying what.

Your response does not say at all in what way the existence of universal laws does not show intelligence.

Because the burden of proof lies with those making the assertion (in this case, you ), and not foisting the responsibility to prove you're wrong upon those who don't believe you.

It seems that you like to nitpick. What "burden of proof" do I need when I am not trying to "prove" anything? I made no specific scientific claims, I do not need to know what the scientific formulas are for gravity or any of the other universal laws to know that they are based on math as you showed a little further down, and that math requires intelligence. The fact that the universe runs by these laws and that these laws have existed from the beginning of the universe's time-line is evidence that a mega-intelligence was responsible in some way for the beginning of the universe. It is a simple logical conclusion.

These laws were not created by men, they were discovered by them and existed long before they or the Earth existed.

Again, you're confusing a scientific law with the phenomenon it describes.

Once again I was not trying to "prove" anything as proof of something beyond our universe is impossible. Nor was I writing a scientific discourse which needs "work" to be shown. I was providing evidence based on the existence of natural laws which scientists acknowledge exist. Intelligence can be seen in them.

Where? Just what do you see as intelligence? Making claims is not the same thing as showing evidence, and so far all you've done is to make claims.

Please show us this evidence you have provided

Simple. 1+1=2 and 2x2=4. All the scientific laws can be broken down to a mathematical formula which creates a pattern or prediction. Man did not create these formulas as they were present almost at the very beginning of the universe. They were not made by man, merely discovered by him. This is extremely strong evidence for the existence of a mega-intelligence that was responsible in some way for the existence of the universe, as any other universe you want to talk about.

Intelligence does not occur by randomness.

Did someone say it does?

Therefore there had to be an intelligent being who created them.

Then how about evolution creating them? Thing is, if you can make assertions without evidence so can I.

Sorry, the monkeys banging away on typewriters and coming up with all the scientific laws of the universe is really a pretty tough point to take. The was no "evolution" of scientific laws. Or better yet, seeing that you HAVE made a scientific claim, what is YOUR evidence that the scientific laws evolved?

Dave: In reality man-made "laws" are not laws at all, but rather rules which can be broken.

Miles: Actually, man-made "laws" are laws. They're simply a different kind of law than natural laws. (Look up "law" in any comprehensive dictionary.)

Dave: However scientific laws can not be broken thus making them unlike civil laws. But they BOTH show a purpose.

Miles: I'd say they "have" a purpose rather than "show" a purpose.

As I said the key difference between man-made laws and scientific laws is that anyone can break a man-made law if he wishes to, but scientific laws govern the way that the universe runs. The ONLY being who break these laws is the Being who created them.

You also said "In reality man-made laws are not laws at all," which I pointed out was false.

Here is another example of nitpicking. I am not referring to man made laws at all other to explain what is evident to everyone.... that they came from an intelligent mind. Every intelligent mind can figure that out. Why do you see man-made laws as warranting attention is a discussion concerning scientific laws?

. . . .but scientific laws govern the way that the universe runs. The ONLY being who break these laws is the Being who created them.

Errr, isn't this "being" you mention the same god whose existence you're going to prove? Sorry, but until you prove his existence you can't use him in any claim.

One more time.... I am showing evidence of God's existence, and am not attempting to provide any of the impossible proof you continually ask for.

Miles: You're confounding scientific law, which is a statement, with the phenomenon it describes.

Dave: But in the case of scientific laws without them the universe could never exist. There is no reason why a universe created by randomness should be compelled to obey ANY laws, let alone display complex mathematics. Intelligence is absolutely necessary.

Once again you say that I am confounding scientific laws without showing in what way I am doing so.[/color]

Sorry, I thought you might figure this out on your own. Here:

The phenomenon: Gravity: "the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass."

The law:

F=G{\frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}}
F = force
G = gravitational constant
m_1 = mass of object 1
m_2 = mass of object 2
r = distance between centers of the masses

The phenomenon has been in existence since it is thought to have decoupled from the other forces nearly immediately after the Big Bang,

The law of gravity was not formulated until 1687 by Isaac Newton.



As for rating your evidence for the existence of God, I can't give it any more than a 1 simply because none of it supports god's existence. Better luck with your Evidence for God #2.

Thank you for pointing out that what I said is true. I said that all scientific laws can be explained by complex math that existed long before man did. So what did you do? You gave the mathematical formula for gravity. Are you seriously telling me that you do not think that an intelligence was behind this?
[/quote]


Having tried my patience to its limit, I gotta say, adios.

Have a good day, DaveD49.

.

[TRANSPONDER]

Two of the constant things I have heard from atheists on other sites is that first "There is no proof of God" and "There is no evidence for God". The first can be dismissed because to the total impossibility of there being "proof". The ONLY things that can be scientifically proven are within the universe. Anything outside of the universe or non-physical can only be theorized about, but NO "theory" is proof of anything. So, just as there can be no "proof" for God, nor can there be proof of alternate universes, membranes producing endless universes, etc. etc. In as far as the second assertion, that there is no evidence for God, that one is blatantly false as evidence for Him exists in many, many different categories. It is my intention to list some of them one at a time so as to get everyone's reaction as to the viability or lack thereof of the evidence presented. I realize that some, if not all, of these you have heard before and may have actually responded to. I already listed a few of the in a response to a earlier question, but I think that they will only get the attention they deserve if listed individually.

Topic for Debate: Do you agree or disagree with the following being evidence for the existence of God?
In answering please state clearly whether you agree or disagree
Your reasoning for doing so
Please rate from 1 to 10 with 10 being the strongest what you feel the strength of the evidence is.
If you have something further to add please let me know.

#1 The Existence of Scientific Laws

Everything about mathematics involves intelligence. One cannot add 1+1 without the intelligence to do so. Randomness cannot produce intelligence. No matter how many monkeys you have banging away on typewriters for whatever length of time, it is highly unlikely that any of them will ever produce the complete works of Shakespeare. They won’t produce even one of his sonnets. But even if they did that would be a semblance of intelligence, not the real thing. Intelligence would only be shown if the task could be repeated many times.

Therefore, the very existence of scientific LAWS, such as the Law of Gravity or the Law of Thermodynamics, is firm evidence of an intelligent being who is in some way responsible for the existence of everything. In our society are human laws just random words on a piece of paper? No. They show purpose and meaning which positively proves an intelligence behind them. In reality man-made "laws" are not laws at all, but rather rules which can be broken. However scientific laws can not be broken thus making them unlike civil laws. But they BOTH show a purpose. But in the case of scientific laws without them the universe could never exist. There is no reason why a universe created by randomness should be compelled to obey ANY laws, let alone display complex mathematics. Intelligence is absolutely necessary.

This search for ID in natural things is fruitless (though the Fibonacci series requires a bit of work ). The argument I use is like the one i use to validate Occam's razor as based in natural occurrences. If you take one stone and another stone, you have two stones. Basics of numbering. To turn this into the basic system of mathematics by drawing a picture of commodities and numbers of dots totalling them as the Sumerians and independently Egyptians (c 3,500 - 3000 B.C) and others did, apparently for tax purposes, as part of the evolution of society, is a matter of human intelligence, not a god's.
.
So while one might ponder about whether mathematics up to algebra and calculus is based on natural physics, so to speak or human rules that happen to convey these ideas (like writing), neither involves a god.

Like many other attempts to find gaps for a god, mathematics will not do it. As I say, this apologetic will be fruitless.

You overlook one very important fact. Man did not create these laws, they discovered them, and it took them perhaps over 200,000 years to do so. The laws existed before man and before the Earth existed. This suggests an intelligence from OUTSIDE the universe.

"Who made Dem laws then?" (Remark made by an interviewee i a documentary about the religion debate).

I can understand this, but I also understand that this is the anthropomorphism hat comes from what the theists cal 'imperfect human perception" Though they usually use that to dismiss the findings of science. Physical Laws were not invented by man, but discovered, as you say. And this is the case with mathematics, morality and biology. But like the other Laws, these are the natural outcome of the way things work. The evolved from whatever matter was doing and what worked lasted and became 'Laws' and what didn't work, went extinct, so to speak. Nobody had to write them down and tell matter/energy to do what it was told.

You may not accept that, but that's not the point, the point is that you cannot sell 'Who made dem Laws, then?' to us, and for good reason; the material default obtains, as a go -to hypothesis. So far.

P.s this rebuts your argument to Miles: The laws of physics did not come about through 'random Chance' as the creationists call it. It came about through the innate natural properties of matter and, so the hypothesis, backed up with chemical evolution based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, so science says) means that there was a natural way it came about and was unplanned, though not 'Random Chance' as though it was all thrown in a heap and just happened to fall into working order. This is the logical fallacy that ID apologists always make here in that they assume as a given that there was a plan and intention before all this and it worked towards that intention. This invalid starting -parameter invalidates all the ID arguments before they start and is why I say the argument for Creationism through ID is going to be fruitless.

And, yes, you do have something to prove; the burden of proof is on you to make a decent case for an Intelligence behind it all or you lose the case. The material default with all the natural physical laws, phenomena and processes that we understand do not need a god. The ones we don't understand are perhaps gaps for god, but not proof of a god, let alone which one.

[Diagoras]

To address this point:

First off I chose to use the green because of situations such has this where trying to reply to one section of the dialogue at a time,

If the aim is readability, my suggestion is to elide all non-relevant portions of quoted text, rather than to simply use a different coloured text. There’s a limit of ten nested quotes in any post, and I’ve noticed that many posts on the forum quickly become tiresomely long well before that limit’s reached.

Note how the remainder of my post is constructed, as an example. Yes, it’s more work (and benefits from using the ‘Preview’ function to catch coding errors), but the result is that more people will read your posts, rather than be put off by post length).

(Further: if you wish to respond to several points from a single post, you could always cut and paste them into a series of posts. That keeps the readability and also allows debaters to move on from resolved arguments and concentrate on just the more contentious parts.)

The fact that the universe runs by these laws and that these laws have existed from the beginning of the universe's time-line is evidence that a mega-intelligence was responsible in some way for the beginning of the universe.

<snip>

Man did not create these formulas as they were present almost at the very beginning of the universe.

<bolding mine>

Which is it? Adding ‘almost’ in your claim is allowing for those laws to have changed at some point. Whereas if you are claiming that the laws existed at the very start of the universe in exactly the same form as we describe them today, then you need to offer some evidence of that claim; scientific evidence is very much to the contrary.