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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to William in post #36]

Thank you for your post and your agreement. I was beginning to think that I was the only one on this board which had people that could think outside of the box.

The problem is not thinking outside the Box; the problem is Believing outside the Box.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #36]

Topic for Debate: Do you agree or disagree with the following being evidence for the existence of God?

(quoting DaveD49)
Topic for Debate: Do you agree or disagree with the following being evidence for the existence of YHVH?

Why did you change the question?

I thought that the one asking the question was a Christian, and YHVH is who Christians mean by "God"

Are you suggesting that scientific laws can indicate the existence of only one particular deity?

No. My contextual answer indicates that I am more interested in the idea of existing within a Creation, which only implies a creator/creators rather than a particular deity/particular deities.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #38]

Athethotheist: "Why did you change the question?

Are you suggesting that scientific laws can indicate the existence of only one particular deity?"

Not sure what you mean by changing the question. If I remember correctly the only change I made was to fix a mistype. I think it was changing "so" to "do". Yes, that was after a lot of answers were in but it was for clarity and not changing the question.

No. I see no reason to think that the scientific laws themselves favor one religion over another. The belief in one God has taken root in virtually all religions today. Even Hinduism which has hundreds of gods accept that principle. In my understanding their main God is Brahman (it might be Brahmin). He is a triune God with three separate "persons" who are Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. These have appeared in various forms throughout time. Among them would be Rama, Krishna, Devi and even Christ whom many accept as a god. To worship even one manifestation of God (even the manifestations of evil) is to worship Him.

My contention is that there can be only ONE God and He is the God of all no matter matter what religion or lack thereof. He is a Being about whom we know virtually nothing. Man still has different concepts of God in regards to His nature, His name, teachings, and in what He may want us to do. but in their own way as we have had throughout time. But despite the mistakes man has made about His name, nature, and desires, since their can only be one "Supreme" Being (which He is called by all) they are all seeking or have sought the exact same God throughout time.

[OneWay]

Evidence for God #1

You are talking about Him.

[brunumb]

[Replying to William in post #36]

Thank you for your post and your agreement. I was beginning to think that I was the only one on this board which had people that could think outside of the box.

On the other hand it could mean that you are both in the same box together. The existence of scientific laws does not necessarily point to any intelligence behind it. That is just a leap based on confirmation bias.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #38]

Athethotheist: "Why did you change the question?

Are you suggesting that scientific laws can indicate the existence of only one particular deity?"

Not sure what you mean by changing the question. If I remember correctly the only change I made was to fix a mistype. I think it was changing "so" to "do". Yes, that was after a lot of answers were in but it was for clarity and not changing the question.

No. I see no reason to think that the scientific laws themselves favor one religion over another. The belief in one God has taken root in virtually all religions today. Even Hinduism which has hundreds of gods accept that principle. In my understanding their main God is Brahman (it might be Brahmin). He is a triune God with three separate "persons" who are Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. These have appeared in various forms throughout time. Among them would be Rama, Krishna, Devi and even Christ whom many accept as a god. To worship even one manifestation of God (even the manifestations of evil) is to worship Him.

My contention is that there can be only ONE God and He is the God of all no matter matter what religion or lack thereof. He is a Being about whom we know virtually nothing. Man still has different concepts of God in regards to His nature, His name, teachings, and in what He may want us to do. but in their own way as we have had throughout time. But despite the mistakes man has made about His name, nature, and desires, since their can only be one "Supreme" Being (which He is called by all) they are all seeking or have sought the exact same God throughout time.

You are making progress. But you still have a logical and rational journey to make. You are still in Halfbaked Hotel at the moment. You can no longer ignore and dismiss all the other religions, and you see it as - well a Reality that is One just as the other religions seem to. Nobody doubts the reality. We live in it. The question is, is there any credible good reason to suppose it is intelligent? Everything else is just irrelevance, mistraction and red -herrings. If ever you come to UK, try them, oak smoked. The Scottish ones are particularly good.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #40

Again the fallacy is on your side, I am sure, because I have seen it so many times, the need to dismiss, debunk and deny science, because it gets in the way of the god- claim.

I'm not dismissing, debunking or denying science. I'm pointing out the circular reasoning of trying to get the phenomenon of material existence to explain itself----a point which science itself reveals with its self-imposed limits. And for some reason that sends you into a tizzy about the Bible, day and night, vegetable and fruit, Tyre, Babylon, Romans, Daniel, Newton, Pilate, David, the Hittites......whatever red herring you can hurl, it seems. If you avoided the rabbit holes, you wouldn't have to apologize for your posts being so long.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #36]

Thank you for your post and your agreement. I was beginning to think that I was the only one on this board which had people that could think outside of the box.

On the other hand it could mean that you are both in the same box together. The existence of scientific laws does not necessarily point to any intelligence behind it. That is just a leap based on confirmation bias.

"Could"?
"Not necessarily"?
"Is"?

Perhaps these statements of opinion come from one's own confirmation bias...

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #40

Again the fallacy is on your side, I am sure, because I have seen it so many times, the need to dismiss, debunk and deny science, because it gets in the way of the god- claim.

I'm not dismissing, debunking or denying science. I'm pointing out the circular reasoning of trying to get the phenomenon of material existence to explain itself----a point which science itself reveals with its self-imposed limits. And for some reason that sends you into a tizzy about the Bible, day and night, vegetable and fruit, Tyre, Babylon, Romans, Daniel, Newton, Pilate, David, the Hittites......whatever red herring you can hurl, it seems. If you avoided the rabbit holes, you wouldn't have to apologize for your posts being so long.

The point is that it is not a circular argument of material existence explaining itself. Nobody but you is saying that is the question. It is a not even a question of material existence being explained by science because that only shows the limits to which science has explained everything so far. There are still unexplained questions. None of that helps your case, whatever it is. So far as I can see it is trying to debunk science with a circular argument that nobody but you is making and making out that the limitations of science at present is a limitation of science - that there are some things that it can never discover. But that doesn't help your case either, as if science can't discover it, you certainly can't. Unless you are making a claim for some supernatural revelation. Which I suspect you are.

Ok, i indulged myself a bit over how science has shown the Bible claims to be dubious and how religious apologetics gets into denial about it. But it shows that science is answering questions and religious claims are losing ground. Whatever your argument is, you need to validate it and you can't do that by trying to debunk science.

[Purple Knight]

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.

Okay, let's say I concede this. Laws = god. Not necessarily proof, but at least some evidence of a purpose. It is more likely that a universe with laws is designed, and a universe without laws is undesigned.

What then would the undesigned universe look like? Would we even be able to perceive it? It would be chaos, wouldn't it? We would never and could never observe chaos, because either our observational capabilities would also be chaos so they'd be useless, or they might make order from the chaos that doesn't exist. So the evidence can't point the other way, because if it did, there would either be no such thing as evidence because the universe would not conform to logic.