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.

[OneWay]

Evidence for God #1

You are talking about Him.

Evidence for God #2
Not really... I am talking about my understanding of Him, but none of us have that right.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #58

If an analogy would help, you may as well say that medical science can never find a cure for this or that disease, because medicine can never explain medicine. Nobody is asking it to. It is a pointless point.

Medicine being unable to explain medicine doesn't mean that medicine can't cure diseases, and science being unable to explain material existence doesn't mean that science can't explain anything, so your analogy is weak.

And, as you say, nobody is asking medicine to explain medicine----but you do seem to be banking on the material universe explaining itself.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #46]

Transponder: "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."

Well thank you for saying that I have made it to "Halfbaked Hotel" and that I am making progress. I can't wait until I am fully baked. (I think). I cannot see in any way shape or form that I "ignore and dismiss all the other religions". Have I not said a number of times that every religion is seeking the same God. There is no such thing as an Islamic God, a Hindu God or a Christian God. There are different ideas about the nature of God, but no one knows His real nature. There are things in this world with names such as cirrocumulus, cirrus, cirrostratus, altocumulus, altostratus, nimbostratus, stratus, cumulus, cumulonimbus, and stratocumulus. But they are all one thing... clouds. And no matter how people describe their differences they are still clouds. In the Bible there are 27 different names for God used. Where they talking about 27 different gods? No. They were describing different attributes which God had. In Hinduism they believe that through time God has often appeared in different manifestations for a specific purpose such as Rama, Krishna or even Christ, but they still accept that these manifestations are different ways of seeing the One God.

Actually some people do see reality in a different way, We spoke before about Einstein's quote that "Reality is an illusion, albeit a convincing one." It could be that everything we see and learn are just illusions and there is nothing physical about the "physical world" or ourselves. I don't know for certain; do you? It could be that everything we think is actually true is in fact false. I do not believe that because I do not think God is a deceiver. But I could be wrong.

You asked "is there any credible good reason to suppose it (God) is intelligent. Yes. I have already given one example in this thread of how intelligence can be seen. There will be others. And sorry, but I do not see how anything I wrote could be labelled a "distraction" or "red-herring." But if ever I am in the UK I will try them.

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #62]

And, as you say, nobody is asking medicine to explain medicine----but you do seem to be banking on the material universe explaining itself.

To some degree - but not to the point of circular argument - the universe 'explains itself' through the conscious awareness which is able to integrate the evidence with the most correct explanation. Circular explanations are off the table at that point.

Q:1 Is the universe a created thing?

There is evidence according to theistic views of the universe - such as the idea that life [on Earth] is not only conspicuous by being an extremely rare thing to find - but also to be a conspicuous actual personality experiencing it first hand - the eventual conclusion has to be that what is being experienced is most likely a created thing.

Whereas atheistic views - having the same evidence - choose not to acknowledge that the evidence shows clearly enough that the universe is mindfully created.

Theistically, the question to follow the answering of the first would be something like;

Q:2 Can we ascertain through the objective evidence which points to mindful creation, who or what this creator mind is?

Atheistically, that second question doesn't need to be asked, due to the first question being answered differently than how the theist answers it.

[DaveD49]

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.

Most likely an "undesigned" universes could never possibly exist. In the Multiverse concept (which was invented for the sole purpose of trying to dispute the realization of the exact fine tuning of all the laws and constants of the universe which points to the existence of God), our universe just happen to be the one which got it write. It is the monkey who banged on a typewriter and typed out exactly the complete works of William Shakespeare.

[William]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #63]

I cannot see in any way shape or form that I "ignore and dismiss all the other religions". Have I not said a number of times that every religion is seeking the same God.

I concur, having read the words you wrote re other religions.

Actually some people do see reality in a different way, We spoke before about Einstein's quote that "Reality is an illusion, albeit a convincing one." It could be that everything we see and learn are just illusions and there is nothing physical about the "physical world" or ourselves.

This is not so much a 'could be' but has actually been shown to be the case - through Quantum Mechanics.

I do not see how anything I wrote could be labelled a "distraction" or "red-herring."

They can be if you let them. The distraction and red herring could represent some type of transponder - a device for receiving one thing and automatically transposing and transmitting a different thing....like a strawman argument - ones say's something, and the other takes what one say's and reinterprets it so that it becomes a misrepresentation of what was actually said, and then makes an argument out of that - effectively arguing against something one wasn't arguing in the first place.

I have learned to disengage with such arguments seeing them as attempts to purposefully distract one from continuing down the line one was actually originally going down. One has to learn to steer the conversation in the direction one is wanting to go with it...otherwise one can get stuck in someone else's distraction and one might as well go talk to the Scarecrow in the Field, for all the use of that is.

[William]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #65]

Most likely an "undesigned" universes could never possibly exist. In the Multiverse concept (which was invented for the sole purpose of trying to dispute the realization of the exact fine tuning of all the laws and constants of the universe which points to the existence of God), our universe just happen to be the one which got it write. It is the monkey who banged on a typewriter and typed out exactly the complete works of William Shakespeare.

I think there is a depth to this idea;

"Any universe which can be experienced as real, has to be something which was created."

[DaveD49]

Evidence for God #1

You are talking about Him.

Evidence for God #2
Not really... I am talking about my understanding of Him, but none of us have that right.

You are right, none of us have it right. But welcome to the roller coaster ride on the search for Him. Be prepared for peaks and valleys and even a few stalls as well as times it feels like you are going backwards. But you will find that the peaks always get higher and the valleys shallower. Good luck on your journey.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #63]

I cannot see in any way shape or form that I "ignore and dismiss all the other religions". Have I not said a number of times that every religion is seeking the same God.

I concur, having read the words you wrote re other religions.

Actually some people do see reality in a different way, We spoke before about Einstein's quote that "Reality is an illusion, albeit a convincing one." It could be that everything we see and learn are just illusions and there is nothing physical about the "physical world" or ourselves.

This is not so much a 'could be' but has actually been shown to be the case - through Quantum Mechanics.

I do not see how anything I wrote could be labelled a "distraction" or "red-herring."

They can be if you let them. The distraction and red herring could represent some type of transponder - a device for receiving one thing and automatically transposing and transmitting a different thing....like a strawman argument - ones say's something, and the other takes what one say's and reinterprets it so that it becomes a misrepresentation of what was actually said, and then makes an argument out of that - effectively arguing against something one wasn't arguing in the first place.

I have learned to disengage with such arguments seeing them as attempts to purposefully distract one from continuing down the line one was actually originally going down. One has to learn to steer the conversation in the direction one is wanting to go with it...otherwise one can get stuck in someone else's distraction and one might as well go talk to the Scarecrow in the Field, for all the use of that is.

I just bumped into that. One person was "quoting" 2Thessalonians to me, but what he wrote was nothing like what Thessalonians said.

[William]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #63]

I cannot see in any way shape or form that I "ignore and dismiss all the other religions". Have I not said a number of times that every religion is seeking the same God.

I concur, having read the words you wrote re other religions.

Actually some people do see reality in a different way, We spoke before about Einstein's quote that "Reality is an illusion, albeit a convincing one." It could be that everything we see and learn are just illusions and there is nothing physical about the "physical world" or ourselves.

This is not so much a 'could be' but has actually been shown to be the case - through Quantum Mechanics.

I do not see how anything I wrote could be labelled a "distraction" or "red-herring."

They can be if you let them. The distraction and red herring could represent some type of transponder - a device for receiving one thing and automatically transposing and transmitting a different thing....like a strawman argument - ones say's something, and the other takes what one say's and reinterprets it so that it becomes a misrepresentation of what was actually said, and then makes an argument out of that - effectively arguing against something one wasn't arguing in the first place.

I have learned to disengage with such arguments seeing them as attempts to purposefully distract one from continuing down the line one was actually originally going down. One has to learn to steer the conversation in the direction one is wanting to go with it...otherwise one can get stuck in someone else's distraction and one might as well go talk to the Scarecrow in the Field, for all the use of that is.

I just bumped into that. One person was "quoting" 2Thessalonians to me, but what he wrote was nothing like what Thessalonians said.

Stop. Listen. Observe.

The important thing is to pick up on tactic and thus avoid what amounts to one wasting time talking to scarecrows in some field.