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.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #79]

I fully agree. We can become just about whoever we want. Our past doesn't force us to be a certain person.

We can choose to look at all the evidence, all the arguments for different ideas. We can choose to be lazy and not do so.

[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.

There is no such thing as luck. You can be fortunate but not lucky,
for everything is determined by something else before you.

To a degree that is correct except I would not use the word "determined" which seemingly indicates that we have no way that we ourselves can change events. I am certain that Peter and the other apostles felt that way when they were fishermen or other trades, but they went on to change the whole world. I don't agree with the observation that our pasts made us who we are. We have full control over our lives not matter how our pasts have treated us. Every day presents a brand new start of us.

[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.

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.

There is no such thing as luck. You can be fortunate but not lucky,
for everything is determined by something else before you.

To a degree that is correct except I would not use the word "determined" which seemingly indicates that we have no way that we ourselves can change events. I am certain that Peter and the other apostles felt that way when they were fishermen or other trades, but they went on to change the whole world. I don't agree with the observation that our pasts made us who we are. We have full control over our lives not matter how our pasts have treated us.

Even if you had the power to change that to which is destined to be
that to which is going to be determined, it was determined by something else other than you.

So I would say that even in your imagination you have control
but then again, you have no control where it takes you.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #72]

Aquinas: "A lot of atheists get the idea of evidence for God wrong. They think either reading the argument must instantly convince them of God, or it is not evidence. That is not how it works, though. As the atheists philosopher Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) says, an argument is evidence even if it only raises the possibility of God by 1%. If we were 99% confident that God is unreal, then we read an argument and we think, hmm. If we go from 99% sure God is unreal to 98% unsure, then that argument is evidence for us."

I have bumped into that a lot. Seemingly they see no difference between the words "evidence" and "proof". I have been told "If the evidence does not prove God's existence then it is not evidence." Even with Russel I am quite certain that he still would not agree even if you gave him evidence which decreased his denial rate by 1% for 110 days in a row.

A: "But if we dive deeper into what natural laws are, we can make a stronger argument. Bertrand Russel says the argument fails because natural laws are not like human laws. They do not require a law giver. They can arise by chance he says. He gives an example of tossing a die. It has a chance of landing on 6, but it will not land on 6 every roll. We can write a kind of law of statistics to explain this. The law here is represent a chance event so doesn't require a law giver."

That is exactly what my next evidence will be. They like to use a die as an example because the odds of getting a particular number are only 1 in 6. Those are really good odds. I makes it understandable how "easy" it would be to stumble on the right setting for these laws. However even if on one day a person played the lottery in all 50 states and won the jackpot in every one, the odds of that wouldn't come close to getting the proper strength setting of just one of the universal laws or constants. And there are between 40 and up a high of 167 of those laws and constants.

A: "Also, have you looked at the argument from math? It is reduced to the following syllogism, but the heart of the argument is in the defense of the premises and conclusion.

1. If God does not exist, then the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence.
2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence.
3. Therefore, God exists.

What I pointed out above about the argument from natural laws, and how we can dive deeper into why do the things even have the properties they have such that they are predictable by laws, is exactly the heart of this argument from mathematics.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... athematics

I think it is a pretty strong argument."

I do have a few mathematical ones on my list, but I certainly will look at that site.

Thank you.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #74]

Aquinas: "It is all overwhelming when we try to think about all the properties that must exist in order for the world to obtain. When it comes to what we call natural laws, we should ask, are the intrinsic properties of the fundamental particles enough to account for the world? Or do we need something that exist beyond the particles themselves?

I am going to use a philosophical term "simples." Simples are these most fundamental things that exist as they exist. They do not change. They have an intrinsic property, say an electron, which has the intrinsic property of negative charge. Can we explain gravity only using these simples and how they interact? If we cannot, then there must exist something extrinsic to the simples to account for gravity.

But even if we can explain every force and interaction with simples, we still need to explain why those simples have the properties they do. But also, there are at least two things extrinsic to the simples, space and time, without which we cannot have a world."

Its been 50+ years since I studied philosophy so what is "simple" to one might be complex to me. When you throw time and space into a simple..... Man! I feel like I am back in that classroom. But wait, I was an atheist back then. Doesn't that mean I don't have to answer the question?

[DaveD49]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #81]

As the saying goes "Every new day is the first day of the rest of your life."

[DaveD49]

[Replying to OneWay in post #83]

OneWay: "Even if you had the power to change that to which is destined to be
that to which is going to be determined, it was determined by something else other than you.

So I would say that even in your imagination you have control
but then again, you have no control where it takes you."

I disagree with that. Yes, we all have a past and it does affect us sometimes in ways unknown. But we have no "destiny" other than seeing God after we die. The reason being is that the book of my life hasn't been fully written. I still have a few more pages to write. Even in imagination I have full control over where it takes me because I am in charge of my brain and it thinks about what I want to think about. Every minute of every day you can do something different than what you were just doing. The only exception to that is if you fried your brain with drugs or alcohol. Even if I was bound hand and foot and someone who had a gun to my head "do this our I will shoot you" even then you are in full control because you can always say "Go ahead and shoot me." Do I have control if I am hit by a bus? Yes, because I could have looked more carefully. Were the people killed or injured in the Boston Marathon bombing in control? No because that was something done to them, not by them. You are in full control of all your actions.

[OneWay]

[Replying to OneWay in post #83]

OneWay: "Even if you had the power to change that to which is destined to be
that to which is going to be determined, it was determined by something else other than you.

So I would say that even in your imagination you have control
but then again, you have no control where it takes you."

I disagree with that.

Do you think you took me by surprise?
I caused you to disagree, see I proved I am right and you are wrong.
Once again.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to OneWay in post #88]

Congratulations on your perception of "winning". But you exercised no control over me. I just answered your question as honestly as I could.

[OneWay]

[Replying to OneWay in post #88]

Congratulations on your perception of "winning". But you exercised no control over me. I just answered your question as honestly as I could.

Which makes me a winner.