Evidence God Exists

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='RedFish' pid='60742' dateline='1269006226']
You can teach a man/woman to fish without him/her ever seeing water.

What would be the point?

[Ace Otana]

AngelThMan Wrote:
We don't have any evidence that disproves a God. If we do, can you explain?

You don't have any evidence that proves the existance of god. If you do, can you show us?

BTW, you can't disprove the FSM so by your logic it must be real. Prove otherwise!

[Autumnlicious]

You can teach a man/woman to fish without him/her ever seeing water.

What would be the point?

Let me rephrase this:

You can teach a student about particle physics without him seeing a Kaon or B ever.

Want to be dismissive or reductionist again?

[AngelThMan]

I've arrived here at a late stage in the debate, but I've read all of your posts and collected most of the evidence you have provided for god's existence:

* Humans are the only species, out of millions of species, which have evolved into an intelligent life
* the fact is that no other species have been able to develop science, literature, art, music and intelligent thought process as humans have. Isn’t this evidence that God exists?
* Yes it is
No, that is not evidence for god's existence. All you have said is that Man is the only intelligent species on earth and then simply added the statement, "therefore god exists". It's like saying that Kangaroos live in Australia "therefore the Tooth Fairy exists".

lol. Many species live in Australia, so there's nothing unique or special about it. Plus no one has ever believed that the tooth fairy is real.

* For one thing it corroborates what’s written in the bible
The bible cannot be used for evidence of God's existence. I know that sounds tough, but that's the way it is.

I understand the rules. I wasn't using the bible as evidence. I was stating that the claims made in the bible are corroborated by my evidence. Consider this allegory: Someone finds a diary, and a passage describes that a body was dumped in the desert. Is it real, or is it fiction? A team goes out to the desert and indeed finds the body, which corroborates what's written in the diary. Sapient intelligence represents that body. It corroborates the bible's claim that man was created in the image of God, and that animals are inferior.

* I’m sure everyone here is smart enough to understand the difference between animal intelligence and human intelligence. You may find an intelligent trait in one species, and another trait in another species. But you won’t find one single species with all the intelligent traits that humans possess.
Again, that is not evidence for god. All you are saying is man's intelligence is different from animal intelligence and there is no reason to add the final "therefore god exists".

All I'm saying is that this points to a deity. It would be too much of a coincidence that only humans were given this advantage. Other species would have benefited from intelligence, yet natural selection did not provide it. Not to mention that while man needed intelligence to survive, he did not need sapient intelligence to survive (e.g. Art, Science, Math, Civilization, etc.) Therefore our sapient intelligence is not a product of evolution.

* I claim that God meant for only humans to bear this kind of intelligence.
Here you are assuming God's existence - the very thing that you are trying to prove!

Man is the only creature that serves God. So is it just a coincidence that the only animal that worships God inherited sapient intelligence? Maybe to some it is, but to me it isn't.

* Basically what you're saying is that our intelligence is a survival tool that we developed through evolution. So now explain what the development of art, science, entertainment, etc. has to do with survival. From an evolutionary standpoint, why are those needed for the preservation of our species?
Evolutionary changes do not occur with a purpose. The changes occur and the organisms deal with it as best they can. In today's modern society there are many artists and entertainers who would die of starvation if they had to live off the land, but instead they sell their talent to members of the public and live a life of luxury - that's a survival tool if if ever there was one.

It's only a survival tool in a civilized society. If civilized societies did not exist, that artist would have learned how lot live off the land. My point is that a brain that can develop civilization is not an evolutionary necessity.

* Why are humans the only species, out of millions of species, who developed sapient intelligence?
I'm guessing the question is rhetorical, but I'm also guessing you are implying that "we have sapient intelligence because god gave us sapient intelligence" - and once again you assume the very thing you are trying to prove.

How else would we have gotten sapient intelligence? Looking at the evolution of other species, very little happens that does not pertain to survival and preservation. I've made a point that sapient intelligence is not an evolutionary necessity. So if our sapient intelligence did not happen through evolution, then who gave it to us?

I realise that you are attempting to prove the existence of the Christian God, but just for the sake of clarity, could you describe it for me - otherwise we won't know what we are talking about. In discussions with other Christians I have been told that God is ineffable and beyond the understanding of mere human minds - yet they insist they know and understand god! I can't figure out how they do that. Perhaps your version of god is not ineffable.

I don't really have a particular version of God. There is only one God, though people practice religion in different ways. There's a difference between God and religion. God is a being that can only be experienced through faith, and not scientific experiments.

* I'm obviously dealing with very young people here, because their arguments remind me a little bit of kindergarten.
I know you weren't referring to me because I wasn't here at the time, but just so you know: I'm 64.

It is good to speak to an adult here for a change, and thanks for addressing the subject, which is what I've been trying to get the kiddies on this forum to do.

[RedFish]

I think the problem might be with the question. If you want to provide concrete evidence for the existence of God, you first have to reach agreement about will be acceptable as 'concrete'. Otherwise Dogma will get in the way.
Agree on measurements acceptable to all parties? Not likely, I have to say. Impossible, more like.












Hail Badvok!

[Thor]

I think the problem might be with the question. If you want to provide concrete evidence for the existence of God, you first have to reach agreement about will be acceptable as 'concrete'. Otherwise Dogma will get in the way.
Agree on measurements acceptable to all parties? Not likely, I have to say. Impossible, more like.

As for me, any of these would be hard evidence that "God" exists:

* A stastically significant higher life expectancy for believers than nonbelievers.
* A statistically significant lower rate of life altering diseases among believers than nonbelievers.
* A stastically significant higher standard of living for believers than nonbelievers.
* A stastically significant lower rate of infant mortality for believers than nonbelievers.
* A stastically significant lower rate of blindness for believers than nonbelievers.
* A stastically significant lower rate of casualties for soldiers who are believers as opposed to nonbelievers.
* A stastically significant lower rate of property damage due to natural disasters for believers as opposed to nonbelievers.
etc...

I must add that these criteria would apply across all cultures. You can't show me the life expectancy of a believer who lives in Sweden and compare it to an atheist who lives in Somalia.

Now, I'm not saying that if you can show me any of these things that I would instantly believe. However, it would be stronger evidence than the usual guff I've seen.

[tackattack]

@Frank here you go http://atheistforums.org/thread-3187.html

[Welsh cake]

Our "dominance" as you put it is merely your perspective or subjective world-view on our current status, technically we're not the dominant species on this planet and never really have been.

While creating our own artificial environment instead of gradually adapting is certainly an ability we possess that established our success, this only makes us one-of-the-most successful species currently around. We can't make our own food the way plants do, Bees pollinate flowering plants that we get a deal of our produce from, anything happens to those little guys and we're all screwed basically. Afterall we're not the most successful life-forms in terms of sheer numbers, Viruses, Bacteria and countless pathogens have us beat there I'm afraid.

This is a perfect example of avoiding the real subject at hand and going into little tangent arguments.

You've gained mastery of mystification that much I'll grant you. What is the real subject at hand? Kindly explain what do you mean by that exactly.

I didn't include all living cells and organisms when I said humans are the only species with sapient intelligence.

It would be pretty amazing if you did considering my quoted post was a response to fr0d0 back then, and not you.

Cells and organisms are not species.

Depends on your biological classification as there are many working definitions in place.

Why are humans the only species, out of millions of species, who developed sapient intelligence?

Answer my leading question first: "Why do plants have no nervous system?"

And for all our 'dominance' it only takes one extinction-event like the asteroid/comet that wiped out the dinosaurs to remove every trace of our brief existence from this tiny celestial body.

This hasn't happened to us yet, so for now all it is is a science fantasy movie idea.

Not the brightest thing you've ever said. I suppose you'll argue next the whole Shoemaker-Levy Comet event crashing onto Jupiter was the fabrication of dastardly sinful scientists covering over the truth that there is a magic man-bum in the sky.

Ever heard of the Herschel Crater on Saturn's moon Mimas?
Multi-ringed impact basin Valhalla on Jupiter's moon Callisto?

Oh wait those aren't impact craters on Earth are they? Silly me, those are the product of Hollywood...okay try these ones instead:

Barringer Crater, aka Meteor Crater (Arizona, USA)
Chesapeake Bay impact crater (Virginia, USA)
Chicxulub, Extinction Event Crater (Mexico)
Clearwater Lakes (Quebec, Canada)
Gosses Bluff crater (Northern Territory, Australia)

And the list goes on...

[theblindferrengi]

Damn this thread grew fast.

@AngelThMan

In order to prove to us god exists, you must first prove to us that you exist.

[RedFish]

@Thor... Yep, those first 7 would be an acceptable start in my opinion.
See cannabis and glaucoma articles. Maybe religions using cannabis could demonstrate reduced blindness? A property of the substance though, not their 'belief'.
@ Welshcake... Our satellites would be spinning gently on for thousands of years, possibly. Our radio broadcasts propagate out through space (am I right there?). We may be gone, but we leave some ripples in the pond, for a while anyway.
There's what is thought to be an impact crater in the North Sea. Beautiful structure, but a little close to my home. The Silverpit.