Evidence God Exists

[tackattack]

---

Complete lack of evidence is not evidence to the contrary therefore not a dismissal, thus requiring faith. Then again that also depends on what your definition is of evidence in the context of the immaterial.

Great, i think we are approaching Concordia! Its the same here.... I believe String Theory is a possibility but i don't see any strong evidence for it... just hints and ideas... plus my own laughable understanding of the physics behind it. I don't have faith in String Theory (yet), but I do have a kind of faith in the universe being a natural object without divine intervention... because there is no proof of a god, but there is no proof as to how else if could have occurred (yet!)... and again, with things like abiogenesis and creation of the universe i have to accept things that I can only just get my head around.... the physics or biology/biochemsitry are way beyond me.... however, my wife is a molecular biologist with a PhD in something intelligent sounding.... she usually puts me right when i start to get strange ideas about biological things... still, she can't change a light bulb herself and her knowledge of physics is sorely lacking.

---

harmony is always a good thing.

---

3-weak reference to an article I read link I'm no molecular engineer, but DNA could stre a lot of stuff. Oh and the scientific use of the word junk probably correlates to the God of the Gaps for Christianity. It's only junk because we haven't figured out what it's for yet.

Point taken.

4-So you don't believe in abiogenesis?

No, I don't believe in it. I accept that it's a possible and perhaps plausible theory, but I don't believe in it as a matter of personal trust or intellectual assent.

5-Are you intentionally being obtuse? There is finite matter in the known universe where the current adaptations of humanity can reach and survive in. In a future where we manipulate our own DNA to live thousands of years and an increase of control of our enviornment and increasing birth rates, is it not obvious that something will have to bend, and I doubt it will be the universe.

No, it isn't obvious. At all. You assume a lot in this paragraph. I was asking how you can assert these things without a point of reference in the world today. I can say we all evolve into ogres and live with talking donkeys, but I would have no way of knowing if that would be true or not.

6-Sure. Assuming form is limiting; If you had a choice between form and formless existence which would you choose?

I don't know, what would a formless existence feel like?

7-Then don't play, I don't feel there is any objectifiable proof that God exists.

Then why believe he does?

8-Even a perfect circle isn't perfect atomically. It depends on your perspective. What seems absolute or perfect to humanity at this stage could end up being near perfectwith a different perspective.

You're obfuscating the point a bit. This wouldn't be perfection by human standards. Something that changes to adapt to its surroundings isn't perfect - perfection needs no change. Do you understand?

---

4-Understood. Would demonstratability convince you enough to believe in abiogenesis?
5-I wasn't asserting anything... just exploring a possible theory.
6-idk, I've never been a cloud of energy. I can imagine that it'd be fairly freeing and profoundly esier than an existence within a form. You?
7-Because there is evidence that isn't objectifiable that some feel is valuable.
8-perfection is based more off utilit and thus does not exclude chang. If I said absolute instead, then unchanging would be part of the definition.