Evidence God Exists: Part II

[tavarish]

As I have told you before, Zen, I think the existence of the universe itself is evidence of the existence of God. Does the existence of the universe necessitate that conclusion? No, but it is evidence nonetheless, even if you take the existence of the universe as evidence of something else altogether.

That's absolutely ridiculous. How you bridge a gap with such a bald assertion that has no explanatory value is beyond me. With your reasoning, I can say that the existence of the universe itself is evidence of the existence of celestial fairies. There's no connect there. An assertion by itself isn't evidence. The existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of the universe - not necessarily something outside it.

Evidence is not something that is such that it necessitates only one conclusion. If you hold that, I think you have a very narrowminded view of what evidence is. Evidence is that which one relies upon as support for their conclusions. Even in science, it is possible for different scientists to look at the same body of evidence and conclude different and even incompatible things (even if you exclude scientists who are creationists).

Yes, that is why we subject this evidence to different methods of testing to come to a general consensus - and even that is contested time and time again. Welcome to science, where certainty is never certain.

Give me an example in which two people have a fairly comprehensive amount of evidence for something and comes to vastly different, but equally valid conclusions. One example.

I also think the existence of morals is evidence of God. Again, does the existence of morals necessitate the conclusion that God exists? Certainly not, but I think it is the best explanation.

I know many here hold that morals are manmade and only based on what society (the majority) holds as appropriate but I simply do not agree. This has come up a couple of times in my conversations here. To those who hold that what the majority of a society says is right is right, I have presented the following:

Start with a society in which a majority of that society determines that it is ok to kill a minority member of the society. Let's even say that a law is passed that says a member of the majority is obligated to kill a member of the minority if they come into contact with one. Is it then ok (right) for a member of the majority to go around killing members of the minority?

So you're asking someone with a morality that is removed from the one you just presented to comment on it?

I'd need some details, as it's not really clear where the divide is.

1. Did the minority member do anything to warrant this? We operate in such a society, where it is justified to kill in self defense - the aggressor being the minority.
2. Is this in a time of war? A society of soldiers is ordered to attack enemy combatants and often times, shoot to kill on sight. This is also a large part of our moral structure.
3. Is this a rite of passage, or arbitrary law? Tribal cultures can embrace these actions as necessary for their survival, an example would be Sparta in Ancient Greece.

Usually the answer is no and the reason given is because the member of the minority has rights also.

No, it is entirely dependent on the circumstances and situation.

But if your position is that morals (right and wrong) are only determined by the majority of a society, then on what basis would the members of the minority have rights at all?

First, you're making a weird argument in which those who advocate moral relativism have to somehow borrow from a theistic worldview if they are to condone and condemn certain actions. What you're not accounting for is that humans aren't robots or automatons. We don't make decisions based on right and wrong, we judge based on experience, threat, reward, compromise and circumstance. We have a brain in order to discern what is the correct choice of action that leads to our survival, happiness, and coexistence within a societal framework.

Making distinctions between scenarios doesn't make you evil, it means you have the capability to think through a situation without giving an automated response that may or may not be the most beneficial to yourself or your society. Human beings operate on empathy - generally we don't want to do things to others that we wouldn't want done to ourselves. Note I said generally, because the "golden rule" can be broken.

If right and wrong are determined my majority of a society, then it seems to me it would logically follow that a member of a society only has the rights granted by that majority. Consequently, this apparently inconsistent position of some, to me is evidence that even those who hold that morals are manmade and based on what the majority in a society says recognize that minority members of a society have certain rights separate and distinct from simply what a majority gives them. I think this logically leads to a conclusion that such rights come from an ultimate source which is God.

Let's take a different scenario.

Piranhas are vicious eating machines that will literally eat away the flesh of anything it comes into contact with - yet they don't show aggression towards each other, but work quite well in groups to survive. Do they have a God given construct of morality as well?

Or could it just be that a society that systematically kills itself won't survive long enough?

So to me, all of this is evidence of God even though you might not be convinced of it. Furthermore, that is why I consider statements like "There is no evidence for the existence of God" inaccurate and unreasonable. I think statements such as "I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that God (or a deity) exists" are more appropriate and accurate.

You think the reason people don't kill each other is a reason to believe in God. Would an immoral person be reason not to believe in a God? How can you make the distinction?

I agree with that. And I do not think I have ever said such a thing here. Do I think/believe that God exists...obviously I do.

Please provide good reason for this belief. It's all well and good that you believe something, but to convince others requires evidence. Something you, AngelThman, Watson, ecolox, fr0d0, Arcanus, tackattack and any other theist that has posted here has failed to do. It's not that looking at something produces different results. It's that you have different standards of what is fact and what is fantasy. Personally, I like to live in reality - a place that has not shown me any evidence of anything outside looking in.