Evidence God Exists

[AngelThMan]

I linked you to an article in which biologists and philosophers explain the development or art through evolutionary means. You ignored that example and went on your way.

And I responded to that and made a point which was ignored.

I provided you lots of examples of intelligence in animals. (By the way, there are plenty of animals with ALL of the criteria I listed, humpback whales, dolphins, certain primates come to mind). You ignore them and went on your way.

I never said animals don't have intelligence. And I've explained that the traits you mentioned in all those species pale in comparison to sapient intelligence, and I explained why.

I directly addressed your argument. If you haven't found my arguments convincing, I suggest you re-read the argument and analyze your own text and see where it fails.

This is an arrogant statement, to think that someone is going to look at their own text, and use the information to agree with your points. As I've stated before, just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true.

You're repeatedly told that humans don't have ultimate dominance, using micro-organisms as an example, in addition to being shown that humans cannot survive in many environments that certain animals can.

YES THEY CAN!! Using their intelligence and inventions, humans can survive pretty much anywhere and in any conditions. Even on the moon. Can any animal survive on the moon?

...Because humans seem to be so much more intellectually advanced...

Seem to be more intellectually advanced? Only on an atheists' forum would this statement hold any water. You know very well in the real world it doesn't make sense.

You weigh no other options and ignore the points that are shoved in your face.

Nothing of substance has been discussed. Just very juvenile notions. You're clearly someone who's very young. Either a teenager, or not much older than that.

You said cells and organisms (the same thing, by the way) aren't species, and I illustrated to you that they are. Perhaps you should word yourself a bit better.

Right. I should word myself better because you're a nitpicker, and can't just grasp from our conversation what I mean to say. This is another juvenile characteristic. Let's keep avoiding the real debate by finding little ways to make our opponent's life difficult.

Here's a definition of dominant:

1 a : commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others <the dominant culture> b : very important, powerful, or successful <a dominant theme> <a dominant industry>

And I think this easily defines our relation to other animals.

We have the capability to understand the world around us in a unique way, but in no way to we control or command all others.

Sure, that's why killer whales are in captivity at Sea World. More denial.

We cannot survive in environments in which certain forms of bacteria reside.

I don't think we want to. If we did, we'd find a way with our intelligence.

We cannot survive in considerably hot, cold, or dry climates. We cannot survive deep underwater, where pressures are immense. We cannot survive at high altitudes, where air density is low.

We can survive anywhere with our intelligence.

Other animals, suited for those environments, CAN.

This is not a refutation of my argument. We're still the dominant species.

We are perfectly suited for our environment. It's easy to see how you'd think we have dominion over it, in the same sense that a lion may regard himself to be the the top of the food chain and have no rival.

The lion does have a rival. Man captures him and puts him in zoos.

There, I've answered all you supposed refutations. So don't go around saying I've ignored your points. I've had an answer for everything you've posted. So there's no way my mind could be changed by your arguments.

[Joe Bloe]

Without further ado, here’s the evidence: Humans are the only species, out of millions of species, which have evolved into an intelligent life form. Other species live pretty much to eat and sleep -- survival. If our evolution were only a result of natural selection, shouldn’t other species, or even just one, have evolved into intelligent beings after millions of years? But 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 [...]

You are merely stating that:
(a) Man is the only species with intelligence.
(b) Therefore god exists.
Can you show the logical steps that carry you from point (a) to point (b).

This is the question I would like you to answer. Ignore the remainder of this post if you wish; it's merely commentary.

Yes it is, and for several reasons. For one thing it corroborates what’s written in the bible, which is that God created man in his image, and that animals are inferior.

This is a circular argument: The god of the bible created Man because the bible says god created Man.

But to truly understand why my evidence points towards a deity one needs to be able to appreciate the grandness of this gift that is human intelligence.

I don't think of it as a "gift" because that implies a "giver" and in the context of this thread, the "giver" is god - but we cannot assume god exists because that is what you are trying to prove. Nevertheless I appreciate the "grandness" of human intelligence (but not as a gift).

And you have to ask yourself, why are we the only species, out of millions, that have achieved this type of intelligence?

I have asked that question and have to admit that I do not know why we have achieved this type of intelligence - but I do not immediately contradict myself and say that therefore I do know that God gave it to us.

Evolution is about natural selection, but shouldn’t at least one other species, out of millions, have benefited from intelligence? I think so.

Probably thousands of species would have benefitted from intelligence - they just didn't get it, that's all. Ain't life a bitch? I would have benefitted from winning the lottery. People win lottery prizes every day, and I never do. Why is that?

And there would be a myriad of other intelligent species if there were no God.

I disagree for two reasons:
(1) It's mere supposition on your part.
(2) It implies (in a back-hand sort of way) that God exists - but that cannot be assumed; that has to proved.

If you can appreciate the grandness and uniqueness of human intelligence, then you’ll understand why only humans were given this gift, and you'll know why what I've outlined here points to a God.

Here you repeat statements I've allready considered.

[Godscreated]

AngelThMan why do you say that mans intelligence is unique?God says that man is unique because He gave us a soul isn't this true.All animals exibit some sort of intelligence so intelligence unto itself does not give man dominion over all other creatures.Your view of the creation is very limited because of your belief in evolution and this limits your understanding of God.God being creator of all things gives Him authority over all things so this being the case God by His authority gave us dominion over the animals. He gave us intelligence so we could handle the task of being responsible care takers and at this we have failed.Tell me AngelThMan why would God being all powerfull and all knowing need to use evolution to bring about intelligence is the not a contradiction of who He is?
To all the others on the eleven pages I read yes I'm a Bible-Belt christian.I'm not here to convert you that job belongs to God.Looking forward to replying to other post and to your replies.

[Watson]

How else do you think God would do it, Godschild? If not through evolution, than by what method did He provide us with this intelligence? Surely He would have been able to see that if He just poofed out intelligence into existance, it would take away our will-power to believe in Him or not, right? I'm sure God was a bit more clever than just 'poof!'

And AngelThMan, I agree on a lot of your points, but you come across as a little arrogant. Being opinionaed is one thing, feeling superior is another. And boasting superiority is even a step further.

[tavarish]

I never said animals don't have intelligence. And I've explained that the traits you mentioned in all those species pale in comparison to sapient intelligence, and I explained why.

It's pretty clear to see that you don't understand how the development of human intelligence works. You reach a conclusion, then rationalize to fit your argument. That's not how reasoned debate work.

I told you that even with our intelligence, we are subject to the collective will of micro-organisms. We have terminal diseases killing millions each day, not to mention opportunistic infections that accompany these ailments. We can combat against some illnesses, but there remain many that are incurable at this point in time. These micro-organisms are living things with a species classification.

What you're claiming is that the intelligence humans possess is not only more advanced than any other being (which I do not contest), but that our intelligence as a trait is greater than ANY traits in the animal kingdom. You're basing this on accomplishment, and failing to realize that accomplishment of the species is only relevant to that species. You're comparing apples to oranges and making a weak case laced with ad hominem attacks against those who call you out on your inconsistencies.

This is an arrogant statement, to think that someone is going to look at their own text, and use the information to agree with your points. As I've stated before, just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true.

You're pretty good at rebutting your own assertions.

YES THEY CAN!! Using their intelligence and inventions, humans can survive pretty much anywhere and in any conditions. Even on the moon. Can any animal survive on the moon?

Can humans survive in high radiation areas? Areas of nuclear fallout? Why are you comparing the traits of animals to the accomplishments of human intelligence? Again, you're not understanding how trait development works.

For example, you can't expect a species that has developed to become a perfect hunter, such as the shark, to invent a computer, as it was irrelevant to its development. Its environment did not demand that it develops sapience; it simply was not a favorable trait for its survival. It's the same thing as expecting us to be able to smell blood underwater from a mile away. Our environment did not demand this from us. I don't know how many more times I can drive this point home.

Seem to be more intellectually advanced? Only on an atheists' forum would this statement hold any water. You know very well in the real world it doesn't make sense.

Why would an intellectually honest statement only make sense here on an atheist forum?

Nothing of substance has been discussed. Just very juvenile notions. You're clearly someone who's very young. Either a teenager, or not much older than that.

I love how you come here, propose some ridiculously inaccurate and wild claims, then resort to ad hominem attacks when you don't get your way.

Right. I should word myself better because you're a nitpicker, and can't just grasp from our conversation what I mean to say. This is another juvenile characteristic. Let's keep avoiding the real debate by finding little ways to make our opponent's life difficult.

No, as you learn more about debate, you realize that words have meanings. Don't say a word or make a claim before you actually know what it means and intend to extend that notion. I don't operate on your assumptions, nor should it be required for this discussion.

Sure, that's why killer whales are in captivity at Sea World. More denial.

And orcas in the zoo are proof of what? The definition I provided said "control over all", which we do not have.

I don't think we want to. If we did, we'd find a way with our intelligence.

We can survive anywhere with our intelligence.

Try to survive in the middle of the ocean, the desert, arctic tundra or anywhere else we're not suited for without tools for an extended period of time. Intelligence without a viable application is worthless.

This is not a refutation of my argument. We're still the dominant species.

LOL.

The lion does have a rival. Man captures him and puts him in zoos.

Again you're asserting that "dominance" over something involves taking something it out of its environment. It doesn't work this way. If you went to the plains of Africa with nothing, staring down a pack of lions, it isn't likely that you'll survive. It's because you don't have a natural advantage. The only advantage you can have is through application of intelligence via tools, and even then, nothing's guaranteed. This is brought about through evolution and LOTS of trial and error.

There, I've answered all you supposed refutations. So don't go around saying I've ignored your points. I've had an answer for everything you've posted. So there's no way my mind could be changed by your arguments.

This isn't how reasoned discussion works. When one side is horribly biased, it cannot lead to anything productive. When you come here with loaded assertions, prepare to defend yourself. At least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that others make valid points against your assumption.

[Minimalist]

God says that man is unique because He gave us a soul isn't this true

No, laddie. The iron age clowns who wrote that nonsense down said it. There is no god to say anything.

[Watson]

I have to admit, I lol'd.

[kollkolen]

The universe is neither old enough nor large enough for life to have spontaneously begun on its own. The very age of the universe requires that an outside force must have at least initiated the process of life in the universe, and the law of cause and effect dictates that the everything that exists within the universe must have come into being as the result of something outside of the universe. Whether or not this outside force is intelligent or conscious, only one's personal experience can prove or disprove.

[Violet]

The universe is neither old enough nor large enough for life to have spontaneously begun on its own.

What does the age or size of the universe have to do with its capacity for life?

The very age of the universe requires that an outside force must have at least initiated the process of life in the universe, and the law of cause and effect dictates that the everything that exists within the universe must have come into being as the result of something outside of the universe.

What does the age of the universe have to do with it's creators (or lack thereof)? The "law" of cause and effect dictates nothing regarding wether the universe has always existed, came into being by external means, is generated in its entirety by a mosquito in Antarctica and is about to ceasate by means of a flyswatter, or in fact anything beyond that effects can be traced from causes.

Whether or not this outside force is intelligent or conscious, only one's personal experience can prove or disprove.

Proof and disproof are fundamentally impossible for us to know if you define them as absolutes. The above suggests that there is a force that can be intelligent or conscious... further that one can prove or disprove such things (by their experiences, no less!).

I have a question for you... what do you mean by your religious views (those being '16')?

[Darwinian]

The universe is neither old enough nor large enough for life to have spontaneously begun on its own.

The age of the Universe, 13,700,000,000 years, is a timespan that simply cannot be comprehended by the human brain as it is totally and completely outside of our realm of experience.

As for the size of the Universe. No-one knows that, not even you. All we know is how large the observable Universe is because the speed of light cacoons us in an visual bubble. How do you know that a being on the edge of what we can see can't point her telescope away from us and see yet another 13.7 billion light years of Universe, and a being 13.7 billion years on the edge of her observable Universe do the same?

Therefore, unless you personally have some unique insight and intuitive understanding for what 13,700,000,000 years actually means and, unlike anyone else who lives or has ever lived on the face of this planet actually know how large this Universe is and have also successfully dismissed the multiple Universes predicted by inflation, your statement above is simply meaningless.

The very age of the universe requires that an outside force must have at least initiated the process of life in the universe, and the law of cause and effect dictates that the everything that exists within the universe must have come into being as the result of something outside of the universe.

This is fantastic, I must contact Brian Greene and Edward Witten at once as you obviously have conclusive proof that string/membrane theory is correct. As much as I'd love this to be true and sincerely hope that more evidence can be found for one of my favourite theories at the moment we have no observable proof, not only for string theory but also for your proposition that there even is an outside to the Universe.

Whether or not this outside force is intelligent or conscious, only one's personal experience can prove or disprove.

This makes no sense.