Evidence God Exists

[Violet]

Humans being smart is not conclusive evidence of god.

BTW over 99% of the life on this planet is composed of single cell creatures who don't even know we exist.

Would you contend that we have dominence over them?

Certainly it's only 98%... that extra 1% is of much importance to me see

We did not know about their existence until at the least we had the microscope.

[Frank]

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, 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. 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. And you have to ask yourself, why are we the only species, out of millions, that have achieved this type of intelligence? Evolution is about natural selection, but shouldn’t at least one other species, out of millions, have benefited from intelligence? I think so. And there would be a myriad of other intelligent species if there were no God. 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.

In law we would say relevant evidence is anything that makes any particular proposition or theory more likely to be true. On that basis you may say the existence of humans, considering the low statistical probability intelligent life could develop randomly in such an inhospitable universe, does lend credence to the idea of a deity (and indeed absent any additional information I might agree with you). The problem of course is we do have additional information.

I'm frankly losing interest in this debate (because it is a settled question for me), which is why I've chosen to participate in an atheist forum; and not slug it out with theists on their forums. Nonetheless, I'm not hostile towards theists (at least not anymore). Certainly having certitude regarding your post-mortem fate must be comforting (and I won't pretend atheism offers any replacement for that). I won't even pretend (as many atheists do) that our own impending death, or the prospect of a future entropic death of the universe is somehow a great thing we should all eagerly look forward to. In fact I won't even say religion is terrible in all cases, or that it doesn't provide many people with guidance in their lives (and thus may be helpful in promoting things like social cohesion and even occasionally good behavior).

I simply acknowledge religion is untrue; and god probably doesn't exist. Why - because of the evidence. The starting place for the analysis must be religion itself. If we start out quibbling over nonsense like the Kalam argument, or other cosmological arguments, we wind up skipping over the most important question. Where did our concept of a god come from? Cosmological arguments and other apologetic devices (e.g. intelligent design) are merely post-hoc attempts to justify a preexisting belief system (which is the exact opposite of how science actually discovers things).

Didn't our concept of god come from the same place all the other dead religions in history came from? The more I've studied this issue the more I've discovered how conclusively theism can be debunked. A reasonable, unbiased analysis leaves no room for your god (William Lane Craig is flat out wrong - faith cannot be reasonable, unless you define "reasonable" subjectively). Indeed, according to the evidence, the first mention of monotheism in history wasn't even by the Jewish people, it was by an Egyptian pharaoh (who promoted worship of the god Aten). Archeologists have debunked the Exodus myth, evolutionary biologists and geologists have long debunked the creation account given in Genesis, indeed we've even traced some elements of the Hebrew bible to Sumerian civilization (e.g. the flood account).

Advocates of Christianity tell me there's evidence Jesus actually lived - I say great! I don't dispute that assertion (although it may be debateable, it's simply not worth fighting over). The central figures in many ancient Greek myths actually existed; nevertheless none of us believe all the supernatural myths associated with these individuals. There were numerous virgin birth motifs in pagan myths prior to Christianity; so why is the Jesus narrative so compelling? Simple, the Roman Empire adopted it as their official religion (and consequently it spread throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa).

Another popular argument concerns the motives of the apostles. According to christian apologists the apostles had no possible motive for inventing this story; but I think that's patently false. They had every motive for inventing the story. If you were part of a small cult within a larger (but still very theocratic and superstitious) religious community, who claimed your leader was a god-man, yet that leader was executed like a common criminal, you'd probably look pretty foolish (and it's doubtful anyone would take you seriously, much less join your cult). If you wanted your cult and ideology to live on, you'd have to figure out some way to spin your leaders execution into a positive.

Do you know three quarters of all people during the first century, in the Roman world, were considered slaves. It's easy to see how a religion like Christianity could spread like wild fire in that sort of environment. And all this doesn't even begin to address the particulars of the evidence concerning, for instance, natural selection (but I'll stop here in the interest of some semblance of brevity).

[tavarish]

Humans being smart is not conclusive evidence of god.

BTW over 99% of the life on this planet is composed of single cell creatures who don't even know we exist.

Would you contend that we have dominence over them?

God made cells to test our faith in his divine healing techniques.

True story.

[Ace Otana]

We are the most dominent life forms? When was this?
Bacteria is the most dominent life form. It covers every life sustainable area on this planet. Is capable of wiping us out with little effert, we need it for our very existance and we are made of it. The most basic cells are the most dominent.
Small life forms like bacteria that wiped out half of the population of europe (black death). We are not the most dominent, we are too easily killed. One earthquake can take out millions. On plague can wipe most of us out.
Also our so-called intellect could get us all killed. Nuclear weapons anyone? So not only are we pathetic in physical strenght but mental abilities too.

[Darwinian]

We are the most dominent life forms? When was this?
Bacteria is the most dominent life form. It covers every life sustainable area on this planet. Is capable of wiping us out with little effert, we need it for our very existance and we are made of it. The most basic cells are the most dominent.
Small life forms like bacteria that wiped out half of the population of europe (black death). We are not the most dominent, we are too easily killed. One earthquake can take out millions. On plague can wipe most of us out.
Also our so-called intellect could get us all killed. Nuclear weapons anyone? So not only are we pathetic in physical strenght but mental abilities too.

Too true!

Micro organisms were the first to arrive on this planet and they'll be the last to leave!

[Tiberius]

Indeed. There is a reason why some single-celled organisms didn't evolve into multi-cellular organisms.

[tavarish]

Indeed. There is a reason why some single-celled organisms didn't evolve into multi-cellular organisms.

To test our faith, right?












































....right?

[Frank]

We are the most dominent life forms? When was this?
Bacteria is the most dominent life form. It covers every life sustainable area on this planet. Is capable of wiping us out with little effert, we need it for our very existance and we are made of it. The most basic cells are the most dominent.
Small life forms like bacteria that wiped out half of the population of europe (black death). We are not the most dominent, we are too easily killed. One earthquake can take out millions. On plague can wipe most of us out.
Also our so-called intellect could get us all killed. Nuclear weapons anyone? So not only are we pathetic in physical strenght but mental abilities too.

I want to toss this out there - I heard an interesting hypothesis several months ago. While there's certainly been plenty of small wars (conflicts really) since the advent of nuclear weapon technology, there's been far less killing than traditionally seen throughout history since the development of advanced nuclear weapon technology. Apparently the idea of mutually assured destruction has provided an excellent deterrent against large scale military conflict (the type where millions are killed, not just a few thousand or even tens of thousands). Just an observation (not really advocating any particular approach, but something I suppose we need to make a mental note of as we're formulating what our own positions should be).

[Ace Otana]

I want to toss this out there - I heard an interesting hypothesis several months ago. While there's certainly been plenty of small wars (conflicts really) since the advent of nuclear weapon technology, there's been far less killing than traditionally seen throughout history since the development of advanced nuclear weapon technology. Apparently the idea of mutually assured destruction has provided an excellent deterrent against large scale military conflict (the type where millions are killed, not just a few thousand or even tens of thousands). Just an observation (not really advocating any particular approach, but something I suppose we need to make a mental note of as we're formulating what our own positions should be).

Eye. Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.)
Full on war like the second and first world wars are no longer possible. Not unless you wish to plunge this planet into another dark age. One that will send us all back to the cave age. The question is. How many huge wars would have taken place if nukes wern't an issue? Garanteed defeat on both sides have prevented major, even minor wars from taking place.

I think we have benefited from M.A.D. because it keeps us from going into major wars. It has been more peaceful now than it ever has been.

1st and 2nd world wars were faught with guns, tanks, aircrafts and bombs. 3rd world war to be faught with nuclear weapons. 4th world war will be faught with sticks and stones.

[Frank]

I want to toss this out there - I heard an interesting hypothesis several months ago. While there's certainly been plenty of small wars (conflicts really) since the advent of nuclear weapon technology, there's been far less killing than traditionally seen throughout history since the development of advanced nuclear weapon technology. Apparently the idea of mutually assured destruction has provided an excellent deterrent against large scale military conflict (the type where millions are killed, not just a few thousand or even tens of thousands). Just an observation (not really advocating any particular approach, but something I suppose we need to make a mental note of as we're formulating what our own positions should be).

Eye. Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.)
Full on war like the second and first world wars are no longer possible. Not unless you wish to plunge this planet into another dark age. One that will send us all back to the cave age. The question is. How many huge wars would have taken place if nukes wern't an issue? Garanteed defeat on both sides have prevented major, even minor wars from taking place.

I think we have benefited from M.A.D. because it keeps us from going into major wars. It has been more peaceful now than it ever has been.

1st and 2nd world wars were faught with guns, tanks, aircrafts and bombs. 3rd world war to be faught with nuclear weapons. 4th world war will be faught with sticks and stones.

Indeed, this is statistically true. So when I see well intended people protesting nuclear weapons (mostly our own possession of them), who I understand simply desire a more peaceful world, I wonder if they really researched and thought about what they're proposing? Obviously the whole thing could turn around (assuming a bunch of religious fanatics get a hold of a nuclear warhead), a situation we face today with the prospect of Iran possibly building nukes. So the question will become whether enforcing a tightly regulated nuclear regime is worth war?

From strictly a numbers perspective, perhaps. Whatever we might say about fundamental fairness (e.g. Israel has nukes, why not Iran) - the Iranians are governed by insane religious fanatics (who feel it their duty to help bring about the end of the world).

I think at this point we've reached a point in this whole mess where Israel feels they made enough concessions in the past, and they've extended the olive branch only to have it rejected numerous times. So I think they're stuck on a course of expanding settlements (in places like East Jerusalem), and they will ultimately attack Iran in the absence of U.S. action. The question isn't whose problem it is (it's everyones problem, because Iran already has missiles that can reach Europe). The question is who can accomplish a strike more effectively (and of course the answer is the United States; and make no mistake, despite Israel's storied military, we have far greater capacity and reach).

We've been trying to play out the whole insurrection thing in Iran, but it's not gonna happen. The government there is in tact & isn't going anywhere anytime soon. For numerous reasons, a nuclear Iran is just not something we can let happen. I expect even President Obama will ultimately find he has no other alternative (but the prospects aren't good; we would really have to bomb the hell of Iran, not only their nuclear facilities, but we would have to diminish her military capacity to near nothingness in order to mitigate the threat to the region and ensure the stability of global oil supplies).

It's a catch 22. Sure, M.A.D. does prevent large scale conflicts (the sort where millions are slaughtered); and obviously that's a good thing. However, short-term it will require at least one, and potentially several smaller conflicts. In sum M.A.D. saves millions of lives, but it's still far from perfect.