Evidence God Exists

[KichigaiNeko]

First and foremost, I would like to define the word evidence. In speaking to atheists, this is always a point of contention, and too much time is spent on discussing whether or not what I’ve provided is evidence rather than on the real subject. Below are the dictionary definitions of the word…

ev·i·dence /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Show Spelled [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb,-denced, -denc·ing.
–noun

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Note the terms ‘ground for belief’ and ‘an indication or sign.’ If a meteorologist discovers that rain in one region is evidence of something, and the lack of rain in another region is evidence of something else, and from these observations he forms a theory, then what he has observed is in fact evidence. What I’m about to provide is no different. I have made an observation about something that is real and tangible around us. Therefore, what I am providing is in fact evidence. Basically, I am claiming that there’s evidence all around us that God exits.

I should note that while I believe in God, I am not an extreme bible belt fundamentalist. I believe in evolution, and I am not unique in this. Roughly 40% of Christians in America believe in evolution. We just see it as part of God’s plan. The point is that I’m not here to argue against evolution, but to argue for the existence of God.

I will always speak to you in a civil manner. Atheists, who pride themselves as being intellectually superior to believers, should be able to provide intelligent arguments without profanity and name-calling. Light bantering and snide comments are okay; sometimes that’s part of the fun. But any disrespectful responses will be immediately ignored, regardless of how intelligent your point is.

Atheists love to use the word ‘refuted’ a lot. Just because you say my argument has been refuted doesn’t mean it has been. I warn you that I am a tough cookie, and I’ll likely have an answer for just about anything you post. So if you’re easily frustrated, perhaps you should not participate in this discussion.

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.

Its not really possible without mental contortions to believe in God and to believe in evolution.They are mutually exclusive.
Unless of course you don't understand 'evolution' or 'God' for that matter.

Any 'God' that used the mechanism of evolution to create living creatures would have to be a sadist. As sadism is less than perfect any God couldn't be a sadist.

God does not exist at all and we should be very glad about that. Otherwise we would be faced with a sadistic super being that got its kicks from watching his creation (some in his own image) suffer.

You cant have your cake and eat it.

Hello Peter... did I miss your introduction??

[The Grand Nudger]

Not strictly speaking the case. The concept of god has shown itself to be one of the more malleable concepts we have. Judging by the breadth and variety of religious tradition throughout history it isn't inconceivable that a god could be dreamt up that was very compatible with evolution. Some gods were proposed to be sadists (are at least to claimed to have acted sadistically towards human beings). It might also deserve mention that evolution is not sadistic, it's indifferent, so the more proper way to describe a god of evolution would probably be along the same lines. That the current crop of gods are not compatible is unsurprising. The founders of the worlds major religions didn't even know what a cell was, let alone genes or evolution. Gods, and prophetic characters never knew more about the world around them than was common for their time. If we imagined a Jesus character who lived today, he would almost certainly preach a gospel that included evolution (and in all likelihood the entirety of scientific knowledge with the caveat of dualism). You have to remember that many religious texts contained within them the best science of their time (this was one of the pillars of their authority). The RCC recognizes the scientific community and has gone on record stating that evolution is fine with them. So even traditions that we feel are "set in stone" are subject to review and revision.

[Ace Otana]

This should be a short thread....

You guessed wrong.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Theist Wrote: Yes I believe in god

[Image: facepalm3.gif] Idiot.

You're too harsh. He's just a simpleton.

[Peter44]

Not strictly speaking the case. The concept of god has shown itself to be one of the more malleable concepts we have. Judging by the breadth and variety of religious tradition throughout history it isn't inconceivable that a god could be dreamt up that was very compatible with evolution. Some gods were proposed to be sadists (are at least to claimed to have acted sadistically towards human beings). It might also deserve mention that evolution is not sadistic, it's indifferent, so the more proper way to describe a god of evolution would probably be along the same lines. That the current crop of gods are not compatible is unsurprising. The founders of the worlds major religions didn't even know what a cell was, let alone genes or evolution. Gods, and prophetic characters never knew more about the world around them than was common for their time. If we imagined a Jesus character who lived today, he would almost certainly preach a gospel that included evolution (and in all likelihood the entirety of scientific knowledge with the caveat of dualism). You have to remember that many religious texts contained within them the best science of their time (this was one of the pillars of their authority). The RCC recognizes the scientific community and has gone on record stating that evolution is fine with them. So even traditions that we feel are "set in stone" are subject to review and revision.

I don't agree and these assumptions are all part of trying to justify the unjustifiable. The malleability you mention is a sign of a concept under stress and having difficulty maintaining its position. Its not a sign of strength its the opposite.

Although its true there are a variety of 'Gods' (all created by men) the usual focus is the Christian 'Loving' God and the Muslim vision of a 'merciful' God. These (or this) concept of Godness would certainly fail the evolution test. Evolution is not merciful or loving. The Jewish idea of a vengeful God may be closer to the truth but there are far too many contradictions in the scriptures to even consider it.

Evolution is not indifferent not by along way its very focused on survival of the fittest that's not indifference.

This focus of selection can be considered 'sadistic' if it was accepted as preconceived. Of course it isn't preconceived so it isn't sadistic.
But believing its the mechanism God used to create living things (as they are now and as they will be) puts sadism back in the picture.
Its inescapable. If you want a 'creator' then you have to go with preconception.
As for different Gods one argument used by Gnostic's is that the world is such a harsh and difficult place (understood by Gnostic's and Buddhists long before evolution was understood) that God couldn't have made it and it must therefore be a product of Satan.

Satan as a God does address the issues we have with evolution but its still a concept created by men.

Most theists reject this completely.

Thats their problem if they want a God you would think they would accept the evidence, weak though it is and not reject if for the impossible.

As for religion and science that is a complete misnomer. The paternalistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have been dragged kicking and screaming into scientific reality. If it wasn't for the paternalistic religions science would have advanced at least a thousand years.

Evolution would have been discovered I around 1000 AD and the invasion of William the Conqueror would have been stopped by the use of a tactical nuclear weapon.

[Epimethean]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKyxuoZHmD4

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh I'm not justifying anyone's superstitions, merely mentioning that we have a fairly impressive imagination. All manner of faeries could be (and have been) dreamt up.

[little_monkey]

If a meteorologist discovers that rain in one region is evidence of something, and the lack of rain in another region is evidence of something else, and from these observations he forms a theory, then what he has observed is in fact evidence.

Perhaps others have made an observation on this point, forgive me if I'm late in this discussion, the evidence you are calling for is really observation, and the theory is an explanation of those observations. However, such a theory does not constitute a "scientific" theory, not yet. For that, the theory must make predictions that can be verified. Otherwise, it is a theory in what the laymen understand as mere "opinion".

[Kayenneh]

*le sigh*



Well, I think it's all settled then!




Wait a second..

[reverendjeremiah]

*le sigh*



Well, I think it's all settled then!




Wait a second..