Evidence God Exists

[Ace Otana]

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.

Those who protest against nukes think that by removing them, there would be peace. Removing them is in fact more likely to bring more war. With nukes, there can be no large war. Which also means wars that do happen are small, lengthy and quite tiresome. Just look at the war we have now. At least millions aren't being lost. We need nukes, because it prevents large bloody wars. I would like there to be no nukes but we need them. One thing we cannot have is religious fanatics whom poses nuclear weapons. They act based on personal beliefs and not on reason. Which makes them very dangerous. This is one example of how religion can be dangerous.

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)

.
Bombing them might not be enough. As long as there is a resistance there will be more bloodshed. Just look at how long this war has being going on. Almost every day I hear of another lost soldier. I have been hearing of bodies coming back for years now. The enemy isn't just over there but here as well. London bombings?

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.

Now that large wars are not possible unless you wish to send yourself to the cave age. We are forced to fight many small wars instead. Which also mean conflicts lasts longer. A major war could mean a war will only last a few short years but at the cost of millions of lives. Small conflicts mean far lower casulties but takes far longer to end.

[Laurens]

Forgive me for not having read all 9 pages of this topic.

My view; seeking evidence for God, to me, shows weakness of faith.

If you are truely confident in your heart that God exsists, why do you have to seek evidence for this in nature? Why are you weary of those who profess to know otherwise? Can't you just sit back, safe in the knowledge of there being a God, and let other people arrive at their own conclusions?

[AngelThMan]

First of all, lions' sharp teeth or fangs are not unique to their species. Plenty of other species have them. Even if they were unique, sharp fangs don't give any species the ability to conquer the world as humans have. Humans themselves have unique physical traits, but is their intelligence which has allowed them to achieve dominion.

It's like talking to a wall.

I can say the same thing about you. You're falling into the trap of thinking that just because you believe something, it must mean it's true. Isn't that what atheists constantly say of Christians?

Dominion IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT.

No, dominion all over. Have you ever seen a zoo run by animals with humans in display?

You think our intelligence would stand a chance in the lions' environment without tools? You think that we would survive ANYWHERE without intelligence?

Our closest cousins, the chimpanzee, survive without sapient intelligence or tools. So, yes.

It's a trait forged by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution...

So? I've never denied evolution. It doesn't matter how we arrived at our intelligence, or the time it took. What's important is that God influenced the process.

...We're still killing each other over land that we think belongs to us...

This is veering off into politics and moral agenda. It's not relevant to the topic.

Show me any 'other advanced mammal' that has invented computers.

Are computers the only bearing on intelligence a mammal could have?

Now you're really missing the point. I used computers as a metaphor for science, a manifestation of our intelligence unequaled by any other animal. I shouldn't have to explain this.

How about communicable language? Self-awareness? Tangible emotional responses to stimuli? Working concepts of life and death? Established hierarchy and society? Expression of music? There are animals that have all of this and more.

Can you find one other species that has all of these traits? Humans do. When these traits are found in animals, they are usually limited, and developed solely for survival.

What humans can achieve with their intelligence is far greater than what lions can achieve with their jaws. There's no comparison.

Greater in what sense?

I'm tired of explaining how humans are superior to animals. You know we are, but are just being difficult. I think you love the concept of being an atheist, and are avoiding the real issue, because you know getting sidetracked with denying our superior stance is an easier target than explaining why we are the only species, out of millions, to develop sapient intelligence.

How are you certain humans will remain "dominant" in the future?

I cannot base an intelligent argument on what may or may not happen. No offense, but this is just not a very bright comment.

[quote='tavarish']http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2009/04/12/art_for_evolutions_sake/

Art, by contrast, is not about automatic responses to pretty things, expressive movements, and compelling rhythms, but our aesthetic activities and sensibilities in all their capricious diversity, from cave art and oral epics to museums and raves. It's that very flexibility and creativity - that humanity, in a word - of art which Dutton sets out to explain in evolutionary terms.

Some biologists have argued that art is an evolutionary accident, the fortuitous product of adaptations produced for other ends; Dutton disagrees. Far from being an accident of evolution, imagination is a useful survival tool, and thus almost certainly an adaptation in its own right. Dutton swiftly enumerates situations, from the Pleistocene age to the present, in which imagination proves its utility. One of the most important dimensions of our imaginative faculty, he argues, is its virtuality. Early hunter-gatherers would have derived immense benefit from a capacity to imagine and surmise: What's in the next valley? Do those caves harbor sheltering alcoves or dangerous bears?

To me this is just a lot of hogwash -- scientists trying to explain a phenomenon, and failing miserably, and in the process contradicting each other's theories. What's important to note is that even these scientists agree that the development of art in humans is significant as a piece that doesn't quite fit the puzzle of evolution, and therefore they have a need to try to justify it. Maybe they can also try to justify the development of math and science, which takes our intelligence to levels far above what is necessary for the preservation of our species.

Tavarish, I think I've fully explained why your arguments have failed to convince me. So please, let's not go around in circles.

[LordTwaTton]

well I read though all nine pages of this and still see no evidence that god exists... It's basically an argument over Humans vs The rest of the living organisms on this planet... (we could get our asses kicked by many of the other creatures and thingies that live on this planet and could easily wipe them out to... doesn't prove anything)

There is no evidence that god exists. Period. If there were any... we'd all KNOW there's a god.

Man created god, not the other way around. I agree that it could have been done to explain things initially but it was developed later on into religion as people got smarter, to control the dumber ones.

[Frank]

Forgive me for not having read all 9 pages of this topic.

My view; seeking evidence for God, to me, shows weakness of faith.

Even that statement is itself a manmade dilemma (with no basis in reality). We invent a concept, god, then we say the further one departs from rational thinking in believing in this concept the bigger the reward he can expect. We even give this assault on common sense and reason a name - "faith" (the more of it we have the better).

Apparently heaven will be filled with fools, and all the smart people will go to hell.

If you are truely confident in your heart that God exsists, why do you have to seek evidence for this in nature? Why are you weary of those who profess to know otherwise? Can't you just sit back, safe in the knowledge of there being a God, and let other people arrive at their own conclusions?

Of course they can't. They insist everyone else in the world think exactly like them, and the hell with common sense and decency. Religiosity is intellectual inferiority. This doesn't mean the religious lack the intellectual capacity to become smart, it just means they're not smart yet.

---

Bombing them might not be enough. As long as there is a resistance there will be more bloodshed. Just look at how long this war has being going on. Almost every day I hear of another lost soldier. I have been hearing of bodies coming back for years now. The enemy isn't just over there but here as well. London bombings?

Indeed you're probably right, but bombing the daylights out of Iran is probably our best option right now, assuming diplomacy or sanctions don't work (again not only their nuclear facilities, but we must also destroy their military bases, tanks, fighter planes, satellites, submarines, naval ships, revolutionary guard facilities, intelligence assets and facilities, and whatever other military asset they own that we can reach through bombing). The worse thing we could do is a little surgical strike (like hitting a hornets nest with a twig, it's guaranteed to piss them off, and still leave them with plenty of capacity to reek havoc in the mid east and perhaps beyond). If we hit Iran we need to cut off its balls.

But this fight is an Air Force & Navy fight. Boots on the ground in Iran would be crazy (that's a no win situation). At the same time we have to bomb them mercilessly, for weeks, maybe months. Bottom line, the Iranian people are smart enough to know their leaders are a bunch of lunatics, yet they all (or virtually all) vigorously support the governments action with regard to developing nuclear weapon technology. So we shouldn't feel bad about doing what we have to do (notwithstanding the situation in Iran right now & of course I empathize with those trying to fight for more freedoms, but bottom line we can't let madmen have nuclear warheads, period).

When we're done Iran should be left with virtually no military capacity. Again hopefully it can be accomplished without any ground forces (preferrably not even armor assets, but that may be wishful thinking on my part). Obviously there will be fallout; but if Iran ever resorted to terrorism or supported terrorism as a tactic, then it would be state sanctioned (or orchestrated) terrorism (and we could retaliate against exceedingly more valuable assets until they completely capitulate). When we finally take the gloves off - we'll discover it's Iran whose in the no win situation (not us); but it would be immensely helpful from a public relations standpoint to have Arab allies in this thing (even if only token allies).

Now that large wars are not possible unless you wish to send yourself to the cave age. We are forced to fight many small wars instead. Which also mean conflicts lasts longer. A major war could mean a war will only last a few short years but at the cost of millions of lives. Small conflicts mean far lower casulties but takes far longer to end.

True, and unfortunately there's only so much we can do to protect ourselves. We've done plenty already, but there will always be holes in our security terrorists will eventually learn how to exploit. Moreover, without surrendering significant freedom (which I'm not willing to do) there's only so much we can do; but life is full of risks, and we can't mitigate against everything. We have to live with a certain amount of risk?

[AngelThMan]

Our "dominance" as you put it is merely your perspective or subjective world-view on our current status, technically we're not the dominant species on this planet and never really have been.

While creating our own artificial environment instead of gradually adapting is certainly an ability we possess that established our success, this only makes us one-of-the-most successful species currently around. We can't make our own food the way plants do, Bees pollinate flowering plants that we get a deal of our produce from, anything happens to those little guys and we're all screwed basically. Afterall we're not the most successful life-forms in terms of sheer numbers, Viruses, Bacteria and countless pathogens have us beat there I'm afraid.

This is a perfect example of avoiding the real subject at hand and going into little tangent arguments. I didn't include all living cells and organisms when I said humans are the only species with sapient intelligence. Cells and organisms are not species. They are cells and organisms, and I can make the claim that God has a reason or purpose for each of those organisms. This point has nothing to do with the topic, except to sidetrack it to avoid answering the real question. How about sticking to the subject, people? Why are humans the only species, out of millions of species, who developed sapient intelligence?

And for all our 'dominance' it only takes one extinction-event like the asteroid/comet that wiped out the dinosaurs to remove every trace of our brief existence from this tiny celestial body.

This hasn't happened to us yet, so for now all it is is a science fantasy movie idea.

---

It has been very frustrating trying to get people here to talk about the real subject. When I make the claim that humans are the superior and most intelligent species, all I get is discussions about dolphins, fangs, and bacteria. I'm obviously dealing with very young people here, because their arguments remind me a little bit of kindergarten. Like when a teacher says something like, "Dogs like to eat bones." And a student raises their hand and says, "But my dog eats Alpo!" The teacher explains, "Yes, some of them like Alpo too, but as an instinct they gravitate towards bones." Another tiny student raises their hand and says, "But wait, my neighbor's dog loves to eat hot dogs." The teacher grabs their forehead and says, "Yikes!"

[tavarish]

This is a perfect example of avoiding the real subject at hand and going into little tangent arguments. I didn't include all living cells and organisms when I said humans are the only species with sapient intelligence. Cells and organisms are not species. They are cells and organisms, and I can make the claim that God has a reason or purpose for each of those organisms. This point has nothing to do with the topic, except to sidetrack it to avoid answering the real question. How about sticking to the subject, people? Why are humans the only species, out of millions of species, who developed sapient intelligence?

This point has everything to do with the topic as a DIRECT REFUTATION to your assertion about mankind's dominion on Earth. It has been said again and again that intelligence is a result of our evolutionary path. It's not that the environment is suited for us, we adapt to our environment. You somehow ignore that point, then jabber on about how no one can admit your point is correct. No one's saying humans aren't intelligent. We're simply contesting the notion that our intelligence is somehow derived from a divine source and is superior to other unique traits that other animals have.

What the hell are you talking about? Cells ARE organisms.

In biology, an organism is any living system (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism).
In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole. An organism may either be unicellular (single-celled) or be composed of, as in humans, many billions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs. The term multicellular (many-celled) describes any organism made up of more than one cell.

And many multicellular organisms are considered species, such as viruses. Here's a chart of virus taxonomy:

http://www.microbiologybytes.com/virolog...roups.html

You ignore refutation after refutation, not even acknowledging the fact that even with our intelligence, we are subject to the collective actions of microscopic organisms. They don't just control the lives of humans, every single sentient being has to live within the boundaries of micro-organisms' feeding habits.

You want to stick to the subject?

Why are cheetahs the only species, out of millions of species, that can run 60mph?

Why are narwhals the only species, out of millions of species, that have a tooth that is 10feet long?

Why are Yeti crabs the only species, out of millions of species, that have hair on their claws?

Why are thorny devils the only species, out of millions of species, that have the ability to absorb water through its skin as a primary source of nourishment?

I'll give you a hint. It had everything to do with adaptations to their environment. It's the same reason we have "intelligence". A quick look at an evolutionary chart would clear some things up for you, methinks.

It has been very frustrating trying to get people here to talk about the real subject. When I make the claim that humans are the superior and most intelligent species, all I get is discussions about dolphins, fangs, and bacteria. I'm obviously dealing with very young people here, because their arguments remind me a little bit of kindergarten. Like when a teacher says something like, "Dogs like to eat bones." And a student raises their hand and says, "But my dog eats Alpo!" The teacher explains, "Yes, some of them like Alpo too, but as an instinct they gravitate towards bones." Another tiny student raises their hand and says, "But wait, my neighbor's dog loves to eat hot dogs." The teacher grabs their forehead and says, "Yikes!"

You're obviously a bit confused if you think that restating a tired argument wins points in a reasoned debate.


Let's do an analogy you might understand.

It's as if that that same child said to his teacher " I'm special because I can pat my head and rub my tummy at the same time!". The teacher then says: "The other boys are also special because they have unique qualities as well". Then the child says "But I can pat my head AND rub my tummy...AT THE SAME TIME! That makes me special!" Teacher says "Well yes, you are special, but so are the other boys in their own unique way.

The child then says " I'M THE ONLY KID IN THE CLASSROOM THAT CAN RUN HIS TUMMY AND PAY HIS HEAD SO OBVIOUSLY GOD FAVORS ME!"

You're the kid.

[AngelThMan]

Another round? Fine, let's go.

What the hell are you talking about? Cells ARE organisms.

I never said they weren't. Cells are organisms, and within their structure they are considered species of cells and organisms. But they are not species of animals. You know this is what I mean, but are nitpicking. Plants are also species, but you know darn well that's not what I'm talking about.

You ignore refutation after refutation...

Nothing has been refuted. There's been a lot of tangent side arguments, but the topic has hardly been directly addressed, so how can anything be refuted? You have ignored many of my points as well. Sorry but I haven't found any of your arguments convincing. We're at an atheists' website, so of course you're going to find plenty of support for your ideas. But in the real world no one would deny we have dominion over animals. I'm not going to change my mind because you've decided to put out sci-fi dribble about organisms that can take us over.

You want to stick to the subject?

Why are cheetahs the only species, out of millions of species, that can run 60mph?

Why are narwhals the only species, out of millions of species, that have a tooth that is 10feet long?

Why are Yeti crabs the only species, out of millions of species, that have hair on their claws?

Why are thorny devils the only species, out of millions of species, that have the ability to absorb water through its skin as a primary source of nourishment?

First of all, a lot of the traits you've provided are not quite unique, as a lot of these species can be divided into subspecies which have the same traits. Plus completely different species have similar or approaching traits. An example of this is the pronghorn antelope, which can run up to 61 mph. Wildebeests can run up to 50mph. No animal intelligence approaches human intelligence. Of course this is a point you'll probably ignore down the line, and then claim I ignore your points.

But even if these traits were unique, they pale in comparison to human intelligence because they do not provide their species the ability to conquer the world, as humans have with their intelligence. This point is relevant to this discussion, and it's another point you have ignored. Oh yes, you've denied over and over that we have dominance.

I'll give you a hint. It had everything to do with adaptations to their environment. It's the same reason we have "intelligence". A quick look at an evolutionary chart would clear some things up for you, methinks.

Again, this doesn't explain how art, math and science are a result of adapting to our environment. Another point you've ignored.

[Zen Badger]

But even if these traits were unique, they pale in comparison to human intelligence because they do not provide their species the ability to conquer the world, as humans have with their intelligence. This point is relevant to this discussion, and it's another point you have ignored. Oh yes, you've denied over and over that we have dominance.

Yes, Humans are intelligent(from our perspective at least) But the evidence points to this being evolutionary in origin, not divine.

Again, this doesn't explain how art, math and science are a result of adapting to our environment. Another point you've ignored.

The reality is that we have used our intelligence to transcend our normal environment and self

consciously start to redirect our own development.

P.s There is a very good vid on You tube of an Elephant painting an Elephant holding a flower.

So art is not exclusive to humanity.

[Thor]

So? I've never denied evolution. It doesn't matter how we arrived at our intelligence, or the time it took. What's important is that God influenced the process.

And your evidence for this claim is....?????