Evidence God Exists

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Well I've learned some stuff in this thread;

According to our visiting marine creature, I have a vast numbers of hobbies about which I was oblivious

EG : NOT collecting stamps,not collecting spoons, not collecting obscure High Victorian erotica. (oh wait--)

Also,I am NOT bald. I simply have a high forehead, which extends to the back of my head.

One of my rules so thumb has been reinforced; Never argue with an a dogmatic apologist.(is that a redundant phrase?) They see using logic, reason and evidence as cheating.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

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.

Everything before the quoted was just a waste of time, Tough Cookie.

We live to eat and sleep: You're talking about eating and sleeping as if we didn't depend on them as much as all other mammals do (if not every living organism). There are humans that don't have time to appreciate literature, science, and art because they must continuously worry about their survival. We are certainly not the only species that has benefited from intelligence - Dolphins are too very social and intelligent mammals. Do dolphins appreciate art, literature, and science? I can't say that they appreciate literature or science but they have been documented for making ring bubbles to play with all on their own which can be interpreted as an appreciation for art or a desire for entertainment because they are intelligent and they are their own and not zombies for some deity. We could talk more about the intelligent behaviors of many other organisms, but I think I've 'refuted' your strange argument that a deity must exist because we are the only organisms with intelligence and appreciation for art. More accurate is to say that we are unique in the sense that we are the only species that has developed language (which is different from 'a form of communication' since other species still communicate).

I appreciate the intelligence and uniqueness of every species.

Imagine a world where the Chameleon says a deity must have created it for its unique ability to camouflage with its surrounding.

[AngelThMan]

...and you'll know why what I've outlined here points to a God.

...I think I've 'refuted' your strange argument...

You haven't refuted anything, though atheists love to use that word. Go back and look at some of my debates on this thread. You haven't said anything that hasn't been said already. I've addressed your points and more.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

...and you'll know why what I've outlined here points to a God.

...I think I've 'refuted' your strange argument...

You haven't refuted anything, though atheists love to use that word. Go back and look at some of my debates on this thread. You haven't said anything that hasn't been said already. I've addressed these points and more.

alright. i'll go through thread.

---

Let’s talk about animal intelligence since a few of you have brought it up. Animals have different degrees of intelligence, and some are smarter than others. But none equal man’s capacity for thought.

The main goal for all other animals is to eat and sleep. Survival. That’s it, no matter how people want to sugarcoat or embellish it. Animals do not build cities. Animals do not have the skill of language. Animals cannot create or appreciate music or art. Some of you might want to point out that there are painting elephants and apes. But what needs to be understood is that in all of those cases there is human influence. When elephants paint, there are always humans guiding their movements.

Animals can learn tricks. I can even give examples of animals that respond to limited vocabularies. These are all tricks. The fact is no animal has ever initiated a work of art on its own. When someone finds a museum created by animals in the Serengeti, then come talk to me.

Man is the ruling species. No other animal has been given this privilege. I’ve heard the argument that dinosaurs “ruled the earth” millions of year ago. But when science makes this claim, it is meant merely as figurative speaking. Dinosaurs were large in size and abundant in numbers, and they were at the top of the food chain. That’s what “dinosaurs ruled the earth” means. It’s like saying that lions are the “kings of the jungle.” But there are no crowning ceremonies, are there, or real kingdoms? Dinosaurs never built cities or governments; therefore they never really ruled the earth.

I’m sure everyone here is smart enough to understand the difference between animal intelligence and human intelligence. You may find an intelligent trait in one species, and another trait in another species. But you won’t find one single species with all the intelligent traits that humans possess.

Lastly, only humans worship God. Not only does this point towards a unique brand of intelligence, but it is also significant with respect to our status as the dominant species.

We aren't any different from other animals. Ever watch Man vs. Wild? Sometimes people end up in that situation and they realize that they are just surviving as every other animal does. Does the snake care that you are human when it bites us humans? Does a mother bear care that it's chomping on your jugular as it threatened by your presence around its cubs? You're ad nauseum with the idea of treating the desire to survive as something derogatory, below humans when it's something we are doing all the time.

You weren't there when we were hunting for our food and few words were spoken. Hard times.

---

I think there is thought in the concept of religion. I think there is a reason for the concept existing, but I disagree with you on the reason that the concept of religion exists.

You probably think that the concept of religion exists because religion is more than a concept, it's real. Do you think that the mere fact we created religion is evidence that there is a deity or that a religion is true? I've heard that belief before, a form of dualism.

I think religion is linked to our 'desire' to have an explanation for everything. Our desire to explain everything needed to create the ultimate, easy explanation: 'an omnipotent entity done it'!

---

There you go again with that 'eat and sleep' ad nauseam. We eat and sleep. Most people are working to make just enough money to provide for their basic needs: shelter and food. Sleeping and eating is materialistic and consistent with a materialistic, empiricist, naturalist view of the universe (not to mention consistent with the laws of chemistry).

---

Animals do not build cities?

Ever see a termite mound? An ant hill? A bees nest? And so what? Humans don't grow big claws,
humans don't fly, humans can't breathe underwater.

Animals have no language?

Dolphins, whales... when a dog growls or whimpers he's speaking his 'language'. Most all animals have a "verbalization" of sorts. Their "language" may not be as sophisticated as humans, but could be argued a "language" in it's own rights.

As I stated, different species of animals have individual traits of intelligence, but man has them all. The intelligent traits exhibited by animals are all geared towards survival. Man has a grasp of art, language and understanding like no other animal. Can we talk about the significance of man's superior intelligence rather than the limited intelligence of animals, please?

I don't see how another metaphysical naturalist atheist would find your argument appealing. You are basically saying that because we have time to have fun (completely ignoring that there was a time when all we did was hunt, eat and sleep [and no deity provided refrigeration]) and we are intelligent enough to have fun, there must be a deity. I would think atheists are a lot more humble about their position as a species than to say that our intelligence over every other species is evidence for an omnipotent, all knowing entity that 'loves us' enough to not provide us with refrigeration for most of existence. So yeah, refrigeration man, that's your deity.

---

I see no reason to believe our intelligence more 'special' than a lion's teeth are 'special'. If you can provide sound reasons why, then there is the possibility I might believe you.

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 it is their intelligence which has allowed them to achieve dominion.

...our intelligence is demonstrably not unique. It is a fact that a fair number of other 'advanced' mammals...

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

We are more adept with our intelligence than other animals on Earth... in the way a lion is more adept with its jaws than we are with ours. But that doesn't make us unique nor special.

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

---

While we do hold a certain level of dominance on land, our intelligence is a product of our evolution into a changing environment. Our intelligence is no less special than a dolphin's sonar, a bat's echo location, a dog's hearing, or a cheetah's speed. Every single animal is the world has unique traits, otherwise it quite simply wouldn't be here.

Basically what you're saying is that our intelligence is a survival tool that we developed through evolution. So now explain what the development of art, science, entertainment, etc. has to do with survival. From an evolutionary standpoint, why are those needed for the preservation of our species?

It also makes the assumption that we cannot be "overtaken" by another "intelligently special" species by process of evolution.

You've been reading too many fantasy books. See what I have to deal with here?

We're so special? Put us anywhere without electricity or tools. The vast majority would die within days...

Who used their intelligence to invent electricity and tools in the first place?

These are the types of arguments I'm subjected to here. Then people wonder why I don't 'listen' (concede).

I see. You're probably going to respond to our survival dependency on refrigeration by saying that 'we created refrigeration with our amazing intelligence that Jesus gave us.' I think think this point of view is not consistent with the existence of a loving god, but consistent with a bored, evil god that doesn't care for all the people that suffered starvation...

I don't think you're looking at the big picture with the lion example or any example on how other animals are just as much in survival as we are.

I see you don't understand how an appreciation for music or art would be a reproductive advantage. They may as well not be. If you truly knew anything about evolutionary biology, you'd know that not every trait is a product of natural selection. Not every trait is even a reproductive advantage. You keep bashing us for what 'you have to deal with' but I've sniffed out that you don't understand a major aspect of evolutionary biology as most creationists do. Appreciation for art may very well be an evolutionary byproduct analogous to male nipples. We don't need them, they aren't an advantage, but they are a byproduct of our genetics.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

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!"

We are all trying to respond to your idea. You have to understand that to us you sound like the kid in our college astronomy class that was home schooled saying that stars were created by a deity for us to appreciate which in astronomy or astrophysics is not something you would say to describe the formation of stars. Your question is similar to 'Why don't horses have horns?' which in turn is similar to 'Why don't stars glow pink instead of yellow?' Maybe you'll be more humble about your question when you put yourself in our shoes? Your question is like when atheists ask you 'Why did God need to become a human and die in order to forgive us of our sins?' You know that an omnipotent deity just does what he wants and there is no 'physical' reason. There is no physical, biological, or chemical rule or law that predicts that more species should have the ability of language or that horses should have horns. Biology just turned out the way it did and there's no reason why it should have gone the other way.

[Godscreated]

Yes religion has cost many innocent people their lives and yes people have killed in the name of God and wars have been fought in the name of christianity and none of this makes it right. What I want to know is why you think that true christians caused these horrible events.You are the ones making the assurtions give me your proof?

You need proof that Christians caused "horrible events" like wars? Really? The Pope himself was responsible for launching the Crusades. Unless you want to argue that the Pope is not a "true Christian".

One man many dead this is a horrible thing the so called official church did.I do not know if that Pope was a christian.Does history record him as saying he was a believer and if so was it recorded by a reliable historian who heard him say he was a believer.

Josephus a Jewish historian born in 37 AD.The Antiquities is one of his greater works and it is the history of the Jewish nation from creation to his present time.In this work he writes about James being killed and refers to James as the brother of Jesus,who was called the Christ.Another work of Josephus called the Testimonium Flavianum refers to Jesus as a wise man that wrought suprising feats.He also states Pilate condemned Him to be crucified.Josephus also states in this passage that His followers loved Him and never abandoned His teachings.

Yes, believers often reference Josephus in an effort to prove that Jesus truly existed. Problem is, Josephus was born AFTER Jesus supposedly lived. Anything Josephus writes about Jesus is hearsay. There are NO first hand accounts that record the activities of a man named Jesus.

Yes there are first hand accounts,the Four Gospels.You want take them seriously even though there are historians that say Lukes writings are arranged and penned as well as any famous historian.Lukes facts about other people and places have been found to be very reliable.He was criticized for a very long time about his facts however as archeologist continue to uncover this ancient world they discover what he's written to be very reliable.

Tacitus a roman historian tells of Jesus receiving a death sentence of crucifiction from Pontius Pilate.

Tacitus was born in the year 64. Over three decades AFTER Jesus supposedly lived. Anything he writes about Jesus is also hearsay. Next.

Pliny The Younger writes of the executions of the followers of Christ.These executions were ordered by Pliny The Younger.

Pliny the Younger was born in the year 62. Anything he writes about Jesus is also hearsay.

The New Testament says a great darkness fell over the land as Christ hung on the cross.There are historic records by Thallus,Tertullian that a great darkness did occur in the Mediterranean area in 33 AD.

Thallus, huh? We don't know when he lived, but it's estimated that his writings date to the mid to late 1st century. So it's POSSIBLE that he was an eyewitness at the time Jesus supposedly lived. Problem is, all of his writings have been lost. There is NOTHING in existence that was written by his hand. All we have are a few fragments from writers that lived hundreds of years later. Hardly concrete evidence there.

Yes you are correct that Thallus writings were distroyed or lost but when were they lost.Julius Africanus says that Thallus recorded the great darkness in is third volume and Julius Africanus made this statement around 221 AD so Africanus must of had at the very least copies of the Thallus volumes.

I wrote this last part in response to a statement made that there is no evidence that Jesus was a real person when indeed there is evidence out side of the Bible that supports the claim of the Bibical Jesus.

And all you have done is to present hearsay and undocumented extrapolations of fragmented writings. This is extremely weak evidence. Ya got anything first hand? Any writings from historians who actually lived at the time Jesus was supposedly alive? Strangely, writers who were recording events during the alleged life of Jesus never mention him! Philo Judaeus, Pliny the Elder and Seneca all lived at the same time and place as "Jesus", yet they make not one mention of him! The Romans were meticulous record keepers, yet there is nothing in their records about a man named Jesus who was executed. All writings of "Jesus" are found decades after he allegedly died. This is strong evidence that "Jesus" never lived at all and is nothing more than a myth.

I'd say nice try, but it wasn't.

The scriptures of Budda were not put into writing until after the time of Jesus and Budda's biography wasn't written until the first century AD.Budda supposedly live in the sixth century BC.Bet you know what's next,that's right,I've had several nonbelievers to tell me how Jesus copied from Budda's writtings.Now how can that be when we can not say that Budda was a real person and we do know that Budda's scriptures were written after the Four Gospels.
Let me ask you this do you really believe that the afore mentioned historians who were and are considered excellent historians would tarnish their reputations on what they would deem hearsay?

[amw79]

Rebut all you like, I think differently......
I consider an enlightened open mind to be a sign of intelligence.

Glad we've cleared that up.

[Zen Badger]

ZenBadger you need to do research Jesus is mentioned in nonbibical historic writings.

I have done research.

Until recently I thought JC was a real person(although not capable of the various miracles attributed to him).

But you know what?

There are no contemporary records of his life, in fact nothing until about 50 years after his supposed death.

And the Romans were very meticulous record keepers.

If you can produce evidence to the contrary I would be very interested to see it.

[chatpilot]

Godschild Wrote: " ZenBadger you need to do research Jesus is mentioned in nonbibical historic writings."

I have been down this road a couple thousand times, and I agree with Zen on this one. There is no valid secular evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ. First of all if he did exist I can assure you that JC was not his real name since it is a title. And the few records that we have of his existence outside that bible are very vague and brief mentions of either his movement (the church) or his person. At least in some cases it is believed that some mentions of Christ were later additions to the works in which they appear and are therefore forgeries his brief mention in Josephus falls into this category.

[RedFish]

Rebut all you like, I think differently......
I consider an enlightened open mind to be a sign of intelligence.

Glad we've cleared that up.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make by editing my post to make me appear hypocritical. Ridicule of belief? Maybe so. Quote me in context, or don't bother. Just makes you appear childish, to me.