Why God??!!

[Black Knight84]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Gotta love the circular logic here

"We cannot comprehend this phenomemnon, so it must be the work of God"
"We cannot comprehend God, so he must be the work of God".

At least the Greeks had the sense to have comprehendable Gods, to explain the natural phenomenons their science couldn't explain.

It's funny you say that as when Paul visited Athens in the Book of Acts he came across an altar with the inscription: "TO AN UNKNOWN GOD". I guess the Greeks were just covering all possibilities. Hehe.

Also I've seen the whole circular logic argument by the Athiests here and this is all well and good, but it seems like an excuse people keep on using to keep living inside the square if you ask me. Whilst no one can prove there is a God, no one can disprove it either, therefore I think we need to allow for the possibility for either. I just happen to believe there is a God, no circular logic reasoning there, it is just as clear as daylight to me. What does seem like circular reasoning to me are many of the arguments used by the athiests in their own beliefs: i.e. I don't believe in God, therefore I won't allow for his existence in my argument.

Hehe and now I'm gonna do a propaganda speel: Sorry everyone, if you get offended at seeing parts of The Bible then I suggest you stop reading here!

The following is Paul's speech to The Athenians! It's an awesome speech:

Acts 17:22-31
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and to find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
For in him we live and move and have our being. As some of your own poets have said, 'we are his offspring'.
Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone - an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead".

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Black Knight84
Whilst no one can prove there is a God, no one can disprove it either, therefore I think we need to allow for the possibility for either.

No one can prove there are invisible green elves dancing on electrons, but no one can disprove it, either. Therefore we need to allow the possibility of them.

This is just silly. Why do we "need" to put equal weight on things for which there are no evidence? That's not only unscientific, it's unreasonable. People could devise any number of fables that can be neither proved nor disproved--should we accept them all as possible? People are making special pleading for god because of tradition and wishful thinking. Sorry, doesn't work that way.

What does seem like circular reasoning to me are many of the arguments used by the athiests in their own beliefs: i.e. I don't believe in God, therefore I won't allow for his existence in my argument.

And which atheist here used that as their argument? None. This is a distortion of the position. It should read. "There is no empiric evidence for the existence of a god, so I do not believe a god exists." That's patently NOT circular

[Elok]

You still have an absolute statement founded on nothing. It has "attributes" and "properties," but these are described in terms of other things which are derived from the thing itself. The nature of the argument doesn't clarify, it merely establishes a new set of absolutes with a new set of unknowns behind them. I don't think the human mind is capable of a worldview where nothing is unknown. We just have a bizarre compulsion to "know" things, even where knowledge is useless. As in my oft-repeated complaint about evolution; it's an idea that, even if it were true, would be irrelevant, because it cannot be acted on. We cannot stand the idea of "is." If we ran into a wall on particles/space-time, where we just couldn't go any further down in scale in our understanding of the makeup of the universe, I think we would go mad. We couldn't bear to think of reality as just a conglomerate of "thingies," without a deeper complexity to probe at. The ultimate pointlessness of knowing at all is perceived as irrelevant, and anybody who doesn't care is just trapped in the dark ages. A rather obnoxious human tendency, is all it is.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
No one can prove there are invisible green elves dancing on electrons, but no one can disprove it, either.

Define 'prove'. Do the elves interact with the electrons in any way? If they do not, and never will, then they do not exist by Occam's razor. (This is incidentally the true sense of Occam's razor - if some part of a theory can be removed with no physical consequences then it should be removed.) Someone who believes in God would claim that He does affect the universe and therefore has in principle observable consequences. Your invisible green elves ( ) are strawmen, but if you believe that they do have observable consequences in principle, then it is fair enough to believe in them until their consequences are ruled out by experiment.

In fact, all the statements you have made can be said about many many different physics theories which exist today. Take string theory for example - there is absolutely no physical evidence for string theory (in fact it is mathematically inconsistant with the universe in its present form), but physicists continue to work on it. Should they stop their research now? Should Einstein have not worked on relativity because he could not prove it at the time?

It should read. "There is no empiric evidence for the existence of a god, so I do not believe a god exists."

Why do you need empiric evidence in order to 'believe' something? Isn't that silly and unreasonable?

There are lots of things I 'believe' which I do not have proof of. I do not have proof that you exist - should I not believe that you do? Or (on a slightly less flipant level), I have no proof (or even empiric evidence) at all that you are a conscious being - should I believe that you are not?

[Ramo]

Define 'prove'. Do the elves interact with the electrons in any way? If they do not, and never will, then they do not exist by Occam's razor. (This is incidentally the true sense of Occam's razor - if some part of a theory can be removed with no physical consequences then it should be removed.) Someone who believes in God would claim that He does affect the universe and therefore has in principle observable consequences.

I'm curious what sort of observable consequences would the existence of God have?

And the dancing elves doesn't necessarily need to have observable consequences even if they interact with the universe. For instance, if they can supernaturally doctor any measurement of them.

In fact, all the statements you have made can be said about many many different physics theories which exist today. Take string theory for example - there is absolutely no physical evidence for string theory (in fact it is mathematically inconsistant with the universe in its present form), but physicists continue to work on it. Should they stop their research now? Should Einstein have not worked on relativity because he could not prove it at the time?

String theorists are working towards a testable theory. If we had the energies needed, it would be testable.

As for Einstein, Michelson-Morely happened before 1905. His ideas were a natural consequence of this empirical observation.

And I don't think Boris said that one should stop research/contemplation/whatever about things one can't empirically prove. Such as math or ethics, things I consider worthy of consideration.

There are lots of things I 'believe' which I do not have proof of. I do not have proof that you exist - should I not believe that you do? Or (on a slightly less flipant level), I have no proof (or even empiric evidence) at all that you are a conscious being - should I believe that you are not?

I do have empirical evidence that Boris is "conscious." (using the ability to produce abstract thought as the definition, not free-will) I've never observed any unconscious being with the ability to mimick conscious thought to the extent that Boris has demonstrated, so under the principle of empiricism it's reasonable to assume that he is conscious.

[Solly]

I do have empirical evidence that Boris is "conscious." (using the ability to produce abstract thought as the definition, not free-will) I've never observed any unconscious being with the ability to mimick conscious thought to the extent that Boris has demonstrated, so under the principle of empiricism it's reasonable to assume that he is conscious.

You're confusing consciousness with intelligence.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ramo
And the dancing elves doesn't necessarily need to have observable consequences even if they interact with the universe. For instance, if they can supernaturally doctor any measurement of them.

In scientific terms they do. Otherwise the same observables are equally well explained by the 'undoctored' theory. This is the whole point of Occam's razor - the theory is not an attempt to explain 'truth' (whatever that may be) but to explain and predict observables.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
You're confusing consciousness with intelligence.

Nah... no evidence of that

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorry, been away for a few days.

Skywalker:

Since it makes claims that are basically scientific - such as that there is a god

In what way is the claim that God exists a scientific claim? A scientific claim must be one that is by definition testable. Unlike a rock, or an animal, or a person, God is not testable in the same sense. If God does not want us to talk with him, there is nothing we can do to change his mind Ergo, the existence of God cannot be an empirical claim. Nor should God be empirical, since by definition an empirical God would not be God.

Otherwise, my religion could be that Newtonian physics was right, and then use it to annoy rational people ad nauseum by telling people to "deny Einstein, just have faith.

One can provide evidence for God, yet you are correct that there can be alternate explanations for these phenomena. It is just that it takes MORE faith to believe these alternatives, than it does to believe in God.

Turning water into wine, perhaps?

Miracles! By definition a miracle is an event that cannot be explained by empirical means. If such an event could be explained, it would not be a miracle.

The real question is whether or not science rules out the presence of miracles. By definition, science cannot. Things that fall outside of science are in no way disproved by science, merely unaccounted for.

And since the "spiritual realm" is part of the observable universe, it is subject to empirical standards.

No. Science explicitly refrains from tackling problems of the spiritual realm, since they cannot fit into the definition of a testable observation required for empiricism to operate.

If it isn't part of the observable universe, then it does not exist, by Occam's Razor.

So unless we can observe something it does not exist? Does that mean that until we knew about the planet Neptune, that it never existed? No. Clearly Neptune existed long before it became part of our observable universe.

I guess the real statement would be, anything that is outside of the observable realm of God, cannot, by definition, exist. We, as finite beings do not have such privileges.

Why believe the claims of Christians over those of Buddhists?

Buddhists do not claim Buddha to be God, as the Christians believe Christ to be God. Ergo, if one believes both to be equally true, one ought to believe the Christians teachings as being more authoritative over the Buddhists as coming from the source.

You never thought perhaps he was removed?

While leaving his wrappings?

Both of which result in circular logic, because those are exactly the presumptions I'm contesting!

Which is why these presuppositions must be dealt with first before dealing with anything else.

No he doesn't. Only if you accept that one ought to do what God says, do his statements have any moral worth (even assuming he exists).

By definition, one ought to do what God says, as God is good.

Nature, duh.

How would one possibly evolve a conscience?

How do explain the existance of God's sense of right and wrong, without an even BIGGER "God" that created him?

Goodness is part of the nature of God.

Why have any?

You can't argue "because you need a cause for the universe", because then you have to accept an infinite number of creators, one to create each creator.

No we don't, again because of Ockham. Unnecessarily mutiplicative causes. A better explanation gives an eternal first cause of the universe, without the need for any other 'gods' coming afterwards.

Your argument is usually one the theists have to introduce to argue their case, so thank you for making my job easier.

Do you also accept the truth of the Quran?

Concerning their account of the Resurrection? No. They are not eyewitnesses to the event.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


What's the use? The proposed steps were given to you in the other thread, and you just moved the goal posts. You made it clear you wouldn't be satisfied until the movement of every molecule was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If RNA can self-replicate, which it can, and DNA evolved its mechanisms from that, it's pretty clear that the evolution of such mechanisms from the smallest levels is possible.

Is anything possible given time? No, because evolution doesn't just depend on time, it depends on environment. Creationists always ignore the natural selection part, which is of course just as important as the random change part. Natural selection ensures that there are only finite possibilities. Saying you have the faintest clue about how "possible" or "impossible" the events leading to DNA are is a crock of BS, since any such "odds" calculations are meaningless without precise understanding of the conditions of that time or the nature of the materials involved. For all we know, the odds were 1:1 that it would occur on our planet.

This is all no different from when Creationists want to see fossils that show every single step in the evolution of species before they accept it. Of course, they are lying, as they will never accept it--they just want to establish a scientifically impossible goal as a shield around their beliefs.

That's what the information debate is here. It's just a "God of the Gaps" shield set up in area where there isn't complete scientific understanding (although the knowledge is increaing all the time and pushing your god further into the gaps). The logic that "We don't know how exactly, therefore GOD" is something a kindergartner might devise. You've just thrown in a lot of extra, unneccessary words. I do find it amusing that the evidence for god has been pushed so deeply into the cracks of scientific inquiry. Must be getting mighty tight for the old bugger there.

Even if one were to accept your false assertion that DNA = information and the generator of it were intelligent, then you'd be in the position of making a complete, unfounded supposition as to what that intelligence was. For all we know, the Raalians would be correct and it is the creation of a highly advanced alien species. Since over 90% of DNA is useless junk, this would make much more sense as being the source of intelligent design rather than a supposedly omnipotent god. Why would such a god make his "code" so rife with uselessness? Even the worst computer programmers don't write code with so much useless lines in it. If you're positing that god was the programmer, you're saying he was perhaps the worst code designer in history.

Thanks Boris. I think I can paraphrase your answer if you don't mind:

You cannot answer the questions yet you still have a blind faith in mateiralism even if the evidence points to Intelligent design.



You should read up on "junk DNA" and a "code rife with so much uselessness" sometime so at least you know what was bad programming. Here is a little lesson for you from my book (none of the quotes were from creationists):


"When you take human language texts and create a histogram plotting the log of the frequency of occurrence of words against the log of the rank, the resulting plot is always linear with a slope of -1 for every human language. Likewise, when you perform the same plot for coding and non-coding DNA, the plot for the non-coding DNA exhibits a nearly perfect linear relationship (much better than that seen for the coding regions of DNA). The purpose or function of this "DNA language" was not determined. Another study showed that DNA contains large areas with unexplained patterns (4). Such patterns could not be the result of random chance as stated by Dr. H. Eugene Stanley (Boston University), "it is almost incredible that the occupant of one site on a gene would somehow influence which nucleotide shows up even 100,000 bases away."

Another function of the junk DNA is to maintain the integrity of the Chromosomes during cell division. "Specific non-coding (junk) DNA sequences within selected Chromosome domains participate in more complex levels of Chromosome folding, and index different genetic compartment for orderly transcription and replication." I really don’t think we should call this stuff junk anymore, do you? "The unique 3d structure created by this mysterious DNA also controls the expression of specific genes in cells of differentiated cell types. This so called non-coding DNA is essential in other ways such as regulation of functions and recognition of amino acids during the protein translation process, fetal development and embriogenesis, proper framing for translation of proteins." If it weren’t for the "junk" DNA the cell would produce "junk" proteins.

"A recent study has shown that genes (as many as five at a time) are found within the introns of other genes. This kind of arrangement results in the simultaneous expression of all of these genes during transcription of the gene in question... Some of the noncoding DNA is loop code for single-stranded RNA-protein interactions. The codes are degenerate and corresponding messages are not only interspersed but actually overlap, so that some nucleotides belong to several messages simultaneously. Tandemly repeated sequences frequently considered as functionless "junk" are found to be grouped into certain classes of repeat unit lengths, indicating functional involvement of these sequences. It is likely these tandem repeats play the role of weak enhancer-silencers that modulate, in a copy number-dependent way, the expression of proximal genes..."

"Well over 700 studies have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as enhancers for transcription of proximal genes."

"Another 60+ studies have demonstrated the role of non-coding DNA as silencers for suppression of transcription of proximal genes. The presence of silencer genes has been shown to down-regulate the apolipoprotein A-II gene, the osteocalcin gene, the 2-crystallin gene, the CD4 gene, the beta globin gene, the gene for the neuron-glia cell adhesion molecule, Ng-CAM, the renin gene, the keratin 18 gene, the platelet-derived growth factor A-chain gene, and dozens of other genes."

There are several other functions that I won’t bother with here because I think that most people have got the point by now....

...the expression of one single gene into its corresponding protein is the result of a very complex process of feed-back and feedforward interactions. The expression of a gene is the result of a complicated network of interactions that involves not only the whole cell but the whole organism and even the environment.
The DNA may mutate and new pieces may be inserted or pieces may be deleted or multiplied many times. Sequences of the genetic code may be rearranged or combined with other sequences. Some genes can jump around between different places in the chromosomes. Some genes can convert other genes to their own DNA sequence. Geneticists have coined the phrases "fluid genome" to describe this behaviour of the totality of the genes, the genome. These fluid genome processes are not at all haphazard, accidental or meaningless. They occur, under the control of the cell, as adaptive responses to various conditions....

==========================

Now if you don't mind, could you tell us how a fully functioning information system evolves without intelligent input? You are putting materialism in the 'gap' where intelligence is clearly indicated. Please answer the question.

[Ben Kenobi]

Boris:

That's not eyewitness testimony, that's one man, Paul, who himself was not an eyewitness

He saw the risen Lord. He is an eyewitness.

If 50 AD is correct, we're talking almost 20 years later,

Which is incredibly early compared with when Tacitus, or Josephus wrote their histories. This ought to be considered very authoritative accounts on this reason alone.

Again, if the witnesses weren't even there in the first place, how would we have anyone to evaluate anything?

At the time, anyone who challenged the truth of his message could speak to any one of the brothers who saw the risen lord.

No, because the theological examination of the gospels does not bear out that they are contemporary accounts or that they were written by anyone who actually witnessed the events.

Among the synoptic Gospels? Even John shows evidence of different sources when talking about the same events, since there are similarities and differences between the accounts in each of the overlapping sections of the Gospels. You are correct that John shows the most theological development, which is to be expected since it would be written last. Just because it shows more development does not rule it out from being written by John, the disciple whom Christ loved.

Secondly, I am curious how you explain that 'theological examination' rules out contemporary accounts.

It also demonstrable that there was a lot of borrowing from the earliest gospels to the later ones.

I suppose you have plenty of evidence to back up this assertion.

Neither does it prove they are true, which is what we're looking for here.

Prima facie, the account must be held as true. Any historical source without evidence contrary to the event, must be considered a true source. To do so otherwise, rules out plenty of other historical sources, to which we only have one testimony.

And even so, the Gospels, if they can be treated as independent sources, do not fall under this critique.

After all, nothing contradicts the actions taken by the Greek gods in the Iliad. Do you assume those are true until proven otherwise? How about the mtyhs of Osiris, who also supposedly rose from the dead? Or Adonis? Or Dionysus? Or Mithra?

Were any of these written to be a true account of events that actually occurred, or were they written with a different goal in mind?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Well, you're the atheist. Why do you reject the claims of all religions, and not just Christianity?

Because Elvis is dead and buried,

Have you seen his corpse?

people claim false things all the time, for a variety of reasons.

Why would they claim Elvis to be alive, when he is really dead?

Any report that a person widely known to be dead was seen up and walking around has to be substantiated by more than just a few people (not to mention a few people who just happened to be fanatically devoted to him)

Such as the group of brothers at one time?

Or Saul of Tarsus, who had no reason to believe in Christ, but every reason to reject him?

having hopeful delusions,

Among all the brothers at the same time? Incredibly doubtful.

or lying to get attention,

Let's see. If they are lying to get attention, that attention would expose them to harassment, scorn, beatings and eventually, execution.

Yes, there is the motivation to attract attention.

Would you believe that someone had really seen Elvis until proven otherwise, or would you demand a higher standard of evidence than their claims?

Yes, because I know dead men don't rise. Thankfully the Gospels rise to this challenge.

As in, the vast majority of people living in the region at that time didn't have access to the Gospel accounts.

Could the vast majority of the people read? Ergo your definition does not work.

So claiming that people could have come forward to challenge them is problematic, as we have no reason to believe there was enough knowledge about them yet to make such a stir.

Yet among all the witnesses, you certainly have knowledge of the gospel accounts, and these people could be tested, and would have the opportunity to question Paul on his account in Corinthians, or any of the other Gospel writers.

Arians don't count because the church dealt with them openly in an ecumenical council.

Yes, Christianity never targeted opposing viewpoints for persecution. Like the Arians or Donatists. They were so tolerant of those different views.

Still, even if true, this does not say that the Christians burned the books written by the Donatist and Arians. Rather, we see an openness to expression, so that they may be properly refuted by the church.

You even contradict this later on, pointing out Thomas isn't that bad. So why is it an example of something they should seek to suppress?

You were the one who brought up the gospel of Thomas, not me.

Regardless, it's not still around because it was carefully considered as an alternative to the standard Gospels. It's still around because it happened to survive, in spite of it being considered "heretical" by many.

But did those who considered the book heretical, stop the book from being distributed?

That presupposes that Jesus was in fact crucifed c. 30 AD. That's why it is circular. How do you know the events it is based on didn't transpire far earlier, as some scholars have suggested (the references to Yeshua, being stoned many decades prior).

Now we get into Qurinius, and the dating of Christ's birth to 4 BC. Christ would have been about 30, and the historical accounts of King Herod, and Pilate all work for this period of time.

We can date the time that both were in power, and use this to get a better date of Christ's death and resurrection.

Prove that statement. Legends can form very fast. People still think the Amityville Horror is a true story, and that was in the 1970s. You're making a baseless assumption.

It's an assumption based on other well-known historical figures like Alexander the Great.

One of the assumptions is that while there are eyewitnesses, they can correct misunderstandings.

Secondly, 20 years is incredibly early for any historical source of the time. If we are to doubt the accuracy of scriptures, as legends, then all of our other ancient historians also must be doubted as myth and legend.

No, I'm saying the claim that there are eyewitnesses in the first place is circular:

Then the diary of someone ought not to be accepted as evidence that they were indeed witnesses to the event?

One way to assess the truth of this claim, is whether or not their accounts corroborate with other accounts, which we do see in the case of the Gospels.

the original point, which is a response to Lincoln's par-for-the-course derision of nonbelievers as being "illogical."

Do I say any such thing? You have a beef with Lincoln, then take this up with him.

[Ramo]

In scientific terms they do. Otherwise the same observables are equally well explained by the 'undoctored' theory. This is the whole point of Occam's razor - the theory is not an attempt to explain 'truth' (whatever that may be) but to explain and predict observables.

True, but I'm just pointing out that just because a God may interact with the unverse, doesn't make Him actually observable. In fact, I've never heard of anyone describe an observable God (ostensibly because He's so beyond human comprehension, his actions aren't predictable).

[Lincoln]

One way to observe God would be in fulfilled prophecies. That is one area where his actions would be predictictable to some extent.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I guess I am not following you Kucintch. What does my position on abortion have to do with the issue we are discussing?

Those who argue for the existance of God due to DNA or whatever are religious (duh).

They are often the same people who justify certain other political postions (gay marriage and abortion, for instance) in quasi-religious terms. They are also often people who actually are Christian, not just people who believe in a Creator.

They never see that their argument for the existence of a Creator necessarily precludes the existence of the God believed in by Christians, and provides no justification for their political positions.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
There isn't anything outside of nature, as proven by science....

It has nothing to do with science. It's just that the only meaningful definition of nature encompasses the entire universe, i.e. everything that exists. If God exists, he's part of the universe, thus part of nature.