Is there Evidence for God’s Existence?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell was once asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on judgment day and God asked him, “Why didn’t you believe in me?” Russell retorted, “I would say, ‘Not enough evidence, God! Not enough evidence!'”
One wonders what kind of evidence Russell was referring to when he made this statement. Did he expect God to appear to him in the flesh? Write him a personal message in the clouds? Give him the ability to fly?
From my perspective, God has given us evidence — a lot of it for that matter. From my perspective, so much evidence for God exists, that it seems unreasonable to doubt his existence. Let me give you two quick arguments to show you what I mean.
Cosmological Argument
The argument goes like this:
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause
- The universe began to exist
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
This is a logically valid argument. That is, if premises 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion (3) necessarily follows. Let’s look at the premises in turn:
1. Everything that Begins to Exist has a Cause
The fundamental principle in science is the law of causality. That is, every effect comes with an underlying cause. We know of no single effect in the universe that came about uncaused. The computer I’m using exists because programmers, engineers, and technicians all worked to create it. The desk I’m using was made by a craftsman. The tree used to make my desk grew because a seed was put in the ground and the sun and rain helped it grow. And I could go on. The point is that cause and effect is the way things work. We don’t know of any exceptions.
For centuries, skeptics never denied this premise, because they asserted that the universe itself was eternal (it didn’t begin to exist). Prominent eighteenth century skeptic David Hume even declared, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause.” 1
Recently, however, skeptics have changed their tune because it’s virtually undeniable that the universe began to exist a finite time ago. Therefore, they sometimes respond by saying the cause and effect structure is true of everything in the universe, but not for the universe itself. This, however, commits the taxi-cab fallacy. It’s the idea that I can use certain principles to support my claims, but then hop off those same principles (like you would a taxi) when they’re inconvenient.
2. The Universe Began to Exist
The evidence for a universe that began a finite time ago is overwhelming to say the least. Let me give a few pieces of evidence. First, in 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered a “red shift” in the light from distant galaxies, which meant they were flying apart from us at rapid speeds. In other words, Hubble discovered, through observation, that our universe is expanding.
If our universe is expanding (picture a cone shape), all one needs to do is subtract our universe back in time to discover that it eventually comes to a point — the time of its inception. Hubble’s discovery by itself is enough to demonstrate a definite beginning of our universe. But there’s more.
Albert Einstein’s theory of General Relativity , which others have confirmed down to the fifth decimal point, demands that all space, time, and matter came into existence simultaneously, and they’re all co-relative. Furthermore, his calculations predicted an expanding universe — much like the one Hubble discovered through his telescope.
Einstein, not a theist himself, was troubled by his findings because of the theological implications. He even tried to fudge his numbers to avoid a definite beginning of the universe, but later corrected them and admitted it was the biggest blunder of his career.
Finally, the Second Law of Thermodynamics proves the universe isn’t eternal, but rather began a finite time ago. The Second Law states that the universe is running out of usable energy. Much like a car driving down the highway that will eventually run out of gas, the universe will eventually run out of usable energy. Thus, if the universe has existed for all eternity, it would have already run out of energy, pointing to the fact that it began a finite time ago.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a Cause
Since space, time, and matter all came into existence simultaneously, whatever caused it must be beyond space, time, and matter. In other words, the cause must be spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Furthermore, it must be personal to choose to create, and all-powerful to create a universe as massive as ours.
Teleological Argument
The argument goes like this:
- All designs have a designer
- The universe has a complex design
- Therefore, the universe has a designer
Let’s look at the premises in turn:
1. All Designs have a Designer
Imagine one day you were walking through the woods and stumbled across a pocket watch. You pick it up, take it apart, see all the different moving parts, and ponder its existence. What would you conclude about the cause of the watch? Did it come about from the rain and mud? Did a combination of natural forces produce the watch? No, of course not. You immediately recognize that it was designed for a specific purpose. This illustration, made famous by eighteenth century philosopher William Paley argues that all complex designs require a designer.
After all, specific, complex designs don’t happen by chance through natural causes. The computer I’m using, with all its different parts, was obviously designed by intelligent beings. Same is true for the computer or phone you’re using to read this article. The car you drive or the house you live in are all examples of design. Imagine if I said my car was the result of a tornado going through a junk yard filled with different parts. That claim would be absurd, because we all know that designs require an intelligent designer and don’t arise by chance through natural causes.
2. The Universe has a Complex Design
The truth is that our universe is far more complex than any computer, car, phone, or any other human design for that matter — something William Paley was hinting at in his watch illustration. For example, all the seemingly arbitrary laws of physics, which could be completely different, are all the precise values you need if you want to have a universe capable of sustaining life.
Take the law of gravity. If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001% we would all die. 2 To illustrate how precise this law is, imagine stretching a tape measure across the entire universe. The tape would be billions upon billions upon billions of inches long, and this tape measure represents the possible range of the force of gravity. The force of gravity as we know it is set on one of the inch marks along the tape. Now, imagine that we move the force of gravity one inch in either direction, the impact would be catastrophic. We would all die.
The law of gravity doesn’t have to be what it is. It could be a little stronger or a little weaker, but it’s set precisely where it needs to be for life to exist.
Let me give you another example. The so-called cosmological constant — the energy density of empty space — is fine tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That’s a ten with fifty-three zeroes behind it. 3 In essence, this constant impacts the expansion rate of the universe. If the constant was altered in the slightest bit, causing the universe to expand a little faster, the result would be that galaxies, stars, and planets could not have formed. If it caused the universe to expand slightly slower, the universe would have collapsed back in on itself. Either way, we wouldn’t exist.
One scientist suggests there are at least thirty of these different physical laws that require such precision in order for life to exist. 4 That’s pretty incredible when you consider that none of those parameters had to be what they are. It seems that a designer knew we were coming.
3. Therefore, the Universe has a Designer
British philosopher Alister McGrath states, “Is it pure coincidence that the laws of nature are such that life is possible? Might this not be an important clue to the nature and destiny of humanity?” 5 Based on the evidence from design, we can conclude that the cause of the universe must also be supremely intelligent and purposeful.
Overwhelming Evidence
Based on these two arguments alone (and there are more), we learn that whatever caused our universe to come into existence must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, personal, all-powerful, supremely intelligent, and purposeful. That sounds an awful lot like God, wouldn’t you say?
So why do skeptics, like Bertrand Russell, say there isn’t enough evidence? I submit to you that they’re looking in the wrong places. They’re looking for God to do something inside the creation — like do a miracle, appear to them, or give them a special message — when all they need to do is consider the origin and design of the universe.
This would be equivalent to me denying D. R. Horton’s existence (my home builder) because I don’t see him anywhere in my house. I’ve checked all the rooms, the garage, and even the attic, but I can’t find him. Therefore, I conclude, he must not exist.
But that’s absurd. Of course he exists! How do you suppose my house got there? And what about all the evidence for design on in the inside and outside of the house? It’s evident, based on the house itself, that D.R. Horton exists. In the same way, when we consider the origin and design of our universe, it’s evident that God exists too.
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
No. Never has been, never will be.
This, from "jesus isn't fake news" web site.. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yea, I am sure they are all science based and factual. This is like using the bible to prove the existence of 'god'.. Holy crap, that's hilarious.
Why would god created an infinite universe, and plop humans on one insignificant rock on the outer edge of an insignificant galaxy? Why all the extra space?
Why would god create MACS J1149+2223?
Watched Contact with Jody Foster last night. The Sagan book was better.
No arguments here!
These are philosophical arguments - they are not evidence. That said, these arguments are valid but not sound. Here is why:
Cosmological Argument
True. That which BEGINS to exist would have a cause.
Clearly existence itself is true as evidenced by our presence. And existence cannot emerge from nothing (talking about pure nothing now - nothing at all). This means that existence is eternal. There is your uncaused cause - existence itself. If you wish to call existence itself 'God' then join the pantheists in making a sound declaration.
Bottom line, premise one simply states that something is eternal. I agree. Something must be eternal.
Yes. The fact that the universe began to exist means that the universe is the effect of a cause. The cause, however, is not necessarily sentient.
NOTE: The universe has a cause is the only conclusion. This argument does not establish the cause as sentient.
Teleological Argument
By definition of the word 'design'. If you say something is designed you are stipulating that the thing was conceived by sentient intent.
Unsubstantiated claim. You must prove that the universe was designed. I agree the universe is complex (as human beings define complexity) but not that our universe was designed because you offer no evidence that the universe was designed.
Conclusion is not possible because of unproven assertion above.
These two argument fail to demonstrate that our universe was created (simply asserted it). Further this entire seed does not establish the cause to be spaceless, immaterial, personal, all-powerful, supremely intelligent or purposeful. The only supported attribute of the above is timeless. The author simply states the desired conclusion while failing miserably to support the conclusion.
But why do you assume it began to exist? Perhaps it has always existed..so it never "began to exist" -- it has always existed and always will!
(Unless. of course, Kim Jung Un is telling us "alternative facts"-- and is secretly continuing his nuclear programme without letting Pompeo know what he has up his sleeves! Maybe 'Ole Kim is hoodwinking us-- and the entire North American continent will be destroyed-- whenever Kim wants!
That was a quote of the first premise of the argument provided by the seed - I did not write it, I quoted it.
Even if there is a supreme supernatural entity that judges us, a completely insane hypothesis with no basis whatsoever in reality or even reasonableness, I reject completely that this being would care if we believed it existed or not. The way Christians portray their God as this angry, petty, insecure being who needs our approval, is a blatant blasphemy against it.
Agreed. I have oft noted that the Bible is actually rather good evidence that the God it describes does NOT exist.
It's too bad creationists and other theists don't want to hear that. They seem to prefer something that echos their own beliefs or caters to their emotional needs.
E.A why would that " Being you mentioned " care about what you think?
Nah. It's not blasphemy. The first four commandments are all about that. Bill Maher did a bit about it last night.
E.A " I wonder IF " this was corrected But, But,, have I said this elsewhere, could it be the same " but " with the same " editor "?
Anal sex is not limited to gay men. There are far more hetrerosexual couples that take part in anal sex than the 2% of gay/bi men. Do you desire to create the buttsecks police to keep us safe from AIDS? Will they also get their own version of COPS TV show?
E.A Who has this Anal Sex fixation??
But now that YOU brought it up the CDC puts it at what " High Risk " activity list?
AND, lets not forget do only Males have anuses?
How exactly do heterosexual couples take part in anal sex if you believe that I hinted that only men have an anus? The next sentance is not "family friendly", so I'll save Perrie the effort of purple inking it and just stop here.
"Bad boys, bad boys, whatcha gonna do, whatcha gonna do when they come on you..."
A certain someones obsession with anal sechs makes me wonder, is this just another case of "the lady doth protest, too much, me thinks"..?
WTF?!
Somehow you manage to twist any topic into something about butt sechs. That's a very weird obsession you've got.
E.A Thank YOU, for making it so obvious what Bigotry does!
So tell me did I add that line or was it part of the Article Posted?
Don't worry about Skrekk's criticism, EA, there is nothing wrong with being obsessed with butt sex, nothing at all!
E.A So how save are those around carriers?
After a 4-year-old boy in Portugal was diagnosed with HIV, the biggest question was how he got the infection.
His mother, for example, didn't have it (women with HIV can pass the virus to babies). An investigation revealed a surprising source: leaky blisters on the boy's father's skin.
While it's well-known that a mother can pass HIV to her child during pregnancy and childbirth, transmission from father to child is very rare. The new report, published Sept. 20 in the journal AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, describes one of the few documented cases of this happening, the authors said.
Such a kind an loving 'god' that would create a virus that kills so indiscriminately.
E.A Yes Indeed and Jesus called " The God of this World " also as " The Father of the Lie " and if you want to know what His Father and His Angels will do with this " god " read Revelations!
Shame so many have been Fooled by this " Father of the Lie " to think of " Wolfs in Sheeps Clothing " and Followers of the Creator God!
E.A So tell me " you god " evolution and Apoptosis, how does that fit in?
E.A " Indiscriminately " having reading or comprehension problems?? 1-4 % of populace 74 - 96 % of pathogens and deaths, does that sound indiscriminate?
So tell me, how is evolution a "god" exactly?
E.A say pretty please and I will consider explaining the Basics!
Why do you refer us to a book of fairy tales for predictions?
Absurd.
E.A Lets see:
Ahhh yes I was asked about that " Book " and it seems this seed is about that also!
But why does it bother you so, I mean I spoke about Star Wars and Star Trek, did that bothered you also?
In other words, you have nothing and are just spewing your usual BS! Got it.
No, you weren't. You were asked about a "loving" god who makes killer pathogens.
You didn't speak about Star Trek. You just couldn't spell "spoke" correctly.
E.A is That a Personal Attack?
and WHY are you fixated with Me?
How is pointing out that you misspelled "spoke" a personal attack?
And how is responding to you a few times a fixation?
If you want to talk about fixations, let's address your tendency to make almost every conversation about homosexuality and HIV.
E.A as Usual I provide that Facts::
I did Mention Star Wars and Star Trek now that makes it as I " Spoke " about them
Then to Your Fixation NO one else bothered to correct the Spock to Spoke but YOU
Why would of all the Words, all the Comments from Hundreds of people here over that time frame, someone guess who! just " happen " to pick that " misspelling "?
E.A Interesting,, so for over a decade you followed me around, and all you learned is what I say about HIV?
That be a terrible Fail, so tell me that article from China what was that about?
Your translation program's failings are not my responsibility.
Or did you intend to use "Spock" as a verb incorrectly, as you have repeatedly used "critic" as a verb incorrectly?
E.A Am I the topic?
I responded to a Question asked, you did what?
Can you read the questioners Mind and Mine?
Did you comment on the Seeded topic, or on an individual?
I choose my sources of information carefully. I've learned much, from those actually in a position to impart information.
E.A END with your and Your Fixation as you have well demonstrated here,, you do " personal attacks " on an individuals spelling and gramar, and not commenting on the Topic or seed!
IE: Critic' is what it is!
Every time you used "critic" incorrectly, it was in a personal attack on another NTer.
You could not pass a high school biology course with this claim.
I assume that you do not benefit from vaccines, eat cheese, ingest antibiotics or any other products that are derived from virus' and bacteria.
Keep demonstrating your ignorance of science.
It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.
Right, it is a worldwide conspiracy by evil scientists all pretending that evolution is the foundation of modern biology.
I doubt he would pass any science course, especially given his dismal display of understanding it here.
So do tell how sin somehow creates a natural, infectious organism which causes illness? This should be quite interesting.
It would not be difficult to convince me that some people are parodying the modern GOP base.
I doubt they're paroding.
That is not a comforting thought.
I suppose that's what creationists do. It's not like they learn, or have any desire to learn actual science.
No. You could not. You don't have the faintest idea of what science is.
What is important is to study and ultimately learn . Anyone who thinks evolution is pseudoscience is either woefully NOT understanding the subject matter or is blindly rejecting anything that compromises their religious beliefs.
Pseudoscience is the utter nonsense proposed by YEC organizations such as Answers in Genesis (AiG). These people offer the following explanation for dinosaurs as they stupidly try to interpret the Bible as a science book. Note the contortions these people go through to explain dinosaurs on the ark:
When were dinosaurs created?
Why did the dinosaurs not eat other animals on the ark?
How did dinosaurs fit on the ark?
Now, observe carefully what these snake-oil-salesmen do to explain the many species of dinosaurs:
These despicable charlatans tacitly admit speciation because they cannot otherwise explain the species post Noah's ark. Due to size limitations the ark could not have pairs (or more) of each species so they go with 'kind' (which equates to something like the biological classification known as 'family' or possibly 'order'). The 'kinds' are things like 'bears, rats, lizards, etc.' So the leading Young Earth Creationist organization, Answers In Genesis, tacitly admits that the biological process of evolution is true .
So do you now realize that AiG is logically forced to recognize the science of evolution? They deny the time period yet tacitly admit that speciation occurs. But they still market the notion that evolution is pseudo-science because they must do so to keep the faithful in check. They are an organization of contradictions devoted to one thing: keeping people ignorant because that is what drives their revenue.
The slimy deception of AiG is what is meant by the term ' pseudo science'.
Do you ever sit down and seriously try to think any of this through? That is, do you have anything to offer other than parroting slogans and platitudes of others?
Bravo TiG. Well said.
And, again, Jesus weeps.
He did the same thing in his comment #10, but it was deleted.
1.) All science is secular because belief has no place in the scientific method.
2.) Intelligent design is pseudoscience because it rejects the scientific method in favor of the religious belief in Genesis.
I very seriously doubt that. You've never said anything that even passes the laugh test here.
And so we leave the suburbs and now enter downtown Crazyville.
E.A You mean like the " Big Bang " where " Nothing " was caused to " Explode by Nothing "and Presto!!
Care to tell US all about " Protoplanet Formation " and if that is far too complex for you how about Gravity, when and where was it?
Who says the Big bang was caused by "nothing?"
Care to tell us how evolution is a "god," according to you? Still waiting for you to answer that question.
E.A The Question was NOT to YOU!!
But since you want to " dance " Please tell us what went BANG, and what was the Cause of IT. and how Gravity played a part in IT, we are all eager to learn from ... well you know whom !!!
And then we talk " Protoplanet Formation " before we go to DNA, RNA and ATP!!
This is a public discussion forum, so anyone can respond to anyone else.
Sure, just as soon as you answer my previous question that you danced around: how is evolution a "god?"
Go right ahead.
E.A You wanted to " Dance " the " Music is Playing " but you " legs are … " Shall we?
What went BANG!!!!!!
E.A For those interested in Real Science::
Do A search what I have been saying for DECADES about::
E=Mc ^2
As E=Mc^2 Minus 1 %
The Minus 1 % Been Mass Defect
That being the Amount of energy needed to keep matter in a compressed state that we see and use,
Now the Major Question was and IS, what caused the " Compression " and what part does ENTROPY play it it!
The most likely explanation, the one that doesn't require the addition of an impossibly complex divine spirit being to have always existed, is that the dark energy and dark matter that we know are continually at odds with each other, one trying to rip the universe apart and the other trying to squeeze it down to quantum size, caused a tear in the very fabric of the universe allowing their antithesis, matter/energy, to explode into what we now think of as "our universe".
Now where did that dark matter and dark energy come from? We don't know, but they're just as likely to have always existed as it is for some impossibly complex God to have always existed and we have actual evidence of them whereas we have zero evidence of "God".
E.A For those interested in Real Science::
No thanks I'm good, till GOD tells me otherwise.
And I doubt your it.
But do have a good day.
E.A Thank YOU!
So then " DO not Know " But have a " Theory " means what?
As to " God " in NV you might have been present when Brian, David and Tig, had a debate with me about " Define God " and I did so by ::
1) Can Energy Become Sentient?
Answer, we exist we are sentient, hence the answer is Yes!
2) Can a Sentient Energy choose to Create?
Answer, We Humans are seeing ourself in some distant Future with the ability to Terraform and Genetical Modify organism to fit the NICHE of that Planetary body, and hence those those lifeforms, we will be " as a god "
3) Can then that Sentient Being allow for Freewill
Answer, Yes as a Parent does to their child, but after a certain age the Child has to learn liability to its actions and choices
4) Is the above a Copout?
Answer, No it is what we are told as " Human Choice " to choose a different " leader " then the one that created them, according to a " Book Written by man " If any one knows of any Books not written by Man/Woman, please inform NASA!! and SETI!!
I doubt we ever had a debate with you. At least not one where all parties were honestly putting forth arguments based on evidence and true logic.
Your Q&A is not something we would have objected to. For the 3 questions:
Yes - we are evidence of that
Yes - we are evidence of that. Of course 'create' is vague. Can a sentient entity create the known universe is an entirely unanswerable question.
Yes. If the reality created by the sentient entity is not deterministic then free will is possible.
Given you call this a debate we would not have been in agreement. Thus the above could not possibly represent the debate.
Or at this point did you declare something non-sequitur such as: therefore God exists? That I can see you doing.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with scientific method , using accepted protocols of observation , measurement, and evaluation of results. "
Much like the theory of gravity, the big bang theory is far more than just a baseless hypothesis. It is the best explanation based on the observable evidence we have. We continue to refine our tools that allow us to get a deeper picture of our universe, and so far all the evidence supports that cosmic event. It doesn't even attempt to explain the "why" of it, which is what most religious persons seem hung up on, but then it doesn't need a why.
Religious theory seeks to answer the "why", but so far can only give unfounded personal hypothesis for "why" existence exists. Science isn't really into answering the philosophical reasons behind the universe, it merely focuses on the how, and all the evidence to date says the "how" was the big bang. And just like with the theory of gravity, we can calculate it reliably without ever needing to know the "why" behind it.
If some people in ancient history claimed that when it rained it was God crying, would the "why" really matter more than the how? All their crops cared about was that it was falling, and whether they prayed to this God or that did nothing to change the rainfall no matter how hard they danced, proving the "why" not only didn't matter, but actually ended up costing some valuable resources and energy spent on pointlessly appeasing a figment of their imagination.
I asked you first. A long time ago too.
E.A wanted to dance with Two Left feet and tone deaf. go play elsewhere,, you no fun !!!
Well look at that: another deflection with another nonsensical statement on your part. Not surprising either.
Evolution OR Creation
#10 Eagle Averro
One does have to wonder tho::
Now that China can watch and see how the US of A has dealt or failed to, for over 50 Years, how a simple Epidemic has become a Pandemic, how they will deal with it!
Well, whatever China is plotting to do, I imagine that they are going to "wait until after the midterms"!
There Is a Rogue Group of Stars Behaving Very Suspiciously in the Milky Way's Disk
Credit: ESA
E.A " Very Suspiciously " As if we know it all, but wait some on NT do KNOW it all!!
Say Any one seen the Photo I posted a few years back to Michael Astronomy FM, If you did you might recall that " We have NEVER Been in this LOCATION Before, so what DO we know again?
E.A A Direct Quote so READ the article!!!
" According to the researchers, one possible explanation is that a smaller, satellite galaxy swooped past the Milky Way sometime during that period, and the visitor's considerable gravity accidentally tugged the affected stars out of step "
"Possible explanation" does that mean they have many points of Faith that they wish that at least ONE would be True?
E.A Is Faith and Believe closely related?
" Scientists now believe that our galaxy is slowly absorbing the stars of Sagittarius and, within the next 100 million years or so, will rip it to shreds. Touché! "
E.A Now is not yesterday and not likely to be tomorrow
Bold and Colour added by E.A
Well, also those circular bands on the left. Or maybe someone else added those. You realize the entire picture is an artist's creation, right? There's no actual picture from that perspective of the Milky Way.
I bet Hillary is behind this!!!
Everything that begins to exist has a cause
So what is the cause of god?
E.A See My Blog Bigbang Vs Creation it is all outlined that in Mathematics, and it also has a link to a photo where Hawkins also had an issue with that!
https://thenewstalkers.com/eagle-averro/blog/1350/big-bang-vs-creation
Either the link is broken, or the blog no longer exists.
E.A If it " Brocken " see management, they might " Fix " It!
It Exists, as I exist :-)
That may be, but it only takes me to this:
[deleted]
E.A This might just give a glimpse of why it is " Locked "
No doubt it's just a human brain fart.
I'm kinda thinking it's turtles all the way down.
Physics.
Specifically the physics underlying the formation of the human brain - an organ capable of inventing answers to unanswered questions.
Why do people keep assuming that at some point God started to exist?
"It's a bit like looking under the lamp post for our lost keys at night, rather than venturing out into the dark where it might be a bit harder to find new information."
Working on a relatively unknown gene means taking the time to build the tools required to study that gene, which is tough in an industry where the currency is published research.
"By that time, a few years might have passed and if you haven't been very productive in terms of publishing papers and winning grants, that tends to put a very big chilling effect on your career," Dr Saunders said.
While the imbalance between the pursuit of truly novel medical breakthroughs and the logistical realities of research is well known within science, Dr Saunders acknowledged it could come as a shock to the rest of us who trust science to solve the big problems.
"There's a big disconnect between how people think science works and how it actually works in practice," he said.
Here in Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) recently reformed its grant program to "encourage greater creativity" and avoid an environment that "favour[s] 'safe' research to the detriment of innovation".
Dr Saunders said the changes were a good start, but a shift needs to happen at all levels.
"It's up to all of us, both the people writing the grant funding and asking the questions in science, and those of us who review the funding applications, to try and be a little bit more risky, less risk-averse, in our approach to what we fund," he said.
"Maybe we need to be a little bit more accommodating of scientists who take risks that don't necessarily always have those risks pay off.
"Because that's kind of the nature of science, right? You can't always predict where it's going to go."
Cern scientist: 'Physics built by men - not by invitation'
By Pallab Ghosh
Science correspondent, BBC News
Image caption
Cern, based in Switzerland, is one of the world's largest centres for scientific research
A senior scientist has given what has been described as a "highly offensive" presentation about the role of women in physics, the BBC has learned.
At a workshop organised by Cern, Prof Alessandro Strumia of Pisa University said that "physics was invented and built by men, it's not by invitation".
He said male scientists were being discriminated against because of ideology rather than merit.
He was speaking at a workshop in Geneva on gender and high energy physics.
Prof Strumia has since defended his comments, saying he was only presenting the facts.
Cern, the European nuclear research centre, described Prof Strumia's presentation as "highly offensive".
The centre, which discovered the Higgs Boson in 2012, has removed slides used in the talk from its website "in line with a code of conduct that does not tolerate personal attacks and insults".
Prof Strumia, who regularly works at Cern, presented the results of a study of published research papers from an online library.
He told his audience of young, predominantly female physicists that his results "proved" that "physics is not sexist against women. However the truth does not matter, because it is part of a political battle coming from outside".
Prof Strumia pointed to behavioural research which he suggested may account for the disparity.
One study, he told his audience, indicated that "men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people" and another, he claimed, suggested that there was a "difference even in children before any social influence".
Extry, extry....read all about it!! Italian man found to be a sexist pig!!!!
Response to xxJefferson @ 1.3.1 ' rebuttal by proxy ' which offers only a link to an 'argument' . This 'argument' claims to prove God exists. An amazing level of hubris by the author to claim to prove the existence of God when that has escaped all of humanity for all of recorded history.
By definition. If something is created, a creator must be involved.
Flaw in Logic : Must prove the universe was created .
Flaw in Logic : Argument needs to prove that life cannot form by undirected processes. Lacking this, proof 2 is simply an assertion, not a proof.
Flaw in Logic : Laws are simply patterns human beings observe in nature. Argument would have to prove that patterns do not emerge naturally. Lacking this, proof 3 is simply an assertion, not a proof.
By definition. If something is designed, a designer must be involved.
Flaw in Logic : Must prove the universe was designed . ( This is simply a restatement of PROOF 1 )
Flaw in Logic : Elevating coincidence and predictable patterns to 'prophecy' level.
Predicting that select nations of this era would engage in bloody battles is simply extrapolation of human nature. I can predict that Egypt's future is one of violence (and like the Bible I do not have to specify when this will occur or get into any specific details).
And how surprising it is that the NT (written after the OT) correlates with this. This is no more surprising than the work of an author correlating with the author's prior work.
This has been studied. There is no apparent causal relationship between prayer and divine intervention.
Flaw in Logic : False fact; unsubstantiated claim.
Following the Bible could offer good life lessons (e.g. love thy neighbor) and truly horrible life lessons (e.g. slavery, rape, killing of homosexuals, etc.).
Flaw in Logic : Cherrypicking - ignoring all the bad and only acknowledging the good
Slam dunk as usual TiG. Too bad you probably will not get a reply or if you do, it will be something along the lines of "nuh uh," or other obtuse rationalizations. Such is the demonstrable lack of intellectual integrity of some theists.
In this case I am rebutting a rebuttal by proxy. Instead of formulating his own response the seeder simply linked to another article to have someone else argue on his behalf.
I am trying to encourage people to think for themselves. That is the only way to learn - nobody gets smarter by merely parroting the words of others. And, of course, this ultimately means making one's own arguments. If one cannot even formulate a response, that suggests one needs to do more thinking on the subject matter.
Your attempt to get people to think for themselves or on an issue is both an admirable and worthy endeavor. Unfortunately, there are some (especially certain individuals here on NT) who prefer to not think or learn anything new, especially if it conflicts with their beliefs.
But I applaud and salute your efforts. I usually learn something new from your replies and/or citations. So I offer a sincere thank you for that.
Thanks. There is no downside that I have seen to critical thinking.
The only "downside" I can see with critical thinking is the shattering of someone's fragile emotional state if they adopted critical thinking over mere belief and the emotional comfort they derive from it. But I would consider that the beginning of intellectual enlightenment and strong mindedness, which is hardly a "downside."
That is the most forgiving and gentle way of putting it.
I too have more aggressive words in mind.
[deleted]
Culper and Bold Added by E.A
Culper?
E.A Yes it seems that the Editor on NT is working Just Fine :-)
That is Colour!
E.A And nice to see as Always, that some Choose the MOST important part of a Post :-)
So the Cost in $$$?
Cost in Human life and well being?
In Community and Family?
What is Religion ( Re Ligion ) Again?
The NT editor does not auto-correct words. 'Colour' to 'culper' is user error and/or your device.
Well, context is everything, is it not? It seemed like it should have been color but I had a hard time thinking that much difference in the two words was just a typo. In fact, for a brief moment I thought it might have been a reference to the spy ring used by the Americans during the Revolutionary War (for a great dramatization of that story, see the fine AMC series "Turn"). Then I remembered your impenetrable phrase making, e.g. "devout factionalist," and it seemed all bets were off for divining what you could possibly have meant. Thus, the question.
And those countries would be religious states and those run by regressive dictatorships (ah, but I repeat myself). "Congratulations" on our joining the bottom of the barrel.
I was going to seed this separately and it's definitely off-topic here. However it's quite a cruel policy change since it will subject many of these UN staffers and their partners to criminal penalties (even the death penalty) in their home countries.
It's a very deliberate attempt by the Trump regime to harm LGBT folks in a truly horrible way.
E.A the question then to be on topic,
has this " New Religion " gone too far and demanded too much, and now there is a reaction because of that?
Note the Three Question I asked about the " Costs " ( 17.1.4 Eagle Averro ) of this New Religion, the word " New " is a misnomer I know but its Pollical push and Pull and it demands are indeed " new " is a form of speaking
Here's another example of inventive phrase-making with no frame of reference whatsoever. And your attempt (I think) to enlarge upon ends up making even more obscure. You need to take a course in polemics, not to mention basic English composition, if you ever hope to be understood.
what is the "New Religion" ? are you referring to a sexual orientation as a "religion" now ?
He seems to think evolution is a god/religion. So I wouldn't be surprised if he thinks the same about sexual orientation. But if you ask nicely and say "pretty please," maybe he'll provide an answer. Otherwise, you'll probably just get a deflection.
Not a single intellectual rebuttal in the comment. Nothing but complaints, platitudes and slogans.
Who could possibly be persuaded by you making such a claim when you clearly cannot offer even the most basic intellectual response to direct rebuttals of the nonsense you have seeded?
I have two detailed rebuttals: TiG @ 8 and TiG @ 16
Do something more than simply claim ' idiocy '. Make a counter-argument based on fact and logic. Clearly you will not do so. Hopefully everyone reading the crap you have offered will realize that it is indeed crap and that you do not have the first clue on how to defend that which you propose. To wit, which of us have proposed the idiocy ?
Do you actually have any intelligent, rational, or relevant reply to add? Because so far, all you've done this entire discussion is dodge, deflect, and spew baseless assertions and irrational nonsense like that. You certainly haven't offered any logical replies or rebuttals to challenges and points presented, especially when they prove you wrong. Frankly, I would be embarrassed if I were you.
Can you name any relevant Nobel prizes which Cretinists have won due to the awesome analytical powers of their superstitions about a sky fairy?
I'd like to know even one scientific discovery that was conclusively overturned by religion? What problem has ever been solved by prayer and religious belief?
Can someone please give Palin-for-XX his period key back. Thanks.
Religion has perhaps most notably tried to overturn evolution. Too bad for it that is has consistently and spectacularly failed since Darwin first introduced the theory. Many theists are just sore losers about it and cannot accept that science trumps their silly religious beliefs.
The only thing prayer has ever done is make the one praying feel good about doing nothing. Prayer or religious belief certainly hasn't solved any problems or has had any tangible effect. Neither have theists ever been able to prove otherwise.
Don't you know creationists have never won a noble prize based on their god because evil heathen secular progressives conspire to keep them down?
TiG, he hasn't had a single intellectual rebuttal in the entire discussion, even when he's had ample time to formulate one. All he's done is ignore challenges and rebuttals while spewing the same irrational, nonsensical tripe.
Pretty sure that punctuation is not required for insane rants.
Punctuation is actually undesirable in rants. It slows down the flow of angry word salad.
so they go on facts, verifiable evidence, logic and critical thinking - this is a bad thing in your opinion ?
and they reject mythology, emotional arguments and suspension of critical thinking due to "belief" as a basis or explanation for scientific matters - this is a bad thing in your opinion ?
this sounds like the religious who constantly condemn others to be eternally tortured in a lake of fire (and many who eagerly advocate it and eagerly await their "enemies" to be judged and tortured for all time) - just because they don't share the same beliefs.
please explain in detail what you find to be "idiotic" about Evolution and why you disagree with it. thanks
So we're "blind" because we choose to believe our eyes? We're "hateful bigots" because we don't want unfounded, unproven conjecture based on archaic shepherds musings to be taken as fact?
When a scientist presents years of experiments, physical evidence and observations to support a hypothesis, they are not "denigrating" the person who believes it happens by magic. They are simply accepting that the only verifiable truths are those that can be thoroughly challenged and rigorously vetted.
Just because I don't believe in Santa doesn't mean I'm trying to run around informing every child of this fact in order to ruin a potentially special spiritual family experience. I would never recommend lying to your children about Santa even though its relatively harmless, but I'm not trying to stop any Christians from having whatever special holiday they want to imagine and enjoy.
What I won't do is entertain any person trying to discuss the supposed science behind how Santa makes it to every child's home in one night or how he magically fits down chimneys. Debating such nonsense is a waste of time. I feel the same about debating the supposed "young earth" theory because it's as ridiculous as Santa visiting every child in one night with his sleigh pulled by flying reindeer.
And while no school in America bans Christmas art projects or other Christmas events, the science class doesn't start teaching any Christmas pseudoscience about elf biology or flying reindeer lift and velocity. The same can be done in regards to YEC's. They can believe whatever they want at home, but don't expect any respectable science teacher to present their ridiculous theories as even possible let alone plausible.
Another cop out. Nothing stops you* from making your own rebuttal. Indeed, making your own case is vastly superior to running out and finding links to serve as your proxy.
* = Assuming you understand the subject matter of your seed.
That's just an excuse and a poor one too. If you're so sure about your "sources," then there should be no issue with citing them. All you're doing is dodging again, which comes as no surprise either.
The Stream isn't proof of anything.
In what way is that book a peer reviewed scientific work or its author a credible scientist? It doesn't discredit evolution in the slightest. It's just another transparent attempt at pretzel logic to somehow show evolution as a fallacy, much like you try (and fail) to do. Of course, actual educated and rational people can see right through that (and your) nonsense. If you want to discredit evolution, all you need is some empirical evidence which does just that. So far, neither you nor anyone else had ever been able to do so since evolution was first introduced. But by all means, come up with actual evidence and present it to the scientific community (such as the National Academy of Sciences) for review. If anyone ever did manage to discredit evolution, they just might win a nobel prize. So if that's the best you can offer, then it's no wonder your arguments have been blown out if the water, you demonstrating profound ignorance of science, and have absolutely zero credibility. But thanks for the laughs.
That would be like presenting the book "Harry Potter and the Sorcerers Stone" as proof of wizards.
"Non-magic people (more commonly known as muggles) were particularly afraid of magic in medieval times, but not very good at recognising it." - History of Magic by Bathilda Bagshot
If it's written in a book, it must be true, right?... /s
"Regardless of your background in science (or lack thereof), "Why Evolution is a Fraud" is easy to understand, decisive and engrossing"
I think Tom Sutcliff (who is not a scientists of any kind) is relying on the reader to lack any background in science. And I love how a book about theories is described as being "decisive". Yeah, it's decisive because the author already had his mind made up as to the conclusions he would draw before ever looking at a single piece of evidence.
That is often the example I use when someone tries to use the bible as "proof" of god.
Apparently, that's what some theists really think. Unless it's a science book of course.
That about sums it up. It parrots (and like-minded individuals parrot back) anti-evolution animus and scientific ignorance without providing evidence of their assertion or understanding of why their position is erroneous.
The idea that a book written by man cannot possibly be proof of god is one of the biggest problems that religious conservatives fail to understand. The Bible is their idea of what god is supposed to be and what they want god to be, but logically it cannot be proof of god if it was written by men.
You forget, biblical authors were "inspired" by god. So naturally, that just as good as god writing the bible himself. Lol
I like to ask how their god inspired the bible.
Because...god. Right?
Here, again, is this believer thinking that trying to drag atheists and rational thinkers in general down to his level seems like an argument winning strategy. It continues to crack me up.
But it does suggest micturition which proves that they're terrible at "creative thinking" (pun intended).
This kind of comment actually makes me almost feel sorry for you, xxj. But then I remember what you stand for and......*pooof*...... that sentiment disappears.
You're like a human cliché manufacturing plant.
It took me a while to do the research, which is always necessary whenever this author puts up another article, but I finally did track down what is probably the original source for this alleged comment by Russell. Of course, it turns out that it didn't come from Russell. In an article by Leo Rosten in the Feb. 23, 1974 issue of Saturday Review/World it was actually Rosten who's the source for that quote, not Russell. Indeed, Russell died four years before this article appeared so Rosten was what could be charitably called "poetic license" to describe Russell's rationalism. From then on it has always been falsely attributed to Russell so it's not like our author is alone in making the error but it does fall into the continuum of his pattern to publish false quotes and events in order to prop up his beliefs.
And then I need to address this statement from his OP:
Of course, when that perspective is the unconditional and unquestioned belief it's inevitable that reason would never enter into the matter.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
All of your meteorological posts are off topic and have no value!
[Removed]
Meteorology, the enviroment and climate are not proof of god.
E.A ...
1.2.2 Eagle Averro replied to Xxjefferson#51 @1.2.1 2 weeks ago
E.A If I may::
Romans Chapter one in particular verses 18 - 27 make the same point ALL evolutionist and Anarchist make, Go and learn from NATURE what is indisputable!!
Indisputable that is to those " that have ears ……. and Have Eyes …. "
E.A Two Weeks From " request " to delivery, but they still " can not see Nor Hear " ……
Aside from off topic posts, ad hom attacks is the only other thing you have to offer.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Why has God unleashed this terrible hurricane upon us??
Probably something to do with gays and viruses.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
Then start a separate discussion about life threatening storms. It's off topic here!
So what are you doing other than posting off topic and no value posts about a storm everyone already knows about?
Would you stop with all the scientific charts about hurricanes?
The hurricane hitting Florida and Georgia is a serious matter. Why don't you post a seed about it and stop spamming this one?
Is there Evidence for God’s Existence?
No
That about sums it up nicely.
And yet it takes 500 comments to get the point across. Next week there will be a new one and 500 more comments.
There is nothing new under the sun, lol.
back to trump !
Some questions only require a one word answer:)
Indeed. Short, sweet, simple, and straight to the point.
Actually, the point was made rather early on. Some people just don't get it. That's what happens when they're scientifically inept and prefer belief/dogma over actual science.
The reason you have 500 or 700 or 800 comment seeds about "the existence of God" is because it cannot EVER be proven or disproven. You could be here 10,000 years from now having the same debate.
The biggest mistake that happened when people first started to debate this topic, at least in recent times, is when atheists began to claim the default position, in other words that the burden is on those who believe in God to prove it, and unless they can there should be an assumption that there is no God. But the truth is neither side merits the default position. We just don't know, and we will never know.
Yup, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that kind of thinking will get you a real paleo diet and a cave to dwell in at some point. Upside of that is many caves are found above sea level, that way you'll be protected from not only from the elements but the sea waters that are not rising as well.
The default position is logically ours. We can't change logic to suit believers, nor should we.
Some of the greatest minds in history believed in God and/or some power greater than themselves and the mathematics/sciences/theories they labored over. That's a pretty good endorsement.
And none of those minds are currently on NT .....
That's nice, prove it! Otherwise, that is nothing more than an empty claim with nothing of substance to back it up, much like ALL your claims!
That's an argument from authority fallacy. And note that not one of those great minds ever proved or even offered any empirical evidence for any god/s. Just their own beliefs.
But the seeders question did not include a greater power, it was limited to the existence of God I believe. I myself have no doubt that there are greater forces at work in the universe than ourselves, just not the traditional God, god or gods of mythology.
Personally I have no difficulty with what one chooses to believe or not believe as it is something we all figure out on our own. It is when others see fit to project their beliefs on others (as if it is a fan booster club recruiting members) or dismiss science that they lose me.
The burden of proof lies on the one making the affirmative claim. If a theist is making a claim of certainty about god, then they bear the burden of proving it!
That is the logical position. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without evidence, there is no logical reason to assume there's a god.
Wrong. See first statement.
And your argument is an anti-authority fallacy.
That some of the greatest, most accomplished minds in history had such beliefs is cogent to the discussion at hand.
Absolutely.
No one has to "prove" there is a God, that is a silly statement. It is not possible to prove there is a God, just as it isnt possible to prove there isn't. SO, if your claim that the burden is on the believer to PROVE something is accepted, voila! you can never lose. What a deal !
The only real default is that "we don't know". If you object to a default of "we don't know", then you prove there is no God.
Absolutely, we are in full agreement there.
Like many things it's the extremists on either side of the issue that muck up the works.
There's no such thing.
Not at all, as that is still a logical fallacy. As I pointed out, even the greatest minds never provided any evidence or proof of any god/s. They simply believed. That's it. Their level of intellect does not automatically validate those beliefs. Actual empirical evidence does, of which there is none! But if you want to try to go that route, then it can also be said some of the greatest minds also did not have such beliefs. By your "logic," that means belief is irrelevant and lacks validity.
They do if they make a claim of certainty. Otherwise, such claims are empty and lack any credibility.
Then one cannot make a claim of certainty for a god, as that is a logically indefensible position.
One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof lies on the one making the affirmative claim.
It's just simple logic. Make a claim, then be prepared to prove the claim. Unless you're willing to accept any claim, no matter how outrageous, no questions asked?
That's the only honest answer. But many theists are not honest enough to concede to that point. they still make claims of certainty.
Again, a logical fallacy. Without evidence, there is no reason to accept any claims for a god. Unless one was really gullible or easily swayed by emotion. "We don't know" is the honest answer, and agnostic in nature. But theist usually do not say that when it comes to the existence of god and atheists are generally not convinced there is a god either, due to a lack of evidence.
Of course they did. The further you go back in time the more you see societies immersed in religion. The fact that Newton, for example, believed in a god is not at all surprising. What would be interesting, however, is to know what Newton's religious views would be given modern knowledge.
In general, intelligence does not correlate with religious belief. Religious belief is not a consequence of deep thinking - it appears to be emotional and even the smartest among us can be emotional. That is, the most intelligent people still do not like the idea of the finality of death. Religions give people the comforting view of everlasting life and a wonderful happy future. They promise that we will again see departed friends and family. They offer a supreme entity who -in spite of all the hardships and uncertainty of life- ultimately has our back and will ensure everything will work out.
Indoctrination and great promises is what has sustained religions for thousands of years. Some of us, however, are not convinced by mere words from human beings. And it does not really matter if the smartest person on the planet believes in a god, that individual is vulnerable to believing what s/he desires and 'personally proving it' through confirmation bias.
Proof is too high of a burden. The debates are really about evidence (and the lack thereof). To me the more important discussions / debates are critical analysis of why someone would believe books like the Bible or Qur'an are divine. The Bible especially offers myriad clues that it is nothing more than the words of ancient men pretending to be God. Objective analysis of same would be beneficial. The more people who learn about reality through objective and empirical methods the better we are IMO. That does not mean there is no God of course, but at least people would be humble enough and honest enough (with themselves) to realize that if there is a supreme entity nobody has a clue what the entity wants, what it has done or the nature of its existence.
Maybe then when some claim to have been granted a visit to Heaven to speak with God others will appropriately shake their heads and move on without accepting as truth that which is then claimed.
Sorry Sandy, you're wrong. It is true that atheists claim the default position, but they claim it erroneously.
I am pretty sure that you are an experienced enough athiest to know there is more to it than that. Asserting that there IS no God, is an affirmative claim, you are affirming that God does not exist. But you cannot prove that. And no one will EVER prove that God does not exist. If people were totally honest, everyone would be an agnostic, or admit that their position is based on belief, not PROOF.
I am sure you think that the weight of the "evidence" is overwhelmingly on your side, and maybe it is , but most if not all of your "evidence" consists of the other side's inability to prove their claim. That sort of "evidence" is not really proof , is it ?
Let people believe what they want, as long as they don't hurt others. There is nothing wrong with religion. It is when it is used for bad purposes that it becomes negative.
I do agree that we cannot know what God's purposes are. If there is a God.
On the other hand, in an infinite universe, isn't it possible that in this minute corner of it God's wants people to believe in the Bible? I don't think that is the case, but I don't know that it's not.
People who believe in God often think they understand what God wants. Unfortunately, there is no way to know that.
I think it is fairly obvious that human religions are cultural expressions that arose in a certain , random, time and place, based on the wonderment human beings had at their predicament as self-conscious beings on this planet. Then they developed in this way or that as the centuries and millennial went by.
What any God's use of these religions might or might not be is an unknown.
Most atheists do not assert there is not a god as a certainty. More like atheists are not convinced there is a god, but are willing to consider the evidence for one should it be forthcoming.
Because one cannot prove a negative, as I have already stated.
Most atheists fall along the lines of an agnostic (or weak) atheist. Theists tend to espouse their beliefs as more of a certainty.
What "evidence" are you referring to? The other side's inability to prove their claims only means their claims lack validity and they lack credibility. Therefore, the atheist remains unconvinced and has no logical reason to accept the other side's claims.
I have always said people are free to believe whatever they want.
That's a matter of opinion.
Such as stifling rational and logical thought?
Anything is possible, that is why we use reason and try to identify what is most likely from the near infinite set of all that is merely possible. In the case of the Bible, if a God wanted people to believe the Bible then the God described by the Bible is the God in question. Accordingly, this is a God full of contradictions. To wit, one can objectively analyze the Bible to test whether it holds water as the divine Word of the grandest possible entity. An entity self-described as omniscient, omnipotent and perfect has produced as His Word a book whose original writings are long lost yet survives on transcribed and edited copies over thousands of years of human error-prone processes. Yet this entity is evidently content with His Word expressed in such an errant fashion and interpreted (inconsistently) by billions on the planet. To the point where nobody has a clue what of this book, if any, reflects true divine wisdom.
Chances are decent that the grandest possible entity is not behind the Bible, the Qur'an or any other 'holy' book. Possible, yes, probable, no.
They cannot offer anything of substance to support their understanding of God other than 'I just know'.
Agreed.
This debate reminded me of an old parable, the blind man and the elephant.
It is a story of a group of blind men, who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.
It seems that it is the religious who claim those who don't share their views are dishonest which starts most of the fights. Atheists are simply being honest in their description of what they've experienced and see no reason to believe that what they're feeling is the trunk or leg of God. Now since no one has a complete full picture all any of us can do is continue our examination while respecting each others conclusions.
I have no problem with people believing in a higher power, I think for some it may even be healthy. Its only when some people attempt to force their view of the elephant on everyone else, either through terrorist acts or injecting their claim of knowing what the elephant is into our public schools, courthouses and our government, that I get upset.
If there were a god, it would be possible to provide good evidence for that. God himself could easily do that, if he were as described. But he hasn't.
It is not possible to prove that there is no god. Russell's teapot, and all that.
That is why the burden of proof (or evidence) is on the person stating that there is a God - because it is possible to provide evidence for God, if he exists. The fact that he hasn't doesn't mean that it's impossible, if he actually exists. He's omnipotent, right?
Not at all. Let's say you were walking down the street and suddenly the person next to you started flying 30 feet off the ground. When they came down atheists wouldnt say "this is proof there is a God, " , they would say , at best, "this is an unknown phenomena".
If "God" accompanied the flight with a booming voice, atheists would say, "this is an alien invasion" or something from another dimension. There is nothing that could prove the existence of God to people who don't believe.
I agree that the test for distinguishing the grandest possible entity (God) from phenomena of a lesser entity would need careful consideration. So point well taken.
But look at what we have after thousands of years. To believe such a grand claim that there is a creator god who has created all of reality one would need equally grand evidence. We have ancient, errant 'holy' books and lots of people claiming 'I just know'.
- Sagan
If there was a god, and he knew us as well as some claim, then the god would know that many of the people he wants to worship him need more proof.
So when the all knowing and all powerful should know proof is needed and is able to provide proof but does not shows one of following:
a does not know or care
b unable to show itself
c is not there
My mistake for getting into this with you again. Suffice it to say i still disagree with your opinion and stance on this topic, completely and absolutely.
Nothing you have said, or likely ever will say, will shake my beliefs in that regard. But as always, you are welcome to keep prattling on about it .... i know you will, as that's your thing ....
Enjoy
True, look around I see plenty of evidence tio me that all that is wasn't just an accident. Or if it was that accident it's still what I call GOD, so I really don't care.
The way the world works from ants to humans and everything between is evidence enough for me that something something beyond our control created it all.
That to me is GOD. And that's all I know or need. If that isn't for others, once again, I dont care.
The key really is the claim that God is a sentient entity and that people know what God wants them to do. The part in blue is the problem with religions because it empowers those who convince others they know the mind of God.
Somehow I've always had a problem with a god that needs my worship.
How do we know that thousands of years even amounts to anything significant?
Proof of God for almost everyone would amount to a physical manifestation. If a giant apparition appeared over New York City and said "to prove I am your God I will raise this city off the ground and spin it in circles" and it happened, there would be many who would say it was mass hypnosis or the work of beings from another place or dimension who have learned to supercede the laws of physics. They would not say it is an almighty God .
By definition God originates from outside this nature and existence. "Supernatural". As part of this existence, and not being God, we have no way to explore anything outside this existence, hence we can never prove or disprove God
We base it on our life spans. Three thousand years is 100 generations. That seems like a pretty substantial duration for finding evidence of God.
Yes. As I noted @ 43.2.25 :
So you are preaching to the choir.
There are many definitions for 'God'. If God is 'supernatural' (outside of the laws of nature per our universe) then if said God does not interact with our natural world in any way we certainly would not be able to detect it. However, God is claimed to interact. Ergo it is possible to evidence this God. Waiting for this evidence.
As noted upfront:
It's not my fault if your position is logically weak or doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
That's your problem. It seems you prefer beliefs over actual facts or evidence. of course, that shows a degree of close mindedness on your part. It's also an example of emotional attachment to belief overriding rational thought or critical thinking.
Yes, disputing baseless claims and assertions or illogical points with logic does tend to be a habit of mine. Guilty as charged.
That would be an honest and prudent response. A rational individual would consider all possible explanations rather than jump to conclusions like "god did it."
See previous statement.
Because atheists generally rely on evidence, not belief. Not to mention analysis of possible and logical explanations. Belief is just convincing yourself of something regardless of evidence and is more emotionally driven.
We have much more information available to us than people had 500 or even 200 years ago. There is absolutely no proof of a supernatural omniscient religious creator. There is no proof that Jesus as the son of man ever existed.
How would your life change if it could be proven that god never existed and the Bible was a myth?
It is sad to me to watch religious believers attempt to create loopholes where their god can still exist.
God only exists in your belief because you can't provide any evidence to others that God exists. Religious is an emotional idea in the 21st century because it cannot be supported by facts.
Actually that is incorrect since god only exists as a personal belief it actually does require each individuals permission or approval in order to exist.
Prove god exists to begin with!
What is the matter with you? I'm almost positive that on several occasions you have been provided with clear and obvious evidence for evolution. How you manage to dismiss it all is beyond me. It's not like you can honestly claim ignorance at this point. Your capacity for ignoring bald-faced reality and perpetuating a child-like fantasy is truly amazing.
I'm going to give you yet another slice of evidence, and then I want you to tell me how it supports anything but "evolution and random chance," OK?
Consider vitamin C. We totally need it to live. I think everything does, from single-celled microorganisms, to plants, to animals. Most organisms synthesize it themselves, and have a specific gene for doing so. In some organisms, however, the gene is present, but it's suffered one mutation or another that has rendered it inoperative, forcing the organism to get its vitamin C from external sources through its diet. That's the boat we're in. We have the gene, but it's broken. Thus, we have to make sure that we get enough vitamin C in our food. If we don't, we get scurvy and eventually die. The reason we have that broken gene is because we inherited it, and we're not the only ones.
Here's a cladogram from the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institutes of Health:
The animals in black have working copies of the gene, the ones in gray have mutated, nonfunctional copies. It's the exact same gene , too, and everything on that diagram inherited it through common ancestry.
You can see cladistic relationships going back as far as elephants, but the origin of the gene goes back much, much farther. You can also see that the gene has mutated out of functional use in more than one line of descent. In our case, the specific mutation that we've inherited must have occurred somewhere around 60 million years ago, shortly after the clade containing lemurs (who still have a working copy) split off from the clade containing humans and the other primates shown.
By the way, here's source article of that cladogram from the NIH: The Genetics of Vitamin C Loss in Vertebrates .
Now, here are some questions for you...
1) Why would a designer- god include a broken copy of a gene for synthesizing vitamin C in our DNA? What's the point of including something that doesn't work, especially when it's for something we actually require for life?
2) Why would a designer-god also include the exact same broken copy in other animals whose genomes show common descent with humans?
3) For that matter, why would a designer-god create lots of things with genomes that show obvious inheritance of genetic information through common descent in the first place?
Please, please, PLEASE answer those questions. Tell me how the exact same broken gene for synthesizing vitamin C across several genetically-related species' would be evidence for anything other than an ancient mutation being passed down and inherited through common descent?
Finally, a little reminder: Descent with modification = evolution, and the example of this specific gene is just the tip of the iceberg. There are all kinds of comparative genomic analyses making common descent about as obvious as it can get, and the list of sequenced genomes for us to compare grows every day. The work is being done all over the world, and is 100% testable, repeatable, and most importantly, falsifiable (very important standards which creationist claims always fail to meet, by the way).
I applaud your efforts and informative posts Dig. Unfortunately, some people are too closed-minded to consider, much less accept anything which might challenge or contradict their beliefs. They prefer willful ignorance over actual facts.
i'm pretty sure the religious will answer these questions with "God works in mysterious ways" or some other cop out along those lines. (those answers are also a great example of suspension of critical/logical thinking)
Believers are claiming that a supernatural religious deity exists, so the logical onus is on you to prove your claim of existence to be true. Absence of that proof we revert to the previous position that said deity does not exist.
Be careful what you say-- otherwise in the next lifetime you may be reincarnated as an insect!
[Removed]
Weather Channel?
E.A do you have a question?
Actually if you don't mind saving me the time, what's the weather forecast for Southern New England for the coming weekend if you would please.
For some reason, when I read that, I heard it in the very sarcastic voice of John Cleese
Me sarcastic, never
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
Is There Evidence For God’s Existence?
As I see it everything is made of Atoms, whatever arranged those atoms to be all that is, the sky the earth, us, the animals, the trees, the rocks, everything and how it all works together as one is what I consider GOD. Anything else, I dont know or care.
That's my religion in a nutshell i
Easy breezy and it works for me.
Kind of follows my thoughts on how things mesh for the most part.
I didnt know for years but I think this "religion" is called being a deist. Not that it needs a name.
There are a few labels for it, deist, pantheist etc., I picked up my slant via Baruch Spinoza.
To me, it really should not matter to the rest of the world what you may opt to believe or not believe. It comes down to whatever gets you through the night, religion or lack of it is a personal matter.
Yep, if one truly does keep one's religion private. But that is not the case.
For a mild example, consider the work of YEC organization Answers in Genesis.
For a harsh example, consider the indoctrination of radical Islamic terrorists.
I agree, but it is the people twisting these tenets to serve their own purposes and needs.
To me religion is not much different than most of the other ologies, everything looks great on paper until you apply humans to the equation.
There are times when many of the mainstream religions seem more like sports teams attempting to expand their fan base to me, with their adherents rooting for their version of god, vilifying any opposing gods in the next breath.
But as I said, it is up to the individual.
Always
I kept pushing the thumbs up button, but lt only counted once.
Nope-- its all energy.
Its all waves...not particles!
Whatever it is. Particles that we see , feel and can touch or the energy waves that make them up.
" Whatever arranged everything to be what it is to me that is what I call GOD"
temporarily locked while we clean up the weather related damage.
Really ?
It was for a little while.
I don't care who you are, if you have been keeping up with comments on this seed, that's some funny shit SP!
Is There Evidence For God’s Existence?
Nope.
In fact most (all?) of the religious people I know say that God's existence can not be proven and that it must be taken on faith!
My own opinion is that the existence of a God (or Gods-- if there are any polytheists in the house tonight
. . . the existence cannot be proven. But also -- the non-existence cannot be proven.
Some people get very uncomfortable with not knowing things-- they really want it to be proven either way!
My own opinion on this:
1. There some things that cannot be proven and/or will not be proven in my lifetime.
2. And that's OK-- again IMO-- a person can have a wonderfully fulfilling life without having to know whether or not a God (or Gods) exist!
Learn to live with the ambiguity-- its good for your mind!
Indeed. I give you the average agnostic atheist.
Other than that Albert Einstein quote I linked many times before. I would mention Terence Mckenna and his famous observation that atheists and science required " one free miracle" to explain the "birth" of the universe.
Plus, there is a Carl Sagan quote I read on a few Buddhist sites about the cerebral cortex being the "god" within us all. As that is where human reailty is created from nothing at all. An interesting read, but I'm not sold the merit of the proposition. It could be true, but it conflicts with the basics of my pagan philosophy.
“The ultimate singularity is the Big Bang, which physicists believe was responsible for the birth of the universe. We are asked by science to believe that the entire universe sprang from nothingness, at a single point and for no discernible reason. This notion is the limit case for credulity. In other words, if you can believe this, you can believe anything. It is a notion that is, in fact, utterly absurd, yet terribly important. Those so-called rational assumptions flow from this initial impossible situation. Western religion has its own singularity in the form of the apocalypse, an event placed not at the beginning of the universe but at its end. This seems a more logical position than that of science. If singularities exist at all it seems easier to suppose that they might arise out of an ancient and highly complexified cosmos, such as our own, than out of a featureless and dimensionless mega-void.”
Science does not ask people to 'believe' anything. Science explains (with substantial supporting formal details).
The singularity is something, not nothing.
Science does not presume why something happens, it is focused on explaining phenomena based on empirical evidence and disciplined (as objective as possible) reasoning.
There is no proposed miracle. Science offers explanations as far back to the point or origin as it can based on the current state of scientific findings. Prior to that the scientific comment is 'we do not (yet) know' not 'insert miracle here'.
Read more
The show me where the scientific method asks people to simply believe what a human being says. Good luck.
You presume to know my 'wishes'. Bad form, I am not the topic.
Is this supposed to be your source of science asking people to simply 'believe'?
We are not being asked to believe anything. Science states its findings and offers conclusions. One accepts or rejects based on the evidence.
That is correct. And science states that it does not (yet) know the origin of the singularity. So you are dead wrong on this point.
That is also correct. And science states that it does not (yet) know what triggered the singularity (other than hypothesizing quantum fluctuation) or indeed what triggered the subsequent inflation. So you are dead wrong on this point too.
Scientific theories are not claimed to be truth but rather as the best scientific understanding thus far. It is not about belief or absolute certainty, nor is it about authority. The phrase 'we do not know' is routinely used in science since science is, by definition, on the frontier of the unknown.
No, I don't. You display them for all to see. I only notice them and point them out. You make no attempt to hide them. Here is your wish in this last comment. In the philosophy, of Greek rationalists, its called the "desire of the believer", and it overrides rational thought in argument or debate.
Take out the small ball containing all of the mass of the universe, and you have no "big bang" theory. Logic is not a strong suite, with you, is it? LOL.
Pretending not to understand my last comment is very funny. I don't enjoy childish games however. So I refuse to play further.
Good choice. You failed to address any of my rebuttals choosing instead to merely double down on personal commentary.
Given you have no rebuttal; your retreat spares me from wasting my time.
[deleted]
E.A Indeed Before anything could go BANG!!!! one would have to have the " key " to an energy Surge, so where is it and where did it come from?
Gravity, was it there before the bang or a product of it, either answer will prevent the Big Bang!!
So that again needs " Astronomical amount of Blind Faith "
Is that why blogs get " locked "?
Yes-- until new evidence comes along that refutes the previous evidence.... new evidence that gives new and different supporting evidence....
Scientific explanations are totally valid...until new evidence comes along.
(Rinse and repeat).
Resorting to personal attacks only shows the weakness of your own argument! Especially when such a statement could not be more erroneous. If you were at all familiar with TiG's posts, you would know his statements are quite logical!
You seem to think that's a bad thing. Should we be holding on to incorrect information?
This comment surprises me because I thought you understood science.
Science is on the frontier of learning. That is what it does - looks beyond what we currently know in an attempt to expand our base of knowledge. The scientific method employed is formal and designed to mitigate subjectivity and error. But human beings do err and we are always dealing with incomplete information. Thus as new evidence arises science appropriately consider it and self-corrects. This self-correcting, follow the evidence to wherever it leads process is a great strength of science.
Scientific explanations are the best we have ('totally valid' is not a claim of science) at the moment. Because science continues to refine its understanding it net improves over time. Do you think it would be better if science ignored new evidence and instead played semantic games to try to make old theories remain valid? That is, do you think it would be better if science operated as a religion?
This exists on both sides of the argument.
It does not. Your admission that you think cosmology is based on "magic" <del>speaks</del> screams volumes on the subject of ignorance. The discovery of the Higgs boson which comes into existence when the massless photon passes through a particular type of magnetic field proved that mass can be created out of energy (as Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity predicted). Or put another way mass can be created from masslessness or "nothing." That's not "magic." That's quantum physics.
E.A WOW!!!! again WOW!!!
So Decay of a particle from one state to another normally called " Nuclear Decay " is …. ::
"Or put another way mass can be created from masslessness or "nothing." That's not "magic." That's quantum physics."
And they deride others about their " Lack of Scientific comprehension " :-))
Colour added by E.A