Does God Exist? - Beliefs & Evidence

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by Kakorot
creationism is based on logic and facts, just as evolution is. They are equal foes right now. There is just as much scientific evidence and theories supporting both. Its just evolution is talked about a lot more. You need faith to believe in one or the other. And I personally classify anything that needs to have faith as a religion. So I'm sorry for not mentioning that earlier.
But I hope you see my point about believing in evolution requires faith.

OK! what i would like to see is for all of us to consider that there may be another answer. God, books, evolution, creation may have worn out their usefullness.

whether we accept QM or not, i find it very exciting that we are on the edge of a new world view. for years metaphysics has postulated that the consciousness is the creator. now, physics, math and philosophers are coming together with new ideas to explain our reality. whether the Shrod-cat is alive or dead, or, in, not in the box becomes a better explanation than all of the preceeding concepts.

subject to more information, i will put my beliefs in the pantheistic view of the universe. if the cat can't be there unless i want it to be there, i create all of my reality. quite frankly, if we evaluate our experience, honestly, we can see that our individual ideas, actions, etc were responsible for the events in our lives.

it may even suggest a question as to whether or not there are real victims in this world. did they invite the event and agree to participate? I'm sure the ABA will want that line expunged!

again, my interest is to expand thought, not debate old issues. hell, creationists and evolutionists can argue till the cows come home and there will be no conclusive answer. so let's go beyond those ideas.

peace,

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Kakorot
creationism is based on logic and facts, just as evolution is.

No it isn't, it's based on lazy thinking and ignorance of several branches of science. And as I've already explained, one is a scientific theory and the other is a supernatural myth.

They are equal foes right now. There is just as much scientific evidence and theories supporting both. Its just evolution is talked about a lot more.

Once again, no. One is a scientific theory, one is not. One is able to explain the available data within a consistent framework, while the other simly says "magic did it" and ignores incompatible evidence. One has made countless successful predictions, while the other has made absolutely none at all. How one can still confuse the two is beyond me.

You need faith to believe in one or the other. And I personally classify anything that needs to have faith as a religion. So I'm sorry for not mentioning that earlier.
But I hope you see my point about believing in evolution requires faith.

You don't have a point here, because all you're doing is spewing nonsense about a subject you know nothing about. Typical creationist stupidity.

 

[Kakorot]

Ok, Eh.
Think what you want, but evoltuionism is a faith, not a science, you can call it a scietific theory, and that's fine, but it isn't testable or observable...therefore, not a true science.
Have you ever heard of the term Creation theory? Its also a scientific theory with just as much to argue as evolution theory has. It is also not testable nor observable, so it is also not a true science. Neither evolutionism nor creationism should be considered a science until actual hard proof is found. They are systems of faith based on assumptions from interpretations of evidence.


Also, creationism does not say "magic did it". And if you were told that by a creationist, they are misinformed. Creationism says God created the physical laws of the universe and used them to build it.
Now you may ask, "where did God come from?"
Well, I shall respond, "he has always existed."
Then you may say something like, "no that's impossible."
Then I would respond, "well if what you just said is true, then big bang would also be impossible, since the beginning singularity had to come from somewhere, according to what you have just told me."

Creationism is just as much of a myth as Evolutionism is.

And i really don't appreciate being called "stupid". It just makes you seem really immature. So refrain from the name calling please.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Kakorot
Ok, Eh.
Think what you want, but evoltuionism is a faith, not a science, you can call it a scietific theory, and that's fine, but it isn't testable or observable...therefore, not a true science.
Have you ever heard of the term Creation theory? Its also a scientific theory with just as much to argue as evolution theory has.

How many times do you need to be corrected before you'll stop repeating that nonsense? As I said, evolution is a theory that a. explains the available evidence within a single consistent model and b. has made many successful testible predictions. Creationism is not a model that can explain the available data, and has never made any successful predictions. If you want to argue otherwise, you're going to have to name some.

It is also not testable nor observable, so it is also not a true science. Neither evolutionism nor creationism should be considered a science until actual hard proof is found. They are systems of faith based on assumptions from interpretations of evidence.

Once again you're displaying considerable ignorance of what science actually is. As I already mentioned, the scientific method is not about proving theories. A scientific model provides a consistent explanation of some phenomena, and a model that makes successful predictions reaches the status of "theory". However, at no time is any theory considered to be a fact. At any time, any given established theory can be falsified by experimental evidence. "Proof" is something mathematicians deal with, not scientists.

You can continue to ignore this all you like, but you're not fooling anyone here.

And i really don't appreciate being called "stupid". It just makes you seem really immature. So refrain from the name calling please.

Even though your posts are suggestive, I didn't call you stupid. Posting stupid comments in threads is another matter. You've clearly established that you don't know what a scientific theory is. You don't have the slightest idea about the scientific method(even after numerous corrections) and yet you argue about it anyway. As I said earlier in this thread, why in the world would you argue about about a subject without first learning something about it? All you're doing is posting an uneducated opinion and looking ridiculous in the process.

 

[Kakorot]

dear eh,
I know what I am talking about

Its just I am used to dealing with evolutionists who feel the theory is a fact, that's all, sorry for the confusion.

 

[H2O]

Why?

Hi everybody...

Ok so this is a first posting...

The question of "Does God exist?" Well what a hummdinger...
Most people look at this question and go... Big Bang! And they all
tried so hard to make it stick, and it did. Even I think the big bang
theory is quite plausible, but here is the silly question that just
begged for asking once we were introduced to the big bang theory:

"What or whom caused the big bang? Where did all that matter
come from and how did it originate?"




Despite of these and the other multitude of questions that surround this topic, I do not think that God can be explained or noted as
a something or somebody. I think it is a force that has many names
given through small amounts of understanding.
God is not a whom or an It, God is a Why?
Why?
The most content soul would be the one who holds the answer to why?
Ever wonder if Science isn't just another form of curiosity, a need
to know why? A study of everything?
We do not even know what exactly holds atoms together, we still cannot
say what exactly causes gravity, and yet we presume to know why?
I think there are answers out there, but we do not see them yet because we are not ready. To not know, is belief in itself.

Ok folks, so... that may not make sense, but that was not the aim of
my little ditty...


H2O

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by Eh
. . . evolution is a theory that a. explains the available evidence within a single consistent model and b. has made many successful testible predictions.

Eh, please explain (possibly on another thread if this is too off topic) for my uneducated self:

How does a "transition" animal survive the hundreds of genetic changes necessary to be considered a different species? What are the mathematical odds of this occurring for all the species alive today, given the frequency at which beneficial mutations take place?

Name a few testable predictions that the evolution model has made that cannot be explained by small-scale natural selection involving existing genetic material.

 

[FZ+]

How does a "transition" animal survive the hundreds of genetic changes necessary to be considered a different species?

Transition animals are a distraction. In evolutionary history species do not exist as distinct steps, and evolution is a continuous process. There are only general types of animals that have been stable over a longer period of time than others to appear as a separate type of fossil. It is hard to classify when one species ends, and another begins. That is part of the essence of evolutionary biology.

How does it survive? Easily. Drastic changes generally do not appear. In cases of so called irreducible complexity, scaffolding characteristics have been located - features that appeared, and then became redundant as the mechanism became more efficient.

What are the mathematical odds of this occurring for all the species alive today, given the frequency at which beneficial mutations take place?

Near certainty, since you did not define a time period. In bacteria/virus, new "species" appear daily.

Name a few testable predictions that the evolution model has made that cannot be explained by small-scale natural selection involving existing genetic material.

Evolution is small scale natural selection. Evolutionists deny the existence of a barrier between small scale evolution, and this evolution accumulating to "species changes". Mutation can also not be denied, making "existing genetic material" an idealistic impossibility.

 

[scott]

It has been demonstrated that the existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved. In order to form a valid deductive proof, it must be built on premises which have been established as true. Since we cannot observe God, we cannot obtain any empirical evidence with which to establish premises upon which we can all agree. Therefore, we cannot draw any conclusions one way or the other about the existence of God.

What I think this boils down to is two paradigms of thought - faith vs. skepticism. Faith is believing in the absence of physical proof, or simply believing what you are told. Skeptics question everything. Science is founded on skepticism. No idea is generally accepted until it passes scrutiny, and ideas can be overturned based on new evidence.

Faith on the other hand, accepts information on its face in an unquestioning way.

Consider this text taken from a religious website:

One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are called “prophecies.” The Old Testament was written between approximately 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by God’s prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other “sacred writing” has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future.

This argument was not written for an audience of skeptics. Can you imagine any serious scientist making claims about anything ever having 100% accuracy, or "perfect" predictions? However, if you were given to faith-type reasoning, you'd likely read this and think - "hey, that sounds good to me", while the skeptic would never accept such claims on their face.

 

[Thallium]

And then again, evolution is a THEORY, not directly a justifiable truth. We can find evidence for almost all theories we make up(incl. evolution) as long as we do not find anything in nature that makes our theoru impossible or unlikeable. Therefore all theories might be true - to our eyes.

That was a little digression. I had to let it out.

 

[ewoodlief]

Originally posted by dodik
This is a physics forum. There is a thing on the internet called religion forums. I am sure they would love to hear your ideas.

Remember, this particular thread is about the philosophy of God's existence. It is not about whether or not God does or does not exist. If on the other hand, philosophy is said not to belong in a physics forum, in general, then consider this: religion is increasingly taking on the form of metaphysics which require a physical framework in order to be applied to reality. And science and religion do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

I am reading this thread not because I believe or do not believe in the existence of God, but because I am curious as to how others have approached such a logical proof (from a philosophical point of view.)