Empirical Evidence of God

[Write4U]

Perhaps you could present the evidence that convinces you and see how that goes.

You may know this.....

 

[Slartibartfast]

You may know this.....

Umm yep. LOL

 

[Jan Ardena]

Did you agree with his postulates? Diversity of species and natural selection?

I can see how one could postulate like that, at that time.

Is there any reason why we couldn't say, "My personality, my life-force, "ME" etc.?

We can lay claim to anything, apart from the claimer.

I'm sorry, but I have not heard of such a thing.

The agenda is expressed through the work. It is implicated through the manipulation of explanations, as in Ernst Haeckels embryo drawings, to name an obvious one

There's no science I can think of that specifically would target that conclusion.

I think when you say things like theists and their gods, I think you purposely misrepresent theism, a more subtle atheist agenda. I have no need to invoke gods, as I accept God, the origin of gods.
Even in India, they may worship gods, but they accept God. The Origin of gods.

The reality is that science can only tell us about the natural world. So a scientist not accepting a theistic claim, can only do so out of his or her personal understanding.

If a theist claims the world is 10,000 years old. He/she does so on their own understanding. Even if they are counting back the genioligical lineages from the Bible.

Scriptures to mean something. If some scientific theory were to show it meant something else, then that particular claim could be put to rest as refuted if it could not be supported other than with Scriptures. This still does preclude any particular Gods existence one way or the other.

Even so, it could not discount God. Only the account of the personal text.

The times I do hear someone talk about evolution who doesn't know what they're talking about are always theists and usually ones who have a Creationist agenda. They seem to always point to the Bible when they can no longer argue their assertions.

Examples?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Genesis 2:7.

I always find it funny that the more religious someone is, the more ignorant they are of even religious works.

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

I'll ask again. Where does it say that?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

In the bible

Where in the Bible?
Show me.

Jan.

 

[Goldtop]

I can see how one could postulate like that, at that time.

Or, at any time. Can you say we observe a diversity of species in nature? Do you think all species are affected by their natural environment?

We can lay claim to anything, apart from the claimer.

Okay, and the reason we can't claim the claimer is...?

The agenda is expressed through the work. It is implicated through the manipulation of explanations, as in Ernst Haeckels embryo drawings, to name an obvious one

Sorry Jan, I didn't know you were going back through ancient history, so to speak. We can find Piltdown Man as well. The thing is that it was scientists themselves who started criticizing Haeckels drawings, yet they are still used as educational aids because they are fundamentally correct. Science worked here quite well.

I think when you say things like theists and their gods, I think you purposely misrepresent theism, a more subtle atheist agenda. I have no need to invoke gods, as I accept God, the origin of gods.

So, it's not correct to say that theists don't have gods that they believe exist? Are you saying gods are not limited to theists? How does this even remotely appear as any kind of agenda? It's merely a simple describer.

Even in India, they may worship gods, but they accept God. The Origin of gods.

You'll need to explain that one, I have no idea what it means.

The reality is that science can only tell us about the natural world. So a scientist not accepting a theistic claim, can only do so out of his or her personal understanding.

Or, like anyone else, they don't accept the claim if it can't be supported, it doesn't have to be a theist claim, it can be any claim.

If a theist claims the world is 10,000 years old. He/she does so on their own understanding. Even if they are counting back the genioligical lineages from the Bible.

No one uses the method of counting lineages to determine the age of the Earth because they are unrelated. It would be like trying to determine the age of tree by how many bird-nests have been in it.

Even so, it could not discount God. Only the account of the personal text.

And, that's probably the point we can both agree, that science will not discount God.

Of course, we first have to account for God before we can consider discounting God.

Examples?

Jan.

When I come across them I'll be happy to point them out.

 

[Write4U]

The agenda is expressed through the work. It is implicated through the manipulation of explanations, as in Ernst Haeckels embryo drawings, to name an obvious one

Finally a name associated with a belief. But what is that belief? What are you trying to say?

Haeckel lost his wife at the age of 29. He had had his doubts already, but that was the final step for him to say that there was no God – and if there was, it must be nature in its entirety.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/gallery/2017/nov/01/ernst-haeckel-the-art-of-evolution-in-pictures

God is manifest as Nature? In what way does that draw a distinction between God as a metaphysical force apart from an evolving Darwinian physical Reality?

Is your argument that, if you accept explicate Nature, then one must accept an implicate God?

 

[billvon]

The good book is quiet clear that God made the first human out of dirt what more evidence do you need than that.

Where does it say that?

Genesis 2:7.
I always find it funny that the more religious someone is, the more ignorant they are of even religious works.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
I'll ask again. Where does it say that?

See above. You just quoted it.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Do you think all species are affected by their natural environment?

Not enough to develop a completely new morphological structure.

Okay, and the reason we can't claim the claimer is...?

Because we are the claimer.
The buck stops at "I".

Sorry Jan, I didn't know you were going back through ancient history, so to speak.

It shows this agenda is not a new idea.

yet they are still used as educational aids because they are fundamentally correct. Science worked here quite well.

Steven Gould - “Abscheulich (Atrocious!): Haeckel’s distortions did not help Darwin”

If telling big whopping lies to fool the public, especially young impressionable minds, is your idea of good science, I will be forced to evaluate my participation in this discussion, as it can truly go nowhere.

So, it's not correct to say that theists don't have gods that they believe exist?

Okay. You're in a discussion with me, and maybe a few other theists here.
Where have I, or others talked about "gods"?

You'll need to explain that one, I have no idea what it means

I'm saying that theists believe in God, therefore God's, or any manifestation of God's creation. Some Hindus practice worship of god's. But God is the ultimate object of worship. So unless I bring the notions of God's into the conversation, there is no need for you to, as it will be off-topic.

But atheists like to make no distinction between God, and god's. They do this because they like to make it seem as though there are thousands of God's that theists believe in, making it seem as though God is a made up character.
Another aspect of the atheist agenda.

Or, like anyone else, they don't accept the claim if it can't be supported, it doesn't have to be a theist claim, it can be any claim.

That's not exclusive to atheists. It is the same with most humans in general.

No one uses the method of counting lineages to determine the age of the Earth because they are unrelated. It would be like trying to determine the age of tree by how many bird-nests have been in it.

Well, I've heard that's what some Christians do.

Of course, we first have to account for God before we can consider discounting God.

Unfortunately atheists uninvited themselves to that party.

When I come across them I'll be happy to point them out.

Have ever come across that kind of reaction at Sciforums?

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

See above. You just quoted it.

Alex posted... The good book[Bible] is quiet clear that God made the first human out of dirt what more evidence do you need than that.

The verse you put forward does not say, or imply that.
So again I ask. Where does it say that?

Jan.

 

[Goldtop]

Not enough to develop a completely new morphological structure.

Have you ever looked at skeletons? Ever compare the bones of a hummingbird with that of a sperm whale? They're both bones made of pretty much the same material, but vastly different in size and shape. We can conclude bones are made of the same materials and come in all shapes and sizes. And, it is the genes that tell the bones what shape and size they're going to be, hence it's simply a matter of a slightly different genetic code and we have a different morphological structure, as you say.

Because we are the claimer.
The buck stops at "I".

"We" as in you and I?
I think you just claimed the claimer.

It shows this agenda is not a new idea.

And, an idea long forgotten in the science community.

Steven Gould - “Abscheulich (Atrocious!): Haeckel’s distortions did not help Darwin”

If telling big whopping lies to fool the public, especially young impressionable minds, is your idea of good science, I will be forced to evaluate my participation in this discussion, as it can truly go nowhere.

What big whopping lies do you refer exactly. There were slight exaggerations in which the science community identified. This is what is being taught to impressionable minds, the idea of critical thinking, inquiry and skepticism to weed out such exaggerations.

Obviously, Gould is over-reacting like a petulant child.

Okay. You're in a discussion with me, and maybe a few other theists here.
Where have I, or others talked about "gods"?

I'm saying that theists believe in God, therefore God's, or any manifestation of God's creation. Some Hindus practice worship of god's. But God is the ultimate object of worship. So unless I bring the notions of God's into the conversation, there is no need for you to, as it will be off-topic.

It's the Religion forum, the topic title specifically says, "Empirical Evidence of God" how is God then off-topic?

But atheists like to make no distinction between God, and god's. They do this because they like to make it seem as though there are thousands of God's that theists believe in, making it seem as though God is a made up character.

History shows there have been a great deal of religions and a great deal of gods believed to have existed. Don't see why this is a problem.
Another aspect of the atheist agenda.

That's not exclusive to atheists. It is the same with most humans in general.

Exactly, we agree.

Well, I've heard that's what some Christians do.

Unfortunately, they will always be wrong using that method.

Unfortunately atheists uninvited themselves to that party.

I understand, and atheists are still waiting for God to be accounted. Any idea when that might happen?

Have ever come across that kind of reaction at Sciforums?

Jan.

Haven't been here long enough to find out, I think you are one of only two theists here that I can tell. Why are there so few theists here?

 

[billvon]

The verse you put forward does not say, or imply that. So again I ask. Where does it say that?

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground"

That's an archaic way of saying dirt. Some modern translations:

"The Lord God took a handful of soil and made a man." (CEV)
"The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground." (NET)
"The Eternal God scooped dirt out of the ground and sculpted it into the shape we call human." (Voice)

Sorry; looks like you are not going to be able to "redefine" your way out of this one.

 

[iceaura]

Not enough to develop a completely new morphological structure.

Effects easily large enough to abet development of completely new morphological structures have been observed. Many mechanisms of development have been described, and observed in action. What's stopping them?

But atheists like to make no distinction between God, and god's. They do this because they like to make it seem as though there are thousands of God's that theists believe in, making it seem as though God is a made up character.

Just taking the theists at their word. They're willing to kill each other over these distinctions, it seems a bit odd to deny the existence of them.

 

[Write4U]

I'm saying that theists believe in God, therefore God's, or any manifestation of God's creation.

Yes, but you never explained the properties of God. You are using a human invented but undefined Titular "word" which requires worship as the ultimate causality of Reality?
One can make the same argument that atheists believe in Nature, therefore Nature's, or any manifestation of Nature's creation.
We can BOTH agree on that word, can't we?

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe.
"Nature" can refer to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. The study of nature is a large, if not the only, part of science. Although humans are part of nature, human activity is often understood as a separate category from other natural phenomena.

Yes by theists

The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or "essential qualities, innate disposition", and in ancient times, literally meant "birth".[1] Natura is a Latin translation of the Greek word physis (φύσις), which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord.

Natura Artis Magistra (Nature is the teacher of Art)

The concept of nature as a whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since. This usage continued during the advent of modern scientific method in the last several centuries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

 

[river]

The empirical evidence is intelligence of living beings .

I would think and the evolution of any living being .

How would carbon induce intelligence into any living thing ?

 

[Write4U]

The empirical evidence is intelligence of living beings, I would think and the evolution of any living being .

That sounds entirely reasonable (intelligence begets intelligence), but consider that not all living things can think or need to think.

This would be empirical evidence that an intelligence is not an absolute requirement for living things, but only a probabilistic evolutionary function from "inanimate" bio-chemicals to "animate" cellular organisms.

If one wishes to claim that God is a sentient cosmic Imperative, we need a little more than the hubris of considering only humans to be gods (in the likeness of God).
Anyway, that's what we like to think.....

 

[Write4U]

Goldtop said;
Did you agree with his postulates? Diversity of species and natural selection?

I can see how one could postulate like that, at that time.

But not at this time? The postulate was true then, but is not true any longer? When did that happen? Please explain.

 

[river]

New
↑
The empirical evidence is intelligence of living beings, I would think and the evolution of any living being .

That sounds entirely reasonable (intelligence begets intelligence), but consider that not all living things can think or need to think.

This would be empirical evidence that an intelligence is not an absolute requirement for living things, but only a probabilistic evolutionary function from "inanimate" bio-chemicals to "animate" cellular organisms.

If one wishes to claim that God is a sentient cosmic Imperative, we need a little more than the hubris of considering only humans to be gods (in the likeness of God).
Anyway, that's what we like to think.....

How do you know the limits of thought , though ?

How do chemicals , in and of themselves produce intelligence ?

Humans consider themselves as gods ? Where did this come from ?

 

[billvon]

The empirical evidence is intelligence of living beings .
I would think and the evolution of any living being .
How would carbon induce intelligence into any living thing ?

It doesn't. Evolution induces intelligence in living things when such intelligence helps them pass on their genetic heritage. Carbon really doesn't enter into it (other than you have to eat some.)

 

[river]

It doesn't. Evolution induces intelligence in living things when such intelligence helps them pass on their genetic heritage. Carbon really doesn't enter into it (other than you have to eat some.)

Explain HOW evolution induces intelligence .

Your assuming that intelligence already exists .