Evidence that God is real

[sideshowbob]

Knowing for sure there is an absolute truth sitting there behind the creation of earth, ( and it’s the truth for us all because it happened before we got here ) gives us a goal to shoot towards, to try and find this answer amoung the data;

The problem with that is that people who believe in absolute truth tend to think that they KNOW the absolute truth. It's the people who DON'T believe in absolute truth who are more likely to keep looking.

 

[gmilam]

Let’s pretend that a god did create the earth and in fact, a god who wants to communicate with its creation, what would we expect to see?

I would expect god to be able to communicate with his creation...

"Good morning! This is God speaking. Today's weather will be excellent, so no need for your jacket. Have a nice day and remember to treat others with kindness and empathy as you go about your business. Thank you."

 

[Write4U]

Could you provide an example?

You cite staggering odds against the spontaneous emergence of organic life.

I can provide a very knowledgeable presentation on the staggering odds in favor of chemical evolution of living bio-organisms on earth.

Earth has performed two trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion spontaneous chemical experimets during its lifetime.

That evens the odds a little and provides a different POV than the observation that it requires "intelligent design" to create the universal constants which allow for spontaneous evolution of bio-chemicals, which then formed ever greater complexity, until the human pattern emerged and here we are.

IMO, this is an important and enlightning presentation by an expert in the field.
Start the presentation at 25:10 to avoid a lengthy introduction.

You asked for it. Please trust my discretion to provide you with a clear and interesting lecture on the subject.

Note; this lecture does not attempt to disprove a creator. It merely explains the probability of spontaneous emergence of life as a purely natural phenomenon.

The main point, IMO, is that chemicals react spontaneously with each other and do not need a motivated (divine) "designer/builder"

Ask this question: If life is so incredibly rare, why is there such a great variety of species ?

The odds would be equally rare for all species that have ever existed to have emerged, no?
Millions of species, each with incredible odds against their emergence at different times in the history of the universe.......

 

[sideshowbob]

I would expect god to be able to communicate with his creation...

"Good morning! This is God speaking. Today's weather will be excellent, so no need for your jacket. Have a nice day and remember to treat others with kindness and empathy as you go about your business. Thank you."

"This is your Captain speaking.... If you look to your left you will see the Grand Canyon spontaneously opening and closing...."

 

[BlueSky]

That's the $64,000 question.

Indeed.

Good question.

We would see structures that could be created and maintained only by God. Floating holy mountains. Parted seas. Huge crosses appearing suddenly.

Excellent post billvon. I agree, this is a good assumption, but perhaps slightly too presumptious. What we do see is structures all over the world ( in all ages ) being built by the ancients in dedication to some “god(s)”. The religiousness of ancient man is nothing less than amazing, and even today, we cling to this concept that “there is more to life than meets the eye.” We can’t necessarily assume that this god would do what we would think as proof for its existence.

We would see events that could only be pulled off by God. Occasional stoppages of the Earth's rotation for religious reasons (as described in the Bible.) Partings of seas. Global floods that cover the highest mountains when people became wicked.

Yes, exactly, these things we have seen ( or some have apparently )

We would see signs regularly of God communicating with us. Tablets appearing on the ground with commandments. Words shouted out near mountaintops.

We have this to. All happened. Question is, do we need to happen to each person in all ages in order for us to beleive it? Can not the story of it suffice? I agree, I would love to see some bolt of lightening, or sea split in to, or some unexplainable miracle, but it’s not necessarily a necessity for me anymore, I’ve seen enough to know.

But none of that happens. So either God is doing his best to trick us, or there is some other explanation for the world.

But all of this has happened, and many other things do happen, I seen some pretty amazing things since becoming a Christian. I will tell you sometime.

I don’t think he is trying to trick us, he has done allot in history and even today. I think tho, we are expecting something that he not willing to do- for good reason. Imagine for a second your wife kept demanding that you “prove” your love for her. She did have pleanty of actions that did, but you wanted more and more and more. How would this marriage fair in the long run, probably not to good.

Jumping ahead here, He has done lots, including raising the dead, but somehow people still do not believe. Should every person who has ever lived be given an individual “sign” of his presence? Perhaps, but I feel there has been given more than evidence as long as we are willing to see it as such. Rebellion is baked into this cake, so this element must be factored into our discussionas, it’s part of the equation.

I don't think we'd see any of the religious strife we see now. No one would be figthing over which God was the true God (or Gods) because everyone would know, via all the signs.

I hear you. But as I said above, more than enough evidence has been reveal to find the one true God ( we are getting there ) This multitude of world religions actually makes the case for one true God and that the rest are false. It’s also baked into the cake, their existence, it’s internally consistent within the paradigm. I will explain later.

Well, not quite. The bloody glove was evidence. It was just interpreted differently by different people; the evidence itself stayed the same.[/QUOTE]

Agree.

For example, even if we figure out how abiogenesis happened (say we prove the clay substrate/RNA-world hypothesis) then religious folks may claim "yes that's evidence - but it proves that God is trying to test our faith by having life created by a natural process!" Same evidence; different interpretation.

Good point, but hypothetical. We would have to prove how abiogenesis happens, repeatedly - if we did, this would be a devastating blow to theists imo. It could be explained away by theists, but I think they would grasping at straws at that point. Have we proven undirected, non-supernatural abiogenesis? To my knowledge, no. We have theories, but not proof. What can change none- life into life; and not just life but a vast array of highly complex intertwined life on a scale unimaginable. At some point point, we have to say, really?

 

[BlueSky]

You cite staggering odds against the spontaneous emergence of organic life.

I can provide a very knowledgeable presentation on the staggering odds in favor of chemical evolution of living bio-organisms on earth.

Earth has performed two trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion spontaneous chemical experimets during its lifetime.

That evens the odds a little and provides a different POV than the observation that it requires "intelligent design" to create the universal constants which allow for spontaneous evolution of bio-chemicals, which then formed ever greater complexity, until the human pattern emerged and here we are.

IMO, this is an important and enlightning presentation by an expert in the field.
Start the presentation at 25:10 to avoid a lengthy introduction.

You asked for it. Please trust my discretion to provide you with a clear and interesting lecture on the subject.

Note; this lecture does not attempt to disprove a creator. It merely explains the probability of spontaneous emergence of life as a purely natural phenomenon.

The main point, IMO, is that chemicals react spontaneously with each other and do not need a motivated (divine) "designer/builder"

Ask this question: If life is so incredibly rare, why is there such a great variety of species ?

The odds would be equally rare for all species that have ever existed to have emerged, no?
Millions of species, each with incredible odds against their emergence at different times in the history of the universe.......

Thank you for the information. I have to go to dinner at the in-laws this evening, and I have to work a 12 hr day-shift tomorrow and thursday. I will be back tonight and will start watching the video. It may take me a few days to finish and think about it. I will get back to you. Cheers Write4U

 

[Write4U]

I agree, I would love to see some bolt of lightening, or sea split in to, or some unexplainable miracle, but it’s not necessarily a necessity for me anymore, I’ve seen enough to know.

But therein rests the unsupported presumption of a motivated creator being and it is one of ignorance (lack of knowledge). This is how gods were born!!

Thor is one of the oldest gods and represented the divine nature of thunder and lightning. Today we call it a weather-front.....and Thor is no more. I suspect this has been and will be the case in the future were all gods will fall before (scientific) knowledge of how the universe emerged and spontaneously evolved into the patterns we see today.

However, as a philosophy I can certainly identify with and appreciate the secular wisdom and moral teachings of "wise men" throughout history.

p.s. Check out this term; "Quorum Sensing", this is a bacterial mode of "communicating" and "information sharing" at the cellular level.
A dynamic proto-intelligent function at its most fundamental level......

 

[BlueSky]

The problem with that is that people who believe in absolute truth tend to think that they KNOW the absolute truth. It's the people who DON'T believe in absolute truth who are more likely to keep looking.

Well, I don’t propose to know it, I believe I have found it. Subtle difference. I do believe it with all my heart tho, but not without reasons. . I have stopped looking, essentially, as I am pretty sure I have found it, but I try to keep an open mind to deeper possibities.

 

[BlueSky]

But therein rests the unsupported presumption of a motivated creator being and it is one of ignorance (lack of knowledge). This is how gods were born!!

Possibly. But there is another way to perhaps see it. Men “invent” god’s because we know instinctively, deep down, there is one. Sure, with lack of knowledge and rebellion we make many different gods in ignorance. It’s possible anyway. It’s consistent if he is there.

Thor is one of the oldest gods and represented the divine nature of thunder and lightning. Today we call it a weather-front.....and Thor is no more. I suspect this has been and will be the case in the future were all gods will fall before (scientific) knowledge of how the universe emerged and spontaneously evolved into the patterns we see today.

Also possible. However the Hebrew God has stood the test of time so far...

However, as a philosophy I can certainly identify with and appreciate the secular wisdom and moral teachings of "wise men" throughout history.

Me too

p.s. Check out this term; "Quorum Sensing", this is a bacterial mode of "communicating" and "information sharing" at the cellular level.
A dynamic proto-intelligent function at its most fundamental level......

Ok I will, I've heard of this. Just a observation on this, off the top of my head...this is an excellent evidence for intelligence behind the cell. God could have easily ‘set this in motion’ like a well oiled machine....this is consistent. He definitely made a self running/maintaining system. No need to check ones brain at door when investigating his creation. .

 

[Write4U]

Also possible. However the Hebrew God has stood the test of time so far...

Because , unlike other Gods, the Hebrew God is an unlimited, but undefined and undefinable power, and therefore unfalsifiable.

 

[gmilam]

Question is, do we need to happen to each person in all ages in order for us to beleive it?

Yes

Can not the story of it suffice?

No - we have stories of a talking donkey too, but do you really believe it?

 

[BlueSky]

Because , unlike other Gods, the Hebrew God is an unlimited, but undefined and undefinable power, and therefore unfalsifiable.

Agree! Which kind of makes Him stand out a tad among the others. But through scripture, He is defined to a degree, but his power is presented as quite unfathomable, I concur.

We can know quite a bit about Him actually from scripture, ( whether what is says is true or not is another issue. )

My wife is giving me the “stink eye stare” as I chat during our visit. LOL.

Could you explain this unfalsifiable issue for me ? Just curious.

 

[BlueSky]

Yes

I agree. That would be nice, yet terrifying at the same time. What would you do with such a sign? I wanted a sign when I first believed. I got it. Blew my mind, and then the “signs” never stopped coming. Speaking with many believers over the years, they agree, He will speak to you. But now I have learned to not ask, as it’s just to overwhelming and a moot point, seen too much.

No - we have stories of a talking donkey too, but do you really believe it?

Yes, I believe that a donkey could talk or made to talk. Before you jump to “ridiculous”, have you seen the vast array of animals that seems to be able to communicate with us or those who mimic us? Parrots come to mind. Pretty neat study. If God was actually there, one with complete control over the creation, it’s conceivable that animals could be “made to talk” from His end. They clearly can today, can albeit very superficial.

 

[Write4U]

Could you explain this unfalsifiable issue for me ? Just curious.

OK, the definition;

Falsifiability is the ability of a theory — a working framework for explaining and predicting natural phenomena — to have its falsity demonstrated by overwhelming evidence through experiments or observations.[2]

The ability to evaluate theories against observations is essential to the scientific method, and as such, the falsifiability of theories is key to this and is the prime test for whether a proposition or theory can be described as scientific. Put simply, if a theory cannot be falsified, there is no point in even examining the evidence.

The concept was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper. He saw falsifiability as the logical part and the cornerstone of his scientific epistemology, which sets the limits of scientific inquiry. He proposed that statements and theories that are not falsifiable are unscientific. Declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientific would then be pseudoscience

And here is an example of an unfalsifiable property of a God.

The idea that a genuinely scientific claim must be falsifiable had already been given currency by Karl Popper. Flew’s aim was to apply it to a critique of such theological claims as the thesis that God loves us. No matter what sorts of evil and suffering occur in the world, the theologian does not give up the claim that God loves us.

But then, what, in that case, does the claim actually amount to? And why should we accept the claim?

Seems to me that to resolve the apparent contradiction we invented an evil unloving metaphysical adversary to God, the Devil. Any other cruel acts of God were assigned the wrath of God due to the misbehavior of humans.
Personally I see no reason for accepting responsibility for any of Gods actions.

Flew’s challenge was to get the theologian to specify exactly what would have to happen in order for the theologian to give up the claim that God loves us, or the claim that God exists.

https://strangenotions.com/do-theological-claims-need-to-be-falsifiable/

 

[billvon]

Excellent post billvon. I agree, this is a good assumption, but perhaps slightly too presumptious. What we do see is structures all over the world ( in all ages ) being built by the ancients in dedication to some “god(s)”.

Absolutely - which is proof that people's BELIEF in God is strong. But we see a an awful lot of structures dedicated to fictional characters as well. (Think about all the structures dedicated to Mickey Mouse or Ronald McDonald, for example.) That's because people like the idea of the character - it is not proof that the character exists in the real world.

But all of this has happened

Well, specifically, the Bible claimed all this has happened. But keep in mind that the Bible was written to try to support an (at that time) struggling religion. They weren't going to put anything in there that did NOT support the idea that the Christian God was the only real God. We see similar claims in the Koran and in the Vedas to support their god(s) - and there's no objective reason to believe that any of them are any more correct or less correct than Biblical accounts.

I am reminded of a song by Dire Straits, about someone watching the goings-on at Speaker's Corner in London - "Two men say they're Jesus - one of them must be wrong."

Also keep in mind that even devout Christians support the Bible very selectively. Almost no one, for example, believes that the laws in Leviticus should be enforced. They are 'for another time' or 'are historical, not real' or 'more figurative than literal.' That gets applied to all the stuff I mentioned (God stopping the rotation of the Earth for an hour to help out someone in a battle, for example.)

I don’t think he is trying to trick us

If the Bible is to be taken literally, he buried all those fossils to trick us. He messed with the radiocarbon dating of Earth's rocks to trick us. He put cosmic microwave background radiation out there to trick us. Etc etc.

And again, you can say "well, those parts of the Bible, like Genesis, are more figurative than literal, therefore he's not trying to trick us" - which is fine. But that "figurative-izes" those miracles in the Bible, too.

I think tho, we are expecting something that he not willing to do- for good reason. Imagine for a second your wife kept demanding that you “prove” your love for her. She did have pleanty of actions that did, but you wanted more and more and more. How would this marriage fair in the long run, probably not to good.

Probably true.

But take the opposite case.
Man: "I love you and want to live with you forever. You'll have the kids."
Woman: "OK great! Let's get married."
M: "Too much commitment. And we don't need a piece of paper to prove our love."
W: "OK how about an engagement ring?"
M: "Too much money; I don't need to prove anything."
W: "Will we move into a house from my apartment?"
M: "Maybe, if you buy me a house."
W: "Will you stop drinking with your friends every night?"
M: "No reason for me to change that. Why would I change?"

At some point that's not going to work, either. If a man is willing do to exactly nothing to prove his commitment, that's a huge warning sign.

And keep in mind that God has done nothing that's a clearly divine miracle. It's not that he only does a few things. From the perspective of science, nothing that has been claimed as a miracle (for example, the Giant's Causeway or eclipses or the Aurora Borealis) needed God to have happen.

Jumping ahead here, He has done lots, including raising the dead, but somehow people still do not believe.

A friend of mine, an ER doctor, has done the same. She's not a god.

Should every person who has ever lived be given an individual “sign” of his presence?

I don't think so. Maybe just a few big ones. The Vatican burns to the ground due to a lightning strike, and then two days later is restored without a sign of damage? That would be a pretty good sign and would be very hard to explain away. People can still choose to believe or not, but that would go a long way towards having solid evidence for God.

Good point, but hypothetical. We would have to prove how abiogenesis happens, repeatedly - if we did, this would be a devastating blow to theists imo. It could be explained away by theists, but I think they would grasping at straws at that point. Have we proven undirected, non-supernatural abiogenesis? To my knowledge, no. We have theories, but not proof.

Agreed. But we have some good evidence that it _can_ happen. We have created simple self-replicating molecules in the lab, that continue to replicate as long as they have 'food' (building blocks.) So we no longer have to demonstrate that complex life could evolve - we just have to demonstrate that simple organic molecules (such as those produced by the Miller-Urey experiment) can self-organize into one of those simple self-replicating molecules. And we can point to how life began.

 

[BlueSky]

One main issue I have with “science” ( loosely defined ) is that unless there is demonstrable, concrete/repeatable experiences, it can’t be truth. I can agree with the general premise here, but it cuts short potential possibities.

Why rule out the supernatural? I mean, if it exists, it does and by definition, it breaks the natural order. Just because we can’t grasp it entirely, does not negate its reality necessarily. It could.

Can science prove love? We know it exists, but can you measure it scientifically ? How?

 

[BlueSky]

Absolutely - which is proof that people's BELIEF in God is strong. But we see a an awful lot of structures dedicated to fictional characters as well. (Think about all the structures dedicated to Mickey Mouse or Ronald McDonald, for example.) That's because people like the idea of the character - it is not proof that the character exists in the real world.

Well, specifically, the Bible claimed all this has happened. But keep in mind that the Bible was written to try to support an (at that time) struggling religion. They weren't going to put anything in there that did NOT support the idea that the Christian God was the only real God. We see similar claims in the Koran and in the Vedas to support their god(s) - and there's no objective reason to believe that any of them are any more correct or less correct than Biblical accounts.

I am reminded of a song by Dire Straits, about someone watching the goings-on at Speaker's Corner in London - "Two men say they're Jesus - one of them must be wrong."

Also keep in mind that even devout Christians support the Bible very selectively. Almost no one, for example, believes that the laws in Leviticus should be enforced. They are 'for another time' or 'are historical, not real' or 'more figurative than literal.' That gets applied to all the stuff I mentioned (God stopping the rotation of the Earth for an hour to help out someone in a battle, for example.)

If the Bible is to be taken literally, he buried all those fossils to trick us. He messed with the radiocarbon dating of Earth's rocks to trick us. He put cosmic microwave background radiation out there to trick us. Etc etc.

And again, you can say "well, those parts of the Bible, like Genesis, are more figurative than literal, therefore he's not trying to trick us" - which is fine. But that "figurative-izes" those miracles in the Bible, too.


Probably true.

But take the opposite case.
Man: "I love you and want to live with you forever. You'll have the kids."
Woman: "OK great! Let's get married."
M: "Too much commitment. And we don't need a piece of paper to prove our love."
W: "OK how about an engagement ring?"
M: "Too much money; I don't need to prove anything."
W: "Will we move into a house from my apartment?"
M: "Maybe, if you buy me a house."
W: "Will you stop drinking with your friends every night?"
M: "No reason for me to change that. Why would I change?"

At some point that's not going to work, either. If a man is willing do to exactly nothing to prove his commitment, that's a huge warning sign.

And keep in mind that God has done nothing that's a clearly divine miracle. It's not that he only does a few things. From the perspective of science, nothing that has been claimed as a miracle (for example, the Giant's Causeway or eclipses or the Aurora Borealis) needed God to have happen.


A friend of mine, an ER doctor, has done the same. She's not a god.

I don't think so. Maybe just a few big ones. The Vatican burns to the ground due to a lightning strike, and then two days later is restored without a sign of damage? That would be a pretty good sign and would be very hard to explain away. People can still choose to believe or not, but that would go a long way towards having solid evidence for God.

Agreed. But we have some good evidence that it _can_ happen. We have created simple self-replicating molecules in the lab, that continue to replicate as long as they have 'food' (building blocks.) So we no longer have to demonstrate that complex life could evolve - we just have to demonstrate that simple organic molecules (such as those produced by the Miller-Urey experiment) can self-organize into one of those simple self-replicating molecules. And we can point to how life began.

Brilliant post. Back soon. Supper has hit the table.

 

[Write4U]

One main issue I have with “science” ( loosely defined ) is that unless there is demonstrable, concrete/repeatable experiences, it can’t be truth. I can agree with the general premise here, but it cuts short potential possibities.

Actually it reinforces the premise that what we do accept as true is demonstrably and consistently true.
This is the very foundation of the "scientific method".

Why rule out the supernatural? I mean, if it exists, it does and by definition, it breaks the natural order. Just because we can’t grasp it entirely, does not negate its reality necessarily. It could.

Why accept the supernatural when it does not advance knowledge, but only belief?

Can science prove love? We know it exists, but can you measure it scientifically ? How?

We can see the specific electro/chemical brain functions which manifest when a person is experiencing love. We can make people feel good (experience well-being) merely by electrical brain stimulation.

If our "brain was in a vat", the individual within the brain might easily be fooled in experiencing "walking in the rain". It is the brain which allows us to experience abstract emotions, caused by real electro/chemical interactions within the brain.

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

Nothing metaphysical or spiritual about the physical (electro/chemical) actions and interactions.

 

[billvon]

One main issue I have with “science” ( loosely defined ) is that unless there is demonstrable, concrete/repeatable experiences, it can’t be truth.

Well, no. It can't be _science._ It can be truth. "We hold these truths to be self evident - that all men are created equal." That's not demonstrable or repeatable.

Why rule out the supernatural? I mean, if it exists, it does and by definition, it breaks the natural order.

Because "supernatural" means "not explainable by science." But so far, everything has been - either explicitly explainable, or fits within a scientific framework of possibility.

Again, just a single example would be enough to make a very strong statement that God exists. We just haven't seen one yet.

Can science prove love? We know it exists, but can you measure it scientifically ? How?

By measuring people's behavior who are in love. By seeing what brain activity happens when they feel it. By seeing what chemical messengers are involved. By seeing how it affects people's actions.

If you want more info on this, I recommend the book "Moral Tribes" by Joshua Green. It explains the science behind not just love, but many of the behaviors that make people able to live in a society (and how those behaviors get us into trouble when society gets larger.)

 

[Michael 345]

Somebody should look up the definition of the word exist

Love does not exist

It is a CONCEPT with no physicality or detectability