Why is God invisible to me?

[DBowling]

DB,
you don't give any good reasons why I shouldn't regard the Irreducible Complexity Theory (IC) as pseudo science as it is commonly regarded.

Commonly regarded...
... by those who happen to disagree with it and have no evidence to rebut it.

Calling Irreducible Complexity (or Intelligent Design) "pseudo science" is nothing more than name calling (or in some cases circular logic).
And if name calling is all people can bring to the table to rebut Behe, then that is just a sign of a weak and groundless argument.

If you want to rebut Irreducible Complexity then back your argument with empirical data instead of name calling.
Take some of the irreducibly complex biological mechanisms that Behe and other scientists have identified and demonstrate how a series of beneficial, functional, selectable single step mutations is capable of producing an irreducibly complex biological mechanism.
If Irreducible Complexity is really as bogus as you assert, then you should be able to back up your assertions with empirical data.

But... no one has been able to do that.
Because it is impossible for a series of beneficial, functional, selectable single step mutations to produce an irreducibly complex biological mechanism, such as the Bacterial Flagellum.
Empirical, observable, testable Science is on the side of Behe, so all that Behe's detractors can do is resort to name calling.

Behe and other scientists like Behe base their theories on observed empirical data.
Behe's detractors are left with name calling and unverified speculation.

[Nils]

DB,
As I said in my last post we can discuss IC in the new thread Can Mutation Invent. You didn't comment on the subject of the current thread. I try to restate my original question:

If we leave the question of the truth of IC for a moment and look at my situation. Assume that I don't have any other sources of information about biology but the Wikipedia (like many persons). Will I think that IC is true or not? On one hand I have the 20+ pages on evolution theory with very little discussions about the possibility of the theory being wrong. On the other hand I have a few pages on IC that are very negative to IC. This isn't good evidence to me that God has intervened in the creation as IC states, evidence that he exists. Why didn't God make his existence more clear to me?

[Philip]

Nils: Why didn't God make his existence more clear to me?

Because, according to Scripture, God asserts His existence to already be abundantly obvious to all who sincerely want to know. AND He says the determined unbeliever has willfully blinded himself by suppressing the truth about Him. A heart and mind closed off to God will not be able to discern Him. And so, He will provide enough knowledge leading to Himself each individual TRULY needs (and He knows precisely what that truly includes, and it will be different from person to person) - but He will NOT simply provide whatever it is that they insist upon and demand - because He knows such people don't truly have a knowledge deficit, but instead a problem of a mind and heart that has closed themselves to Him. BTW, a lot of people DO believe in God's existence that nonetheless have also closed themselves off to Him.

[DBowling]

This isn't good evidence to me that God has intervened in the creation as IC states, evidence that he exists. Why didn't God make his existence more clear to me?

Your question is actually two separate questions...

1. Has God made evidence of his existence clear to mankind?
The answer is yes he has...
We've discussed the quantity of evidence in nature in this thread
And we've discussed the quality of the evidence in this thread.

The quality and quantity of evidence has been sufficient to convince over 90% of the human population from many different cultures and belief structures, (including a significant percentage of scientists) that some sort of god exists.

So God has presented enough evidence to mankind in general to convince over 90% of them that some sort of god exists.
So God has done his part.

2. The second part of the question is... why isn't this evidence clear to you?
The answer is very simple...
You are a being with genuine freedom of choice.
You (and every other person for that matter) can choose to accept the evidence that God has given to mankind, or you can reject the evidence that God has given to mankind.
God has put the evidence out there for everyone to see, but he is not going to take away your ability to choose to accept or reject that evidence.

I am happy to continue presenting the scientific evidence that God has made available to people everywhere.
But I am not Nils, so I am unable to make choices for you. Only you can do that. I can only point you to the evidence that is out there. What you do with that evidence is your choice.


That said here a link to a discussion of...
The Top Six Lines of Evidence for Intelligent Design
https://www.discovery.org/a/sixfold-evi ... nt-design/

The six lines of evidence discussed in this article are:
1. The Origin of the Universe
2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
3. The Origin of Information in DNA and the Origin of Life
4. The Origin of Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
5. The Origin of Animals
6. The Origin of Humans

[Nils]

Nils: Why didn't God make his existence more clear to me?

Because, according to Scripture, God asserts His existence to already be abundantly obvious to all who sincerely want to know. AND He says the determined unbeliever has willfully blinded himself by suppressing the truth about Him. A heart and mind closed off to God will not be able to discern Him. And so, He will provide enough knowledge leading to Himself each individual TRULY needs (and He knows precisely what that truly includes, and it will be different from person to person) - but He will NOT simply provide whatever it is that they insist upon and demand - because He knows such people don't truly have a knowledge deficit, but instead a problem of a mind and heart that has closed themselves to Him. BTW, a lot of people DO believe in God's existence that nonetheless have also closed themselves off to Him.

It's a pity that you didn't comment my post #60. It might have made something more clear to me.

The current post just makes me confused. What does "sincerely" mean in this context? Do you have to desire to be sincere? That seems to demanding. Then most persons that discuss these matters are sincere. And what does it mean to have "a problem of a mind and heart that has closed themselves off to Him". I have no idea how I could close myself or if I have a problem with my mind and heart. I have never noticed that in other contexts. To me it just seems that you shift the burden of making me understand or find evidence from God to me. I can't do more than use my mind that works fairly well in most other cases but apparently that isn't enough.

[Nils]

This isn't good evidence to me that God has intervened in the creation as IC states, evidence that he exists. Why didn't God make his existence more clear to me?

Your question is actually two separate questions...

1. Has God made evidence of his existence clear to mankind?
The answer is yes he has...
We've discussed the quantity of evidence in nature in this thread
And we've discussed the quality of the evidence in this thread.

The quality and quantity of evidence has been sufficient to convince over 90% of the human population from many different cultures and belief structures, (including a significant percentage of scientists) that some sort of god exists.

So God has presented enough evidence to mankind in general to convince over 90% of them that some sort of god exists.
So God has done his part.

2. The second part of the question is... why isn't this evidence clear to you?
The answer is very simple...
You are a being with genuine freedom of choice.
You (and every other person for that matter) can choose to accept the evidence that God has given to mankind, or you can reject the evidence that God has given to mankind.
God has put the evidence out there for everyone to see, but he is not going to take away your ability to choose to accept or reject that evidence.

I am happy to continue presenting the scientific evidence that God has made available to people everywhere.
But I am not Nils, so I am unable to make choices for you. Only you can do that. I can only point you to the evidence that is out there. What you do with that evidence is your choice.


That said here a link to a discussion of...
The Top Six Lines of Evidence for Intelligent Design
https://www.discovery.org/a/sixfold-evi ... nt-design/

The six lines of evidence discussed in this article are:
1. The Origin of the Universe
2. The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
3. The Origin of Information in DNA and the Origin of Life
4. The Origin of Irreducibly Complex Molecular Machines
5. The Origin of Animals
6. The Origin of Humans

You commented my post #62 but you apparently didn't notice what I said. If we talk about evolution and if I use Wikipedia as a source there is no evidence. In other areas I don't find any evidences either (regarding Jesus' death on the cross, I will be back later).

I understand that you refer to The Discovery Institute all the time because they have a view you like but to me it's just a small lobbying group with a special agenda.

[DBowling]

I understand that you refer to The Discovery Institute all the time because they have a view you like but to me it's just a small lobbying group with a special agenda.

If you truly believe that propaganda about the Discovery Institute, then that speaks volumes about why you are unable to see evidence that is obvious to 90% of the humans on the planet including a significant percentage of scientists.

[Nils]

I understand that you refer to The Discovery Institute all the time because they have a view you like but to me it's just a small lobbying group with a special agenda.

If you truly believe that propaganda about the Discovery Institute, then that speaks volumes about why you are unable to see evidence that is obvious to 90% of the humans on the planet including a significant percentage of scientists.

What's wrong in my description of Discovery Institute? They haven't even published more than a few (at most) peer reviewed scientific articles. Only few of those perhaps 90% know anything about the Evolution Theory. They have other reasons, mostly their parents belief. In biology, there isn't a significant percentage of scientists and they are the experts.

But all this isn't important to my original question. A question that you ignore. Or to be more specific: How comes that God doesn't show that, for instance, Wikipedia (on evolution) is wrong ?

[DBowling]

I understand that you refer to The Discovery Institute all the time because they have a view you like but to me it's just a small lobbying group with a special agenda.

If you truly believe that propaganda about the Discovery Institute, then that speaks volumes about why you are unable to see evidence that is obvious to 90% of the humans on the planet including a significant percentage of scientists.

What's wrong in my description of Discovery Institute? They haven't even published more than a few (at most) peer reviewed scientific articles. Only few of those perhaps 90% know anything about the Evolution Theory. They have other reasons, mostly their parents belief. In biology, there isn't a significant percentage of scientists and they are the experts.

Your characterization of the Discovery Institute, and your description of ID as "pseudoscience" is consistent with the talking points of anti-ID detractors who are more interested in ignoring and dismissing the empirical scientific evidence supporting ID than rebutting it with actual empirical evidence.

But all this isn't important to my original question.

Agreed... name calling and mischaracterizations are irrelevant compared to the science and empirical evidence.

A question that you ignore. Or to be more specific: How comes that God doesn't show that, for instance, Wikipedia (on evolution) is wrong ?

You need to be a tad more specific.
I actually agree with a lot of what Wikipedia says about evolution.
In fact I am unaware of any area where I disagree with those portions of the Wikipedia article that are supported by empirical evidence.
However, I have no problem disagreeing with any presumptions or speculations that are not supported by empirical evidence.

I agree that Darwinistic evolution (random mutation/natural selection) is a scientific fact.
We have observed Darwinistic evolution in nature and in the lab (I have given specific examples in this thread)
And, as Behe discusses at length in his papers, articles, and books, we know the observed scope and rate of random mutation and natural selection in nature and in the lab.

My disagreement is not with evolutionary science. My disagreement is with the unverified presumption that random mutation and natural selection alone are capable of generating either the information that we see in the DNA of life today, or the changes that we see in the fossil record.
As Behe points out, the observed rate and scope of evolution in nature and in the lab shows that random mutation and natural selection alone just can't get the job done.

Wikipedia simply does not provide any empirical data to rebut Behe's analysis of the empirically observed scope and rate of evolution in the real world.

[Nils]

I understand that you refer to The Discovery Institute all the time because they have a view you like but to me it's just a small lobbying group with a special agenda.

If you truly believe that propaganda about the Discovery Institute, then that speaks volumes about why you are unable to see evidence that is obvious to 90% of the humans on the planet including a significant percentage of scientists.

What's wrong in my description of Discovery Institute? They haven't even published more than a few (at most) peer reviewed scientific articles. Only few of those perhaps 90% know anything about the Evolution Theory. They have other reasons, mostly their parents belief. In biology, there isn't a significant percentage of scientists and they are the experts.

Your characterization of the Discovery Institute, and your description of ID as "pseudoscience" is consistent with the talking points of anti-ID detractors who are more interested in ignoring and dismissing the empirical scientific evidence supporting ID than rebutting it with actual empirical evidence.

I asked what in my characterization of DI is wrong but you didn't answer. Then you ask for rebuttal of ID. This is interesting because that shows that you don't understand one of the main critiques of ID, it's not possible to rebut. It is unfalsifiable and therefore is psudo-science. The main ID thesis is that some features aren't possible to get without interference of a God. Who can falsify such a proposition at the current state of knowledge in genetics.

But all this isn't important to my original question.

Agreed... name calling and mischaracterizations are irrelevant compared to the science and empirical evidence.

A question that you ignore. Or to be more specific: How comes that God doesn't show that, for instance, Wikipedia (on evolution) is wrong ?

You need to be a tad more specific.
I actually agree with a lot of what Wikipedia says about evolution.
In fact I am unaware of any area where I disagree with those portions of the Wikipedia article that are supported by empirical evidence.
However, I have no problem disagreeing with any presumptions or speculations that are not supported by empirical evidence.

I agree that Darwinistic evolution (random mutation/natural selection) is a scientific fact.
We have observed Darwinistic evolution in nature and in the lab (I have given specific examples in this thread)
And, as Behe discusses at length in his papers, articles, and books, we know the observed scope and rate of random mutation and natural selection in nature and in the lab.

My disagreement is not with evolutionary science. My disagreement is with the unverified presumption that random mutation and natural selection alone are capable of generating either the information that we see in the DNA of life today, or the changes that we see in the fossil record.
As Behe points out, the observed rate and scope of evolution in nature and in the lab shows that random mutation and natural selection alone just can't get the job done.

Wikipedia simply does not provide any empirical data to rebut Behe's analysis of the empirically observed scope and rate of evolution in the real world.

I can't se that you answered the question ("that you ignore") either. What is important for this question is what Wikipedia writes if I don't have another information available, not the truth of what they write. They write that ID is pseudo-science. If the ID-theory is correct, why didn't God influence Wikipedia so that I instead got the impression that ID is correct. How could I value evidence correctly not having the correct knowledge?

[DBowling]

The main ID thesis is that some features aren't possible to get without interference of a God. Who can falsify such a proposition at the current state of knowledge in genetics.

Bingo!

The current state of genetics can't falsify the proposition, because the current state of genetics actually supports the proposition that complex ordered information has been infused into our biosphere.
And the only known source of that level of complex ordered information is intelligence.

What is important for this question is what Wikipedia writes if I don't have another information available, not the truth of what they write.
They write that ID is pseudo-science. If the ID-theory is correct, why didn't God influence Wikipedia so that I instead got the impression that ID is correct. How could I value evidence correctly not having the correct knowledge?

Wikipedia is the product of imperfect humans, not the divinely inspired word of God.
So Wikipedia reflects the knowledge, accuracy, and biases of its human contributors.

What Wikipedia (or anyone else) says about ID is irrelevant.
What is very relevant is how do the claims of ID line up with science, observable empirical evidence, and the real world.

And the good news for you is that even though Wikipedia drops the ball on ID, at this site you have been exposed to a number of resources that do in fact explore the many scientific evidences (from biology, astronomy, physics, etc) that all point to an intelligent creator.
So you are not limited to the accuracy and biases of the Wikipedia contributors.

[Philip]

DB: And the good news for you is that even though Wikipedia drops the ball on ID, at this site you have been exposed to a number of resources that do in fact explore the many scientific evidences (from biology, astronomy, physics, etc) that all point to an intelligent creator. So you are not limited to the accuracy and biases of the Wikipedia contributors.

Absolutely!

[Nils]

The main ID thesis is that some features aren't possible to get without interference of a God. Who can falsify such a proposition at the current state of knowledge in genetics.

Bingo!

The current state of genetics can't falsify the proposition, because the current state of genetics actually supports the proposition that complex ordered information has been infused into our biosphere.

Now you restate the ID-theory to an even stronger statement. Without any support

And the only known source of that level of complex ordered information is intelligence.

This is called Fact resistance. I told you before that there are industrial computer applications of genetic algorithms to get complex information. I personally know a person that use them. You can also read about them on the net.

What is important for this question is what Wikipedia writes if I don't have another information available, not the truth of what they write.
They write that ID is pseudo-science. If the ID-theory is correct, why didn't God influence Wikipedia so that I instead got the impression that ID is correct. How could I value evidence correctly not having the correct knowledge?

Wikipedia is the product of imperfect humans, not the divinely inspired word of God.
So Wikipedia reflects the knowledge, accuracy, and biases of its human contributors.

What Wikipedia (or anyone else) says about ID is irrelevant.
What is very relevant is how do the claims of ID line up with science, observable empirical evidence, and the real world.

Yes, and that is in accordance with what Wikipedia says and most expert scientists.

I'm not sure that you understand my question in the OP. It's not about the truth of the evidence that seems most trustworthy to me, it's about which evidence that seems trustworthy.

To be able to continue this discussion it's important that you acknowledge that you understand this.

And the good news for you is that even though Wikipedia drops the ball on ID, at this site you have been exposed to a number of resources that do in fact explore the many scientific evidences (from biology, astronomy, physics, etc) that all point to an intelligent creator.
So you are not limited to the accuracy and biases of the Wikipedia contributors.

But the source of these "evidences" comes mostly from Digital Research, which I really don't trust.
(Why do you never answer my question, that I have repeated several times in my last posts, regarding DR)

[DBowling]

The main ID thesis is that some features aren't possible to get without interference of a God. Who can falsify such a proposition at the current state of knowledge in genetics.

Bingo!

The current state of genetics can't falsify the proposition, because the current state of genetics actually supports the proposition that complex ordered information has been infused into our biosphere.

Now you restate the ID-theory to an even stronger statement. Without any support

How about support from my buddy Nils?
"Certainly, there is more information in current DNA then for one billion years ago"

And the only known source of that level of complex ordered information is intelligence.

I told you before that there are industrial computer applications of genetic algorithms to get complex information. I personally know a person that use them. You can also read about them on the net.

And the source of those industrial computer applications is what?
Yup... An intelligent programmer

I'm unaware of any example of functional operational computer code that was generated by anything other than an intelligent programmer or program.

What is important for this question is what Wikipedia writes if I don't have another information available, not the truth of what they write.
They write that ID is pseudo-science. If the ID-theory is correct, why didn't God influence Wikipedia so that I instead got the impression that ID is correct. How could I value evidence correctly not having the correct knowledge?

Wikipedia is the product of imperfect humans, not the divinely inspired word of God.
So Wikipedia reflects the knowledge, accuracy, and biases of its human contributors.

What Wikipedia (or anyone else) says about ID is irrelevant.
What is very relevant is how do the claims of ID line up with science, observable empirical evidence, and the real world.

Yes, and that is in accordance with what Wikipedia says and most expert scientists.

Which is why Behe's work is so important.
Behe's work is based on the empirically observed behavior of the rate and scope of evolution in the real world.

If you have empirically observed data regarding the rate and scope of evolution in the real world that is inconsistent with Behe's work, then please share it.

I'm not sure that you understand my question in the OP. It's not about the truth of the evidence that seems most trustworthy to me, it's about which evidence that seems trustworthy.

And I believe I have addressed that directly... multiple times.

I have presented two basic arguments regarding the trustworthiness of different evidences.
1. Which evidences are based on observed empirical data.
2. Which evidences are apparent to over 90% of humans on the planet

I consider evidences that are based on observed empirical data and are apparent to over 90% of humanity to be "trustworthy" evidences.
And these are the evidences that I have focused on in this thread.

And the good news for you is that even though Wikipedia drops the ball on ID, at this site you have been exposed to a number of resources that do in fact explore the many scientific evidences (from biology, astronomy, physics, etc) that all point to an intelligent creator.
So you are not limited to the accuracy and biases of the Wikipedia contributors.

But the source of these "evidences" comes mostly from Digital Research, which I really don't trust.
(Why do you never answer my question, that I have repeated several times in my last posts, regarding DR)

Digital Research?
I'm not sure what you are referring to there.
Do you mean Discovery Institute?

Regarding Discovery Institute, I agree with your observation that...
"all this isn't important to my original question."

These scientific evidences are not unique to the Discovery Institute. So I am more interested in addressing the evidences and science that directly relate to the OP than debating the accuracy of statements people make about Discovery Institute which, as you note, are irrelevant to your original question.

[Nils]

The main ID thesis is that some features aren't possible to get without interference of a God. Who can falsify such a proposition at the current state of knowledge in genetics.

Bingo!

The current state of genetics can't falsify the proposition, because the current state of genetics actually supports the proposition that complex ordered information has been infused into our biosphere.

Now you restate the ID-theory to an even stronger statement. Without any support

How about support from my buddy Nils?
"Certainly, there is more information in current DNA then for one billion years ago"

Is this the way you cite !?
My whole paragraph was: "This only shows that you don't understand the evolution theory. Certainly, there is more information in current DNA then for one billion years ago, but it is NOT infused by any God. The information comes from the environment." #31

And the only known source of that level of complex ordered information is intelligence.

I told you before that there are industrial computer applications of genetic algorithms to get complex information. I personally know a person that use them. You can also read about them on the net.

And the source of those industrial computer applications is what?
Yup... An intelligent programmer

I'm unaware of any example of functional operational computer code that was generated by anything other than an intelligent programmer or program.

Certainly, but I didn't talk about writing computer code. I was talking about what some algorithms/code can do, namely create new designs. A well proven fact.

What is important for this question is what Wikipedia writes if I don't have another information available, not the truth of what they write.
They write that ID is pseudo-science. If the ID-theory is correct, why didn't God influence Wikipedia so that I instead got the impression that ID is correct. How could I value evidence correctly not having the correct knowledge?

Wikipedia is the product of imperfect humans, not the divinely inspired word of God.
So Wikipedia reflects the knowledge, accuracy, and biases of its human contributors.

What Wikipedia (or anyone else) says about ID is irrelevant.
What is very relevant is how do the claims of ID line up with science, observable empirical evidence, and the real world.

Yes, and that is in accordance with what Wikipedia says and most expert scientists.

Which is why Behe's work is so important.
Behe's work is based on the empirically observed behavior of the rate and scope of evolution in the real world.

Yes, he has done some experiments and analyzed some reports (evidence). The problem is that his conclusions aren't motivated by the evidence. I said this before but you haven't responded.

If you have empirically observed data regarding the rate and scope of evolution in the real world that is inconsistent with Behe's work, then please share it.

I'm not sure that you understand my question in the OP. It's not about the truth of the evidence that seems most trustworthy to me, it's about which evidence that seems trustworthy.

And I believe I have addressed that directly... multiple times.

I have presented two basic arguments regarding the trustworthiness of different evidences.
1. Which evidences are based on observed empirical data.
2. Which evidences are apparent to over 90% of humans on the planet

I consider evidences that are based on observed empirical data and are apparent to over 90% of humanity to be "trustworthy" evidences.
And these are the evidences that I have focused on in this thread.

And the good news for you is that even though Wikipedia drops the ball on ID, at this site you have been exposed to a number of resources that do in fact explore the many scientific evidences (from biology, astronomy, physics, etc) that all point to an intelligent creator.
So you are not limited to the accuracy and biases of the Wikipedia contributors.

But the source of these "evidences" comes mostly from Digital Research, which I really don't trust.
(Why do you never answer my question, that I have repeated several times in my last posts, regarding DR)

Digital Research?
I'm not sure what you are referring to there.
Do you mean Discovery Institute?

Regarding Discovery Institute, I agree with your observation that...
"all this isn't important to my original question."

These scientific evidences are not unique to the Discovery Institute. So I am more interested in addressing the evidences and science that directly relate to the OP than debating the accuracy of statements people make about Discovery Institute which, as you note, are irrelevant to your original question.

Back to the subject of this thread. You think that I should trust Behe and Discovery Institute (excuse my mistake in the last post) more than an almost total unity of the expertise of a whole science. A science that is is excellently summarized in Wikipedia. You said in #73 "Wikipedia is the product of imperfect humans, not the divinely inspired word of God. So Wikipedia reflects the knowledge, accuracy, and biases of its human contributors." Because I don't believe in any God (yet?) the only source that is available to me is the "knowledge, accuracy, and biases of its human contributors". There is no evidence that Behe is inspired by God so he has to be evaluated by the same measure as other scientists.

You repeatedly say that Behe's statement is based on evidence and experiments. That's true but that doesn't say that his conclusions are valid. To me it's clear that they aren't. I can describe how in another thread. It takes to much time to do it here.

I have noticed yours and Philip's arguments but to me they are insufficient answers to my original question and I don't think we can come any further in this discussion. So what remains to me here is to thank you for your attention. You may comment if you want but I personally close this discussion now. (For a discussion about Behe and IC, see the thread Can Mutation Invent?)