Evidence for God from Science

it is hard to see how sentience could truly arise from non-sentient inanimate matter

There have been scientific studies/research going on for decades trying to affirm the theory of abiogenesis (since the beginning of darwinism, really). As molecular biology has progressed the probability of it being a reality has not only continually decreased, but is outside the realm of potential reality. I am not aware of any other theory that had been as accepted/tried that explains this other than abiogenesis. If someone knows, let me know.

I don't really care about so many of the superficial arguments or explorations in the god vs no god debates. People aren't going to the foundation enough to even form solid stances. There's too much of a top down approach that doesn't go down far enough. I wish all the creation vs evolution debates would just stop. It needs to be sentience vs non-sentient.. inorganic vs organic, simple vs complex. When you deal with these questions at the fundamental levels there not being a God is rationally impossible.

the universe seemed so intelligent and so stupid at the same time.

I had similar thoughts when I was a preteen. But I saw intelligence and evil/abuse. Is that what you were referring to as stupid? Because I only see this stupidity from humanity (unless your going with the literal definition to mean unintelligent things). If going literal, then know there has never been any link (and millions would be needed) for abiogenesis to be true. Stupid in essence is stupid, and intelligence is in essence intelligent. There is no crossing.

Kurieuo wrote:Why not just say something we all agree on: Something has always existed at a foundational level
Right? Otherwise there would be nothing.

The fuller response that you gave is interesting and something I'd typically expect from Atheistic quarters re: belief in God being really god of the gaps and that.
Personally, I see God as the most clear and logical explanation until shown an alternative coherent understanding of reality and the world we live. How so? Well... here are a few short questions given we accept something has always existed (otherwise nothing would exist).

Question: Is the 'something that has always existed' sentient or non-sentient?

Don't know. Unclear right?

Question: Do we see sentience or non-sentience in the world?

Both.

Therefore, the something that has always existed must either be sentient, or have potentiality for expressing sentience.

From here, it is hard to see how sentience could truly arise from non-sentient inanimate matter. Rocks will forever be rocks, maybe dust, perhaps convert into energy is some way via external forces or the like, I don't know. But, otherwise, non-sentient. It seems to burden of proof are on those who'd argue sentience is entirely possible from pure matter.

If you put a non-sentient sperm and a non-sentient egg together, it can evolve into the most brilliant mind the world has ever known.
True; we only know of this happening when the non-sentient egg and sperm comes from an intelligent being; but how do we know there isn’t another way this can happen and we just haven’t discovered the piece of the puzzle that proves this?

Kurieuo wrote:It is more natural much easier to believe such sentience arises from sentience, and matter arises from matter. Indeed, we could even comprehend matter as being reduced to an illusion of mind (idealism rather than realism). Who knows. Everything could all somehow be living in/God's expression of his own mind.

If I read you correctly though Kenny (and perhaps MBPrata), your issue is not necessarily with an intelligence or sentience existing, but rather with God as a personal entity who desires a relationship; God who 'so loved the world he gave his only begotton son...'... right?

Actually that was in reference to the claim that whatever is responsible for the existence of the Universe, we call God. I’ve heard people say that, but God is such a loaded term; if non-sentient matter was responsible, I doubt many would want to call that God.


Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Why not just say something we all agree on: Something has always existed at a foundational level
Right? Otherwise there would be nothing.

The fuller response that you gave is interesting and something I'd typically expect from Atheistic quarters re: belief in God being really god of the gaps and that.
Personally, I see God as the most clear and logical explanation until shown an alternative coherent understanding of reality and the world we live. How so? Well... here are a few short questions given we accept something has always existed (otherwise nothing would exist).

Question: Is the 'something that has always existed' sentient or non-sentient?

Don't know. Unclear right?

Question: Do we see sentience or non-sentience in the world?

Both.

Therefore, the something that has always existed must either be sentient, or have potentiality for expressing sentience.

From here, it is hard to see how sentience could truly arise from non-sentient inanimate matter. Rocks will forever be rocks, maybe dust, perhaps convert into energy is some way via external forces or the like, I don't know. But, otherwise, non-sentient. It seems to burden of proof are on those who'd argue sentience is entirely possible from pure matter.

If you put a non-sentient sperm and a non-sentient egg together, it can evolve into the most brilliant mind the world has ever known.
True; we only know of this happening when the non-sentient egg and sperm comes from an intelligent being; but how do we know there isn’t another way this can happen and we just haven’t discovered the piece of the puzzle that proves this?

I'm all for going with the evidence where it is heaviest.
Our beliefs are always open to correction; such is the nature of human knowledge.
So then, when I go with the weightiest side for any given belief I hold, such isn't giving an answer based upon "a gap in knowledge" but rather an answer based upon what we do know.

What I see in your words, actually creates a very weak position for a "no sentient" belief.
You ultimately agree that we only experience sentience arising from sentience. Indeed, ToE itself deals with life evolving from a common ancestor, rather then new life starting here and there -- precisely because of the logic "life comes from life," a similar line of thinking to "sentience coming from sentience".

Given what we actually do know, and given our experiences in our world of both sentient creatures and non-sentient things, it seems quite natural to believe sentience has always existed like physical matter. Yet, we see a bias. A bias that claims we ought to only assume physical matter is all there is to the exclusion of sentience -- although both are clearly expressed in our world. A wont to go with a "no intelligence of gaps" if you will. For what reason? Certainly not the "illogic" of belief in an all-existing sentience or intelligence.

Rather, your argument of "illogic" is based upon the loadedness of religious beliefs associated with whatever this sentience might be. You are not starting with what we do know and experience to deduce what would otherwise be quite natural and logical, but you are loading into the equation your knowledge of religion/s and distaste thereof. I quote of your words in particular (bold and underline mine):

Kenny wrote:... the origin of the universe must have been very peculiar. But I find it a leap of illogic to conclude the universe was created by God.

Might one call whatever brought the universe into existence God? Well, maybe, but God is such a loaded term. 'God' implies an entity with a personality, with consciousness and desires and preferences. For some, it even implies an entity that 'so loved the world he gave his only begotten son' etc., and who provides a home for dead souls. I find it going beyond valid logical inference to suppose all that is true just because the origin of the universe was a distinctly odd event.

That the religious elements go beyond valid inferences for you, being a "leap of illogic", is the reason why I believe Apatheism towards religion and by extension "God" better describes your position:

An Apatheist is a person who regards the question of the existence or non-existence of a god or gods to be essentially meaningless and irrelevant. However, some define the term more broadly to refer to apathy towards all religions or belief systems, not just toward a belief in god.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:MBPrats sais

Like I said, it's not that puzzling. In order to understand, all you need is a little bit of mind flexibility that christians usually ask to believers-wanna-be.

The flexibility he is talking about is to go outside logic,reason and reality to reject the facts -ALL things have a cause and ALL things that have a cause are caused by something else and ALL things are willed into existence and infinite regression cannot be broken.

If ALL things have a cause, that would include God as well. So who caused God?

Ken

Straw-man god,God is eternal,we do not worship or believe in a created God,soit does not apply to the God we believe in.It is a straw-man god. You're still outside reality in order to deny God but you just refuse to acknowledge it.But you cannot name anything in our universe that does not apply to these facts - ALL things have a cause and ALL things that are caused are caused by something else and ALL things are willed into existence also infinite regression cannot be broken. You cannot name anything in our universe that does not apply to these facts and yet hold out hope somehow that man can somehow prove these facts wrong,just to deny God. Or either you just do not know,but regardless even if you don't know this for sure nothing in our universe leads you to believe that these facts are not true,it is just deciding to take the long way around and believe things contrary to what logic,reason and reality tells us or hold out hope that man can somehow show these facts do not apply.You have alot of faith outside logic,reason or reality in order to deny God. and youkeep ignoring the fact that our God is eternal.

If you are going to believe everything except your deity has a cause, that's fine; but until you can prove it, not everybody is going to simply take your word for it

Ken

I said you cannot name anything in our universe that does'nt apply to these facts and you can't because you are denying logic,reason and reality in order to deny God.Because you don't believe in God and choose to ignore the God we believe in, it still does not make these facts go away.They still apply even if you do reject God. ALL things have a cause and ALL things that have a cause are caused by something else and all things are willed into existence,infinite regression cannot be broken.These facts apply to EVERYTHING in our universe but God is in heaven outside our universe.

Proof for the existence of God.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new- ... ts-for-god

These are, I believe, good arguments for God’s existence. That is to say, they are logically valid; their premises are true; and their premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their negations. Therefore, insofar as we are rational people, we should embrace their conclusions. Much more remains to be said and has been said.47 I refer you to the works cited in the footnotes and bibliography, should you wish to explore further. But I trust that enough has been said here to show that the traditional theistic arguments remain unscathed by the objections raised by the likes of New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins.

Good link! Too bad there's not enough detail in it. Seriously, Craig leaves no stone unturned!

Philip wrote:Good link! Too bad there's not enough detail in it. Seriously, Craig leaves no stone unturned!

Yes, he's very thorough.

I'd like to see Kenny show how any of the arguments are wrong. Or even show how one premise is wrong. That would go a long way to showing that Kenny really understands the arguments.

Storyteller wrote:Okay....

In another thread I posted that one thing that puzzles me is why some don`t believe in God? Why wouldn`t anyone, at least, want to?

So...... why do you believe what you do?

I guess I`m more curious about those who don`t believe in God as it`s the opposite end of the spectrum to me. Why don`t you believe? Do you want to and just can`t? Or do you think it`s all just a trick? A way of control? Some sort of arrogance that we have to matter?

I don't know any TRUE atheists that are so because of a logical reason, most are atheist from the emotional argument, which is fine.
From the logical argument and if you follow it honestly, the best you can be is a "soft" atheist or one that believes that a God MAY exist BUT there is no way to prove it and it isn't the god of any world religion.

Usually that comes from a view of a god that is superficial, a view that "creates" a god that is easily disproved.

The reality is, and speaking from the Christian perspective, logically and reasonably, there is no way to deny the existence of the Christian God other than, possibly, the emotional argument.

A very interesting view:

http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/11/bein ... intellect/

Please read the WHOLE thing.

Paul: I don't know any TRUE atheists that are so because of a logical reason, most are atheist from the emotional argument, which is fine.

So true! When I initially realized this, I was very surprised. But it's so obvious, and yet, few will ever admit it. They so typically only want to argue evolution or theoretical or other AFTER THE FACT -and SUBSEQUENTLY DEPENDENT - scientific processes. The ultimate emotional argument they typically produce is, "I don't know exactly how, but I know it can't be due to "the Sky Fairy!" And, "So, there is a scientific explanation - as there HAS to be - we just might never know it. But, hey, I'm fine with that!" So, in the minds of such people, the ONLY possible god that could possibly, even theoretically, exist, is one that would think and operate like they (a mere mortal) insists he would.

The example posted in the article I linked ( By John Wright) about the supernatural is a perfect one.
People will use science to show that nothing existed outside of nature, how there is no evidence of any "supernatural" activity and YET science tells us of at least ONE event that was outside nature, that was driven or caused or came to be via an event that can be defined as "supernatural" and that is the beginning of the universe.


su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Paul,

It's funny how Kenny says that he believes what he believes, and doesn't believe what he doesn't believe, because of what he knows at the time, and what science tells him.

I guess he conveniently dismisses the fact that as of right now, according to what we know from science, the universe coming into existence is a supernatural act.

Oh well. You can't make people be logical.

Well, Rick, if you describe the key things and characteristics science believes (inexplicably) immediately happened and began, within mere moments of the Big Bang's beginning - I mean, what sort of decriptive words would you use that could physically explain the how and why of it? What observed, UNCAUSED parallel has man ever witnessed or been able to explain? When such complex, totally NECESSARY (and just the right ones!) previously non-existing physical things, with not only precise design and specific function, but such an array of NECESSARY comprehensively interactive elements and functions, propelled via unimaginable power, "pops" into becoming a physical reality and immediately begins interacting and organizing - well what words are adequate to describe such a thing, much less EXPLAIN it?!!! Whether you are a Christian or not, you must (or should) realize that there is an intelligence behind this that is beyond anything we can understand or comprehend, that also wields power beyond anything we know of.

Really, what happened at the Big Bang, the word "miraculous" is the only word we have to even merely adequately REFERENCE it!

The flexibility he is talking about is to go outside logic,reason and reality to reject the facts -ALL things have a cause and ALL things that have a cause are caused by something else and ALL things are willed into existence and infinite regression cannot be broken.

1. Please don't talk about me as if I wasn't here, I don't like it.
2. That is false. I'm not asking to go outside logic, reason and reality - I don't even believe we know reality to begin with!
All things have a cause...says who? That's the flexibility I'm talking about: to let go your strongest convictions for a while if "reality" can be explained outside of those convictions.
Infinite regression can not be broken...says who?
I think you should keep in mind that 60% of scientists (I did the math from mr. Deem's 40%) do not believe in the God of the Bible. And these, for the most part, are no ordinary people; they're usually quite intelligent people that probably have to reinterpret "reality" every week due to what they find out.
Are these 60% (remember you are a minory) going outside logic and reality? These 60% from a group of the most intelligent people in the world? Excuse me, but I don't buy it.

the universe seemed so intelligent and so stupid at the same time.

I had similar thoughts when I was a preteen. But I saw intelligence and evil/abuse. Is that what you were referring to as stupid?

Well, I admit I was kind of adopting God's logic when thinking about a "stupid" universe. Sometimes I mix both perspectives...

Anyway, what I meant was that God wants us (?) to believe He exists while filling the universe with evidence against Him. For starters, creating a universe in which things can appear from nowhere while wanting people to believe the universe came from God and not nowhere is...sort of stupid. Or contradictory, to say the least.
Then, there are human-like creatures. Please don't start with that demagogy saying Neanderthals and Erectus where very different from us; expecting people to believe in creation in a planet where there are both human-like creatures and DNA mutations is pretty much stupid. Like I said once: it's like watering a flower expecting your friend to notice you watered it...in a zone where it rains a lot!
Then, the test thing. Most christians say God made us pass through this cruel universe to test us. Ok, so why letting babies die? And children? People who haven't been tested yet? Jeez, God is the king of mixed signals!

This is the "stupidity" I was talking about. I can believe that a god created the universe, but all these factors (and some more) prevent me from believing He wants us to know he exists. Sometimes I think a god sent us these mixed signals just to laugh by watching us confused. That makes more sense. Otherwise, I can only think of 3 alternatives: 1. God, despite His power, is no more intelligent than us; 2. God is actually the most intelligent, but arrogant enough to think we should believe in Him despite all His mixed signals; 3. There's no God and the apparent intelligence of the universe is just that - apparent.

But this is me...