Evidence for God from Science

What's interesting actually is, EEGs are so sensitive they can detect waves in jello Just because you have had an EEG doesn't you have a brain, much less a mind, it just means you at least have a substance, such as jello, that can set off an EEG.

hamilrob wrote:Additional link to all concerned:

I have a book I think is relevant to the whole discussion, not just ID. You may check out the website for the book at http://www.ggod.info. Reactions are well received and greatly appreciated, (as well as orders).

ggod.org wrote:Robert regards traditional theology as outmoded, and inadequate in a world that understands itself better through quantum physics, science, psychology, and universal consciousness.

Scientism. Though "universal consciousness" seems just loony unless I am misunderstanding you.

ggod.org wrote:God exists because people believe He does.

Looks like I won't be able to use logic in my arguments any more. You don't seem to accept it. Belief has no effect on truth, barring certain specific cases like the placebo effect. The existence of an entity is never one of these cases.

Or was this not you?

ggod.org wrote:In strict philosophical terms, I am a materialist. Everything that exists is composed of particles, atoms, and molecules, bound together by energy to create the matter of all existence...

Religion is the product of supernaturalism and is therefore invalid.

Ahh, beliefs which are typically held with scientism.

ggod.org wrote:Evolution may be incomplete and at a loss to explain everything, but it is the only venue that supports a scientific investigation of the origin of life. There is no other choice but to accept evolution because creationism has nothing to do with material reality, using supernatural and unsustainable premises to "explain" the beginning of life.

Pure scientism.

Regarding http://www.ggod.info./bible_contradicts.htm - there's a site you should know about. It's called Google. Learn how to use it.

ggod.org wrote:WYSIWYG is how I see the world, and if I see something that is unmistakably, undeniably "God", just like a train heading down the track straight at me, just like the morning sun, or the pouring rain, I will accept His existence. Until then, I have no recourse but to doubt and question.

I have doubts and questions as well. But nonetheless I believe in God. Christian faith != intellectual assent. I think your criteria for believing in God is excessive. Have you seen an integral? Not the formula for an integral, but an actual integral? Some things cannot be seen but exist anyway.

ggod.org wrote:In strict philosophical terms, I am a materialist. Everything that exists is composed of particles, atoms, and molecules, bound together by energy to create the matter of all existence...

What is truth, then? If truth exists, could someone give me a cup of truth, please.

Jerickson314 wrote:Have you seen an integral? Not the formula for an integral, but an actual integral? Some things cannot be seen but exist anyway.

Stop it, heathen! My mind is still aching from remembering factorials and matrices and discrete algebra and conic sections. NO CALCULUS, or I'll hunt you down and eat your face!

Darwin_Rocks wrote:no

intelligent design is not science.

Perfectly agreed.

I would slightly expand it by saying that intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

And, in addition, if we just consider the statement itself, does it imply there is unintelligent (or stupid) design? At which point does a design cease to be stupid and starts to be intelligent?

Even more, what is a design?

Alien wrote:

Darwin_Rocks wrote:no

intelligent design is not science.

Perfectly agreed.

I would slightly expand it by saying that intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

And, in addition, if we just consider the statement itself, does it imply there is unintelligent (or stupid) design? At which point does a design cease to be stupid and starts to be intelligent?

Even more, what is a design?

Alien, since you seem to know so darn much about, well, everything that you could consider yourself as God, tell me then, how did the universe form from nothing into something? How does the stuff I buy come about? Pop out of thin air? Heck no! That is fairy tale, much like your argument that intelligent design is so flawed it's funny. I think people trying to use science to explain intelligent design is off by some, I do agree, but to say intelligent design is so flawed that it shouldn't even be considered is a lie. God NEVER said he would PROVE Himself through anything. I believe He proves himself supernaturally through the natural so he wont be fully discovered, that way, people like you, can be condemed to hell and he can have judgement. But of course you don't believe in hell. Well, I'm sorry, just because God hasn't personally rang your doorbell to know that he exists, I know he does. Not through being a Christian right off the bat, but having to test God to see if he exists, and yup, he does.

HelpMeGod wrote:

Alien wrote:

Darwin_Rocks wrote:no

intelligent design is not science.

Perfectly agreed.

I would slightly expand it by saying that intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

And, in addition, if we just consider the statement itself, does it imply there is unintelligent (or stupid) design? At which point does a design cease to be stupid and starts to be intelligent?

Even more, what is a design?

Alien, since you seem to know so darn much about, well, everything that you could consider yourself as God, tell me then, how did the universe form from nothing into something? How does the stuff I buy come about? Pop out of thin air? Heck no! That is fairy tale, much like your argument that intelligent design is so flawed it's funny. I think people trying to use science to explain intelligent design is off by some, I do agree, but to say intelligent design is so flawed that it shouldn't even be considered is a lie. God NEVER said he would PROVE Himself through anything. I believe He proves himself supernaturally through the natural so he wont be fully discovered, that way, people like you, can be condemed to hell and he can have judgement. But of course you don't believe in hell. Well, I'm sorry, just because God hasn't personally rang your doorbell to know that he exists, I know he does. Not through being a Christian right off the bat, but having to test God to see if he exists, and yup, he does.

Ok I have to disagree with some of your Statement here Brian especially the part that is bolded! I too believe that God displays himself in the Natural HOWEVER he displays himself just as he should it is our own pride that get's in the way of knowing him! God does not want People Condemned to Hell. That is not God! He calls every single person to him however not everyone listens and not everyone answers.

In Christ

What is truth, then? If truth exists, could someone give me a cup of truth, please.

Forge, if you would focus for a moment, I will link truth to materialism for you. First of all, my website is ggod .info. Thank you for visiting. Energy is not visible but it is detectable. I include detectability in my definition of materialism. When you think, you transmit energy along your brain cells. Your ideas and thoughts are stored in your brain cells as memory. The procedure is bio-electrical (my term), and I think the resulting trace representing your thought has to do with the pattern of potassium and sodium ions, something like that. I am not a neurosurgeon, but I do read a lot. I suggest you look into a more reliable source regarding thoughts and the way the brain stores ideas. Ultimately it is physical. You can excise brain tissue and gid rid of memory, so there is a material basis for thoughts.

Truth has to be an idea, an idea being a collection of thoughts. Truth is relative, and subjective. Sometimes, truth is quite objective as well, but still, you have to think to create truth or to know truth, and thinking involves the organization of thought.

The brain uses energy to think and energy to store ideas, thoutghts, etc. as memory. Truth, then has a physical component. I can't pour it into a cup fror you, but I can try to explain what I mean by materialism as it applies to things we normally can't see. A lie can be detected on a lie detector by fluctuations in heartbeat, body temperature, nerve activity, etc. It's energy that makes up the universe, and energy is a material thing although it may not have the normal characteristic of things seen, felt, heard, or poured into a cup.

Jerickson, my site is ggod.info, not org, but thanks for visiting. I am not surprised that you disagree with everything I said. You wouldn't be Jerickson otherwise, but still I am glad you took time to visit the site. We're just exchanging ideas. Some of us are right. Some of us are wrong. Most of us are expressing opinions.

If there was one distinct, unchanging entity called God, then there would be no endless debate about HIM/HER/IT. The language used to describe God comes from the mouths of the human s who speak about God. So far, it appears to me that the origin of God lies in the thought of humanity.

I don't know what you mean by "learn to use google" as if I don't already know. Perhaps you could elucidate that remark or educate me as to what it is I don't know.

The brain uses energy to think and energy to store ideas, thoughts, etc. as memory. Truth, then has a physical component.

No, all you've shown is that thoughts and memory have physical components. Truth doesn't change no matter how our brains perceive it. It is quite possible to have thoughts which are simply untrue. Either our thoughts conform to truth, or they don't. Either way, truth doesn't change, and has no physical component.

A lie can be detected on a lie detector by fluctuations in heartbeat, body temperature, nerve activity, etc.

In other words, lies put a detectable level of stress on our bodies. And this is a characteristic shared by the vast majority of people. Given that almost everyone has the same response to telling lies, it would almost seem that there's something that transcends the brain telling us that lies are stressful and bad. Lie detectors are neat.

It's energy that makes up the universe, and energy is a material thing although it may not have the normal characteristic of things seen, felt, heard, or poured into a cup.

Yes, energy and matter have different, albeit related, properties. I'm glad you noticed.

Looks like I won't be able to use logic in my arguments any more. You don't seem to accept it. Belief has no effect on truth, barring certain specific cases like the placebo effect. The existence of an entity is never one of these cases.

If something is undetectable, you have to use belief to make it real for yourself. Even if you have seen apparitions or heard voices, it is what you believe about those experiences create the reality behind them That's what I meant by God exisitng because people believe so. Since you can't face this entity, you have to use belief to determine the attributes of this entity as well as the thought of it or the plan that it has, etc. etc. People are always talking about what they believe Goid is doing at this moment or that. People are always speculating about why God is doing this or that or what God intended here or there.

I had a friend that said Hurricane Andrew was God's punishment for the cocaine trade in Florida. Jerry Falwell said the 9/11 attack was, in part, God's punishment for the homosexuality in America. (He since retracted that). I don't need many more examples because I think you know what I am getting at. This entity may indeed exist, but things spoken regarding the actions of this entity come from the beliefs people have and maybe too, from the spoken words that some people BELIEVE they hear and identify the source as God, using again, their belief to justify that conclusion.

It is this constant utilization of belief that ultimately creates and defines the "reality" called God. It is belief that defines the bible as inerrant and infallible despite its many contradictions and inconsistencies.

Now I will research "Scientism" and see if I agree with you about that description.

No, all you've shown is that thoughts and memory have physical components. Truth doesn't change no matter how our brains perceive it. It is quite possible to have thoughts which are simply untrue. Either our thoughts conform to truth, or they don't. Either way, truth doesn't change, and has no physical component.

Truth most certainly does change. At least the way people think changes. Truth may be a transcended concept, but how do you know what it is unless you speak on it, describe it, etc. Truth is constantly elusive in many cases. Therefore, all truth is relative. Absolute truth is only an idea.

hamilrob wrote:Truth is constantly elusive in many cases. Therefore, all truth is relative. Absolute truth is only an idea.

Ahhh, finally. Here's where everything you've said falls apart. Since you don't belief that there are absolute truths, nothing you say should be taken as truth for anyone else.

Of course, the reality is that there ARE absolute truths. Unfortunately in your quest to be objective and search only for concrete reality, you have actually undermined your own capacity to accept the very reality that you are searching for.

Ahhh, finally. Here's where everything you've said falls apart. Since you don't belief that there are absolute truths, nothing you say should be taken as truth for anyone else.

Well obviously, Felgar. And the same applies to YOUR truths. In that sense, everything doesn't fall apart, but comes together. My truths are relative as well as anybody else's. In sharing my truths, there is the chance than somebody might identify with them as well as oppose them.

Could you give me an example of absolute truth? OK, let's rule out "a priori" truths, like "It's raining outside", or 2 + 2 = 4, or something obvious like that. I think we are discussing a truth that lends itself more to subjectivity.. ("a posteriori" truths). It may be a contradiction to ask you to give me an example of an absolute, but "a posteriori" truth, but maybe you can sense what I am asking?

I chose materialism because it is as close I can get to truths which are empirical and present the least amount of subjectivity. Supernatural truths are real hard to verify and lead one into traps that can be set by people with ulterior motives. Supernatural truths are best discussed in abstract, and our day-to-day existence is usually a matter of interacting with truths that are more concrete. Truths like what time it is, what side of the road do I drive on, how much does it cost, etc. Truths like this may not be very exciting, but at least they are readily verified and don't cause a lot of endless arguing.

The abstract is fine for church, or chit-chat, or whatever, but it often remains a matter of opinion as to what defines this kind of truth. What is Love? Does your wife love you? How do you know? Is God real? Who is God? What is God saying? It's hard to escape conjecture and speculation when defining such truth. It gets into the abstract, and in many cases, you can use intuition, which oftentimes is quite valid. However it is difficult to accept someone else's intuition as verification of a truth which you don't see or understand to be true. Is the universe intelligently designed or not? How do you verify this?

Of course, the reality is that there ARE absolute truths. Unfortunately in your quest to be objective and search only for concrete reality, you have actually undermined your own capacity to accept the very reality that you are searching for.

You see? This is the very kind of vagueness that leads me to choose materialism. When you make a declaritive statement like "There are absolute truths", you have to prove it. There is nothing to accept that is not explained or verified. If anyone is undermining anything, it is YOU and you are short circuiting your right to investigate ALL truths that come your way, lest you get bamboozled or led into a dark alley.

So in your best knowledge, please give me an example of a truth that is non-relative and doesn't "fall apart" at some point.

hamilrob wrote:So in your best knowledge, please give me an example of a truth that is non-relative and doesn't "fall apart" at some point.

No problem.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Relativism simply doesn't work. That statement is true no matter who believes it is true and who believes it is false. Can I verify its truth to you? No. Does that make it any less true? No.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Well, Felgar. Even though I totally reject this "truth", I understand what you mean. Since it serves you and since you chose not to "impose" it on me, there is no need to go into detail as to why I reject it. I will say it has a great deal of subjectivity but I can still see why you would regard it as absolute unchanging truth.