Evidence for God from Science

Post One of Four to Neha to answer her questions from her lengthy post:

Neha wrote:

B.W. wrote: asked basic questions on your view that human life is merely chemicals reacting to environment and now you state that I did not provide evidence for what you, yourself, claim as fact: human life is merely chemicals reacting to environment. Interesting…

Both questions are direct questions. A true scientific mind and one who adheres to scientific enquiry would be able to present his/her facts, examine them, test them, and reach a conclusion, correct?

A true scientific mind would first tell you that human life is not merely chemical reacting to environment. The environment and the chemicals are all connected in a great web of life. Which is very unique. Look up, and see as far as you can see, no life around. So whether God exists or not, we are not cheap. We are very unique because we are rare, life is rare. Just because I do not believe in your God does not make my life cheap at all. That is the assertion you have introduced without proving it objectively. That was the evidence I asked of you. I do not agree with you that life is cheap, at all. .

How can environment and the chemicals be all connected in a great web of life and not be merely chemicals reacting to environment? Law of non-contradiction, have you forgot that?

Life would be cheap if merely environment and the chemicals connected in a great web of life reacting with each other. There is no purpose; nothing is all that awaits, all. The sex offender man, who held those three women hostage in Ohio recently, under such a system would be guilty of what? What would be wrong with murder and mayhem, theft, ruining people’s lives? Who cares – all is a meaningless joke… How could life really be unique if it is but a mere accident of random chemicals? There is no value in it…

Study hedonism please and look at this quote:

“Psychological hedonism” holds that people are primarily pain and pleasure beings. Thus, the desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain governs all their choices. “Egoistic hedonism” is the perspective that the pursuit of one’s own pleasure is the highest good. “Altruistic hedonism,” argues that the highest good is the pursuit of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Hedonism has a long history. The Cyrenaics of ancient Greece held that pleasure was the only worthwhile pursuit. The Epicureans under the guidance of Epicurus (341–270 B.C.) asserted that pleasure is the beginning and end of a happy life. They also stated that there were different levels of pleasure. Once a person’s basic needs of food, drink, and sex were met, people could then focus on higher pleasures such as cultivating meaningful friendships. Later, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill would promote Utilitarianism which is a form of altruistic hedonism.

Hedonism has often been criticized as a worldview. Some have stated that the exaltation of pleasure as the highest good is unhealthy. Others have stated that pleasure is hard to define. Plus, what if the pursuit of pleasure leads to conflict between people?

Quoted from this Link on Hedonism

There is no reason for good and the cost of pleasure? Diseases, etc… addictions… abuse neglect are all justified if all is mere accident of chemicals.

A moralistic atheist is an oxymoron.

Sir Isaac Newton and a host of other scientist, all of true scientific minds, would first tell you that all the laws of the universe and nature reveal the handiwork of God whom we are accountable. How so accountable, for gaming his goodness shown as revealed in Luke 6:35 and Psalms 145:1-21. That the Lord allows us to be moral beings, with conscience, to make our own ways and it is we who abuse such goodness and then blame God for allowing us the liberty to screw life all up; just as you are doing. A true scientist would be one who is honest when he or she looks up.

Look up, no, I prefer to ponder the path of my feet and look at folk’s n the eye, least they attempt to pick my pocket. When I do look up, I see God’s handiwork and who knows what other life is out there, even in other dimensions? Just because you can’t see the boulder in the middle of the forest does not mean it is not there.

As for evidence, I present the fruits of fascism, Marxism, communism, abortion of demand. Mao was no priest but an atheist (so were the USSR's leaders} and Mao killed how many? 45 million or more… How many did Stalin and the USSR – 20 to 60 million depending on the years you start counting as well as after Stalin during all the world’s Marxist revolutions – maybe all told 90 million plus, and I haven’t even got to Fascism or progressivism yet, nor even counted the aborted babies.

These are the empirical ways such chemical based life analysis cheapen life. Yet, God remains Good too all in not wiping us all out in one fell swoop, but patent, calling out, for us to leave this madness to a new and better way and for that you desire to kill God.

No Neha, you can keep your chemical based life forms concepts – such reason as that has, indeed cheapened life. Only a proud ideologue could ignore the evidence.

Neha wrote:

It will be like asking you to give me evidence that jesus DIDN'T rise from the dead. As far as you are concerned this has never happened so can you give me evidence of something that hasn't happened according to you?

Do you see my point? You can't give me evidence of something that hasn't happened. And I can't give you the same too. You show me how life is cheap, I will show you how its not. .

Given the testimony from historians and non-Christian historians of that era in history – the amount of witnesses that testified, there is enough evidence to convict that Jesus was real and did rise from the dead. All this is easily found in articles on this site, and actual honest historical research you can do on your own. If we have only 5 documents that show that one ancient Roman Leader existed and never question that. Then compare that to the multiplied hundreds of documents show that Jesus existed, why can’t you be honest?

Best evidence that Christ exist is that he lives and lives within his people and that gift, he never takes away. You should actually try it and find out instead of complain.

Neha wrote: You show me how life is cheap, I will show you how its not. .

I did show you just a beginning how the chemical/environment cheapens life and I have been waiting for you to present how it does not…

Continued below
-
-
-

Post Two of Four to Neha to answer her questions:

Neha wrote:

B.W. wrote: I and several folks here on this thread can supply ample evidence that it does by, say, abortion. Winning at all cost Ends justify the means – Character assassination. Cambodian killing fields, More people murdered in Atheist countries than all any other, Assisted suicide, forced control over people’s lives, slavery, redistributional theft, never let a good crisis go to waste…dehumanizing your opponents, Cass Sunsteim who… see quote below… fruits of Social Unitarianism... fruits of Marxism the list goes on and on…

I suggest you take your questions to Cass then. Tell me do you defend all of christian denominations too? Would you defend Ken Ham or Christian slave traders, any fundamentalist, westbro baptist? Would you like to defend the inquisition or mormons or J.witnesses?

You answer for your view of christian faith and thats fine. I answer for what I find true not what others believe. .

Your take on the westburro group proves to me that you were never a christian or you would have known that these folks are not Christian, rather folks the hijack religions for their own ends.

Muslim slave traders exist nowadays. Slavery in the USA was abolished 1860-1865 and there are no Christian slaver traders today that I know of. You need to get your brian out of the progressive text books. As for Ken Ham, yes, we don’t agree but I would defend his right to preach the gospel and respect his free speech rights. That is something your side can’t do – respect others beliefs with actual real tolerance. As for fundamentalist, you did not define the type – do you mean fundamental atheist as you your self are?

Again, please toss away your progressive playbook concerning the inquisition in Spain using it to say something false. Fellow Mormons killed Joseph Smith and as for J. W,’s I don’t see Christians sending these to die in camps, or gassed in chambers, however I do see atheist regimes doing this. There are plenty of JW Kingdom Halls around and a whole state full of Mormons… Where is the holocaust you accuse Christians of concerning these folks?

Get a life; anyone can hijack any religion for geo-political goals and have done so in the past. The Muslims burned and raped and pillaged first and thus began the Crusades to push the invaders back. The Spanish Inquisition was a Militant Roman Catholic historic tragedy and a good example of how such hijacking occurred to confiscate wealth as well as how God’s unseen hand of correction stopped it. Though brutal as it was, only 31,912 died during its long reign compared to how many in the USSR and Mao’s China died and in less time too. I didn’t even count Cuba or Cambodia either…

Continued below...
-
-
-

Post Three of Four to Neha to answer her questions:

Neha wrote:

B.W. wrote: When you cheapen life – well you cheapen morality and raise debasement and bring out the worst and most perverse in the human self…
I don't.

The Self is not based on mere chemical reactions invigorated by environmental factors alone. When you mix chemicals – they don’t think or reason or write novels, produce movies, or tap dance...

What is it based on then? .

A gift from God – life - along with all its responsibilities… If you actually understood the bible, you would not be asking this question.

We all do not think alike, nor do we moralize the same, that is evidence for Self…that is beyond mere chemical reactions to environment. One has talent to play the piano and another cannot carry a tune in a bucket.

Neha wrote:

B.W. wrote: Look at God and what this verse reveals about God mentioned in Luke 6:35 – He is kind to the ungrateful and evil folks...

He is slow to anger – he is just… far more than mere chemical reactions invigorated by environmental factors ever be.
Now look what I wrote before…in light of Luke 6:35 and your own arguments against God...

So far my arguments have more been against your projecting some dawkins like persona on me. .

You appear quite bitter against God, at least from your writing tone here. Maybe I am mistaken but you posted enough to prove to me that you are bitter and are hurting deeply inside over a matter that turned you away from God.

Also, you clearly demonstrate the ability to use the latest progressive talking points when speaking with Christians. You come across as not a seeker of truth but someone on a mission and well trained too. I complement you on that.

However that deep wound concerns me more. You care to discuss that or simply deny it? Why not give the Lord a chance to heal you up on the inside? Prove to you he is real…

Continued below
-
-
-

Post Four of Four to Neha to answer her questions:

Neha wrote:

B.W. wrote: I used to ponder the existence of evil as evidence that there was no God, yet, this prejudice prevented me from realizing how God, no matter how bad the evil, overcame evil. How those battered by rape, or molestations, extreme loss, rejection, abandonment, could overcome the tragedy without hate, malice, thoughts of revenge. It never dawned on me back then how God overcomes evil and how He manifest is His glory in those, not guided by chemical reactions, can be so, forgiving. It is not about evil, it’s about overcoming evil that proves that there is a God, then when this course to perfection is complete, evil will be no more (Revelation 21:1). To refine Gold first requires the removal of dross. It takes time. We live in such times…

I think you have honest intentions B.W. I am sure you believe what you say. I respect that.

And unless evil is overcome by your God, how could I know if he exists or not? You may have seen him, I haven't! For the same reason you don't worship Allah or Krishna, is the same reason I don't worship God of christianity.

I can say what I will and you would not believe me due to your position so far. Yes, I have encounter him and seen him, and by his grace he allowed me to return. You will of course demand a - prove it. Okay, let the Lord heal your heart… be proof enough.

You see, I learned quite some time ago, that no matter the proof, people will say what they will. That does not bother me at all, they have a right to doubt – we all see the handiwork of creation all around us and still some folks will deny God as author of creation, despite all his finger prints he left behind.

You and I were designed as creatures of faith. By faith we live according to what we have faith in. You of course would deny that you are a creature of faith yet you live by your own faith in what – random chance – chemical reactions etc and etc.

Somewhere in your life, you began to look up so as to avoid, maybe some great let down, who knows? But in looking up, your head gets tired so you look down on a lot on people too. Looking up sounds so superior, yet, try this in a short walk in the woods and you’ll discover that looking straight ahead and all around is far better way to live. You can’t do that on your own, because it is human nature to look up and look down. Only the Lord can bring healing to the hurts of life and overcome all evil with good as I explained in the paragraph above.

That in and of itself is sufficient proof for me.
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:The sex offender man, who held those three women hostage in Ohio recently, under such a system would be guilty of what? What would be wrong with murder and mayhem, theft, ruining people’s lives? Who cares – all is a meaningless joke…

Disregarding other people for a moment, can I assume that even if you were to accept that the universe were nothing but matter and energy that you believe individual people would still value their own lives? That, regardless of whether they believed killing or stealing from another person was breaking some universal law or not, that at a minimum they would desire to minimise their own risk of death or experience of pain?

Assuming that you do believe that to be true, then killing someone or otherwise ruining their life would immediately focus the lens of suspicion upon you. At the very least people might seek to avoid any dealings with you, and they might seek to do something to you to discourage you from acting like that again, or else to physically prevent you from ever acting like that again.

Unless you want to make the argument that in a godless world no one would mind in the least being on the receiving end of theft or attack, then it simply doesn't follow that people would have unlimited motivation to commit attacks and robbery. Theft and murder might not be wrong in any meaningful universal sense, but they wouldn't be without repercussions for the perpetrator.

Perci, I had a friend who was a hard core atheist. He BELIEVED there was no God. Anyways, he self served himself anyway he pleased. Stole anything and everything he could and wanted. He stole a brand new 8 x 12ft rug out of our University that said University of Alberta on it. I mean, who needs that. He said he did it to see if he could. He manipulated women to get sex. He would kill someone if it stood to gain him pleasure and he was certain the law would not find him. The only thing that kept him at bay, was the law of humans. Thankfully, he had some sense the law was powerful and the punishment by our law was worse than the gain of some of his actions, but not all of them obviously.

I knew another atheist at work, who when I asked how he felt about child labour he replied "F&*k them, I don't care. I was born here, they were born there. Tough luck for them". He didn't know I was a Christian at that time. That was his honest to mankind answer.

I think you're right, that we would value ourselves based on evolutionary principles. And I think that other's actions would factor into our choices. But that thing we call a conscience, would be mute, and our actions would be entirely based on a logical decision of what gives us gain. Donating to a charity, would not give us JOY. What ever joy is

I would say atheists can be moral, there's no question about that. The problem is they have no basis on which they can account for this sense of morality, other than perhaps the golden rule. And we know how well the GR has worked out.

Byblos wrote:I would say atheists can be moral, there's no question about that. The problem is they have no basis on which they can account for this sense of morality, other than perhaps the golden rule. And we know how well the GR has worked out.

First, FL slams "Scientific American", http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 05#p146351, and now the Golden Rule is a failure?!

Do tell.

Kurieuo wrote:While you're add it, since you seem to know better why not place some of your own beliefs on the table to do with reality? I've got a thread just for that, and would be interested to hear your own views on many issues if you're happy to provide them.

As a relevant comment to this "fossils" topic, I have already provisionally put methodological naturalism on the table. It's kind of a big deal.

Earlier you asked about Crime Scene Investigation examples using MN. I responded and then asked for a CSI that a provisional assumption of MN could not solve. Unless I missed something, you didn't respond:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 45#p146194

Why put more on the table when, for something non-religious like CSIs, you haven't rejected MN as incomplete, or provisionally accepted MN as sufficient?

PerciFlage wrote:My point, therefore, was given these two statements:

Kurieuo: "I have experienced the divine".

Poindexter: "I have experienced abduction".

Is there a way for an outsider who is unable to experience either of those things directly to nevertheless convince themselves that other people really have experienced something like abduction and the divine?

Why are you debating this point? Have I ever said anything different:

Kurieuo wrote:Consider further. If everyone were born without sight, and someone claimed to have visually seen what you look like, there is no way he/she could prove to you what they saw beyond trying to describe the experience in non-visual terms that convey his/her phenomenal experience of visual qualia. He/she might point out things about reality that support the substance of such experiences. But, there is absolutely nothing he/she could do to convince you or others of their experience.

Notice the underlined portion. I agree with you experiences should be backed by a coherent set of beliefs (which is really what your ideas to convince the blind person of vision ultimately boil down to).

To use your example, that several people can all describe what an object looks like without touching it would imply they do have vision. But, for the skeptical blind person, they might think these people cheated or performed some trick in a manner like a magician who performs tricks and illusions. The blind person if they choose to remain skeptical has a way out to deny the reality of such experiences, even if you think they're illogical for doing so. And, this is just like Christians who claim to have experiences of God, or even a clear spiritual perception of God's obvious existence in the world. But, obviously such experiences aren't going to serve well as an objective argument like those made via logic, reason and common experience. And I've never argued such a thing, but much the opposite.

As for this Poindexter person, you are presuming or implying to know the reality of things if you write it off instantly without due consideration. To do so, means you would not be agnostic about such matters, not even weak agnostic... Further, there is no logical inconsistency with saying both are true. Poindexter's experience of an abduction of some sort by no means nullifies my own spiritual experiences or vice-versa.

Finally, there is a heck of a lot of coherency that a Theistic worldview provides to beliefs we all naturally seem to have. As I've pointed out elsewhere, Atheists/non-Theists continue to borrow beliefs only supported within a Theistic framework, before they then quickly catching a taxi back to their Atheism/Agnosticism. I'm all for listening to other coherent worldviews. But if I've got none better to replace my own with then... and my own makes a lot of sense of how I practically live life and many other beliefs I naturally seem to have, then why toss it aside?

I'll leave matters there. Feel free to take it or leave what has been said, but I suppose I don't see much contradiction between us really except that you don't believe my experiences and I don't expect you to.

So was the original topic being discussed?

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:While you're add it, since you seem to know better why not place some of your own beliefs on the table to do with reality? I've got a thread just for that, and would be interested to hear your own views on many issues if you're happy to provide them.

As a relevant comment to this "fossils" topic, I have already provisionally put methodological naturalism on the table. It's kind of a big deal.

Earlier you asked about Crime Scene Investigation examples using MN. I responded and then asked for a CSI that a provisional assumption of MN could not solve. Unless I missed something, you didn't respond:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 45#p146194

Why put more on the table when, for something non-religious like CSIs, you haven't rejected MN as incomplete, or provisionally accepted MN as sufficient?

Good call. It seems this thread took a diversion into a range of other topics since then, burying the original topic.

I'll go back over and continue from where we left off in my next post here.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Consider further. If everyone were born without sight, and someone claimed to have visually seen what you look like, there is no way he/she could prove to you what they saw beyond trying to describe the experience in non-visual terms that convey his/her phenomenal experience of visual qualia. He/she might point out things about reality that support the substance of such experiences. But, there is absolutely nothing he/she could do to convince you or others of their experience.

Notice the underlined portion. I agree with you experiences should be backed by a coherent set of beliefs (which is really what your ideas to convince the blind person of vision ultimately boil down to).

To use your example, that several people can all describe what an object looks like without touching it would imply they do have vision. But, for the skeptical blind person, they might think these people cheated or performed some trick in a manner like a magician who performs tricks and illusions. The blind person if they choose to remain skeptical has a way out to deny the reality of such experiences, even if you think they're illogical for doing so.

Regarding the bolded bit, I don't think the blind person could make a valid case for tricks and duplicity being a better explanation for the seeing person's ability to determine objects at a distance without touch. Given the number of controls you could put in place to rule out tricks - restraining the testee and placing the objects inside a transparent box to make sure that neither they nor a hidden accomplice were able to touch it, seeing how they perform at the test when blindfolded or without a line-of-sight to the object, you could rule out tricks to the point where any tricks employed are indistinguishable from vision. Either the seeing person possesses the power of vision, or something that is not meaningfully different from vision.

Compare the claims of psychics who have been put to the test - "I can determine what an object is without touching it or seeing it". The way psychics perform when tested on such claims (the better controlled the experiment, the more their performance tends to match the probabilty of achieving those results through chance) suggests that either they don't possess a psychic gift, or that the gift is real but unable to act reliably in the physical world. Tricks and illusions are a valid possibility to be considered by a non-psychic person assessing the claims of psychics, not so much for blind people assessing the claims of the seeing.

Kurieuo wrote:And, this is just like Christians who claim to have experiences of God, or even a clear spiritual perception of God's obvious existence in the world. But, obviously such experiences aren't going to serve well as an objective argument like those made via logic, reason and common experience. And I've never argued such a thing, but much the opposite.

As for this Poindexter person, you are presuming or implying to know the reality of things if you write it off instantly without due consideration. To do so, means you would not be agnostic about such matters, not even weak agnostic... Further, there is no logical inconsistency with saying both are true. Poindexter's experience of an abduction of some sort by no means nullifies my own spiritual experiences or vice-versa.

I think we're very much in agreement here. I feel you're slightly missing the point of the Poindexter person, though. It might clarify if we add a third person into the mix:

Poindexter: "I have experienced abduction".

Kurieuo: "I have experienced God".

Bob: "I have experienced Krishna".

The question is whether, regardless of the fact that experience of those things are not universal, is there a way of assessing objectively whether or not those experiences are genuine in the same way that a blind person can with vision? Better still, is there a standard of evidence that validates some of those experiences whilst ruling out others? You've mentioned widely shared and broadly similar experience as one possible line of evidence, and I agree that this is plausible. I'd be interested to know whether you think there is a reliable means by which an outside observer can distinguish between the similar experiences of different Hindus on the one hand, and of different Christians on the other (in the way that we can distinguish between people who be able to determine objects at a distance through vision, and those who claim to be able to do it psychically). It's fine if you don't think such a method exists, I'm not saying that would be proof that your experiences are inauthentic - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that.

Out of interest, what is your take - if you have one - on the spiritual claims of members of other faiths? I'll take as read that you don't believe Krishna exists, so would I be correct in thinking that you believe claims of experiencing him fall into one of the below categories?

- Hindus who claim experience of Krishna are having authentic experiences, but they are really experiencing something from God of the Bible and wrongly attributing it to Krishna.
- Hindus are having authentic experiences, but they are Satanic/demonic in nature.
- Hindus are not having genuine spiritual experiences, and any similarities between the claims of different Hindus is explained by different reasons than similarities between different Christians' experiences of God.

Morny wrote:

Byblos wrote:I would say atheists can be moral, there's no question about that. The problem is they have no basis on which they can account for this sense of morality, other than perhaps the golden rule. And we know how well the GR has worked out.

First, FL slams "Scientific American", http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 05#p146351, and now the Golden Rule is a failure?!

Do tell.

Rather than derail this thread (more than it already has) or start a new one, please read the following (long) thread then offer your comments if they haven't already been covered.

Morality without God.

We should always be careful when discussing the golden rule because, not everyone sees it like everyone else.
Is it:
Do unto others as you would have done unto you?
Cause that leaves a very wide hole of subjectivity !
I mean, if I want a woman to grab my ass, should I grab hers?
Since I am ok with someone tying me up and doing naught things to me, is it ok for me to do it to others?

The golden rule is more like:
Do no harm to others as you would not like any harm done unto you.

But this is, quite simply, a starting point for Christianity, not an end goal.

Christ taught us to go BEYOND and to actually love and pray those that do BAD to us !

Byblos wrote:

Morny wrote:

Byblos wrote:I would say atheists can be moral, there's no question about that. The problem is they have no basis on which they can account for this sense of morality, other than perhaps the golden rule. And we know how well the GR has worked out.

First, FL slams "Scientific American", http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 05#p146351, and now the Golden Rule is a failure?!

Do tell.

Rather than derail this thread (more than it already has) or start a new one, please read the following (long) thread then offer your comments if they haven't already been covered.

Morality without God.

You made an astounding claim about the Golden Rule. After asking a simple question, your response is little more than to go read 44 locked pages of mostly word salad?!

Commandments 4 thru 10 reasonably follow from Golden Rule versions, e.g., "I don't want you to lie to me, so I won't lie to you." In practice, I agree with you, i.e., those 7 Commandments haven't "worked out" well, but the problem is with us, not with the Golden Rule.