Evidence for God from Science

NeedMoreChipotleTabasco wrote:The term "atheist" simply means "someone who does not believe that god(s) exist." That's it, period.

How do you know God does not exist?

Canuckster1127 wrote: I still don't understand how you can claim herd or group dynamics as a foundation for ethics without explaining why it progresses beyond that context and finds its strongest expression at the individual level.

Could you clarify, what sort of morality or ethics can be expressed by a solitary individual?

All of you are raising some good points for discussion. I'm on my way out now to visit Central Prison. When I get back this afternoon I'll try to answer everyone. Please don't add anything to the list until I can work through all of this.

You make a good discussion group. I'm happy I found this site.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: I still don't understand how you can claim herd or group dynamics as a foundation for ethics without explaining why it progresses beyond that context and finds its strongest expression at the individual level.

Could you clarify, what sort of morality or ethics can be expressed by a solitary individual?

I see your point, that being that ethics by definition are in the context of relationships.

It fails to address what I'm driving at however, that in the context of groups such values diffuse rather than building.

Obviously the issue is one of cause or effect. My contention is that such values are first present within the individual as a result of the image of God and then build in a social context out of an imprinted sense of values commonly held. Different cultures express them in different manners, but there are commonly held values that transcend culture that argue forcefully.

The contesting view is that there is no such image and ethics arise out of a sense of social values that build over time in the context of a social relationship.

My point is that ethics in the context of group dynamics tend to diffuse rather than build.

That begs the question as to the accuracy of the general assumption in the absence of any god instilled sense of values.

It also begs the question as to why Humans are the only "animals" instilled with a sense of justice and ethical awareness and why this is not demonstrated in the wild.

The conclusion you'll draw will depend not necessarily upon the evidence, but rather the presuppositional framework you construct in which to interpret the evidence.

Canuckster1127 wrote: I see your point, that being that ethics by definition are in the context of relationships.

It fails to address what I'm driving at however, that in the context of groups such values diffuse rather than building.

Not in all cases as you stated earlier. And is it your beleif that simply increasing the size of the group leads to diffusion. Is it more likely that perhaps it is due a greater chance of competing selfish interests.

In fact larger groups tend to isolate individuals and fracture into smaller groups. Is'nt it the job of leadership to keep everyone involved, by giving each individual responsibilities and a sence of ownership?

By stating that ethics is greatest at the smallest component does not imply that the source or the origin is there.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: I see your point, that being that ethics by definition are in the context of relationships.

It fails to address what I'm driving at however, that in the context of groups such values diffuse rather than building.

Not in all cases as you stated earlier. And is it your beleif that simply increasing the size of the group leads to diffusion. Is it more likely that perhaps it is due a greater chance of competing selfish interests.

In fact larger groups tend to isolate individuals and fracture into smaller groups. Is'nt it the job of leadership to keep everyone involved, by giving each individual responsibilities and a sence of ownership?

By stating that ethics is greatest at the smallest component does not imply that the source or the origin is there.

No.

Diffusion occurs from several different factors including the size of the group, psychological distancing, reward and punishment behavioral elements, peer pressure, conflicting roles and others I can name if you need or wish me to do so.

Identifying that ethics find stronger evidence in the context of smaller groups and ultimately within the value system of the individual does beg the question as to why that is. The Christian world view in this instance is more consistent with observation than the altenative in my opinion.

Obviously others will differ and this is open to interpretation. I think it is important to note that these conclusions will tend to be interpreted based upon the presuppositions of the person making them rather than the evidence itself.

August wrote:
I don't understand what you are trying to say. I assume you are referring to the Bible. It is there, so your starting premise is wrong.

Why do you care about their feelings? Why do you like to help people? Please explain this from an atheistic perspective.


Where does "common sense" come from? If it is common sense, then why do people still murder or steal?

1. Just saying that if people are only being good because they're afraid of God's punishment, how would they act if they didn't believe in god. By asking "Why are you moral?" it's kind of giving the idea that there's no other reason to be nice except for God.

2. You can just keep on asking 'why's' to every answer I say just like I can keep asking 'why's' to why you believe in God or the bible. And I'm more of agnostics than an atheist, since you can't really prove a negative, the to answer to that 'why' question is I care about other people because I would want other people caring about me. Kind of like the golden rule, that's in the bible right?

3. They murder and steal because they think they can get away with it or desperate. It's common sense that they know killing people is wrong but not everyone wants to be right. They do it because they get something out of it.

2. You can just keep on asking 'why's' to every answer I say just like I can keep asking 'why's' to why you believe in God or the bible.

Hi Birdie, I can't speak for everyone here but I believe in God and the Bible because I believe it promotes love... If it doesn't promote love, then I would suggest (and agree) that it should be removed permanently from our world. If someone can prove to me that it doesn't promote love or peace, either through scripture or some other means I would welcome the challenge.

August wrote:

NeedMoreChipotleTabasco wrote:The term "atheist" simply means "someone who does not believe that god(s) exist." That's it, period.

How do you know God does not exist?

When did I ever say "God doesn't exist"? That's right, I didn't.

I can't prove that there is no god any more than I can prove that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster or that Osama Bin Laden isn't playing poker with Elvis and Bigfoot on some uncharted desert island. Neither can you.

What I can do, however, is withhold my belief in any of these things until such time as there is enough of evidence to justify viewing them as likely. As things stand there are many rational reasons to believe that god is a human construct and no rational reasons to believe that he's not. So I'm an atheist. I don't believe that god exists.

I can't prove that there is no god any more than I can prove that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster or that Osama Bin Laden isn't playing poker with Elvis and Bigfoot on some uncharted desert island. Neither can you.

Proving God in this world is easy... All you have to do is look around you. It did not come by chance, but was designed by an intelligent creator. And the creator is love... Is love such a bad thing?

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Next question please.

August wrote:

NeedMoreChipotleTabasco wrote:Personally, I believe that an objective moral code has come into being as the result of the gradual evolution of human societies. To put it simply, behaviors that are beneficial to the strength and stability of a given society are what we see as morally good behaviors and behaviors that lead to weakness or chaos within a society are regarded as immoral.

Do you have any proof for that?

No, not really. Like I said, it's merely my belief. It makes sense to me and the evidence seems to support it. People's views on morality have changed over the last few thousand years. That's undeniable. Today human life is valued far, far more than it ever was in primitive societies, and the belief in the value of life generally transcends political and cultural boundaries.

August wrote:

NeedMoreChipotleTabasco wrote:I personally see religion as a bulwark created to supplement the common-sense rules that we all know and understand but don't always follow, as well as a virtually unassailable divine-right explanation to justify the power and privilege of the ruling elite.

Or to put it more plainly, people created an objective moral code based on reason and pragmatism. God is not a necessary component.

Please show how people can create an objective moral code. Who did it first? Who are these people who created it? What caused morality to come into existence?

I will ask you the same question I asked Garza, do you believe in human free will?

I already showed how I believe these things happened. As groups of people got larger they needed ways of keeping order and maintaining social stability. They gradually recognized and outlawed behavior that threatened social stability, and they used the word of god to justify and reinforce those laws.

As for who created it first, who knows? All societies on earth would have either come to the same conclusions, or they'd have been wiped out by stronger neighbors or killed off by famine. You can't defend your land or farm your fields while you're busy having a blood feud.

And I already stated what caused morality to come into existence several times. I know you're anxious to discredit me, but please have the courtesy to read what I write.

As for free will, yes, I believe in it, assuming that I am correct that there is no god. If god, as defined by christians, exists then no, we do not have free will.

Gman wrote:

I can't prove that there is no god any more than I can prove that there is no Flying Spaghetti Monster or that Osama Bin Laden isn't playing poker with Elvis and Bigfoot on some uncharted desert island. Neither can you.

Proving God in this world is easy... All you have to do is look around you. It did not come by chance, but was designed by an intelligent creator. And the creator is love... Is love such a bad thing?

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Next question please.

You failed to list evidence, much less proof. You look around you and see a world made by your god. Other theists see a world made by their god, and i see a world that evolved within a framework of natural laws. None of us have absolute, 100% proof.

The only position that is supported by rational, demonstrable evidence, however, is mine. Intelligent design is not science. It asks no questions and tests nothing. It's simply a series of cherry-picked examples put together to try to displace evolution.

Is love a bad thing? No, of course not. But the fact that love is a good thing is not evidence that god is, in fact, love, much less that he created anything or that he even exists. I can easily provide christian testimonials that god is hate, intolerance, and bigotry.

As for the quote from Romans, you cannot logically use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. It's a meaningless circular argument. Furthermore, as I said, the complexity of the world around us does not prove, or even imply, the existence of god. If I could look at the world and clearly see the hand of god then I would have, and so would everyone else. If your quote were accurate there would be no competing religions and no atheists because god's existence would be clear. That's obviously not the case.

Finally, since you asked for questions here you go:

NeedMoreChipotleTabasco wrote: If god is all-knowing then he knew that Adam and Eve would eat the apple if he put them in the garden with it. He knew that people would become sinful. He knew that he would destroy the vast majority of them in the great flood. He knew all of these things before he made a single speck of dust, yet he went ahead and did it anyway. Why?

There you go.

Just a reminder for those on this thread.

If you haven't already, please read the Discussion Guidelines of this Board. We are not a general discussion board. We exist to discuss issues between Christians and those who are sincerely seeking or questioning in this area.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=4

Other boards exist for those who have already made up their minds and are not interested in civil discourse or open to working through issues with an open mind on their end.

Please check as well out the main board where you will find a great deal of articles that address the common arguments of Atheism and a Christian Apologetic response.

Blessings and thanks for examining the guidelines and determining if you can work within their perameters.

You failed to list evidence, much less proof. You look around you and see a world made by your god. Other theists see a world made by their god, and i see a world that evolved within a framework of natural laws. None of us have absolute, 100% proof.

There is really not much to prove here (for macro-evolution). For example, scientists to this day cannot exactly explain how the human eye (or any other eye) came into existence. It is just too complicated... If you have the evidence, I would like to see it.

The only position that is supported by rational, demonstrable evidence, however, is mine. Intelligent design is not science. It asks no questions and tests nothing. It's simply a series of cherry-picked examples put together to try to displace evolution.

You are right, to this day the rational, demonstrable evidence hasn't proved that macro evolution has occurred. If it hasn't, then perhaps something else put it all into motion... In fact the more they dig, the more they simply prove the existence of God. Kind of like digging one's own grave.

Is love a bad thing? No, of course not. But the fact that love is a good thing is not evidence that god is, in fact, love, much less that he created anything or that he even exists. I can easily provide christian testimonials that god is hate, intolerance, and bigotry.

I would like to see someone prove to me that God is hate (from the Bible and not what people may say). As a former atheist, I have never been defeated here yet. What I was avocating here was that since God is love, then why is there a problem with attributing creationism with God?

As for the quote from Romans, you cannot logically use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true. It's a meaningless circular argument. Furthermore, as I said, the complexity of the world around us does not prove, or even imply, the existence of god. If I could look at the world and clearly see the hand of god then I would have, and so would everyone else. If your quote were accurate there would be no competing religions and no atheists because god's existence would be clear. That's obviously not the case.

But since there are competing religions or alternative choices in this world today, then free will comes back into play here. This seems to put the argument back into a loving God approach then...

NeedMoreChipotleTabasco wrote:

If god is all-knowing then he knew that Adam and Eve would eat the apple if he put them in the garden with it. He knew that people would become sinful. He knew that he would destroy the vast majority of them in the great flood. He knew all of these things before he made a single speck of dust, yet he went ahead and did it anyway. Why?

Oh that's easy. Knowing what men will do with their freedom is not the same as ordaining what they must do against their free choice. God's knowledge is not necessarily incompatible with free will. There is no problem in saying that God created man with free will so that they could return his love, even though he knows that some will not make that decision. God is responsible for the fact of freedom, but man is responsible for the acts of freedom. In his knowledge, God might even persuade men to make certain decisions, but there is no reason to suppose that he coerces any decision so as to destroy freedom. He works persuasively, but not coercively.

Hope this helps. Take care,

G -

Hi Bart, I just read your message after I submitted mine. If I'm out of line here, I will respect your rebuke. Maybe pm me here.

Sorry,

G -