Evidence for God from Science

As most of us know (I guess...), a pyramid has been discovered in the surface of Ceres. This is weird enough as it is. Now, here's the deal: from the christian perspective, God designed our solar system. So...could it be that He designed it to the point of "making" a pyramid in Ceres? Sounds really far-fetched, doesn't it? There seems to be no reason to do that, unless scientist suddenly find out that the pyramid is essencial to prevent Ceres from crashing in our planet. Which I doubt...

As a former christian, I can't help thinking this pyramid is one more of the millions of evidence that we have that intelligence isn't needed to do something intelligent and/or design-like. We have examples of that in outer space, underwater, Earth's mountains, ridiculous coincidences in our daily life...with all these examplkes, it just seems utterly fantasious for us to think that our universe was designed when it might as well be a blind creation (which would explain a lot).

Thoughts?

As a "former Christian"? May I ask why you chose to dumb yourself down.

Naturalist Scientists want to believe nothing can be designed.
If there is the slimmest possibility that something can unfold naturally, then it must have.

The argument Theists put forward is that if something couldn't arise naturally (or such an enormously low probability that it may as well be impossible), then it must be designed.
This seems to be a sound argument. Right? Of course, if something doesn't happen following natural processes then the only other option is intelligence and design.

In the opposite corner to Theists, there are those who claim, "if something can happen naturally, then it must have and wasn't designed."
This is such an unsound argument. It doesn't follow at all if something can happen naturally that there is no design.

When this world is over, I believe many will be shocked. Why?
Because what many take for granted as being "natural" and "undesigned" will be seen to have the hallmark of design and intelligence all the way through it.

May I ask why you chose to dumb yourself down.

I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker, so I'm not sure I understood that. Could you rephrase, please? Unless you're asking why I ~ sort of ~ became dumber. If that's the case, please remember: becoming a non-christian doesn't equal becoming dumber. Remember atheists use that exact same falacy when some people become christians. Don't do that. Don't...huh... "atheist" yourself down?!

(also, I didn't really "chose" to do it. I know christians love to use that word to blame someone (jeez, why on Earth is God so freaking obsessed with guilt?!), but it wasn't that much of a choice. I just thought about stuff I hadn't thought before and read stuff I hadn't read before and suddenly felt my faith was no more than a lame expression of my natural optimism. "Felt", not chose.)

The argument Theists put forward is that if something couldn't arise naturally (or such an enormously low probability that it may as well be impossible)

I disagree with this part. There is a ginormous difference between "can't arise naturally" and "enormously low probability that it may as well be impossible". They may sound close, but they are not. The first one claims that X is impossible without Y, and was the main reasons why I believed in a God (when I was "just" a theist). The second one claims that X is possible without Y. At that time, probability doesn't matter; it is simply possible. And then people have to...so to speak..."choose" whether they believe X happened with or without Y. Faith becomes about probabilities. And since our daily life constantly shows us that the 0,1% of probabilities happen all the time, it is juts as smart believe in that 0,1% as believing in the 99,9%.

It doesn't follow at all if something can happen naturally that there is no design.

Agreed! But vice-versa is also true...

MBPrata wrote:

May I ask why you chose to dumb yourself down.

I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker, so I'm not sure I understood that. Could you rephrase, please? Unless you're asking why I ~ sort of ~ became dumber. If that's the case, please remember: becoming a non-christian doesn't equal becoming dumber. Remember atheists use that exact same falacy when some people become christians. Don't do that. Don't...huh... "atheist" yourself down?!

(also, I didn't really "chose" to do it. I know christians love to use that word to blame someone (jeez, why on Earth is God so freaking obsessed with guilt?!), but it wasn't that much of a choice. I just thought about stuff I hadn't thought before and read stuff I hadn't read before and suddenly felt my faith was no more than a lame expression of my natural optimism. "Felt", not chose.)

Yes, I do believe that a more logical and rational positive -- the higher intellectual position -- is belief in God.
Stuff the religions of the world. We're just talking belief. To not see that God has to exist is just foolishness. A burying your head in the sand.
I'm sure you think otherwise. We're all entitled to our opinions, right?

MBPrata wrote:

The argument Theists put forward is that if something couldn't arise naturally (or such an enormously low probability that it may as well be impossible)

I disagree with this part. There is a ginormous difference between "can't arise naturally" and "enormously low probability that it may as well be impossible". They may sound close, but they are not. The first one claims that X is impossible without Y, and was the main reasons why I believed in a God (when I was "just" a theist). The second one claims that X is possible without Y. At that time, probability doesn't matter; it is simply possible. And then people have to...so to speak..."choose" whether they believe X happened with or without Y. Faith becomes about probabilities. And since our daily life constantly shows us that the 0,1% of probabilities happen all the time, it is juts as smart believe in that 0,1% as believing in the 99,9%.

I think I get the gist of what you're saying.
HOWEVER, in epistemology there is not really an enormous difference at all.
BECAUSE 100% certainty as you allude to cannot be had. If we ought to only believe that which is 100% then welcome Nihilism and an everlasting loop of not being able to accept anything.

Knowledge can be wrong. Knowledge can change. Knowledge, as I recently had an exchange about, is comprised of beliefs with some justifying basis.
Newtonian Physics for example was knowledge which has since evolved thanks to what we call General Relativity. And then there is Special Relativity.
Knowledge may not be 100% the truth. Truth never changes. Humans can have knowledge, and while we can be 100% adamant, there will never be 100% certainty that our knowledge is true. We don't have an objective standpoint with which to declare that. This objective position is something only a being like God who created and knows all would have.

And so, knowledge is always a probability, at least for subjective creatures like us.
We can be 99.9999999999% certain, but there will always be a slim chance that we might be wrong.

Heck, if our brains really are in a vat and we are truly experiencing a virtual reality like the Matrix, then all we are experiencing might simply be illusory.
That's a slim possibility right? Who knows, maybe it is a great possibility. I'm not in a position to really determine that it isn't true.

So because there is a slim possibility that something like my brain is really in a vat and hooked up to a computer, that is what I put my faith in?
Correct me if I'm being too forthcoming here, but that is complete and utter foolishness don't you think?

MBPrata wrote:

It doesn't follow at all if something can happen naturally that there is no design.

Agreed! But vice-versa is also true...

Yes, I suppose it does work the other way around too.
That is, if something is designed then it doesn't mean it can't happen naturally.
Apply that then to your original post.

Furthermore, the schism caused by Atheistic Naturalist Scientists (e.g., Dawkins and those he shepherds ) between "science" and those who positively affirm God's existence and even Intelligent Design philosophies is therefore unwarranted.

That was a mouthful of words, but design/no design has no bearing upon whether or not something unfolded naturally. For all we know it was (and I'd argue was) designed to unfold that way.

To not see that God has to exist is just foolishness. A burying your head in the sand.

That sounds pretty judgemental for a christian, but whatever...no, it is not "foolishness", namely since we...let's say..."discovered" spontaneous creation.

If we ought to only believe that which is 100% then welcome Nihilism and an everlasting loop of not being able to accept anything.

Yeah...about that...

I'm pretty close to that, actually.

So because there is a slim possibility that something like my brain is really in a vat and hooked up to a computer, that is what I put my faith in?
Correct me if I'm being too forthcoming here, but that is complete and utter foolishness don't you think?

No. It's just a belief. Also, if you have logical evidence towards that conclusion, that only makes it more logical. I've searched about both christianity and atheism and I found out so many evidence towards BOTH of them that, for me, helding any one of these beliefs is perfectly logical.

Besides, as you said, knowledge can't be 100% truth. Knowing this, we humans can realize that we don't really know anything at all. As in...if there is evidence against the brain hooked to a computer, do we really know if that evidence is the truth? No, we don't. In so being, "choosing" a belief is far from foolish. Actually, it is pretty much the only way we can live without becoming insane...

And it baffles me how God can blame us for holding to a belief just so we can prevent our own insanity... (then again, He sure loves to blame...)

MBPrata wrote:

To not see that God has to exist is just foolishness. A burying your head in the sand.

That sounds pretty judgemental for a christian, but whatever...no, it is not "foolishness", namely since we...let's say..."discovered" spontaneous creation.

Oh yes... it's not foolishness.

MBPrata wrote:

If we ought to only believe that which is 100% then welcome Nihilism and an everlasting loop of not being able to accept anything.

Yeah...about that...

I'm pretty close to that, actually.

Well, I'm not sure if you understand the issue in the same light that it came to me.
BUT, I did stay up nights trying to work a way out of the dilemma.
How does one justify logic and reason? This was a big deal for me.
You can't use logic and reason can't prove logic and reason.

Many just say you ought to accept them a priori or as self-evident truths.
That wasn't good enough for me. BUT, I don't know if you feel the issue in the same way I do.
Let me know if interested in an alternative route -- a way jump free from Nihilism to embrace your mind, logic and reason.

MBPrata wrote:

So because there is a slim possibility that something like my brain is really in a vat and hooked up to a computer, that is what I put my faith in?
Correct me if I'm being too forthcoming here, but that is complete and utter foolishness don't you think?

No. It's just a belief. Also, if you have logical evidence towards that conclusion, that only makes it more logical. I've searched about both christianity and atheism and I found out so many evidence towards BOTH of them that, for me, helding any one of these beliefs is perfectly logical.

You must be talking about something other than Atheism, because Atheism isn't logical at all.
It provides no explanation for anything, leads to absurd logical ends and prides itself on taking the mickey out of any other belief.

MBPrata wrote:Besides, as you said, knowledge can't be 100% truth.

I said no such thing. Rather you can't be 100% certain your knowledge is true.
Big difference.

MBPrata wrote:Knowing this, we humans can realize that we don't really know anything at all.

You're just falling into the Nihilistic destruction of knowledge that Post-Modernity prides itself on.
Nevermind the self-refuting nature of saying "We humans can realise that we don't really know anything at all" -- are you claiming to know something there?

No. Of course we know things. And yes, we can even know truth.
You might be scratching your head, but I haven't here contradicted anything I said previously.
Trust me.

MBPrata wrote:As in...if there is evidence against the brain hooked to a computer, do we really know if that evidence is the truth? No, we don't. In so being, "choosing" a belief is far from foolish. Actually, it is pretty much the only way we can live without becoming insane...

Well there is no evidence, but rather extreme skepticism.
But, you're onto something here in saying: "choosing" a belief is far from foolish. Actually, it is pretty much the only way we can live without becoming insane.
You're close to the key for escaping Nihilism in a justified way.

MBPrata wrote:And it baffles me how God can blame us for holding to a belief just so we can prevent our own insanity... (then again, He sure loves to blame...)

God is God. Interestingly, Jesus asked if the cup from Him. But, as Creator of Creation God blamed, it was His cup to drink.
And so Jesus drank it and took the blame upon Himself. How sweet eh? You won't find such love from God for us in any other belief.

God lowering Himself to our level, to get his hands dirty and associate with us inspires the same admiration of a King who fight alongside his soldiers in battle.

So yes, God loves to blame. Of course, if God is completely righteous. Do we want a wicked God?
And yet, the One who created took all the blame so that we who are gathered to Him may appear blameless.

Forget Christianity. You do know what Christ is about right?

PS. You speak quite good English.

I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Here's the best picture I could find. It does NOT look like a pyramid.


A pyramid is a structure whose outer surfaces are triangular, and converge to a single point. That picture is not of a pyramid.

Who discovered spontaneous creation? When? Link would be greatly appreciated. By the way "ginormous "... your grasp of English colloquialisms is exceptional

Hey, my dog took a big poop in the yard the other day - and so after a few days of 100-degree heat, and from a distance and at a certain angle, it looked a lot like a pyramid. But I knew it was only a load of dog doo! And as far as I know, he's never visited Ceres.



Or maybe he HAS???!!!

Oh yes... it's not foolishness.

Of course Mr. Dawkins contradicts himself once in a while. Nothingness is a weird, freaking confusing stuff (or...lack of stuff?), it's hardly possible to talk about it without contradicting. Also, remember, christians also contradict themselves. Is it ok for me find them guilty for foolishness by exposing one of them contradicting himself/herself?

You must be talking about something other than Atheism, because Atheism isn't logical at all.

I was talking about any belief, atheism included. Nearly every belief I've met until today has a logic behind it. Yeah, atheism included. Also, a couple of atheists I know don't expect logic to apply. As in...they believe everything that exists is just flat-out absurd, so the so-called lack of logic in things coming out of nowhere stops being relevant.

I said no such thing.

Oops, sorry. I didn't feel like copying your words again, so I adapted. Wrongly, apparently...seriously, I'm sorry. I hate to distort what people said...

Nevermind the self-refuting nature of saying "We humans can realise that we don't really know anything at all" -- are you claiming to know something there?

No. That would be inconsistent with my belief that we know nothing. Instead, I am claiming that I BELIEVE that we know absolutely nothing.

You're close to the key for escaping Nihilism in a justified way.

Well, maybe...and maybe I need to escape Nihilism...but it is still a valid way to live. Namely when someone gets so nuts because of not believing in anything that he/she says: "Screw this, I know nothing! I'm just gonna be happy and make other people happy!". Sounds constructive, am I right?

So yes, God loves to blame. Of course, if God is completely righteous. Do we want a wicked God?

No, a more comprehensive God would be enough. Considering how insane and surreal human life seems to be in an universe where we can't "know" anything, forgiving us for snaping and "choosing" a wrong belief sounds reasonable.
What is wicked - in my opinion, of course - is throwing millions of atheists into a lake of fire just because, when they heard of the Bible, they rejected it due to the fear of being fooled once again. Like...we are fooled every since we are born. Our parents lie to us (well, most of them), television lies to us, society lies to us, we find out what we thought was the truth wasn't, we take History classes that teach us that History is full of contraditory registers and half-truths...sigh. One sort becomes tired of being fooled. And by then, if someone thinks the Bible is yet another attempt to fool us (which is not difficult), it's just logical that he/she rejects it like a body with acute rejection of an organ...

PS. You speak quite good English.

Thank you!

Here's the best picture I could find. It does NOT look like a pyramid.

I know, I also didn't see a lot of pictures of it. I have, however, read one or two testimonies from diffent types of people (some of which were scientists) claiming it does look like a pyramid. One of them, if I recall, even comented how mysterious and strange Ceres seems to be...which sounds creepy for something designed by a good God. But maybe that's just me...

Who discovered spontaneous creation?

I used the inverted commas for a reason, you know? Either way...Stephen Hawking "discovered" it. (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ssary.html / http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... thing.html)

By the way "ginormous "... your grasp of English colloquialisms is exceptional

Why, thanks! It's really nice to be complimented in this website instead of offended...

MBPrata wrote:

Here's the best picture I could find. It does NOT look like a pyramid.

I know, I also didn't see a lot of pictures of it. I have, however, read one or two testimonies from diffent types of people (some of which were scientists) claiming it does look like a pyramid. One of them, if I recall, even comented how mysterious and strange Ceres seems to be...which sounds creepy for something designed by a good God. But maybe that's just me.

Unless you have some other pictures that show these "pyramids" actually look like pyramids, this whole thread is meaningless.

Maybe I'm missing something. What do the non-pyramid things on Ceres have to do with intelligent design?

I don't see the point.

And sometimes an unusual-shaped rock is merely a weird random rock. It's not like contemplating the design of a cell or something astounding that has no other explanation.

Remember the silliness over this Mars rock?



But get close enough and:



Suddenly, there is NO face, just a rock!

Unless you have some other pictures that show these "pyramids" actually look like pyramids, this whole thread is meaningless.

As I said, I didn't see that much of pictures; I read more testimonies regarding how similar it was to a pyramid. Pictures are not necessarily the ones who make me more suspicious that intelligence isn't needed to make intelligent stuff. Some testimonies from scientist, however, are...

Suddenly, there is NO face, just a rock!

Yeah, I remember that rock. Still, that brings back the question: if God designed our solar system, did He go so fat that he designed the surface of Mars? If He did, wouldn't it be better to remove the face-like rock? If He didn't, then to which degree He designed our solar system?