Evidence For God (I'd love to hear feedback)

[Deavonreye]

Well, you seem to be concluding that humans couldn't develope a sense of right and wrong on its own. I conclude that they can, and did. I'm not sure what else can be stated. I'm not bored, . . . I just am not sure how I can make my point anymore than I have. Is your bottom line that humans couldn't have developed "a conscience" on their own?

 

[reba]

Deavonreye,

All i have to do is look at places where Christianity is almost nonexistent to get a glimpse of what mankind could be like with out God.

We are bad enough with God.

 

[ivdavid]

Deavonreye,

This is what I think is happening - I see a contradiction in your position, and I'm trying to describe and show that contradiction to you - in order to find out how you resolve it. Unfortunately, I think I haven't done a good enough job at making the problem clear.

So, I'll try and do that in this post - and I'll make this simple for you by framing yes/no questions in order to be able to precisely find out where we differ. If you feel any question does not fully reflect your position properly, feel free to rephrase it before answering it.

deavonreye - "Physics is as it does....just because that is what it does...."
1. By this, you state that mere physical matter behaves according to its inherent physical properties and does not have any "choice" of acting any different from what its properties dictate under those conditions. Would you agree with this inference from that statement of yours - yes/no?

deavonreye - "there are times when there is an emergence....It is still the physical/material world."
2.a) This implies that the 'emergent result' - which still is physical - will carry on the properties of 'the physical'. If it doesn't, then it no longer is 'physical'. Would you agree - yes/no?

2.b) And so, the 'emergent result' too behaves according to its inherent physical properties and does not have any "choice" of acting any different from what its properties dictate under those conditions. This is inferred from the above 2 inferences. Would you agree to this - yes/no?

deavonreye - "Where man differs is that we have emerged from that [similar trait] to the point where we can direct our fate/future.....[having] a reasoning brain at its core."
3.a) You are stating here that man has emerged to a point where he has a "choice" of action/behaviour. Is that right - yes/no?

3.b) Since this 'physical' man himself is an "emergent result", from the above inference 2b) it follows that this 'physical man' too must behave according to its inherent physical properties and not have any "choice" of acting any different from what its properties dictate under those conditions. Would you agree - yes/no?

3.c) Inference 3.b) is observed to be absurd and contradictory w.r.t. our observable world. Would you agree - yes/no?


Now, I've laid this out in a logical framework with each premise deriving itself from the preceding premise - and the first premises are beliefs that you hold. This framework happens to result in an internal contradiction. I'd like to know how you resolve this contradiction.

You may perhaps accept the validity of all the above inferences and yet be able to resolve the contradiction by introducing some new premise or a new perspective - if that's the case, please share it. Or you may rephrase the above inferences because you found them to be flawed - in that case, point out the flaw and feel free to rephrase the inferences.

Your unambiguous answers to the above would help in my understanding your position clearly. Let's take it from there...

 

[ivdavid]

...continuing,

you seem to be concluding that humans couldn't develope a sense of right and wrong on its own.

I wasn't referring to 'conscience' - I was referring to 'consciousness', though both require similar explanations.
And yes, I have concluded, based on the inferences seen in the last post, that humans can't develop rationality and consciousness from within a self-contained physical non-rational world. If you find my reasoning to be inconsistent, please correct me.

I conclude that they can, and did.

It seems more like you 'stated' it than you 'concluded' it. To conclude something, it must be based on facts and inferences - there should be some 'grounds' based on which a conclusion can be drawn. I haven't yet seen any 'grounds' for your believing that rationality emerges from non-rationality.

I may be mistaken here, but what you seem to be doing is this -
1. You observe that humans have rationality.

2. You already assume the naturalistic worldview as 'certain' - "What is certain is that there isn't anything supernatural at work. Just the natural."

And now it's a logical conclusion to state that man's rationality emerged from the non-rational natural world. But this isn't based on facts and inferences. The above premise 2 is in fact a logical fallacy - you can never be certain of the absence of the supernatural, given that it cannot be verified by the physical. And besides, what's the point of assuming as true, in a discussion, that which we're discussing the truth on?

So you see, I'm interested in knowing the grounds on which you drew this conclusion. Which is why I wanted to know if some scientist or a group of them have established credible evidence to prove the theory of the rational emerging from the non-rational. A simple yes/no answer would do. I ask this because I'm reasonably sure no such theory has been established yet but if I'm wrong, please do correct me.

 

[Deavonreye]

I would say that it is true that physical matter/physics reacts as it does due to the forces that work on it. . . .for example, the reason why there is a symmetry to natural processes. As if there was a purpose behind making a snowflake symmetrical, crystals that form as they do, or magnets that seem magical in the way they repel and attract.

However, after doing a bit of research, . . . I may have spoken out of turn. I am not sure if "the conscience" has been tested for by scientists. So it may be one of those "I don't know" momets, and that is okay. The thing about "I don't know" is that there is a direction to be taken, and learning in the future. More than that, "I don't know" should never [then] mean that another assumption must therefore be the truth.

So, having said all of this, I am retracting a lot of what I stated and am going to state, "I don't know", when it comes to the conscience/consciousness.

 

[ivdavid]

"I don't know" should never [then] mean that another assumption must therefore be the truth.

Absolutely not. I assure you I will never knowingly resort to such sleight of hand to establish truth. I was not presenting the lack of evidence for emergent-rationality as the evidence for God - not at all. I was merely reflecting on your inconsistency -
Keeping with the thread, you said you couldn't believe in the 'God' worldview because of the lack of evidence - but you seem to have no problems holding on to the naturalist worldview though there too you lack conclusive evidence.

If however you meant it as "sufficient" evidence, then it becomes completely subjective - and gets treated more like "evidence as grounds" rather than "evidence as proof". I could give you sufficient grounds to evidence God and you still could subjectively reject it saying that that's not sufficient - such subjectivity is what scientists call "faith" in their usage of "faith vs reason". The implication is that you must either reject all worldviews that don't have conclusive evidence, leaving none to believe, which I think is an impossibility - or you must concede that the naturalist worldview is yet another "religion" in terms of how it is accepted. Have I got something wrong here?

_________________

Anyway, such lack of scientific evidence still doesn't provide evidence for God - and my argument is not scientific at all. It's more a philosophical argument. I acknowledge that there is so much more to be known about our natural world - but I'm only testing the possibilities of certain conclusions given what we already know about the natural world. In post#183, I attempt to show you how "choice-making" cannot ever theoretically rise in a purely materialistic world. Science has much to discover - but it cannot discover how "choice making" came about - it only can discover how the perception of "choice-making" exists even when there is no such real concept possible within a materialistic world.

Is there anything you disagree with in that post? If not, then the concept of morality too does not exist - and hence your current perceptions of right and wrong too are actually redundant. These are the logical implications - either you are ready to accept these or you must concede that it's not just the physical system we're in. I'd be interested to know what your current position is - whenever you find it convenient to reply.

 

[Deavonreye]

Absolutely not. I assure you I will never knowingly resort to such sleight of hand to establish truth. I was not presenting the lack of evidence for emergent-rationality as the evidence for God - not at all. I was merely reflecting on your inconsistency -
Keeping with the thread, you said you couldn't believe in the 'God' worldview because of the lack of evidence - but you seem to have no problems holding on to the naturalist worldview though there too you lack conclusive evidence.

The difference is that under the "god worldview", you MUST have "the supernatural" in order to get what you're talking about. That is where I draw the line. I see nothing of the supernatural. I see the natural all around me and science works within the natural. I don't see my point of view as inconstistent. if you believe it is, then that is your right to do so. I disagree with that assessment.

 

[ivdavid]

I see the natural all around me and science works within the natural.

Let's deal in strict logic - and that is precise science, right?

You see the natural around you as do I. From this, we are logically only permitted to draw the conclusion that -
1. "The natural exists".

Given the discussion we're in, We are not however logically permitted to draw the conclusion -
2. "Only the natural exists."

Now, you have maintained the stance that for you to be able to accept something as true, you require credible conclusive evidence.
And again note, for us to be able to draw the above conclusion 2, we need to have credible conclusive evidence for the same.

You have stated that you have found no conclusive evidence to prove that "only" the natural world exists. Therein, you are not permitted to draw Conclusion 2 - which is what you're doing - and which is what I'm referring to as an inconsistency.

What I think is happening is that you're using the "absence of evidence"(I don't agree to this but for the sake of argument I'll continue) for the supernatural as the "evidence for its absence" and hence you're concluding that only the natural world exists. This is a logical fallacy.

So your permissible logical conclusions still are -
a) You do not believe in a naturalistic world(only the natural exists) too.
b) You believe in a naturalistic world even though there isn't credible conclusive evidence.

Am I missing something?

And given that you believe what you believe, is it wrong on my part to expect simple yes/no answers to post#183? We can't progress in our discussion if we can't find out where exactly the disconnect is - and I think I can understand your position better if I know where you stand concerning the premises and inferences in that post and how you resolve the inconsistency there.

 

[Deavonreye]

What you are missing [and I am now growing tired of this conversation, as it is going no where] is that I have already stated that I have nothing to state that a "supernatural" doesn't exist. However, all we HAVE is the natural. I don't CARE about "the absence of evidence" argument. There is absence of evidence for all KINDS of whacky theories and notions. Could some of them actually be true? Sure. What does it benefit me to believe them by faith? No benefit!

I'm sorry, but I just don't know any way to continue this line of argument any longer. Call me inconsistent, if you want.

Good day.

 

[ivdavid]

What is certain is that there isn't anything supernatural at work. Just the natural.

Could some of them[e.g. the supernatural] actually be true? Sure.

This conversation is going nowhere? I just saw it progress from your first quote here to your next quote here - and that is progress.

Let me make it very clear at this point, any discussion on the apologetics forum is not meant to be personal at all - we simply deal with premises and inferences and not people. I'm pretty sure this is already your approach and that you wouldn't take any of my arguments as a personal attack against you.
Also, we are not here to prove one's beliefs are better than the other, as if there could be such a distinction - we are here to determine truth the best way we consistently can. I assume you'd see the discussion to the end as long as there still is the truth of something to evaluate here.

I just don't know any way to continue this line of argument any longer.

ivdavid - "We can't progress in our discussion if we can't find out where exactly the disconnect is - and I think I can understand your position better if I know where you stand concerning the premises and inferences in that post[#183] and how you resolve the inconsistency there."
At least we're agreed upon the fact that there is nothing more to continue on except if you'd give simple yes/no answers to post#183 - and then we could take it from there to determine if an inconsistency exists there or not. That's a next step that could help continuing this discussion.

 

[Stormcrow]

Why did God appear on earth in physical form (ie, having dinner with Abraham, wrestling with Jacob, walking past Moses, etc.) and have actual conversations regularly with people in OT times, yet he is completely silent now?

{15} He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Colossians 1:15 (NASB)

{9} Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, {10} and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him— Colossians 3:9-10 (NASB)

The Son is the image of the Father and we - who believe - are reborn into the image of the Son. The fact that people find it so hard to find Christ in the behavior of those who claim to be His simply speaks to how hard it is to live a holy life worthy of His sacrifice. The fact that people even try should count for something in a world where so many don’t even bother.

As G.K. Chesterton once opined, “If man created God in his own image, why did he create Him so holy?”

If God didn’t exist, why would anyone even try to live a life that demands so much self-denial and self-sacrifice in a “me-centric” world?

As to why He is silent now?

He's not. He inspired me to write the above to you.

For what it's worth.

Will address your other points as time permits.

Peace. Out.

 

[Deavonreye]

Disclaimer: If I use quotations around a word, that means they aren't absolutes, but could be "for the lack of a better word".

1. By this, you state that mere physical matter behaves according to its inherent physical properties and does not have any "choice" of acting any different from what its properties dictate under those conditions. Would you agree with this inference from that statement of yours - yes/no?

As far as I know, physical matter, in its raw form doesn't "make decisions", but are "ordered" according to physics principles.

deavonreye - "there are times when there is an emergence....It is still the physical/material world."

2.a) This implies that the 'emergent result' - which still is physical - will carry on the properties of 'the physical'. If it doesn't, then it no longer is 'physical'. Would you agree - yes/no?

As lifeforms become more complex, though they are still made up from "the raw", I can see that they would "react upon themselves". It is still the physical. "Emergence" is just the stage when there is something more than "just reactions". The brain is still made up of "the raw" [broken down into its simplest form], but there isn't anything specifically random when it comes to decisions.

2.b) And so, the 'emergent result' too behaves according to its inherent physical properties and does not have any "choice" of acting any different from what its properties dictate under those conditions. This is inferred from the above 2 inferences. Would you agree to this - yes/no?

Well, . . . since even the "emergent" is still made up of this raw material", that raw material would still behave according to its physics principle. I do not know how the step to conciousness is made.

deavonreye - "Where man differs is that we have emerged from that [similar trait] to the point where we can direct our fate/future.....[having] a reasoning brain at its core."

3.a) You are stating here that man has emerged to a point where he has a "choice" of action/behaviour. Is that right - yes/no?

Not just man. Many creatures have a "choice of action/behavior". However, again, I have no idea how the physical properties developed the ability for me to decide whether I want Pepperjack cheese or Colbyjack cheese.

3.b) Since this 'physical' man himself is an "emergent result", from the above inference 2b) it follows that this 'physical man' too must behave according to its inherent physical properties and not have any "choice" of acting any different from what its properties dictate under those conditions. Would you agree - yes/no?

Again, I do not know how it came to be that animals [including humans, of course] are able to make decisions. Probably a complicated explaination to be given by a neurologist. But the raw physical properties, being that they probably don't have the ability of "self decision", probably comport to their natural responses.

3.c) Inference 3.b) is observed to be absurd and contradictory w.r.t. our observable world. Would you agree - yes/no?

If we had someone who actually studied all of this, to the point of post grad/doctorate level, information could be available to show how simple it all really is. We can postulate on whether it is "absurd" or not [which I don't see it as such], but what we don't understand never can demand a conclusion.

Remember that "falling in love" used to be misunderstood as something spiritual. It was later discovered [using the scientific method] which brain chemicals induce these "feelings".

 

[Deavonreye]

As G.K. Chesterton once opined, “If man created God in his own image, why did he create Him so holy?â€

If God didn’t exist, why would anyone even try to live a life that demands so much self-denial and self-sacrifice in a “me-centric†world?

Why? Perhaps because man has always looked to 'a strong leader' and when HUMAN leaders always failed, a "super leader", who wasn't constrained to human failings, was needed. This was all done when men were becoming supersticious about many things [misunderstandings of natural processes], such as . . . why that big light rises in the east and sets in the west, bringing warmth, . . . why lightning happens [Zeus], etc. If some supernatural being is the cause of these things, then it MUST be far greater than us.

As for "me-centric", that is a contemporary and west centered ideology. I doubt it was the case in ancient Palestine/Rome/far east. Regardless, . . . what "self-denial/sacrifice" do you see the religious making? A few bucks each Sunday? Having sexual relations with one person? Not getting drunk?

As to why He is silent now?

He's not. He inspired me to write the above to you.

For what it's worth.

If by "inspired" you mean that your religious convictions cause you to post here, then that is nothing more than the muslim who acts out of his inspiration of Allah. It is still just your own mind and opinion. God's [if such a being exists] silence is still profound.

 

[childeye]

I don't understand all this discussion on physical matter since the thread is evidence of God and God is Spirit. What's up with that?

 

[Deavonreye]

I don't understand all this discussion on physical matter since the thread is evidence of God and God is Spirit. What's up with that?

I honestly don't know. :

 

[childeye]

I honestly don't know. :

That's kinda funny.

 

[ivdavid]

Deavonreye,

I'll have to clarify again where I'm going with all this. At the start of this discussion, you mentioned you believed in certain moral rights and wrongs. You also believe in a materialistic world. I'm merely trying to show that the two are mutually exclusive. That if you want to hold on to the materialistic worldview, you'll have to throw out the concept of morality(objective or subjective). And that if you want to hold on to the concept of morality, you'll have to deny that only the natural/physical exists - and this would be the evidence for God. Each of my posts have been driving towards this conclusion alone. Has this been clarified sufficiently?

The brain is still made up of "the raw" [broken down into its simplest form], but there isn't anything specifically random when it comes to decisions.

I think the word "random" is misused a lot. What I think you're saying here is - When it comes to decisions, the physical reactions are not as random in purpose as perhaps when they initially collided to give rise to life. But reactions anyway don't have purpose except exhibiting their own properties, and so the two cases amount to the same - just perhaps occurring at varying levels of complexity.

However, again, I have no idea how the physical properties developed the ability for me to decide whether I want Pepperjack cheese or Colbyjack cheese.

This is what I'd like to focus on. I think we both agree on these facts -
1. that physical matter, in its raw form doesn't "make decisions", but are "ordered" according to physics principles.
2. Not just man. Many creatures have a "choice of action/behavior".

The two seem to be logically mutually exclusive and yet both are facts. The way to resolve them is in rephrasing statement 2 as - many creatures have the illusion of "choice of action/behavior" when actually they are only comporting to their natural responses. Would you agree?

And I will not question on the scientific "how" - how such an illusion came into existence or which chemicals are involved etc. I do not expect anyone to know the science behind everything, to be able to discuss here and I do not know much myself, to be able to understand even if one were to expound on all that. I have made it clear I'm not interested in a pure science discussion - this is just a philosophical line of argument.

So, your position dictates that you'd say something to this effect -
- that you are made up of only physical matter whose properties you comport to as your natural response.
- that you do perceive the illusion of "making decisions" when in the reality of this materialistic world, it's impossible for you to have such an ability to "make choices".

Doesn't the above deny the concept of morality?

And what I termed absurd was not the physical processes and the science as such but the conclusions/implications we arrive at because of such theories. If a purely materialistic world denies the concept of morality, it does sound 'unnatural' - and do you really think you need to be educated to the point of post grad/doctorate level to realize this?

Remember that "falling in love" used to be misunderstood as something spiritual. It was later discovered [using the scientific method] which brain chemicals induce these "feelings".

And what is to say that some spiritual part in you didn't induce those chemicals to induce such feelings. Correlation does not imply causation - there could be a third cause.

 

[Stormcrow]

If by "inspired" you mean that your religious convictions cause you to post here, then that is nothing more than the muslim who acts out of his inspiration of Allah. It is still just your own mind and opinion. God's [if such a being exists] silence is still profound.

No. Quite frankly I tend to avoid threads like these because they are generally rather pointless, as people who tend to open threads like this with such provocative comments usually do so simply to argue.

I was moved to respond not by religious conviction but by a "still, small voice" that thought you should read what I wrote.

I've done all I was asked to do. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[childeye]

The fact that the brains chemical reactions produce feelings is not news. Everyone knew this a long time ago. What Science has proven and which scripture testifies to is that faith or rather what you believe in causes the brain to manufacture the proper chemical to produce the appropriate feeling based on that belief. As also science has proven that Love and the absence of love is the absolute by which sanity is measured. Sanity being a healthy reality.

 

[Artie]

But God has already been proven:

" "A REPORT by the Church of England’s doctrine commission states that hell is not a fiery furnace after all; rather, it is an abstract place of nothingness. “There are many reasons for this change,†the report explains. “But amongst them have been the moral protest from both within and without the Christian faith against a religion of fear, and a growing sense that the picture of God who consigned millions to eternal torment was far removed from the revelation of God’s love in Christ."

God MUST have contacted the Church of England's doctrine commission who else would have the authority to cancel hellfire? Otherwise you would be claiming that people have thought up hell themselves.