I claimed I had tangible and empirical proof for believing in God. I was asked to expound... so here is my proof.
If you aren’t interested in changing your mind no matter what I say, this blog is going to be nothing more than 5 minutes of pure entertainment for you.
For these readers, even if I said I had seen God personally, you would either take me for a lunatic or refuse to accept it as empirical proof because you had not experienced it personally. That’s okay, because I’m not going to say I’ve physically beheld him with my own eyes because I haven’t. I am just pointing out that if even that kind of evidence would fail to intrigue your sincerity, nothing I say will sway you. There is no greater evidence than that, which you would not accept even if I could offer it.
For those who are sincere in pursuit of truth, whether or not you feel you have found it… what I have observed of the simple and ordinary, as well as what I consider to be miraculous and profound, will not be easily forgotten.
(If you haven’t already, read this brief precursor blog to gain orientation of context: http://progressiveu.org/011633-the-missing-theological-tidbit)
The first rule of science is that nothing is provable, as you mean it. Every law, theory and hypothesis is subject to revision and new discoveries. There is always the possibility that something is missing or misunderstood. Gravity today may be explained by something else tomorrow.
However, there is a point, after years of study and experimentation and criticism, at which we can be reasonably certain that if we are not 100% correct, we are pretty darn close. This is the point at which well-studied theories become scientific law, and curiosity becomes faith. This is the definition that both the scientific community and I assume.
My first evidence, perhaps the weakest but nevertheless the initiator, was the testimony of others. My parents are deeply religious and I never missed church unless I was either throwing up or there was a foot of ice on the road. I never had a reason to doubt that my parents knew the Church was true; it was so obvious that they did. I was also grew up taught that a 14 year-old boy had seen God and Jesus Christ and spoken with him, (I am LDS) and read his testimony many times. No, I have not seen God, but somebody had. Even in the scientific world, although a single observation is not irrefutable proof, it is neither automatically discreditable. So I considered it.
Second evidence… Since I was 11, I have had a serious allergy to citric acid. It is pretty hard to avoid because it’s in about 70% of the things that you normally eat. At first, we started noticing mono-like symptoms, but the reactions grew more and more impressive. My reactions came in the form of extreme and sudden depression, extreme arthritis-like symptoms, fever in my nervous system and even the temporary loss of normal motor functions. I cannot even begin to describe the pain to you. I would literally rather be hit by a car.
One particular morning, I ate some pancake syrup with had recently included citric acid as a preservative (this is more common that you would think, but the brand used to be clean so I didn’t think twice). We went to church happily. In the middle of my first class, my teacher brought me to my mom because I was crying uncontrollably (I don’t even remember that part, I was so out of it). I was taken out to the car to rest but couldn’t sleep because no position was comfortable and even the touch of clothes on my body was unbearable. The sensation was of fire dripping up and down my spine and simple hurt in every bone. Mom was about to take me to the ER.
Now, I am a Mormon. In our church, righteous male adults are given the gift of the priesthood, which is the power to act in God’s name. This is the power by which the biblical prophets healed others. My father and another priesthood holder brought me back inside and gave me a simple blessing to be well. Within ten minutes the pain was gone.
I would like to point out that the pain usually lasts 12-36 hours and no painkiller can touch it. The only thing that makes a difference has been a priesthood blessing, and this cause-and-effect has been repeated on multiple occasions.
Miracles do not convert though. =) Around the same time period, I identified myself as “atheist”. Looking back, I don’t believe that is entirely correct. I think I always knew that God existed, but I was in denial because certain things in my life were not playing out the way I wanted them to and I was angry. Therefore, I refused to acknowledge the offending existence and logically buried several people who tried to convince me otherwise.
I have heard people talk about “liberation” and how they felt so free once they got over the crutch complex. I don’t believe it. I got my way a lot more, I had more friends, I did what I wanted… but I was miserable. I hated everyone, I argued, I lied, I swore. In addition, my grades suffered (even though I studied more), and so did my physical appearance. In fact, I cannot think of a single aspect of my life or surroundings that was better for it.
This lasted about 1 ½ years. Once I began to read my scriptures and pray again, the change in my surroundings was amazing. I didn’t feel like I had changed, but everything around me started working out. Things made sense. Things I had struggled to accomplish and reach for over a year came overnight. I was as inexplicably and illogically happy as I had been miserable (and no, I never touched drugs). In addition, I felt at peace. Cause and effect.
Finally, no one else has ever provided sufficient evidence that Earth was not created. You can wave Darwin’s name in the air, but a fossilization record supporting his theory has never been completed. Conveniently, all the key fossils are the ones that don’t exist. In addition, you cannot explain the first living organism; in Biology, the first law of a living organism is that it comes from another living organism… so explain the first.
The infinite random possibilities theorem has been proposed… the idea that an infinite number of monkeys pounding on an infinite number of keyboards would eventually type out the entire first book of Genesis (or if that illusion offends you, tomorrow’s edition of the New York Times). However, mathematically, the more times a completely random sequence is created, the more chaotic it becomes. The precise and organized mechanical workings of even the simplest organism are outside the possibilities of quantum randomness.
And there is so much beauty… I have often wondered why some bugs are beautiful, like butterflies, and others scary, like spiders. And why is the sky so beautiful? Why does the sky matter? I believe every beautiful thing is a manifestation of God’s love for us. Can you give me a better explanation?
All these reasons, among others, are my tangible and empirical proof of the existence of a benevolent God.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
There are some things I agree with you on in this blog.
Of course, the unbelievers (I use this term sarcastically) won't take you seriously without much less anything than mathematical proof.
---
The 30 Day Reality Trial--join up!
Are people not reading your blogs?
I know... =) That doesn't mean they are right.
That reminds me of a story actually... My great-grandfather (who was a brilliant physicist) walked into his friend's college classroom one day (they were both professors) and there were super-complex mathematical equations written all over the three wall-width blackboards. His friend was sitting with a piece of chalk in his hand and a stunned look on his face. He turned to Pa and said, "Calvin, I've just proved the church is true." I'm sure what he meant was that he had proved something that proved the church was true... He tried to explain to Pa but it was too complex for even him to understand. Just a personal addition confirmation to that man.
*shrugs* Those who seek can find.
---------
"Smart" is definitely a relative term. I know a great many intelligent people who do a great many unintelligent things.
"I've just proved the church is true."
Heck, I've got pictures of the Church.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
I think the first part of your argument begins with the religion of LDS. LDS has been proven time and time again to be just as wrong and full of holes as Catholicism.
But I won't hold that against you. However, I will discredit the sighting of the Lord. Smith didn't see the lord. Having seen the lord is immediately discredited, as Smith was A) 14 and B) Has no witness. In a court of law, his testimony would be hearsay.
I cannot discredit the miracles. However, it has been shown that the human mind can manifest "miracles" if the human believes in them. This is why, it is thought, some people on placebo pills manage to get better; they believe they're being treated so they're mind makes it so. Score's tied, 1-1.
You then say that the universe cannot have evolved randomly, so there must be a creator. Well, this is a bit of a logical fallacy. You see, in an infinite universe, with infinite probability, anything is completely possible. In fact, the odds against life spontaneously forming are greater than it not. The odds are in FAVOR of life.
You're right that the length and complexity leads to chaos, as the university tends towards chaos. However, Murphy's Law fits well within those confines.
Score's 2-1. Balls are in your court.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
To what extent do you believe that the human mind can cause miracles? It is this system of mind-belief that causes "miracles" to happen in some cases, yes--and is in fact the main utility for many systems of magic. Your opinion?
---
The 30 Day Reality Trial--join up!
Are people not reading your blogs?
I'm not sure what he meant. But for someone who is not religious, there is this law of attraction proof where they make you think positive so you can get the results that you want. I've read in the book called THE SECRET. lol It's quite charming although I am not sure if I believe it in. Right now, I'm trying that concept out. It's looking good so far though. If everyone else believes in it, then there is no need for God right? It seems like all we need God is to have miracles. Is that really all?
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
That's a pretty short-term mindset...
---------
"Smart" is definitely a relative term. I know a great many intelligent people who do a great many unintelligent things.
Miracles, not like "oh my god! I was poor and now I'm suddenly rich", but like "I had terminal cancer and somehow I survived." I don't believe in god, I do believe in the mind.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
"In addition, you cannot explain the first living organism; in Biology, the first law of a living organism is that it comes from another living organism… so explain the first."
There are actually many theories on how life may have began from molecules and elements present in early earth history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life . Although I can't claim that any of these have been unequivically proven to be the source of life, I just thought I should point out that there are viable theories out there.
In response to the idea that people have had healing experiences that they believe are religious, I think that it would be jumping to conclusions to say the healing was due to some higher power rather than something else, most importantly the power of the mind in creating psychosomatic effects.
Overall, I don't believe that there can be proof of a god existing or not exisitng it's just something some people believe and others don't.
I'm not going to say whether I agree or not, but I do think this is very well written. Good job.
----
http://progressiveu.org/003838-the-girl-who-cried-rape-or-in-this-case-d...
This is a good blog. It does not quite fulfill the tease, but it does not resort to any superstitious belief either. The bit about the fosil record, does not discredit evolution, but then niether does the bible deny it.
Jesus praised faith because all evidence is suspect, and arguments can persuade, or raise doubt of anything. A person that is unsure, but has enough faith to trust and love god will find more evidence. If you have that seed of faith the faithfulness of gods love can be very convincing.
People who are not willing to experiment with faith in god are never going to see that sort of testimony as anything but mumbo jumbo.
'First we try, then we trust.'
That's good. It's true. The Universe did not create itself. Nor did any living creature just form out of emptiness. They were formed by steady hands that knew what they were doing. All that scientists are doing is just barely discovering the mysteries of God, and barely learning to manipulate the laws of nature which God laid down.
Science to me just proves God's magnificence more and more as more discoveries are made and more theories are put forth. The bible is not a scientific handbook, nor is it a history book but it introduces us to the God who is the author of science and history.
Romans 1:20 : "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, . . . . . so that they are without excuse."
I thought the Earth and life was created because of the chemistry and biology.
In my opinion, science has nothing to do with God. If a scientist is going to waste his or her time trying to prove or disprove God, it's completely out of the science field.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mylot.com/?ref=truelife
You never said which god you believed in, there are so many to choose from. How do you even know you've picked the right one? Jehovah isn't even the most popular choice.
Hindus see Shiva or Vishnu and know that the Bagavad Gita is the devine word, Muslims see Allah and have their Koran, Jews see Adonai and have their Torah, Christians see Jehovah and have their Bible, Zorastrianians see Ahura Mazda ... well you get the idea.
Not too many see Zeus or Odin or Apollo any more though, but can you prove they aren't just as real?
-----------------------------------------------
“It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.” - Bertrand Russell
It always amuses me when the champions of reason are incapable of reason, or even reading.
He said LDS, Later Day Saint, Mormons, and The one God that created everything.
This same God you refer to as 'Jehovah' is the same god of all monotheism. In the Hebrew tradition he had a name that could not be spoken. This represented the improper thought that would be present if any image, even a name, were used to represent this universal spirit.
Since this spirit is a definition that cannot be proven the only path to the understanding you lack is faith. Math can be proven. Every actual thing in this universe is only knowable through theories supported by evidence. Just like the 9 billion names of god they call a very well supported theory a 'law.' If you have any education you are aware that several of these 'Laws' are known to be approximations, and some have had to be updated or replaced.
By its nature your 'question' is intended to ridicule that which you do not understand. The only reason to act immature in this way is to attempt to enhance your self image at the expense of others. Grow up.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
Actually the question was not an attempt at ridicule and I resent being called immature. It is a legtimate question. Maybe the reason you would resort to an ad hominem attack would be that I hit a nerve?
Each religion claims to have experiences of seeing their god. Each also claims to have the only true devine word in their book. How do you know you have picked the right devine truth?
----------------------------------------------
“It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.” - Bertrand Russell
If you read, you don't seem to do that, I did answer all aspects of your question. You are asking 'How you know?' You don't. Easy huh?
Faith is not proof.
If you feel I attacked you personaly you are once more misreading. It helps to read one sentence at a time. I made statements about your statements. I did not say anything about you directly other than 'grow up.'
Did I hit a nerve?
I note that you didn't address ANY of the answer. Instead you chose to be offended.
It is almost impossible to offend a person that is seeking the truth honestly. Either I am wrong, or an honest person is happy to be corrected. Which is it?
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
The evidence I presented (and additional that I have not shared) can be divided into two categories: proof of God, and proof that supports my denomination. If my church is true (which supported by the priesthood, the scriptures, the prophets, spiritual confirmation, etc), then the Heavenly Father which my church teaches must be the right one.
---------
"Smart" is definitely a relative term. I know a great many intelligent people who do a great many unintelligent things.
You claim as part of your proof that you know your god is actively working in your life. It would then follow that you believe that god plays an active part in shaping the world. And from that it follows that this god has set up the three Abrahamic religions that have been maiming, torturing and otherwise killing each other in his name throughout most of recorded history.
Not to put to fine a point on things, but am I to understand that this is the benevolent god you worship?
(And, yes I'm being a bit sarcastic, but either this god is actively involved in the world and individual lives within it or he/she is not, you can't have it both ways. And if god plays an active part, allowing all of this bloodshed to continue in his name must be a part of his will either through his activity or purposeful inactivity. The alternative is that god is not actively shaping the world and your proof becomes non sequitur.)
----------------------------------------------
“It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.” - Bertrand Russell
God did not "set up" terrorist religions. They are the result of apostasy, misunderstanding, and God's gift of agency.
Life is a test. We are here to prove our worthiness to God through our actions (which are the result of our faith and convictions). If God were to intervene every time someone lifted his hand to do an injustice to someone else, then in effect we would not have agency, and would not have the ability to set ourselves apart as righteous and fulfill the only reason for our mortal life (to prove ourselves).
God permits terrible things to happen 1) so that the blood of the innocent can cry against the wicked and condemn them. 2) Sometimes (not always) our problems are the natural consequences for bad choices or mistakes we make. This is a merciful thing because it allows us to learn from our mistakes and correct them now so we do not have to suffer eternal consequences. Other times they are opportunities to learn and demonstrate our character. (It is said that war brings out the best and the worst of people.) 3) Finally: misery, sorrow, and hardship are opposites that allow all things good to exist and allow us to appreciate them. If you had never been sad, you would be unable to comprehend that you were happy (if a state of neutrality is even happiness). In addition, the trials now will allow us to appreciate heaven.
So, yes, this is the benevolent God that I worship. =)
---------
"Smart" is definitely a relative term. I know a great many intelligent people who do a great many unintelligent things.
Adonai and Jehovah are the same person. The God of the Torah and of the Bible are one and the same. He has many names. Jehovah or Yaweh actually means 'I am'.
Adonai, Jehovah and Allah are all thought to be the same (it's interesting that you left Allah off, was that on purpose?). However, Genesis documents "Yaweh Ellohim" as god's name in Hebrew. Ellohim is a plural form of the noun which should rightly be translates as "Jehovah of the gods". It was not until after the books of Moses that god became a purely singular noun.
Genesis even documents the idea of there being more than one god in the statement we all kind of overlook "Thou shall have no ther gods before me." Which is not the same as the idea of false gods and idols (the second commandment). But don't get me started on the 18 or so commandments that are documented in Genesis.
----------------------------------------------
“It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.” - Bertrand Russell
Now there's an idea (Thou shalt have no other gods before me). There's a person who actually reads their Bible and interperets it. God also said in Genesis "let us make man in our image and our own likeness". This could be taken to represent the trinity and the three parts conversing with one another.
We may never know all the details but we'll find out in the end.
> I claimed I had tangible and empirical
> proof for believing in God. I was asked
> to expound... so here is my proof.
Well, since you are claiming empirical proof for your claims, I hope you won't mind if we actually hold you to that standard.
> ...even if I said I had seen God personally,
> you would either take me for a lunatic or
> refuse to accept it as empirical proof
> because you had not experienced it
> personally.
Actually, most skeptics would reject this claim because in fact it does not represent evidence of the empirical sort at all. Empiricism refers very specifically to knowledge based upon sense data that is experimentally verifiable. Thus, in order for your evidence to be considered empirical, it must be based on a direct observation of an event that can be objectively tested for its validity. Telling us that you saw something would represent anecdotal evidence, not empirical "proof," and would not satisfy to support your initial claim.
> The first rule of science is that nothing
> is provable, as you mean it. Every law,
> theory and hypothesis is subject to
> revision and new discoveries.
True. A good scientist isn't going to ask you for proof. Instead, he will ask you for evidence.
> My first evidence, perhaps the weakest
> but nevertheless the initiator, was the
> testimony of others.
Testimony is not a form of emprical evidence. It is anecdotal (see above). This "evidence" does not support your initial claim.
> Second evidence…
> This is the power by which the biblical
> prophets healed others. My father and
> another priesthood holder brought me
> back inside and gave me a simple
> blessing to be well. Within ten minutes
> the pain was gone.
Again, this claim is anecdotal rather than empirical...unless you had objective observers present who directly observed and were able to test the process of your recovery, and who preferably published their data in a respected journal to be peer reviewed. Was this the case?
> Once I began to read my scriptures and
> pray again, the change in my surroundings
> was amazing. I didn’t feel like I had changed,
> but everything around me started working out.
> ...Cause and effect.
Once again, your claim is anecdotal. Nothing in your story seems to indicate that took any empirical steps at all to objectively test and verify the actual source of the changes in your life. Nothing that you described seems inconsistent with the kind of changes that we see in anyone who overcomes thier own negative personality and adopts a more positive outlook.
> Finally, no one else has ever provided
> sufficient evidence that Earth was not
> created.
What does that have to do with your claims of empirical proof? It is a logical fallacy to suggest that because something has not been proved false, it is true (LINKM). And, even if that didn't invalidate this claim, it still wouldn't represent empirical proof that would support the claim that the earth (or the life on it) was "created" by an outside intelligence.
> You can wave Darwin’s name in the
> air, but a fossilization record supporting
> his theory has never been completed.
It sounds to me like you are directly contradicting yourself. In this very blog, you said that you accepted the following postion:
> However, there is a point, after years
> of study and experimentation and
> criticism, at which we can be reasonably
> certain that if we are not 100% correct,
> we are pretty darn close. This is the
> point at which well-studied theories
> become scientific law, and curiosity
> becomes faith. This is the definition
> that both the scientific community
> and I assume.
The concept of evolution is a well-tested and is in fact one of the most studied theories in the modern biological sciences. There is a clear scientific consensus that this theory is valid, though like all scientific theories it is subject to revision if data comes to light that would warrant such a change.
> Conveniently, all the key fossils are
> the ones that don’t exist.
Assuming that you are talking about transitional fossils, you are mistaken. This is a common theological canard that relies on the fact that gullible religious folks don't really know very much about the science of paleontology. Here are three examples of clearly documented transitional forms in the fossil record:
Example 1: bird-reptiles
Example 2: reptile-mammals
Example 3: human-apes
Example 4: legged fossil whales
Example 5: legged seacows
> In addition, you cannot explain the
> first living organism; in Biology, the
> first law of a living organism is that
> it comes from another living organism…
> so explain the first.
Well, we really don't know for sure what the first life form on the planet was, so it is certainly a difficult to answer. And, there are a lot of competing hypotheses relating to the concept of abiogenesis. None of them have (in my opinion) garnered enough evidence to be considered a scientific theory (yet). However, the challenge you propose and the conclusion you reach aren't logically consistent. It isn't necessary to answer the question of how life began in order to study the process by which living organisms change over time (which is all that evolution really does). Nor is it in fact true that there is a "first law" of biology that states that living organism can only come from living organisms, though it is true that part of most definitions of life is that in order to be considered alive, an organism must be able to reproduce (notice that this definition is subtly different from your misapplied assertion).
> The infinite random possibilities theorem
> has been proposed…
Would you be a little more specific? I have never heard of the "infinite random possibilities theorem," and a google search for that phrase (and several variants) only returned your post as examples of this term.
> the idea that an infinite number of monkeys
> pounding on an infinite number of keyboards
I would suggest that you read the following explanation from the Ask Dr. Math website: Monkeys Typing Shakespeare: Infinity Theory.
> The precise and organized mechanical workings
> of even the simplest organism are outside the
> possibilities of quantum randomness.
That's because quantum mechanics isn't a theory that deals in any way with the organization of biological organisms. You are making the common mistake of attempting to apply field-specific terminology and theories to observations in unrelated areas.
Honestly, you seem to have some misconceptions about the concept of mathematical infinity, not to mention quantum randomness.
> And there is so much beauty…
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or so they say. This kind of judgement is subjective, and is not empirical.
> All these reasons, among others, are
> my tangible and empirical proof of the
> existence of a benevolent God.
Very little of the "proof" you have offered is tangible, and NONE of it is legitimately empirical. I am sorry to say (though not surprised), that you have failed to provide the type of "proof" that you promised.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
empirical: Derived from experiment and observation rather than theory
Beg your pardon percivale... We had incongruence in application of the definition of empirical. From my point of view, the evidence I provided (excepting beauty and testimony) is empirical. It is also tangible to me because I have felt it.
If the objective of my post was to convert you by giving you gobs of universally empirical evidence, I would have failed to produce. That was not my objective.
Even so...
There were at least three other witnesses, during the related incident and another identical to it that I can recall off the top of my head. While there is no possible way that they could experience or measure the pain I was in to scientifically verify that is subsided, none of them would deny that there was a significant change in my demeanor and pallor afterwards.
Neither is that the only evidence. I have seen other miracles take place and seen measurable evidence for them that left scientists literally scratching their heads. However, I see no reason to share them with you because, being sacred, they are not mine to share, and I have no confidence that you would believe me anyway. =) Besides, the post was already plenty long.
> Finally, no one else has ever provided
> sufficient evidence that Earth was not
> created.
This was an observation. You reject my evidence because it is insufficient to you. I refuse to accept yours for the same reason. You are correct that lack of evidence does not entitle the alternate viewpoint to automatic validation. On the other hand, it doesn't leave me leaning in the direction of the unsubstantiated.
Evolution is still a theory, not a law.
I do not have time right now to study and weigh the information on evolution that you presented, but I will, and will get back to you on it. I believe I have seen these charts before, but I do not remember what bothered me about them.
You are poking holes where none are deserved. No, I did not supply the precise title of the theory... that is a matter of writing style. My label was descriptive, not proper and I would have capitalized it if it were. I presented it well enough that you identified what I was referring to. Can we get along without being grammatically correct here? If you have to resort to the F7 button it is an indication that you are scraping for arguments and that your rebuttal is weak.
I meant quantum. I am fully aware of what it means (I grew up in the home of a physics major who was valedictorian of his college... I'm used to science). I use illusions and specific words intentionally to convey several meanings and points in as few words as possible. Review my post with the initial usage and you will hopefully see what I was referring to.
I brought testimony and beauty up because (while I already admitted that as evidence they were weak) they were initiating and sustaining observations that contributed to what I believe. I referred to evolution because it does not make sense to me and is incompatible with things that I know to be true.
---------
My strength is that I am not afraid of the truth. In fact, I seek it.
There's also the Theory of Gravity. No matter how much you'd like to deny it, it will still hold you to the Earth.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
"Gravity today may be explained by something else tomorrow."
It seems to me that your application of the definitional prongs of the term "empirical" lack any sort of objective credibility. Just saying that you "felt" something doesn't make your experience empirical. In order for an experiment to valid, its results must be objectively verifiable.
> There were at least three other
> witnesses...
Were any of them doctors, and what steps did they takes to ensure that their impressions of the events would be objective? Were the events recorded? Did you take any steps to medically confirm what had happened to you? Did you seriously consider and explore any other possible explanations? And most importantly, do you think you could reproduce the events you describe in a controlled setting?
> Neither is that the only evidence.
That isn't evidence, its testimony. Testimony is valid in a court of law, but not in an empirical experiment.
> I have seen other miracles take
> place and seen measurable
> evidence for them that left scientists
> literally scratching their heads.
Can you provide a documented example of this?
> You reject my evidence because
> it is insufficient to you. I refuse to
> accept yours for the same reason.
No, I reject your "evidence" because you don't have any. When you promised to frame your argument in empirical terms, you stepped beyond the realm of opinion and into the realm of what you can prove. Can you provide even ONE specific piece of actual, objective evidence that would suggest that the earth was "created" by "god."
> Evolution is still a theory, not a law.
Actually, evolution is a Theory, not a theory. The common use of the word theory (by creationists) is not consistent with the meaning of the word "theory" as it is used in a scientific context.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. (LINK)
The problem that I have with your examples of "evidence" is that without exception they are both subjective and unverifiable. Either of these conditions would be sufficient to preclude them from empirical consideration.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
The problem with macro evolution is that it's illogical. It macro evolution were true then it would be a continous process. It wouldn't happen once and then stop. That makes absolutely no sense if there really is no God and there is nothing that's controlling what transpires on earth and in the rest of the universe. But that's what's happened in every example you've given. All of your examples are fossils. If macro evolution were true then there should be more than just fossils to support it. There should be living breathing links to every species. Either that or the species that evolved should be extinct. Both of those scenarios are more likely than the scenario that exists, if there really is no God.
I think the fact that not only is there no links, there is nothing even close to evolving to the level that humans have allegedly evolved to. I find it really hard to believe that after all these supposed billions of years of existence, and the countless species that exist, that humans are the only species that have evolved to this level. Now that may not be illogical but it is highly improbable. The chances of that occuring given the number of species and the amount of time that has supposedly elapsed has to be minute.
If you really examine science instead of just listening to what atheists tell you then you'll understand that there is a higher chance of God existing than there is of Him not existing. The only reason that the existence of God is rejected is because people haven't seen Him. That there just isn't any "evidence" to support his existence. I don't believe that people have to see Him to prove that he exists. All people need to do to know that he exists is to look at science and see all of the flaws in the theory of evolution, the flaws in carbon dating, and understand that even the most knowledgable scientists has very limited knowledge of how the world works and how the universe works and thus all of these findings are based off of incomplete information. Scientists say that matter cannot be created. Which means that matter had to just be there in the beginning. Well how exactly can something just exist without any origin? It can't. At least not based on our understanding of time and space. What we don't understand is what exists beyond this space/time continuim. If God does exist then the laws that apply here probably don't apply in heaven or else there would be the same question that we have about the origins of the universe. And that's how we can prove that God exists. Because we know how time and space work and therefore something can't just exist here without an origin. But we don't understand God and what exactly God is, and what exactly the realm beyond this space/time continuim is and thus scientists reject the notion that something exists beyond this universe because no one has seen it or understands it. And that's the problem. Science is based off of assumptions. People assume that there is no God because they haven't seen him or there isn't any tangible evidence to prove his existence. But they've seen fossils so they assume that macroevolution is true even though there are no living links to support it.
No one will be able to prove the existence of God because God doesn't want to be proven based on the evidence that science requires. God wants people to believe based on faith not because they saw Him. John 20:29 "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." Life is a test. God wants only people that have proven themselves to be worthy of entering the kingdom of heaven. If He shows himself for all the world to see then everyone would believe and then what would He do. He'd have to let everyone into heaven. That's not the way He wants it. So He keeps Himself hidden from the world and gives everyone a chance to prove their worth based on their faith and their actions. That's the way He wants it and thus no one will be able to prove his existence.
Evolution is a slow process, taking a rather long time. I can, however provide you with a small scale of quick natural selection:
Not only are these species still alive today, but they frequently change in population in relation to the availibility of food. And the Grants know everyone of them by name.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
I think the fact that not only is there no links, there is nothing even close to evolving to the level that humans have allegedly evolved to.
What links are you looking for? There are a number of links, pretty much everywhere. We'll use the Great Apes as our example.
Now, according to evolution, humans learned how to use tools to gain food. They started out as basic tools--sticks, then sharpened sticks, and so on. They also learned how to walk on two feet, allowing them to use the tools better, since they didn't need their hands for walking.
As it stands right now, chimps and gorillas are at the stage where they are starting to learn how to use tools. Chimps and gorillas are also capable of learning sign language. There are some schools that teach very young children (less than 2 years old) basic sign language. Chimps and gorillas are on roughly the same level as young human children when it comes to communication (in this case, via sign language).
I find it really hard to believe that after all these supposed billions of years of existence, and the countless species that exist, that humans are the only species that have evolved to this level.
Actually, humans as a distinctly separate species from the other apes, have only been around for a few million years.
Also, how do you know that other animals aren't as intelligent as we are? What, because they can't speak like we do? Because they don't have technology like we do? What about the people in Africa that, to this day, don't use lights, TV, running water, or brick and steel buildings? Necessity is the mother of invention/innovation, so if something isn't needed by someone (even for entertainment), then it generally won't be invented.
I'd like to see you build a hive as complex as that of a group of honey bees, or a dam like that of the beaver (yes, you personally, because all beavers build dams and all honey bees have hives).
Some creatures simply didn't need to evolve much. Alligators, crocodiles, and sharks, for example, haven't evolved much since the prehistoric times because they simply didn't need to (these are known as "living fossils").
Scientists say that matter cannot be created. Which means that matter had to just be there in the beginning. Well how exactly can something just exist without any origin? It can't. At least not based on our understanding of time and space. What we don't understand is what exists beyond this space/time continuim.
Where does God come from?
If you answer that he has just always been there, then what's wrong with the idea of the "infinite universe," where it's "just always been there?" It's the same concept.
The idea of divine beings and phenomena (gods, miracles, angels, magic, etc) comes from a lack of understanding of the world around us. If you went back in time 500 years and took a lighter or match with you, you would be a god to those people. If you took (controlled) fire at all back a few thousand years, you would be a god to those people. If you look, you'll find all sorts of stories about creation, why the wind blows, what lightning is, what fire is, why bird fly, why fish can stay underwater, and many, many others.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I already explained that in my original post. We have no understanding of what it's like beyond this space/time continuim. All we know are the parameters that dictate this universe. We know that matter can't be created and yet nothing can just be there without an origin. God exists beyond this universe and thus exists beyond the paramaters that dictate this universe. Not only that but God is a spirit. He's intangible. Whatever was supposedly there in the beginning was tangible so it had to come from somewhere. To say that something physical has no origin defies logic. How can an amino acid just exist? How did it survive on it's own? If it could survive on it's own then why evolve? What changed to force amino acids to evolve and how could amino acids survive long enough to evolve? That's what doesn't make any sense. I don't believe that whatever was supposedly there in the beginning could survive long enough to evolve and if it could survive then it wouldn't need to evolve.
Something I haven't touched on yet is gravity. How can gravity be as perfect as it is?Gravity is weak enough that it doesn't hold us in place preventing us from any movement yet strong enough to keep us from floating away. What are the odds of that if there is no God? What are the chances that gravity is so perfect that Mercury can be so close to the sun and never be sucked in and Pluto is so far away yet it's never going to float away from the gravitational pull of the sun. How did the planets align themselves the way they are? Were they always that way? If not then how did it happen? How do 9 planets just happen to align themselves the way they are? How did the moons align themselves? Can someone calculate the odds of all of that happening? The odds of gravitational force being what it is. The odds of planets and moons aligning themselves so perfectly. The odds of that happening without the existence of God have to be extremely low.
Like I said. The more you examine science the easier it is to believe in God.
I would argue that it is the electrical attraction between my molecules and the earth that also lend to me standing.
I would also argue that assuming we live in an infinate universe, everything becomes possible. God exists, god also does not exist. The odds of the 8 planets coming into orbit around the sun DRASTICALLY INCREASE! The odds of life not only exponentially increase, but it's almost a give that life will exist here and in several hundred million trillion quadrillion (insert made up numbers) other worlds. Assuming we just have to have the POSSIBILITY, in an infinate universe, it's possible and achieved.
Therein, I think a god could exist. But I don't care! That's the great thing about free will, we don't have to care about God, his existance or lack thereof. We have no empirical proof that he cares (in an infinate universe, he both does and doesn't at the same time), so it's not like it matters.
Umm...amino acids are organic material, but are not alive. [-( So, it can't survive on its own (as it's not alive) and since it couldn't survive because it never lived, I'd argue that it evolved by chance. Random mutation is the driving force behind evolution and natural selection. It happens all the time (especially in an infiate universe).
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
NINE! It's NINE you bastard!!!!
Poor Pluto.....
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."
Benjamin Franklin
No. As long as the scientists I worship refuse to acknowledge Pluto as a planet, I cannot deny their intelligence.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
Science be damned!!! In this case at least...
Pluto's a planet... I mean, it's named after a major Roman God. Isn't that enough for you?
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do."
Benjamin Franklin
8, 9 whatever. Pluto exists and orbits the sun whether it's officially catagorized as a planet or not. So let's not argue semantics. The point is how can gravity be so perfect if there is no controlling force behind it. It's not tangible, not that we know of, so it can't evolve. So what is the possibility, if there is no God, that the gravitational force of both the sun as well as every planet with a moon or moons, orbiting it, be the way it needs to be so for the universe to be the way it is. Sure it's possible. I never said it was impossible. What I was asking is can anyone calculate the odds of the universe being the way it is, if there is no God.
So you're saying that amino acids are invincible, indestructable? That no amount of heat or cold or anything for that matter, could destroy them? Because that was my point. If they're invincible then there's no need to evolve. And if it was random then why evolve into something that isn't invincible? Can that even be considered evolution? More like de-evolution. What would cause the random evolution if there was nothing but amino acids in the beginning? That's what makes the theory of evolution so hard to believe. That one, it was completely random, and two, everything came from something that didn't need to evolve, because as you say, they aren't even alive.
You're not listening. Inanimate objects (this is everything abiotic AND inorganic compounds) cannot evolve in the sense in which Darwinian thought implies.
To my knowledge, amino acids cannot change. There are 20 or so that make up every different protein in the living world. This does not mean that they're not indestuctable or otherwise. Temperature, pH, and a number of other things can render them useless.
And, who is to say that the universe is working all to well anyhow?! An asteroid just passed the Earth at a couple million miles/hour and only missed by 334,000 miles. While that seems like a lot, early models predicted the end of the world being last week. Also, Andromeda (the galaxy) is speeding towards the Milky Way (the galaxy) at a couple million miles per hour. This collison could destroy our galaxy. Also, why would there be irregular and eliptical and spiral galaxies if there were a grand creator? Does this not imply a sense of impractibiliy. I mean, we only need one type of galaxy. Just like we only need one god.
And if you're not going to take evolution seriously, I'm not going to waste my time describing how organic compounds came about, how plants evolved chloroplasts, nor how we can see that different species have vestigle parts and pieces. I also won't point out several images of the developing human embryo in relation to the rest of the animal kingdom, as that would be a waste of time.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
Click to send Hate Mail
Choice Picks
We know that matter can't be created and yet nothing can just be there without an origin. God exists beyond this universe and thus exists beyond the paramaters that dictate this universe.
Then who's to say this universe wasn't created from another universe that exists outside our space-time? Lack of understanding or knowledge of the physical world does not prove the existence of any god.
How can an amino acid just exist? How did it survive on it's own? If it could survive on it's own then why evolve? What changed to force amino acids to evolve and how could amino acids survive long enough to evolve?
They are created through a process known as abiogenesis (see percivale's response for more on this matter). And like Nick said, they may be organic, but they're not alive. It's basically the link between molecules and cells (there's much more to this, but I'm not a biologist).
yet nothing can just be there without an origin.
Then why does a divine being not need an origin?
Not only that but God is a spirit.
How do you know this? You also mentioned that God is intangible.
Intangible is defined as:
If God is intangible, then he can't be perceived or defined. Why, then, do people try so hard to "prove" his existence? And again, if God is intangible, how do you know he's a spirit? How can you prove he's more than just a figment of your imagination, like many people claim the old gods to be?
I don't believe that whatever was supposedly there in the beginning could survive long enough to evolve and if it could survive then it wouldn't need to evolve.
You really don't understand the process of natural selection and genetic mutation. The ones that do survive do so because they are slightly different than the ones that don't (this is generally referred to as a mutation), those traits are then passed along. This happens millions upon millions of times, each time becoming a little more complex, a little better adapted to surroundings.
Want to see evolution in action? Look at viruses. Influenza, HIV, and the Rhinovirus (common cold) are good examples of adaptation, evolution, and survival.
You can also see a controlled version of evolution in the breeding of animals for particular traits. Certain traits, such as strength, boldness, or size are favored for animals bred for specific purposes. Animals that fulfill the requirements for a given purpose are bred for those traits, eventually eliminating unwanted traits and bringing out the desired ones.
Gravity is weak enough that it doesn't hold us in place preventing us from any movement yet strong enough to keep us from floating away.
Gravity is based on the mass of any given object, the more mass it has, the more gravity it has and the more effect on other objects it has. This is why molecules and atoms don't really have any effect on each other. When an object is massive enough, it can start attracting and holding things, such at molecules. The object can then possibly have an atomosphere. The more massive the object, the more types of molecules it can hold, the difference in the atomosphere.
We (read: life in general) are not "held in place" because we have evolved on this planet, therefore, our muscles and bodies in general are capable of overcoming gravity to the extent that we can move and lift things. If we were to go to Mars, we would perceive ourselves as marginally lighter and capable of things like jumping higher than on earth. On Jupiter (barring the lethal ammonia atmosphere, gale winds, radiation, and heat), we more than likely wouldn't be able to move at all because the planet is significantly denser and therefore has a significantly stronger gravitational pull (318 times the size of Earth, to be more precise). The same goes with the sun. Get dense enough and not even light can overcome the force of gravity (ie - black holes).
What are the odds of that if there is no God?
Considering the universe is for all intents and purposes infinite (speed of light * time since universe started = size of universe; speed of light = a little over 1 trillion kilometers per hour), quite good, actually. Stars and planets are created and destroyed all the time, in a nearly infinite amount. Infinite amount means infinite possibilities, which means something's bound to be able to support life again.
What are the chances that gravity is so perfect that Mercury can be so close to the sun and never be sucked in and Pluto is so far away yet it's never going to float away from the gravitational pull of the sun.
That, again, is the interaction of gravity between the two objects, as well as centrifugal force (the same force that plasters your clothes to the sides of the drum when your washer goes into spin cycle). Centrifugal force forces the object outward, gravity forces the object inward, they cancel out in the range of their orbits. If the planets stopped revolving around the sun, they would be "sucked in." This is demonstrated through our use of satellites, which have to be going at a certain velocity to keep from falling back to Earth.
How did the planets align themselves the way they are? Were they always that way? If not then how did it happen? How do 9 planets just happen to align themselves the way they are? How did the moons align themselves?
The International Astronomical Union defines a planet as:
(This was regarding our solar system during the reclassifying of planets a couple years ago, it still applies throughout astronomy.)
So, to answer your questions, they aligned themselves through interaction between each other and the sun. They were once floating objects not unlike the rogue ateroids and other space debris. They got caught in the sun's gravitational field and since they were already moving, continued to move, but around the sun and eventually found the equilibrium they are in now. So no, they weren't always that way and the moons did the same thing, though on a smaller scale.
And it's 8 planets now, Pluto has been reclassified as a dwarf planet because of its irregular orbit and the fact that it doesn't fulfill the requirement of clearing the neighborhood around its orbit (Pluto's orbit is partially affected by Uranus, and its "moon"/sister planet is over half the size of Pluto).
Can someone calculate the odds of all of that happening? The odds of gravitational force being what it is. The odds of planets and moons aligning themselves so perfectly. The odds of that happening without the existence of God have to be extremely low.
Someone has, actually, and his results are near certain that there is at least one other planet capable of supporting life (link is to a synopsis of a book, FYI). 8 or 9 planets is nothing compared to the calculated 1011 galaxies, each with 3*1011 stars and 3*1022 planets.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?