Evidence for God?

[Boss]

What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.

What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?

 

[K9Buck]

What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.

What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?

Our friend has a very narrow range of thinking.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....

Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.

Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.

He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.

All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...

But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"

Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.

Is he correct?

The optical system of our eyes is very narrow. We have invented machines to detect & even use the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. We even impressively invented machines to see the tiny that we cannot see and the far away we also cannot see.

Your analogy is false. If he is intelligent he knows what others see. He does not believe what others imagine.

 

[Boss]

But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.

Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.

When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.

 

[K9Buck]

Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....

Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.

Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.

He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.

All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...

But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"

Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.

Is he correct?

The optical system of our eyes is very narrow. We have invented machines to detect & even use the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. We even impressively invented machines to see the tiny that we cannot see and the far away we also cannot see.

Your analogy is false. If he is intelligent he knows what others see. He does not believe what others imagine.

 

[K9Buck]

But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.

Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.

When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.

The universe is no different than a computer program. The only difference is that we are self-conscious and characters in computer games are not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is also possible that unicorns exist in the 5th dimension...

And guys like you would have us believe that the universe created itself and then a volcano farted and life was born.

No, I would have you believe that it is possible that no higher intelligence was requured either for the creation of the universe or the genesis of life. Big difference. Let's make a deal: You don't misrepresent me, and I won't misrepresent you. Mmmmkay?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.

Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.

When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.

The universe is no different than a computer program. The only difference is that we are self-conscious and characters in computer games are not.

You're doing this wrong. It is incumbent upon you to argue and prpvide evidence that, for instance, we live in the design of a designer. Simply restating your authoritative claim does not accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite, as it removes any credibility you have (in that you present yourself as at least somewhat omniscient, somehow aware of absolute triths that you cannot prove) and sidesteps any compelling rationale or evidence.

 

[K9Buck]

It is also possible that unicorns exist in the 5th dimension...

And guys like you would have us believe that the universe created itself and then a volcano farted and life was born.

No, I would have you believe that it is possible that no higher intelligence was requured either for the creation of the universe or the genesis of life. Big difference. Let's make a deal: You don't misrepresent me, and I won't misrepresent you. Mmmmkay?

I think ANYTHING is possible but, for a variety of reason, I BELIEVE that a creator created the universe as well as us.

 

[K9Buck]

But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.

Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.

When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.

The universe is no different than a computer program. The only difference is that we are self-conscious and characters in computer games are not.

You're doing this wrong. It is incumbent upon you to argue and prpvide evidence that, for instance, we live in the design of a designer. Simply restating your authoritative claim does not accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite, as it removes any credibility you have (in that you present yourself as at least somewhat omniscient, somehow aware of absolute triths that you cannot prove) and sidesteps any compelling rationale or evidence.

There is certainly plenty of evidence of design, but I don't feel like searching for all of the scholarly articles that make the arguments. Besides, I presume you've already looked at them and dismissed them all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What a terrible analogy, since it pre-supposes the objective existence of a sunset. This is fair to do, since we can prove this objective sunset exists. But, your analogy pre-supposes the objective existence of god, yet does not hold this assertion to any of the evidentiary standards to which we hold the existence of, say, a sunset. i'll pass on this con, thanks.

What is your evidentiary evidence of a sunset to a blind person?

I said we, talking to the blind person, have the evidence. That comment from me was to point out that the analogy, among its many other flaws as a rational for the existence of god, presupposes the objective existence of God. But, in the end, the analogy only provides a rational that things may exist (not just gods, but ANYTHING, including unicorns in the 5th dimension, as the analogy is not specific to gods) for which we are entirely ignorant of the evidence.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Ignoring your repetition of nonsense and only dealing with last paragraphs.

Stellar formation always produces planets from the associated disk. I have already given you links to the process. Yes there will be at least one in the Goldilocks Zone every time. As I posted, this is not enough. Time is required for complex life to develop with a big possibility that stable time might also be required. With multiple stars of which there are a LOT, the motions are unstable and most of the time such planets will be absorbed if they ever finish forming in the first place. Physics again. The question is how long these planets exist and what type of star the planet orbits.

NASA's Kepler Discovers Multiple Planets Orbiting a Pair of Stars

List of multiplanetary systems - Wikipedia

Habitability of binary star systems - Wikipedia

Most planets around multiple star systems are not close enough to be in the Goldilocks Zone & turn out to be gas giants and not rocky like earth. It appears that our solar system is the mold. Rocky inner planets and gas giant outer planets.

You know, you're really wasting your time with all the links. I know that you think they are needed but I don't really care enough to bother with them and most of this stuff I've already seen.

You're actually helping make MY point. The planetary conditions required for complex life systems as we know them is likely a rarity in this universe. We can't ever make that conclusion. It's virtually impossible to examine our entire universe. There are parts we can't even see and never will see.

All I am saying is this notion that because there are billions of stars and life appears to be versatile, doesn't necessarily mean life is everywhere out there. Microbial life, fungus or sponges, bacteria or single-cell critters... yeah, perhaps that's more likely but advanced intelligent civilizations like our own? I say that's probably about 50/50.

Estimates are 100 billion stars in just our galaxy and 100 billion galaxies in the universe. That's a LOT.

While we have only been actually searching for a few decades, it is more likely that they would find us first. We are, especially now, a VERY noisy planet. I believe interstellar travel will turn out to be impossible, and the speed of light cannot be broken. So communication is impossible in reality except for one way. If it was possible, we would have been visited. Of course, your God could have been those travelers (He did say our image = more than one) or all the Ancient Aliens show evidence.

I admit I could easily understand Pharaoh making a pyramid to visitors, especially with their help.

or this...

 

[Boss]

Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....

Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.

Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.

He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.

All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...

But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"

Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.

Is he correct?

The optical system of our eyes is very narrow. We have invented machines to detect & even use the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. We even impressively invented machines to see the tiny that we cannot see and the far away we also cannot see.

Your analogy is false. If he is intelligent he knows what others see. He does not believe what others imagine.

He doesn't know what "see" means. It's a sense he has never experienced. You can explain it to him all you like, you can tell him that he is wrong and just because he can't see it doesn't mean it's not there... but he knows not what you're talking about.

I used the analogy to illustrate a point. You are incapable of "seeing" what others see. For you, no matter what anyone says or any evidence offered that isn't within your range of physical senses, it simply doesn't matter.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.

Again, you're letting the size of the universe and over-confidence in life sway your opinion.

When you start objectively crunching the numbers and applying the odds, it's going to be extremely rare if it happens at all.

The universe is no different than a computer program. The only difference is that we are self-conscious and characters in computer games are not.

You're doing this wrong. It is incumbent upon you to argue and prpvide evidence that, for instance, we live in the design of a designer. Simply restating your authoritative claim does not accomplish this. In fact, it does the opposite, as it removes any credibility you have (in that you present yourself as at least somewhat omniscient, somehow aware of absolute triths that you cannot prove) and sidesteps any compelling rationale or evidence.

There is certainly plenty of evidence of design, but I don't feel like searching for all of the scholarly articles that make the arguments. Besides, I presume you've already looked at them and dismissed them all.

There is no evidence of design. To demonstrate, let me turn your own analogy back on you:

Take your same blind person. Now, tell him that there is a pink, sparkly dragon flying across the sky breathing rainbows. Now, the blind person cannot refute you, as he is not just ignorant of the evidence, but also incapable of examining the evidence.

so, just as people saw mental illness (or ANY illness, really) as the work of demons, you may see design where none exists. Just as those people were incapable of examning the evidence of pathogens, it *may* be that your proclamation of the possibility of the existence of a designer is in error, as you *may* be currently ignorant of the insights or methods which would allow you to realize that no real design exists.

Just as you insist others admit the possibility that God exists and we simply are ignorant of the evidence, you must now also admit it is possible NO gods exist, and we are simply ignorant of the evidence and the methods of examining the evidence that would show us this.

 

[Boss]

I said we, talking to the blind person, have the evidence. That comment from me was to point out that the analogy, among its many other flaws as a rational for the existence of god, presupposes the objective existence of God. But, in the end, the analogy only provides a rational that things may exist (not just gods, but ANYTHING, including unicorns in the 5th dimension, as the analogy is not specific to gods) for which we are entirely ignorant of the evidence.

Only evidence to the blind person. Remember, he doesn't know what sight is. He doesn't understand what color means. Nothing you can present to him will be sufficient evidence of a beautiful rainbow or sunset because he doesn't have the sense required to understand it. He can't feel it, touch it. taste it or hear it. How do you prove to him it's real and not just your made up fantasy?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....

Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.

Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.

He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.

All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...

But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"

Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.

Is he correct?

The optical system of our eyes is very narrow. We have invented machines to detect & even use the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum. We even impressively invented machines to see the tiny that we cannot see and the far away we also cannot see.

Your analogy is false. If he is intelligent he knows what others see. He does not believe what others imagine.

He doesn't know what "see" means. It's a sense he has never experienced. You can explain it to him all you like, you can tell him that he is wrong and just because he can't see it doesn't mean it's not there... but he knows not what you're talking about.

I used the analogy to illustrate a point. You are incapable of "seeing" what others see. For you, no matter what anyone says or any evidence offered that isn't within your range of physical senses, it simply doesn't matter.

Again -- third time now -- your analogy merely demonstrates that it is POSSIBLE that gods exist, and we are simply ignorant of all the evidence of this. I agree, that may be the case. which puts us in perfect agreement, so far as the meaning and value of your analogy. you have provided a rational basis for agnostic theism, NOT for theism.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Let me offer a little analogy for the non-believers to ponder....

Imagine a guy we'll call Joe.

Joe was born blind. He has never been able to see.

He has all his other senses and is a fairly intelligent person.

All through his life, people have tried to explain to him, the beauty of a rainbow or sunset...

But since he doesn't know what color is or have any sense of sight or what that even means, he maintains they are pulling his leg.... He says, "You guys and your mythical fantasies! You can't prove ANY of that to me!"

Of course, people try to explain that he just isn't able to see... but he doesn't know what that means.

Is he correct?

Good analogy. Here is another.

Computer programmers frequently create universes when they make video games such as Grand Theft Auto. What programmers have been unable to do is to give the characters in the game their own consciousness wherein they could have independent thoughts and actions. If a programmer could do that, undoubtedly, there would be characters in the that "computer universe" claiming that the "programmer" cannot exist.

Much better analogy indeed.

We can actually do that, but the cost of a personal supercomputer to play the game is a bit high still.

The problem with your analogy? We win and God loses. It is an imaginary world created by a physical being.

 

[Political Junky]

How about it? Where is the evidence for God that is better then the evidence for Evolution? I put the cards on the table and demand an answer.

The truth is there's NO evidence for God outside of the Bible and will never be any. You can't justify "faith" for a good reason to attack Evolution as that is simply retarded. Evolution is backed up with centuries of evidence and observation that proves it without the shallow of a doubt...Perfect, no, of course not.

The big bang makes more sense as it is simple and God is complex. People ***** about how it could happen without a god! Well, think about it a little harder for a moment and realize that a god would be a billion trillion times more complex then simple physical processes over billions of years. It would be like comparing a simple acid to a human being...Still think God is more likely?

Evidence to the contrary=-?

Somehow I don't think you were there and can provide any eyewitness testimony.

Furthermore you're a man that wants to dress up like a girl, so..wtf?!

Then surely you can prove God exists.

 

[MarkDuffy]

Ignoring your repetition of nonsense and only dealing with last paragraphs.

Stellar formation always produces planets from the associated disk. I have already given you links to the process. Yes there will be at least one in the Goldilocks Zone every time. As I posted, this is not enough. Time is required for complex life to develop with a big possibility that stable time might also be required. With multiple stars of which there are a LOT, the motions are unstable and most of the time such planets will be absorbed if they ever finish forming in the first place. Physics again. The question is how long these planets exist and what type of star the planet orbits.

NASA's Kepler Discovers Multiple Planets Orbiting a Pair of Stars

List of multiplanetary systems - Wikipedia

Habitability of binary star systems - Wikipedia

Most planets around multiple star systems are not close enough to be in the Goldilocks Zone & turn out to be gas giants and not rocky like earth. It appears that our solar system is the mold. Rocky inner planets and gas giant outer planets.

You know, you're really wasting your time with all the links. I know that you think they are needed but I don't really care enough to bother with them and most of this stuff I've already seen.

You're actually helping make MY point. The planetary conditions required for complex life systems as we know them is likely a rarity in this universe. We can't ever make that conclusion. It's virtually impossible to examine our entire universe. There are parts we can't even see and never will see.

All I am saying is this notion that because there are billions of stars and life appears to be versatile, doesn't necessarily mean life is everywhere out there. Microbial life, fungus or sponges, bacteria or single-cell critters... yeah, perhaps that's more likely but advanced intelligent civilizations like our own? I say that's probably about 50/50.

But, given the sheer size of our universe, an "extremely rare event" may still occur billions of times.

He also defines complex = human and doesn't include multicellular as complex.

 

[Boss]

Estimates are 100 billion stars in just our galaxy and 100 billion galaxies in the universe. That's a LOT.

Yep, it IS a lot... I admit that.

First, we have to dismiss about 75~80% of those stars right off the bat. Maybe more. They are either too big, too small, to binary, to hot or too cold. Simply not desirable as hosts for life-sustaining planets. Of the remaining stars, they're only going to have one "goldilocks" planet (if that). But then you delve into the specific conditions of these planets and there are thousands of things it will need to have sustainable life. Each time you calculate the odds it's like rolling the dice. How many times can you roll a 7 in a row?

Again.. I'm not arguing it isn't possible... just not a given.