Why God Must Exist (beliefs, soul, evolution, creation, experience)

[tom1223]

Why God Must Exist

Imagine a mechanism. Imagine nothing else exists apart from this mechanism. This mechanism is made of particles. Particles obey a set of laws known as the laws of physics. This mechanism does the task it does whether it has been designed to do so or not. However, the mechanism is not aware of what it is doing. The mechanism is. Nothing is aware of the activity of the mechanism and therefore the mechanism might as well not exist.
Now imagine a more complicated mechanism say a top of the range pc with the best programming in the world. This mechanism can behave in a manner which creates the illusion of conscious thought. However, just like the first mechanism, this mechanism simply follows a set of predetermined laws. Also, just like the first mechanism this mechanism exists and does what it does. Only since there is no aware observer the mechanism might as well not exist.
Now lets imagine another mechanism that is much more complicated mechanism than a computer. A human being. The human does what it does just as a computer does. Only that it is much more complicated than a computer. Its particles obey the laws of physics, its brain and organs perform chemical reactions. If the human body is simply made out of particles the brain should just function as the previous mechanisms. Sure it performs complex processes but all it does is:
Exist
Follow set laws
Ask yourself if you agree with this.
If you do then you come to either one of three conclusions. Either you are:
A particle inside of your brain.
Some particles of your body
Some other entity besides the physical body.
This is why number 1 is wrong:
There is no particle large enough or complicated enough to be able to have all of the information of the brain sent into it. A simple atom, for example, is far too small and would be lost in the massive brain.
This is why number 2 is wrong:
The self can only be singular. Atoms are constantly leaving the body and entering the body. If the particles which made up your body were you then parts of you would have left you and entered into other people. Therefore you would be able to experience the goings on of other human bodies apart from your own. Which you can’t.
So now we are left with number 3. This is the only possible explanation I can see. (If you can think of any more please tell me.) There must be a separate entity which is connected to your brain or whole body and to which the information in the brain is sent. This is you. Also there must be not just one connection to one central part of the brain where the main thought process takes place otherwise one would only be able to experience thoughts and not the five senses. There must be a connection to the various parts of the brain such as those which deal with smell, hearing, sight, feeling and taste.
What does this have to do with God? Well without god there is no reason for us to have such an existence as is present with our non-physical (when I say non-physical I mean it doesn’t exist as we do in the three dimensions) entity (let’s call it the soul). Scientist who don’t believe in god pretty much state that:
That matter was created during the big bang.
This matter formed planets and stars.
Life spontaneously generated on at least one planet.
Life slowly evolved to form us through survival of the fittest.
I’m not necessarily denying that this stuff happened but am simply saying that this alone is not possible to be able to produce what we have for two reasons.
There is no evolutionary reason for the body and mind to have a soul since the brain itself is able to carry out all of the thought processes itself.
Even if there was an evolutionary reason for us to have a soul how can evolution design a part to the body that isn’t physical. Evolution is caused by the mutation of Genetic material. Genetic material simply codes for the production of different proteins from amino acids. The soul is not a protein and is not controlled by proteins (as it isn’t physical) so it cannot be altered through evolution.
This theory not only shows that there must be a god but that god deals with us as life forms instead of simply creating matter.

[Halcyon]

Your premise is based on several assumptions concerning the self, chiefly that the self is permanent and of single form.

When in reality the self is an ever changing condition, it is the mind produced by the brain, it changes with each passing moment. You are not the same person you were ten minutes ago, and you will not be the same person in ten minutes time. You, as in your consciousness, exists as a process, not a thing.

The illusion of permanence comes from our memory, this is demonstrated in people with amnesia or brain damage in that the loss of their past also changes their personality in many ways.

[zenzero]

friend Tom1223,
You saying that* There must be a God* due to this, this and this.
But where does he live. He should be having his own space to do his work at his lab or something?
kindly give me his address, so that I can send him a letter or pay him a visit.
Sorry, not trying to put you down in any way.
Just trying to say that All laws of physics are there in nature even the atom is already there in nature so how can you say it is physics because you just said that this is a subject called physics and this is its law?
They are all mind creation and which is also there in existence before the humans arrived.
Its confusing, is it not; besides it is more confusing as I say that fistly let us understand the god concept properly before we arrive at any decision about the concept being a individual person.
Love & rgds

[Autodidact]

Argument # 2 is completely wrong. It just does not accord with what we know about particles and how they interact. For example, to go back to your computer, this keyboard that I am tapping on is gaining and losing particles as I type; which does not prevent it from remaining my computer the whole time. The fact that we gain and lose particles doesn't imply that the particles must carry knowledge or information. In fact we know that particles of me constantly leave and that I gain other particles, but that does not cause me to stop being a single self. My self itself is in constant flux.

I would say that the problem of self, or consciousness, is one of the most challenging in philosophy or neuroscience, and probably not the best place for an amateur apologist to begin trying to prove God.

Further, the word "mechanism" assumes a designed and created object. Like almost all apologetics, yours assumes what it's trying to prove. The question whether or not we are a "mechanism," that is, whether we are actually designed or only give the appearance of design, is the very question you're trying to resolve. You can never prove something by assuming it to be true.

And that's without even getting from the self to God.

[Autodidact]

And btw, no cosmologist asserts that matter was created during the Big Bang. If you want to use science in your argument, you better understand it first. That should take you approximately a lifetime. What scientists tell us is that the total quantity of matter + energy in the universe is always constant.

Again, you assume that we have a soul. Can you show this to be true? That nails your argument right there. This assumption reveals the naive, natural dualism that we are all saddled with, but which has no evidentiary basis. You're going to have a heck of a time proving the existence of something non-physical. You either believe something like that on faith, that is without any evidence, or not at all.

[texan1]

"You can never prove something by assuming it to be true."

Isn't this what scientists are really saying? Some theists think that science claims God does not exist. But I think most scientists would agree that it is phenomenal that we are here, and we really don't know what caused the big bang or produced the matter in the first place. But that lack of knowledge doesn't prove God's existence. That's why it makes sense to me for someone to say "I believe in God." But it doesn't make as much sense to me when someone says "There is a God and here is the proof".

[GadFly]

Originally Posted by texan1

"You can never prove something by assuming it to be true."

Isn't this what scientists are really saying? Some theists think that science claims God does not exist. But I think most scientists would agree that it is phenomenal that we are here, and we really don't know what caused the big bang or produced the matter in the first place. But that lack of knowledge doesn't prove God's existence. That's why it makes sense to me for someone to say "I believe in God." But it doesn't make as much sense to me when someone says "There is a God and here is the proof".

We spin off texan1's statement because it was last to be posted. What everybody has said in my opinion has some truth and some fallacy in their advice to tom1223. One thing detected in all responses is that these responses are honest as we all struggle to solve a question for ourselves:does God exist? is there proof God exist? how can we prove what we believe to be true?

What we all seem to see is that tom1223 is new at defending his arguments. If you are beaten early on in your debating, don't give up. You will learn a lot quickly about you own beliefs and the belief systems of others. Continue your search for the truth and you will find it as many of us think we have.
GadFly

[GadFly]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Your premise is based on several assumptions concerning the self, chiefly that the self is permanent and of single form.

When in reality the self is an ever changing condition, it is the mind produced by the brain, it changes with each passing moment. You are not the same person you were ten minutes ago, and you will not be the same person in ten minutes time. You, as in your consciousness, exists as a process, not a thing.

The illusion of permanence comes from our memory, this is demonstrated in people with amnesia or brain damage in that the loss of their past also changes their personality in many ways.

There are several truths Halcyon has pointed out that mean something different to a person that looks at these truths from a different point of view than Halcyon has. Halcyon says: When in reality the self is an ever changing condition, which we also believe is true. But it does not necessarily follow that self is produced by the brain. I want to believe that the self is produced by God and what is being witnessed in changing memories is self being filtered through the brain.

From my point of view the truth Halcyon states:You, as in your consciousness. exists as a process, not a thing, should be restated like this to match my perspective: You do exists in your mind observing processes that do change which are the illusions of real things. See, my perspective is that of a Platonist and have a different world view.

One more example, Halcyon says: The illusion of permanence comes from our memory, whereas a Christian Platonist, such as I, would say: The illusion of change comes from our memory. This makes a world of difference in each of our arguments, whatever these may be.
Respectively, the GadFly.

[tom1223]

Another way of thinking about it is to think about characters in a dream or computer game. Those characters don't actually have feelings but they behave as though they do. Without a god to make a connection between soul and brain we are like realistic, reliable characters behaving as though we feel but not actually feeling at all.

[GadFly]

Originally Posted by texan1

"You can never prove something by assuming it to be true."

Isn't this what scientists are really saying? Some theists think that science claims God does not exist. But I think most scientists would agree that it is phenomenal that we are here, and we really don't know what caused the big bang or produced the matter in the first place. But that lack of knowledge doesn't prove God's existence. That's why it makes sense to me for someone to say "I believe in God." But it doesn't make as much sense to me when someone says "There is a God and here is the proof".

It all comes down to what one is willing to accept as proof. Science has no absolute proof the scientific method works 100% all the time. At some time in the future it may be found to not work. They will admit that but they strongly believe in the scientific method. When the scientific method does not appear to work, the scientist say, what did we do incorrectly? They do not say the method does not exist. They rework the method until they get repeatable results and their fact is tested and confirmed. We Christian Platonist belief the scientific method is a proof of God and we believe it makes sense to offer this as proof that God does exist.
GadFly