Evidence For the Existence a God?

[lunamoth]

Why should we assume otherwise? There's no evidence for some alternate reality, so I'll stick with this one, the one that we can directly observe.

The one that has no meaning, no right or wrong, no good or bad? the one in which there is no point but survival and even then there's no reason for that? The one in which love is just a genetically programmed emotion of no value other that propagation of the species?

 

[CarlinKnew]

The one that has no meaning, no right or wrong, no good or bad? the one in which there is no point but survival and even then there's no reason for that? The one in which love is just a genetically programmed emotion of no value other that propagation of the species?

There is subjective meaning, subjective right and wrong, subjective good and bad, subjective experience of love, and so on. But otherwise, yes . And there's no reason to believe otherwise.

 

[lunamoth]

How can you logically come to that conclusion? Evolution explains the capabilities of our brain. Where does a god come into the picture?

I believe reason is a gift from God.

With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind...?

– Charles Darwin.[​

 

[CarlinKnew]

I believe reason is a gift from God.

With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind...?

– Charles Darwin.[​

You can either trust the pinnacle of human thought: science, or you can believe things without evidence, it's up to you.

 

[idea]

You can either trust the pinnacle of human thought: science, .

Who thinks the pinnacle of human thought is science?

I think the pinnacle of human thought is the ability to love.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Who thinks the pinnacle of human thought is science?

I think the pinnacle of human thought is the ability to love.

Love is certainly enjoyable, but it's emotion. We don't "love" our way into understanding reality. We use logic, the scientific method.

 

[lunamoth]

You can either trust the pinnacle of human thought: science, or you can believe things without evidence, it's up to you.

I do trust science. I have a Ph.D. in biology and I worked for several years in molecular genetics. I also have faith in God.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I also have faith in God.

Why?

-

 

[Imagist]

I believe reason is a gift from God.

After that entire discussion about the nature of knowledge and logic and all that, you just finish with a completely unfounded statement? Why did you insist on wasting everyone's time if it was all going to come down to this? You could've just said that you didn't have any evidence and been done with it.

With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind...?

– Charles Darwin.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism#cite_note-3​

So Darwin admitted that he was uncomfortable with the implications of his own ideas. So what? Everyone knows that humans are fallible. The uncomfortable nature of this fact is irrelevant to its truth.

 

[CarlinKnew]

After that entire discussion about the nature of knowledge and logic and all that, you just finish with a completely unfounded statement? Why did you insist on wasting everyone's time if it was all going to come down to this? You could've just said that you didn't have any evidence and been done with it.

Agreed . Regardless, I still enjoyed the conversation (well some of it, anyway).

 

[lunamoth]

Why?

-

Because as good as it is at telling us more and more about this wonderous univserse, science can't answer all my questions. Because my experience of life is not reducible to mere utility. Because love is much more than an emotion.

 

[logician]

Who thinks the pinnacle of human thought is science?

I think the pinnacle of human thought is the ability to love.

Dogs can love their masters, is that their pinnacle of thought?

 

[CarlinKnew]

Because as good as it is at telling us more and more about this wonderous univserse, science can't answer all my questions.

God of the gaps?

Because my experience of life is not reducible to mere utility.

Wishful thinking? Of course we don't constantly reduce our everyday experience of life to utility; we get absorbed in the emotions of the moment. However, we can step back and realize that everything we're doing can be explained scientifically.

Because love is much more than an emotion.

Is it really? Or is love such a powerful emotional experience that you're convinced it must be something more?


Sweet dreams

 

[lunamoth]

God of the gaps?

No, questions like 'why are we here?' and 'how should I treat my neighbor?'

Wishful thinking? Of course we don't constantly reduce our everyday experience of life to utility; we get absorbed in the emotions of the moment. However, we can step back and realize that everything we're doing can be explained scientifically.

Perhaps wishful thinking. But then, how do you explain that when we rationally evaluate our choices and see that not all of them increase our survival in our immediate lives, or the survival of our progeny, we value things like charity (giving food and money to others in need) and courage (going off to fight a war or test space shuttles) anyway? Is our reason not trustworthy? Does instinct override reason in these cases? If so, how can we tell when instinct is prevailing, and when reason is?

Is it really? Or is love such a powerful emotional experience that you're convinced it must be something more?

By love I don't mean the powerful emotions of attraction and desire. Love is also a choice, and an attitude toward others and so includes charity and altruism and selflessness. Again, if all of these are simply instincts over which we have no rational control, then isn't it also wishful thinking to belive that reason is valid?

Sweet dreams

You as well. Thank you for the conversation, and good luck in your search for evidence of God. Peace.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Imagist

All The Arguments

Argument from Aesthetics (Gadamer's Argument)

1. Art, music, and literature are accepted as legitimate without the requirement of evidence.
2. Therefore, one should not require evidence to accept something as legitimate.
3. Therefore, one should not require evidence to accept the idea that god exists as legitimate.

Refutation

1. Art, music, and literature are areas of aesthetics.
2. In contrast, the existence of a god is an idea with far-reaching ethical and pragmatic implications.
3. Aesthetes generally do not attempt to make ethical statements or enact laws based on their favorite painting, song, or poem.
4. Therefore, such aesthetes do not require any evidence for their likes and dislikes.
5. In contrast, theist make ethical statements and enact laws based on their favorite concept of god or gods.
6. Ethical statements and laws require evidence.
7. Therefore, the existence of a god requires evidence.

What is the evidence that all human beings are equal and each individual is owed an inalienable set of rights?

 

[Imagist]

No, questions like 'why are we here?' and 'how should I treat my neighbor?'

The existence of a god does not answer these questions.

Perhaps wishful thinking. But then, how do you explain that when we rationally evaluate our choices and see that not all of them increase our survival in our immediate lives, or the survival of our progeny, we value things like charity (giving food and money to others in need) and courage (going off to fight a war or test space shuttles) anyway? Is our reason not trustworthy? Does instinct override reason in these cases? If so, how can we tell when instinct is prevailing, and when reason is?

Survival is only one facet of reproductive success. Charity and courage increase reproductive success. If you don't believe me, take four guys of equal looks, income, and intelligence. Make one a red cross worker, one a decorated soldier, one an astronaut, and one an insurance salesman. Put them in a room with three attractive women for a full day, and at the end of the day, observe who goes home without a girl. My bet is that most times it will be the insurance salesman.

By love I don't mean the powerful emotions of attraction and desire. Love is also a choice, and an attitude toward others and so includes charity and altruism and selflessness. Again, if all of these are simply instincts over which we have no rational control, then isn't it also wishful thinking to belive that reason is valid?

I don't think that the actual feeling of love is really a choice any more than any other emotion. One can choose whether and how to express or suppress an emotion, which may have an effect on future emotions, but I don't think there's any direct control over the emotions themselves.

 

[Imagist]

Imagist

What is the evidence that all human beings are equal and each individual is owed an inalienable set of rights?

This is a topic for another thread, since it has nothing to do with evidence for the existence of a god. If you wish to start such a thread, feel free to do so and either post a link here or send me a private message with a link so that I know you've started it (if I don't see the thread, I can't respond to it).

 

[CarlinKnew]

No, questions like 'why are we here?'

We're here as the result of evolution.

and 'how should I treat my neighbor?'

Morality is not dependent upon belief in a god.

Perhaps wishful thinking. But then, how do you explain that when we rationally evaluate our choices and see that not all of them increase our survival in our immediate lives, or the survival of our progeny, we value things like charity (giving food and money to others in need) and courage (going off to fight a war or test space shuttles) anyway? Is our reason not trustworthy? Does instinct override reason in these cases? If so, how can we tell when instinct is prevailing, and when reason is?

Evolution is not perfect. It's simply a matter of survival/reproduction. These are the genes that survived and were passed on to us, so this is what we're stuck with.

By love I don't mean the powerful emotions of attraction and desire. Love is also a choice, and an attitude toward others and so includes charity and altruism and selflessness. Again, if all of these are simply instincts over which we have no rational control, then isn't it also wishful thinking to belive that reason is valid?

No. You keep questioning human reason and somehow equating that as evidence for the existence of a god. We've already discussed human reason and the way it's refined through the scientific method. This is the only reality we know, so there's no reason to assume otherwise. Just because we're capable of charity is not evidence for a god.

 

[Beaudreaux]

There's credibility in numbers.

Or was that safety...

Both....unless you're one of the 1500 crew members of the USS Indianapolis......

The evidence for the beauty of art is that art is considered beautiful by people. We have organized institutions that promote and display art. Art is appreciated by millions online, in media, in person. The fact that people experience it and enjoy it is the empirical evidence that it is valid.

 

[PureX]

In order to survive, we live our daily lives based on evidence; we use science. Without science we would have no electricity, no medicine, no knowledge of the cosmos, no technology whatsoever. For an idea to have any credibility, it needs to be supported by evidence. Is there any evidence for the existence of a god?

First, you are confusing science with logic and reason. Science is just a process we use to help us understand how physical phenomena inter-relate. Logic and reason are how we establish the probability of a given outcome as a result of a specific action. Very few of us use the scientific method to live. Almost all of us, however, use logic and reason as a way of choosing our actions in life.

Next, you say that for an idea to be credible, it must be supported by evidence. I disagree. I think it must simply be logical and reasonable, i.e., possible, even if not necessarily probable.

Lastly, you ask if there is any evidence to suggest the existence of God, and of course the answer is that there is.