Examining the evidence there is of God

[Subduction Zone]

And where do cells get their instructions from to perform different functions. To my knowledge they are not intelligent but intelligence is programmed into each cell to perform a specific function.

Through the process of evolution.

Evolution demonstrates ID. But the "I" is not "Intelligent", it is " Incompetent ". When the details of feature after feature is examined they show that if there was a designer that he was terribly incompetent. Have you ever heard of the recurrent laryngeal nerve? It is bad enough for us, it is far worse for a giraffe, and would have been insane for a brontosaurus.

 

[leroy]

This OP is for All people of all Faiths that believe in God.

What evidence do you have of God?

What logic and reasons have you used in determining the proofs and truths you subsequently embraced from the examination of that evidence?

The purpose of this OP needs to be embraced if you are to participate. This OP is about the presentation of the analytical use of logic and reason in faith based proofs.

If one wants to debate any stated logic and reason in this OP, then please do it in a respectful manner.

I will introduce this OP with what I see is the first line of evidence that there is of God and that is a Prophet. These persons who are known as a Prophet, Messenger or Manifestations are known in that manner as they make a claim they have a Message from God. By doing so, one can then logically conclude that as a result they are basically offering that they are proof of God and thus they are open to examination and proof of such a claim.

So how can I determine that what they offer is from God? This is where logic and reason needs to be employed. As each person is different, the logic and reasoning will also be different.

I will expand further on this line of evidence during the OP.

View attachment 70447

Regards Tony

The existence of this post is itself evidence for God, (or more precisely evidence against naturalism) the fact that we (humans) wonder about the existence of God, the origin of the universe, life in other planets and other deep philosophical and scientific issues renders the existence of God more probable.

If naturalism is true and our brains are just the result of natural selection then the brain is expected to be only as complex as it need to be to survive and reproduce.

Any extra layer of complexity that has no selective benefit is likely to be dropped by natural selection because useless complexity wastes energy (hence is selectively bad)

So the argument would be

1 If naturalism is true, complexity that has no selective benefit is unlikely to evolve

2 a complex brain capable of wondering about deep philosophical and scientific issues requires extra complexity that has no selective benefit.

3 therefore a brain capable of wondering about deep scientific and philosophical stuff is unlikely to evovle.

..

But we do have such a brain

Therefore naturalism is likely to be wrong

 

[muhammad_isa]

It didn't happen "by itself".
It happened through evolution.

No .. that explains HOW it happened, and not why.

 

[F1fan]

The OP offered what was evidence for God, plain and simple.

Your "evidence" was so simple that it was not considered actual evidence. As noted by many, mnay people what you poseted as "evidence" was really just more claims. As discussed, theists tend to have very, very low standards for evidence, and in debate that is badly inadequate. So if you want to discuss your beliefs in an oen forum you need to meet the starndard of evidence required by others, not just repeat your beliefs.

Most of that thread was people demanding proofs from the evidence, when that was not the purpose of the OP.

And you purpose seemed to be trolling and proseylitizing, which are against the rules. You were offered the option to post in areas limited to Baha'i and you refused. To refuse means you accept the rules and obligations in debate. It seems you still intend to violate rules.

The same evidence for God exists as it always has.

Yes, very limited and poor. The more you have specific claims that deviate from religious norms the more evidence you are obligated to provide. Again, the claims of your beliefs are NOT evidence that they are true. You are not a God. You are not a perfect being. You are a fallible mortal who has beliefs, and you could be mistaken. You need to show how your beliefs are true or likley true. You refuse.

Now is the chance to examine the evidence with a rational mind, using logic and reason to determine if there are proofs offered in the evidence.

Do you realize that this is how critical thinkers approach your claims? You have had an ongoing frustration with critical thinkers, so why do you think this thread will be any different?

And if by "prrofs" you mean arguments, then be clear about that. I see you and Tb keep saying "proof" and it is ambiguous.

 

[Ella S.]

The existence of this post is itself evidence for God, (or more precisely evidence against naturalism) the fact that we (humans) wonder about the existence of God, the origin of the universe, life in other planets and other deep philosophical and scientific issues renders the existence of God more probable.

If naturalism is true and our brains are just the result of natural selection then the brain is expected to be only as complex as it need to be to survive and reproduce.

Any extra layer of complexity that has no selective benefit is likely to be dropped by natural selection because useless complexity wastes energy (hence is selectively bad)

So the argument would be

1 If naturalism is true, complexity that has no selective benefit is unlikely to evolve

2 a complex brain capable of wondering about deep philosophical and scientific issues requires extra complexity that has no selective benefit.

3 therefore a brain capable of wondering about deep scientific and philosophical stuff is unlikely to evovle.

..

But we do have such a brain

Therefore naturalism is likely to be wrong

I like the rational approach you have here. However, it's wrong; here's why.

Evolution is an imperfect process. Our brains did not evolve to be perfectly rational, but to approximate winning strategies for survival. This means that we evolved a wide variety of instinctual heuristics, which we call cognitive biases.

We are capable of self-correction, however, and it's this ability for self-correction that's allowed us to invent logic and critical thinking in order to better approximate the world external to us. We do not have an innate capacity for logic and critical thinking, however; these are learned skills that take practice.

It is cognitive biases like the hyper-active agent detection device, magical thinking, apophenia, and so on that the concept of God historically grew out of. That's right; the concept of God is also a relatively recent invention, too, which arose from Platonism and Aristotleanism interacting with early Christian and Rabbinical thinkers about 2,000 years ago. It didn't exist before then.

Before God, we had gods, of which Yhwh and Elohim were two (not one.) Before gods, we had the spirits which animated nature, which was merely us assigning agency to inanimate objects because we evolved to assume agency behind ambiguous information since this paranoia helped keep us safe from potential predators. Notice how a lot of ancient sources talk about fearing the gods and making sacrifices to keep them appeased, even older Abrahamic sources.

It's just superstition as a by-product of the imperfect process of evolution. We can rise above it, and we have the tools to do so now.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you mean "why" in the sense of some kind of intent purpose, then you are really just asking a loaded question..

It is a perfectly reasonable question.
Why did the universe just happen to evolve in the way that it has?

Why would that be "ridiculous"?

It is completely ridiculous.

If you murder a person, and I ask you why .. an answer such as "because that's the way I evolved" is not a satisfactory reply.

 

[Hawkins]

This OP is for All people of all Faiths that believe in God.

What evidence do you have of God?

View attachment 70447

Regards Tony

You logic is flawed. Humans never ever rely on evidence to get to truth of any kind.

That said. Atheits keep asking for evidence simply because they are fooled by Satan, that's the evidence and proof.

 

[leroy]

I like the rational approach you have here. However, it's wrong; here's why.

Evolution is an imperfect process. Our brains did not evolve to be perfectly rational, but to approximate winning strategies for survival. This means that we evolved a wide variety of instinctual heuristics, which we call cognitive biases.

We are capable of self-correction, however, and it's this ability for self-correction that's allowed us to invent logic and critical thinking in order to better approximate the world external to us. We do not have an innate capacity for logic and critical thinking, however; these are learned skills that take practice.

It is cognitive biases like the hyper-active agent detection device, magical thinking, apophenia, and so on that the concept of God historically grew out of. That's right; the concept of God is also a relatively recent invention, too, which arose from Platonism and Aristotleanism interacting with early Christian and Rabbinical thinkers about 2,000 years ago. It didn't exist before then.

Before God, we had gods, of which Yhwh and Elohim were two (not one.) Before gods, we had the spirits which animated nature, which was merely us assigning agency to inanimate objects because we evolved to assume agency behind ambiguous information since this paranoia helped keep us safe from potential predators. Notice how a lot of ancient sources talk about fearing the gods and making sacrifices to keep them appeased, even older Abrahamic sources.

It's just superstition as a by-product of the imperfect process of evolution. We can rise above it, and we have the tools to do so now.

But why are we even curious about these things in the first place?. It seems to me that being curious about the origin of the universe, if there is God, If we are alone in the universe, has no selective advantage.

It is easy to imagine an Alien civilization that is as good as us in creating technology and solving problems, but that doesn’t really care about deep philosophical questions, from the point of view of Natural Selection (NS) they would be more successful than us, because their brain would be simpler and would require less energy

Or to put it this way

An ancient monkey that is a little bit curious about his origins has no selective advantage over his brothers that don´t care nor even wonders about their origins, both are equally likely to escape their predators, ……. so this curiosity is unlikely to evolve… you can build it on a step by step basis

I agree with your claims about critical thinking, but I am talking about more about our ability to be curious , the fact that we care and wonder about this things.

Thanks for your reply anyway, hope to see your opinions on this comment soon

 

[Ella S.]

But why are we even curious about these things in the first place?. It seems to me that being curious about the origin of the universe, if there is God, If we are alone in the universe, has no selective advantage.

It is easy to imagine an Alien civilization that is as good as us in creating technology and solving problems, but that doesn’t really care about deep philosophical questions, from the point of view of Natural Selection (NS) they would be more successful than us, because their brain would be simpler and would require less energy

Or to put it this way

An ancient monkey that is a little bit curious about his origins has no selective advantage over his brothers that don´t care nor even wonders about their origins, both are equally likely to escape their predators, ……. so this curiosity is unlikely to evolve… you can build it on a step by step basis

I agree with your claims about critical thinking, but I am talking about more about our ability to be curious , the fact that we care and wonder about this things.

Thanks for your reply anyway, hope to see your opinions on this comment soon

Curiosity helps us gain an understanding of the world around us, which allowed our ancestors to develop better tools, process food better, create more efficient hunting strategies, and so on. Knowledge is power.

I don't think evolutionary mechanisms are quite precise enough to select for curiosity about what kinds of food we can eat but dismiss curiosity about where we came from. It's the same general mechanism.

Much of the questions we ask about whether we're alone in the universe or if there's a God are contingent upon relatively recent social constructs, such as the idea of a universe or the idea of a God, which are not cultural universals.

 

[Muffled]

This OP is for All people of all Faiths that believe in God.

What evidence do you have of God?

What logic and reasons have you used in determining the proofs and truths you subsequently embraced from the examination of that evidence?

The purpose of this OP needs to be embraced if you are to participate. This OP is about the presentation of the analytical use of logic and reason in faith based proofs.

If one wants to debate any stated logic and reason in this OP, then please do it in a respectful manner.

I will introduce this OP with what I see is the first line of evidence that there is of God and that is a Prophet. These persons who are known as a Prophet, Messenger or Manifestations are known in that manner as they make a claim they have a Message from God. By doing so, one can then logically conclude that as a result they are basically offering that they are proof of God and thus they are open to examination and proof of such a claim.

So how can I determine that what they offer is from God? This is where logic and reason needs to be employed. As each person is different, the logic and reasoning will also be different.

I will expand further on this line of evidence during the OP.

View attachment 70447

Regards Tony

I believe the usual way people dismiss prophet is to say they wrote the prophecy after the event occurred.

I believe I had a personal prophecy confirmed the same day so that works for me but others do not accept my testimony as true.

I believe usually the way people dismiss miracles is by saying it was some kind of natural event.

I believe when I had covid-19 and great difficulty breathing that my prayer was answered the next day as all symptoms simply disappeared. That is not natural; any time I have been ill it has taken days to get better.

 

[Muffled]

And what if all claims of "evidence" fail that analysis? If there is actual evidence for a god I would like to see it. So far I have only seen abuses of reason at best.

I believe I have been reasonable. I believe you have put up mental fences that allow you to ignore reason by dismissing it as not your own.

 

[Muffled]

To me, you're asking a tricky question that starts with someone's view of God. Is God fundamentally unchanging? Is the message basically the same at the root with the difference being in language, emphasis, cultural context and so forth?

I believe I get that. My belief in re-incarnation comes from God but those who think this must be false because it is associated with another religion, dismiss this view of God because it does not agree with their beliefs.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Ah, the old "you have to be evil to think I'm wrong."

What a ridiculous self-aggrandizement! And you call atheists prideful? He who is without sin cast the first stone, eh?

The best evidence for God you can muster is an Ad Hominem. Astounding.

Sorry you chose to take it that way. But just as some choose to remain in darkness while loudly proclaiming that there is no light, so others choose to be offended, when this is pointed out.

 

[Ella S.]

Sorry you chose to take it that way. But just as some choose to remain in darkness while loudly proclaiming that there is no light, so others choose to be offended, when this is pointed out.

Oh, please. Don't try to pretend that what you're doing here is anything so lofty as pointing out the light. That would require actual evidence and argumentation. All you're doing here is throwing out insults because you can't point anything out so you have nothing better to respond with than drivel.

That's obvious by the fact that your reply was an Ad Hominem, rather than a valid argument in favor of your position. What you call "light" certainly looks identical to the vain virtue-signalling of someone losing an argument to me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..All you're doing here is throwing out insults because you can't point anything out..

I'm sure he can.
@Subduction Zone cannot accept anything at all .. the more pressure he feels under, the more he defaults to "If there is actual evidence for a god I would like to see it."

..so is it really that believers are delusional and have no evidence, or is it more complex than that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sure he can.
@Subduction Zone cannot accept anything at all .. the more pressure he feels under, the more he defaults to "If there is actual evidence for a god I would like to see it."

..so is it really that believers are delusional and have no evidence, or is it more complex than that?

Pressure? Are you kidding me? You have never given anyone any reason to believe in God. You have only made claims that you could not support and then ran away. And I never said that all believers are delusional. Some of them clearly are.

I have never seen someone that claims to be a Muslim, and even worse that has claimed to have trained in religion use as many logical fallacies as you have or have such an incredible inability to support one's claims.

Please please provide some "pressure".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe I have been reasonable. I believe you have put up mental fences that allow you to ignore reason by dismissing it as not your own.

No, you do not seem to understand the concept of evidence either. That is the problem with far too many theists. They conflate confirmation bias with evidence.

But let's walk this back a bit. Try giving a working definition of evidence when it applies to your beliefs. That means that using this definition someone could tell if something is evidence for your beliefs or against them.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Oh, please. Don't try to pretend that what you're doing here is anything so lofty as pointing out the light. That would require actual evidence and argumentation. All you're doing here is throwing out insults because you can't point anything out so you have nothing better to respond with than drivel.

That's obvious by the fact that your reply was an Ad Hominem, rather than a valid argument in favor of your position. What you call "light" certainly looks identical to the vain virtue-signalling of someone losing an argument to me.

Well maybe that's how it looks from your position. Here's how it looks from mine; God is really not that hard to find, for those who are willing enough and humble enough to sincerely search; seek, and ye shall find.

But we each have to look for ourselves. So when a person repeatedly claims that "They would like to see the evidence", what is going on here? Is it that they can't see, or is it that they won't?

 

[leroy]

Curiosity helps us gain an understanding of the world around us, which allowed our ancestors to develop better tools, process food better, create more efficient hunting strategies, and so on. Knowledge is power.

I don't think evolutionary mechanisms are quite precise enough to select for curiosity about what kinds of food we can eat but dismiss curiosity about where we came from. It's the same general mechanism.

Much of the questions we ask about whether we're alone in the universe or if there's a God are contingent upon relatively recent social constructs, such as the idea of a universe or the idea of a God, which are not cultural universals.

curiosity helps us gain an understanding of the world around us,

Yes that is my point, being curious about the stuff around us, clearly has a selective benefit, but why do we care about distant galaxies or stuff that happened billions of years ago?........


we use the same word “curiosity” for both experiences, but the curiosity on what types of food can you eat and curiosity on the origin of our species seem to be completely different experiences.


In a nutshell my argument is that the brain is more complex than it has to be in order to be good enough to survive and reproduce.

 

[Ella S.]

Yes that is my point, being curious about the stuff around us, clearly has a selective benefit, but why do we care about distant galaxies or stuff that happened billions of years ago?........


we use the same word “curiosity” for both experiences, but the curiosity on what types of food can you eat and curiosity on the origin of our species seem to be completely different experiences.


In a nutshell my argument is that the brain is more complex than it has to be in order to be good enough to survive and reproduce.

Of course the brain is more complex than it needs to be in order to survive and reproduce, because other organisms do not have brains that are as complex as ours.

However, a large and complex brain is a specific adaptation that we have as humans, in the same way a lobster adapted claws or a sparrow adapted a beak. There's no one-size-fits-all for evolution. Our complex brains are just one solution in a wide diversity of possible solutions.

We get to keep them because we haven't gone extinct yet.