There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[shunyadragon]

I see things like the correcting mechanisms in DNA replication as evidence of God. That is not the sort of evidence that can be tested or falsified or anything, but that does not mean it is not evidence to me even if others do not see it that way.

14.6: DNA Repair

DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally occur, such as a DNA polymerase inserting a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes may sometimes lead to serious consequences, …

bio.libretexts.org

'Sort of evidence' is about as real as almost pregnant,

The problem is there is a very natural explanation for RNA repair. These claims have a long many years history of failures of attempts by the Discovery Institute to falsify Intelligent Design.

 

[Trailblazer]

I see things like the correcting mechanisms in DNA replication as evidence of God. That is not the sort of evidence that can be tested or falsified or anything, but that does not mean it is not evidence to me even if others do not see it that way.

14.6: DNA Repair

DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally occur, such as a DNA polymerase inserting a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes may sometimes lead to serious consequences, …

bio.libretexts.org

It might be evidence but it is not proof.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If you wish to bow out fine,, but I go with the very standard definition of what is objective versus subjective.

Subjective vs. Objective - Know the Difference | Learn English

Subjective is the flawed characteristic of opinions that makes them biased when it depends heavily on the feelings, emotions and perspectives of an individual and objective is the characteristic of the statement that establishes them as factual truths.

www.learngrammar.net

Subjective​

Something is labeled subjective when it depends heavily on the feelings, emotions and perspectives of an individual. Subjective remarks are often biased, prejudiced and partial in nature.

Exp. #1 - What you said is merely subjective.

When a statement is subjective, it has room to change or evolve with time and experience. Labeling something as subjective is a constructive way to argue with someone’s opinion.

Exp. #2 - Subjective views vary from person to person.

Objective​

• It is an Adjective and when something is objective, it does not depend on the feelings, emotions and perspectives of anybody. That makes these unbiased, factual and logical.

Every act of observation depends upon the perspective of the observer. It therefore follows that any observation of reality available to conscious beings such as ourselves, is necessarily subjective.

Furthermore, no observation, no gathering or interpretation of empirical evidence, can ever be entirely unbiased, however much we may strive for this ideal.

 

[Polymath257]

They say it best

Can Science Prove The Existence Of God?

And remember, you can't assume the conclusion before you find the evidence!

www.forbes.com

Did you actually *read* the article you linked? Because it argues my point for me in most ways, including that the basic requirements for life seem to be quite common.

But it does NOT say anything much about your position. it says that the absence of other life in the universe would NOT show the existence of a God, but it doesn't address the more general point you have been making: that it is impossible to determine scientifically whether a God exists or not.

And, it also fails to address my question of *why* it is impossible to scientifically address the question of the existence of God. the most reasonable answer to *that* question is that there *cannot* be evidence for the existence. And *that* brings into question whether it is rational to believe.

 

[Polymath257]

I see things like the correcting mechanisms in DNA replication as evidence of God. That is not the sort of evidence that can be tested or falsified or anything, but that does not mean it is not evidence to me even if others do not see it that way.

14.6: DNA Repair

DNA replication is a highly accurate process, but mistakes can occasionally occur, such as a DNA polymerase inserting a wrong base. Uncorrected mistakes may sometimes lead to serious consequences, …

bio.libretexts.org

HOW is it evidence for a God? In what way does it make the existence of a God either more or less likely given what we already know?

 

[shunyadragon]

Every act of observation depends upon the perspective of the observer. It therefore follows that any observation of reality available to conscious beings such as ourselves, is necessarily subjective.

Conclusion unwarranted. If this were true airplanes would not fly and computers would not work. You need to go back to high school and learn very basic English difference between subjective and objective.

Science depend on repeated objective observations from different sources to confirm theories and hypothesis.

Furthermore, no observation, no gathering or interpretation of empirical evidence, can ever be entirely unbiased, however much we may strive for this ideal.

Sort of maybe partially true, but objective confirmation in science requires repeated observations from different sources to support theories and hypothesis, and they are never conclusively proven, only falsified pended more information from future discoveries and research. Subjective Religious assumptions may only justify beliefs in the mind .only. That is why we have English terms such as 'faith and belief.'

You have failed high school English and science in one post, and you ignored my clear and specific reference to correct your understanding of English..

You may get a D in understanding the Philosophy of Nihilism

 

[sun rise]

Baha’u’llah affirms such with this statement. We cannot know God directly

In Hindu theology (and Meher Baba), knowing God "face to face" is possible and further merging with God is as well. See nirvikalpa samadhi or fana-fillah.

 

[shunyadragon]

'Sort of evidence' is about as real as almost pregnant,

The problem is there is a very natural explanation for RNA repair. These claims have a long many years history of failures of attempts by the Discovery Institute to falsify Intelligent Design.

To add: The Discovery Institute has spent millions from Church donations like the Seventh Day Adventist for many years, and produced nothing of substance, and the Institute and the phony scientists involved have beifited enormously.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Conclusion unwarranted. If this were true airplanes would not fly and computers would not work. You need to go back to high school and learn very basic English difference between subjective and objective.

Science depend on repeated objective observations from different sources to confirm theories and hypothesis.




Sort of maybe partially true, but objective confirmation in science requires repeated observations from different sources to support theories and hypothesis, and they are never conclusively proven, only falsified pended more information from future discoveries and research. Subjective Religious assumptions may only justify beliefs in the mind .only. That is why we have English terms such as 'faith and belief.'

You have failed high school English and science in one post, and you ignored my clear and specific reference to correct your understanding of English..

You may get a D in understanding the Philosophy of Nihilism

You get an A in supercilious drivel, an E in basic comprehension, and an F in common courtesy. Goodbye.

 

[shunyadragon]

You get an A in supercilious drivel, an E in basic comprehension, and an F in common courtesy. Goodbye.

This is nothing more then just an angry abusive response, Still no comprehension of basic high school level science and the English language,

The rejection of the objective nature of science is indeed based on superstition, and misplaced Nihilist philosophy.

 

[shunyadragon]

It might be evidence but it is not proof.

By definition not evidence beyond simple physical nature of RNA. There is no proof in science.

 

[shunyadragon]

In Hindu theology (and Meher Baba), knowing God "face to face" is possible and further merging with God is as well. See nirvikalpa samadhi or fana-fillah.

The only way to come face to face with the attributes of God is the nature of his Natural Creation around us. Other claims are subjective from the perspective of those that claim many diverse and conflicting cultural aspect of 'knowing God'' throughout the history of humanity. This in and of itself makes any one conflicting claim problematic and confusing at best.

 

[Brian2]

HOW is it evidence for a God? In what way does it make the existence of a God either more or less likely given what we already know?

I cannot answer how it is evidence for a God for you.
Given my belief in a God however it is just confirmative evidence that God arranged genetics so that life forms continued on for a fair while without too many mutations building up.

 

[Brian2]

'Sort of evidence' is about as real as almost pregnant,

"sort of evidence" ="type of evidence"

The problem is there is a very natural explanation for RNA repair. These claims have a long many years history of failures of attempts by the Discovery Institute to falsify Intelligent Design.

It does not matter to me is the Discovery Institute wants to God a legitimate scientific proposition or not,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or if regular science has decided that RNA or DNA repair has a natural explanation,,,,,,,,,,,,,, of course it has a natural explanation in terms of chemical reactions and is not a matter of angels sitting to the side of molecules making sure they replicate accurately. The point is that it actually happens. An actual repair system exists for the repair of molecules that have replicated inaccurately. Amazing and praise God for it.

 

[sun rise]

The only way to come face to face with the attributes of God is the nature of his Natural Creation around us. Other claims are subjective from the perspective of those that claim many diverse and conflicting cultural aspect of 'knowing God'' throughout the history of humanity. This in and of itself makes any one conflicting claim problematic and confusing at best.

We just have a different theology and beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

We just have a different theology and beliefs.

True, but my view of God is not based on any one of the diverse conflicting beliefs in the ancient beliefs of the world which brings to question which one is true considering the fallible nature of humans, and the subjective nature of the conflicting claims,

Your belief remains one of many subjective conflicting views of God./ I consider that is likely God is indifferent to these different tribal views of God's existence.

 

[Prometheus85]

What is the evidence you looking for?
What to you would prove Gods existence?

We Cannot Prove God Exists and That’s Okay​

 

[Polymath257]

I cannot answer how it is evidence for a God for you.

OK, whether it is evidence for a God or not isn't dependent on who it is evidence for.

Given my belief in a God however it is just confirmative evidence that God arranged genetics so that life forms continued on for a fair while without too many mutations building up.

OK, so confirmation bias?

 

[Polymath257]

"sort of evidence" ="type of evidence"



It does not matter to me is the Discovery Institute wants to God a legitimate scientific proposition or not,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or if regular science has decided that RNA or DNA repair has a natural explanation,,,,,,,,,,,,,, of course it has a natural explanation in terms of chemical reactions and is not a matter of angels sitting to the side of molecules making sure they replicate accurately. The point is that it actually happens. An actual repair system exists for the repair of molecules that have replicated inaccurately. Amazing and praise God for it.

And, again, HOW is that evidence for a God? it is evidence that repair of DNA is a good thing for survival of genetic lines, certainly. And that is precisely what you would expect from evolution. But in what way does it support the e3xistence of a supernatural?

 

[Brian2]

OK, whether it is evidence for a God or not isn't dependent on who it is evidence for.

Evidence for one person is not evidence for another when it comes to belief in God and I imagine different sorts of evidence carry different weight for different people or we would not need juries.

OK, so confirmation bias?

No, confirmation bias suggests that I don't see the evidence for the other side.
If anything it is skeptics who have confirmation bias when they deny that my evidence is even evidence.