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

[AnthonyGiarrusso]

I’ve been reading through a couple of threads, and I see that it is said that there is no evidence for a god, it’s an unfalsifiable idea. We all agree on this? If you don’t, care to explain the evidence there is for god?
I’m in agreement. I used to believe my personal experiences to be subjective evidence for god, but I know now that’s not the case. I am not a theist anymore because I recognize I was a Christian thanks almost completely to my environment. That’s why I believed. I was brought up in it. Wasn’t because of any proof or anything,
So, theists, why do you believe? Is it mainly because of your environment and geographical location? There is no proof for god (right?), so what logically keeps you believing? Or is logic not supposed to be a factor when it comes to faith? Is it too jarring, the idea of leaving the comfort that religion and belief in a god brings?
I am curious about personal evaluations on why you believe. It can’t be because of logic, as there is no proof of god, right?

What? I talked to God yesterday.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, if code can't write itself, then something must have written it. Else we're into self-origination, which I thought you (maybe it was someone else) had argued against. The logic I'm following here ignores entirely the identification and characteristics of the coder; it merely addresses the question, "Was there a coder?" (who can be given the label "god").

DNA is not a code in that sense. It is only used as an analogy. And it does not "write itself" it is written due to what works and does not work in nature.

It would prove there is a coder. Who would be "god," whatever that is.
Sure. If you'll note, I have not attempted once to identify "god." I have only addressed the question of god's existence from a purely logical standpoint, using a specific logical chain to produce a binary outcome.

I know you have disagreed with my outcome, which is f

But again, it does not appear that any "coder" is needed. How new traits arise naturally is well understood.

ine, but I dispute the logic by which you have done so. Your logic introduces elements that are either not germane to the question (god's identity), or not yet adequately accounted for ("simple chemistry").

It is just simple chemistry. Why do you think that it has to be something else?

For sure. I'm doing just that.
I have no idea how you're concluding that, based on what I've offered. Nowhere in the logic I've offered is there any room for "hope" of any kind. Either code writes itself or it doesn't. Etc. We can blast away at the logic to see if it continues to hold water, but each blast will also be scrutinized as to its relevance to the logic. Else we ruin the experiment.
I think I've addressed why this is perpendicular to the logic being examined.

Yeah, that is because what you use does not appear to be "logic".

 

[Subduction Zone]

What? I talked to God yesterday.

And I talked to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Unfettered]

DNA is not a code in that sense. It is only used as an analogy.

I don't know ;it seems to me that the label goes beyond mere analogy in the sense that DNA is actually "written." Encoded (man, that ought to give us pause right there!). For it is. What writes it—whether a person, a consciousness, etc—is a different question.

And it does not "write itself" it is written due to what works and does not work in nature.

So nature ultimately writes it... is that an accurate summary of your position here?

But again, it does not appear that any "coder" is needed. How new traits arise naturally is well understood.

Do not new traits arise through the process of execution of code?

It is just simple chemistry. Why do you think that it has to be something else?

I haven't said anything about simple chemistry. That was your introduction. That chemistry plays a part is not in dispute. The problem with introducing this additional element is that one has to now account also for how the rules (or code) that govern simple chemistry (as simple chemistry governs DNA) were written. For simple chemistry is coding, too.

Yeah, that is because what you use does not appear to be "logic".

That it does not appear to be logic to you does not mean it isn't logic. Do you agree?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know ;it seems to me that the label goes beyond mere analogy in the sense that DNA is actually "written." Encoded (man, that ought to give us pause right there!). For it is. What writes it—whether a person, a consciousness, etc—is a different question.

No, it is not written. We can translate it into letters, but that does not mean that it is written.

So nature ultimately writes it... is that an accurate summary of your position here?

Yes, and we have evidence for that. You do not seem to have any reliable evidence for your beliefs.

Do not new traits arise through the process of execution of code?

The word "code" is distracting you. You should drop it.

I haven't said anything about simple chemistry. That was your introduction. That chemistry plays a part is not in dispute. The problem with introducing this additional element is that one has to now account also for how the rules (or code) that govern simple chemistry (as simple chemistry governs DNA) were written. For simple chemistry is coding, too.

No, again, you are conflating man made rules and laws with natural ones. Natural rules and laws are descriptive. In other words they are man's description of what happens under certain circumstances. There was no need for anyone to write those "rules'. You are making an equivocation fallacy. Man made rules are proscriptive. They tell people what they cannot do with some sort of force behind them. They are written by man.

That it does not appear to be logic to you does not mean it isn't logic. Do you agree?

No.

 

[Unfettered]

No, it is not written. We can translate it into letters, but that does not mean that it is written.

"Written" conveys the recording of data or information onto some medium. I don't understand your objection to the term, but you're welcome to detail your objection, if you think doing so will contribute to the discussion.

Yes, and we have evidence for that. You do not seem to have any reliable evidence for your beliefs.

I have not shared my beliefs. I am exploring a question here using logical analysis.

The word "code" is distracting you. You should drop it.

DNA is "genetic code." The word is inherent in the subject of discussion. It makes no sense to disallow the word "code" when talking about genetic code. It is possible that you're distracted by it, but I am not. That should be clear in what I've shared.

No, again, you are conflating man made rules and laws with natural ones. Natural rules and laws are descriptive. In other words they are man's description of what happens under certain circumstances. There was no need for anyone to write those "rules'. You are making an equivocation fallacy. Man made rules are proscriptive. They tell people what they cannot do with some sort of force behind them. They are written by man.

I don't follow how this relates to what we've been discussing. You'll have to clarify.

No.

Oh. Well, OK.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Written" conveys the recording of data or information onto some medium. I don't understand your objection to the term, but you're welcome to detail your objection, if you think doing so will contribute to the discussion.

Because people like you try to use the term "written" to claim that there had to be some sort of agency behind it when there is no evidence for such an agency. You appear to have been confused by this as shown by your arguments. That is why it is best not to use such terminology.

I have not shared my beliefs. I am exploring a question here using logical analysis.

No, you really are not. At best you are only making ad hoc arguments. Those are not logical.

DNA is "genetic code." The word is inherent in the subject of discussion. It makes no sense to disallow the word "code" when talking about genetic code. It is possible that you're distracted by it, but I am not. That should be clear in what I've shared.
I don't follow how this relates to what we've been discussing. You'll have to clarify.

Again you showed that it confused you. To avoid confusion it is best to avoid using such terms until you have a better understanding.

Oh. Well, OK.

Do you know what a logical argument is? Can you give me a rough form of one?

 

[Unfettered]

Because people like you try to use the term "written" to claim that there had to be some sort of agency behind it when there is no evidence for such an agency. You appear to have been confused by this as shown by your arguments. That is why it is best not to use such terminology.

Then let's use your terminology. I have no objection to that. What word should we substitute for "written"? Likewise for the word "code"?

No, you really are not. At best you are only making ad hoc arguments. Those are not logical.

So, ad hoc arguments are inherently illogical. OK. Good to know. I'll draw my comments from works I've written. It is OK if I re-word the comments to flow with our discussion, or do I have to copy/paste right out of my writings?

Again you showed that it confused you. To avoid confusion it is best to avoid using such terms until you have a better understanding.

You're probably right. Let's use your words.

Do you know what a logical argument is? Can you give me a rough form of one?

Perhaps I don't know what a logical argument is. But I'm willing to learn. Would you post your best logical argument here and point out its component elements? Don't assume I can catch on fast, though—make it a very simple logical argument.

Thank you for be willing to guide me. Most folks just get impatient and stoop to insults and wishes for personal harm or injury. It's nice to come across someone patient and polite.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is OK if I re-word the comments to flow with our discussion, or do I have to copy/paste right out of my writings?

Perhaps I don't know what a logical argument is. But I'm willing to learn. Would you post your best logical argument here and point out its composite elements? Don't assume I can catch on fast, though—make it a very simple logical argument.

A logical argument has a conclusion that must neccessarily come from and be in agreement with the parameters of the argument.
Such as:
A) It is dark and overcast.
B) There is a soft pitter patter I hear on my window.
Conclusion) It must be raining due to the darker clouds in the sky and sounds I'm hearing.
Math equations and formulae also are logical statements, but with numbers instead of words.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then let's use your terminology. I have no objection to that. What word should we substitute for "written"? Likewise for the word "code"?

Call it the genome. It is a neutral term.

So, ad hoc arguments are inherently illogical. OK. Good to know. I'll draw my comments from works I've written. It is OK if I re-word the comments to flow with our discussion, or do I have to copy/paste right out of my writings?

Yes, they use logical fallacies. That does not mean that they are automatically wrong. It only means that they did not prove what the sought to prove.

You're probably right. Let's use your words.

Perhaps I don't know what a logical argument is. But I'm willing to learn. Would you post your best logical argument here and point out its composite elements? Don't assume I can catch on fast, though—make it a very simple logical argument.

For what? Okay, rather than waiting how about one for evolution? A logical argument will usually have three sections. A premise or premises, and inference, and a conclusion. I will start off with some premises for evolution:

There is endless scientific evidence for evolution.

There appears to be no scientific evidence for creationism.

Correct ideas are usually supported by ample evidence.

False ideas re poorly supported by evidence.

Inference:

Evolution is very broadly supported by evidence and creationism is not.

Conclusion Evolution is probably true. And creationism is probably false.

There you go, rather crude but that should do it.

Taking the Lesson Further: Crafting a Logical Argument - Lead4Change.

Thank you for be willing to guide me. Most folks just get impatient and stoop to insults and wishes for personal harm or injury. It's nice to come across someone patient and polite.

As long as you are polite and reasonable I can respond in kind. I will warn you, though the concept of scientific evidence is very easy to understand most creationists will not allow them understand since hey can see where understanding it leads to. Many people would rather believe than to know.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, if code can't write itself, then something must have written it. Else we're into self-origination, which I thought you (maybe it was someone else) had argued against. The logic I'm following here ignores entirely the identification and characteristics of the coder; it merely addresses the question, "Was there a coder?" (who can be given the label "god").

Well, in the case where chemical spontaneously assemble in such a way that information is coded into their arrangement, the end result is NOT self-organized (because it didn't organize itself), but there is no 'coder' because no conscious entity 'wrote' the code.

It would prove there is a coder. Who would be "god," whatever that is.
Sure. If you'll note, I have not attempted once to identify "god." I have only addressed the question of god's existence from a purely logical standpoint, using a specific logical chain to produce a binary outcome.

So that is yet another logical error. You leave something undefined and jump to the conclusion that what you (supposedly) found is the target. In essence, you are begging the question.

So, for example, the term 'god' typically is restricted to either supernatural or very powerful natural entities. An alien race would usually NOT be considered to be a 'god'. So, your shifting of the definition is a type of logical error.

Second, the term 'God' is usually restricted to a being that makes the universe, not just modifies life on one small planet. So it is reasonable to question your use of a term that already has strong connotations.

I know you have disagreed with my outcome, which is fine, but I dispute the logic by which you have done so. Your logic introduces elements that are either not germane to the question (god's identity), or not yet adequately accounted for ("simple chemistry").

Really? How is it not accounting for what we actually see? For example, we know there is more than one version of the DNA code (mitochondria have a modified code). We know that the *actual* detials of the code isn't in the DNA itself, but rather in the transfer RNA (tRNA) that binds to both codons and amino acids. We know that that code is rather arbitrary *because we know how to change it*.

For sure. I'm doing just that.
I have no idea how you're concluding that, based on what I've offered. Nowhere in the logic I've offered is there any room for "hope" of any kind. Either code writes itself or it doesn't. Etc. We can blast away at the logic to see if it continues to hold water, but each blast will also be scrutinized as to its relevance to the logic. Else we ruin the experiment.
I think I've addressed why this is perpendicular to the logic being examined.

The mistake you make is assuming that code that does not write itself is written by a 'who' as opposed to simply coming from natural processes. You also make the mistake of identifying that 'who' with a term that already has some standard connotations.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't know ;it seems to me that the label goes beyond mere analogy in the sense that DNA is actually "written." Encoded (man, that ought to give us pause right there!). For it is. What writes it—whether a person, a consciousness, etc—is a different question.

So nature ultimately writes it... is that an accurate summary of your position here?

At one level, yes. It is a natural process involving the chemistry of nucleic and amino acids and how they interact. In that sense, it is NOT a code in the sense of cryptography. It is ultimately complex chemistry.

Do not new traits arise through the process of execution of code?

Not exactly.New traits arise from changes in the DNA sequence and subsequent translation into proteins. That isn't code 'execution' in any sense similar to, say, a computer.

I haven't said anything about simple chemistry. That was your introduction. That chemistry plays a part is not in dispute. The problem with introducing this additional element is that one has to now account also for how the rules (or code) that govern simple chemistry (as simple chemistry governs DNA) were written. For simple chemistry is coding, too.

No, it is not. It is simply how atoms interact with each other.

That it does not appear to be logic to you does not mean it isn't logic. Do you agree?

I'm a professional mathematician. I use logic every day of my life to prove new things in math. What you have offered is NOT logic. It is a collection of vague assumptions that don't even lead to the promised conclusion.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

And I talked to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

In my opinion, as a former Christian and survivor of childhood abuse (at the hands of Christian parents), praying to God is akin to praying to a brick wall and expecting the wall to care about you enough to answer you back. If the God of the Bible exists, he is, in my opinion, as compassionate as that brick wall and as loving and merciful to humans as a deadly king cobra. I was devout Christian for 30 years, and I truly believed in God for 10 years before that.

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps I don't know what a logical argument is. But I'm willing to learn. Would you post your best logical argument here and point out its component elements? Don't assume I can catch on fast, though—make it a very simple logical argument.

Well, first of all understand that there are several branches of logic: propositional logic, quantifier logic, and modal logic. All are formal systems with specified axioms and rules of inference.

A logical argument is one that starts with stated, verified, premises and proceeds using rules obtained from one of the branches of logic to reach a conclusion.

Among the things you need to do before your argument can succeed:

1. Precisely define what it means to be a code
2. Precisely state what it means to 'write' a code.
3. Show that every code needs to be actively written
4. Show that DNA--> protein is a code by your definition
5. Define what it means to be a 'god'. This should agree with at least one standard usage or be declared to be a technical usage
6. Show that any entity that writes the DNA-->protein code must be a 'god'

Good luck with *any* of these steps.

 

[Unfettered]

Call it the genome. It is a neutral term.

OK. But "genome" and "written" are not synonymous. Nor are "genome" and "encoded." We can't refer to both the genome and the process of its being "written" or "encoded" with a single term. What term would you like to use to refer to how the genome is produced?

Keep in mind that I object to the fault being on the word "written" or "encoded." These are standard terms used in genomics. Engineered is another one we could use. But if you prefer some word that you find less threatening to the positions you'll present, I'm game.

Yes, they use logical fallacies. That does not mean that they are automatically wrong. It only means that they did not prove what the sought to prove.

Ad hoc arguments use logical fallacies? There aren't any that don't? And ad hoc arguments never prove what they seek to prove?

A logical argument will usually have three sections.

Got it.

As long as you are polite and reasonable I can respond in kind.

Thank you for that graciousness. My experience has shown it to be a rarity.

I will warn you, though the concept of scientific evidence is very easy to understand most creationists will not allow them understand since hey can see where understanding it leads to. Many people would rather believe than to know.

Oh, I most certainly want to know, not just believe. And I hope that, although you know nothing of my views outside of this brief set of exchanges we've had thus far, you'll not prejudice me as one of "those" "people-like-you-type creationists. If you'll toss me the benefit-of-the-doubt bone I'm sure I can rise to the herculean challenge of comprehending the easy-to-understand concept of scientific evidence.

After you make the last few requested clarifications, etc., perhaps we can continue?

 

[Polymath257]

"Written" conveys the recording of data or information onto some medium. I don't understand your objection to the term, but you're welcome to detail your objection, if you think doing so will contribute to the discussion.

OK, so you agree that 'writing' does not require the actions of a conscious entity?

As an example, a meteor hitting the moon and leaving a crater. That records data onto some medium and that data can be used to determine things like the mass, direction, and speed of the original meteor. Would you consider this to be 'writing'? I, for one, would not.

As another example, a dinosaur dies and the bones are fossilized. There is data formed that is recorded on a medium. Is that writing? if so, who or what did the writing?

Your definition seems to be overly broad.

I have not shared my beliefs. I am exploring a question here using logical analysis.
DNA is "genetic code." The word is inherent in the subject of discussion. It makes no sense to disallow the word "code" when talking about genetic code. It is possible that you're distracted by it, but I am not. That should be clear in what I've shared.

And the word 'code' when it comes to DNA-->protein is an *analogy* and is in no way similar to codes studied in, say, cryptography.

I don't follow how this relates to what we've been discussing. You'll have to clarify.

Oh. Well, OK.

 

[PureX]

Please tell us eithe4 the scientific study or logical argument that proves the existence of God.

This discussion proves the existence of God. But you want physical proof of a physical God because you know you won’t get it. Isn’t that right?

 

[Polymath257]

I haven't said anything about simple chemistry. That was your introduction. That chemistry plays a part is not in dispute. The problem with introducing this additional element is that one has to now account also for how the rules (or code) that govern simple chemistry (as simple chemistry governs DNA) were written. For simple chemistry is coding, too.

The rules governing chemistry were NOT written. And chemistry is NOT coding by any sensible use of the words.

In fact, the 'natural laws' cannot have been 'written' or 'caused' because they are fundamental to the notion of causality. There is no cause without rules of behavior.

 

[PureX]

As I pointed out, there are flaws in that logic. A code (like the DNA code) does not require a 'coder' and that coder does NOT have to be supernatural. In the case of DNA, it is simply chemistry.

Chemistry is code.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK. But "genome" and "written" are not synonymous. Nor are "genome" and "encoded." We can't refer to both the genome and the process of its being "written" or "encoded" with a single term. What term would you like to use to refer to how the genome is produced?

How about "formed"? Again, one can use the terms that you are using if one realizes that they do not imply agency. But when a person starts to draw conclusions that are not justified just based upon the terms that one uses then it is time to avoid terms that can lead to possible misunderstandings. People that work in that area will often use the terms "code" or even "written" because it is faster. But they also know that they do not imply an agency.

Keep in mind that I object to the fault being on the word "written" or "encoded." These are standard terms used in genomics. Engineered is another one we could use. But if you prefer some word that you find less threatening to the positions you'll present, I'm game.

Okay, I actually do not have an objection to the short cut terms if one realizes that they do not imply a writer or a an engineer etc. behind it all.

Ad hoc arguments use logical fallacies? There aren't any that don't? And ad hoc arguments never prove what they seek to prove?
Got it.

I have never seen one that was not a logical fallacy. In the sciences the concept of evidence is rather strictly defined. It is deceptively simple:

Scientific evidence consists of observations that support or oppose a scientific theory or hypothesis.

That is it. Seems like almost anyone could find some evidence. The tricky part is that one needs a proper theory or hypothesis. Both ideas have to be falsifiable. That means that there has to be a test based upon the predictions that the hypothesis or theory makes that could possibly refute it. That is where creationists fail. They refuse to make testable hypotheses.

Thank you for that graciousness. My experience has shown it to be a rarity.
Oh, I most certainly want to know, not just believe. And I hope that, although you know nothing of my views outside of this brief set of exchanges we've had thus far, you'll not prejudice me as one of "those" "people-like-you-type creationists. If you'll toss me the benefit-of-the-doubt bone I'm sure I can rise to the herculean challenge of comprehending the easy-to-understand concept of scientific evidence.

After you make the last few requested clarifications, etc., perhaps we can continue?

Okay this could be fun, in a good way, not in a bad way. Far too often we only see bad arguments presented and people refusing to learn from their errors.

Do you have any more questions or are there any items that I may have missed?