I will prove god's existence if....

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

You should talk to more scientists.

I am one. :brickwall:

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I am one. :brickwall:

Do you mean that as in 'I am a scintest who has given papers and made advances in my field and have 20 years experiance' or 'I am an undergraduate doing Chemistry'

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

Do you mean that as in 'I am a scintest who has given papers and made advances in my field and have 20 years experiance' or 'I am an undergraduate doing Chemistry'.

I must admit I'm unfamiliar with any scientists who have given papers and made advances in their fields who claim that reason and purpose are scientific values themselves.

At the risk of seeming like a complete hypocrite, can you suggest some to me?

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen wrote:

Please do, it's so much nicer when things are civil.Why? It's got absolutely nothing to do with my position. I'm not claiming that the Big bang isn't widely accepted - I'm just pointing out that it isn't the only theory engaged in by those you say engage in it - and that many who engage in it would deny that it was "the first ever event".

You're adopting double standards again - earlier you claimed you had "no need of accomplicies" to back up your theory - but you demand I give names of people who back up my position. I suspect 9 out of 10 cosmologists would respond to the question "Is the Big bang the first event ever?" with the answer of "can't be sure".

Can't be sure, though.Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I think I've given the answer many times already anyway - chaos theory.

Taken from Wikipedia, the following paragraph sums it up pretty nicely, though it is, I find, very complicated indeed:

In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behaviour of certain dynamical systems - that is, systems whose states evolve with time - that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

So the BB has the most votes..is it not fair for me to use it as reason as there is no other substantiated theory..there is no evidence of a before this universe whether it was by the bb or not this event is the first observed event...I am familiar with the chaos theory but it does not exclude the notion that given that life can by certain criteria be created over over again..do you deny this?

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

Do you mean that as in 'I am a scintest who has given papers and made advances in my field and have 20 years experiance' or 'I am an undergraduate doing Chemistry'

I am on the faculty of Duke Medical School, I received my MD nearly 9 years ago and did 7 years of postgraduate medical training including a three year fellowship at Harvard (2 years of which were published laboratory research), I have numerous publications in peer reviewed journals and textbooks, I've won competitive research grants, and I currently have four research studies awaiting IRB approval.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

So the BB has the most votes..is it not fair for me to use it as reason as there is no other substantiated theory.

"Has the most votes" and "substantiated" are not the same thing.

But that's fine - I resort to pedantry - I do think it's fair to say that it is the most commonly understood and supported theory about the origin of the universe - but is it not fair to offer a counter argument?

Let's maybe move on...

Do you wish to start again from the following:

a) It seems that the Big Bang is the earliest event that people tend to agree occured, with contemporary scientific understanding seeming largely to support the theory.
b) With the benefit of hindsight it's undeniable that the Big Bang contained all the ingredients needed to - at some later point - precipitate forms of life?
c) Therefore, could life have been engineered into the makeup of the big bang?

Is this a workable compromise?

If so, my response remains "yes - but why would such a conclusion carry any more weight than to assert that life was not engineered into the makeup of the Big bang, and just came about by accident?"

Quote:

there is no evidence of a before this universe whether it was by the bb or not this event is the first observed event...

No, it's a theory. It's a well supported theory - but it's not an observed event.

Quote:

I am familiar with the chaos theory but it does not exclude the notion that given that life can by certain criteria be created over over again..do you deny this?

Not at all, I would never deny such a proposition - but I would point out that it is also valid to stress that even if the same criteria that led to the creation of life at one time were to be duplicated it does not necessarily follow that the same process leading to life would be repeated - either in the same manner or at all.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

I am on the faculty of Duke Medical School, I received my MD nearly 9 years ago and did 7 years of postgraduate medical training including a three year fellowship at Harvard (2 years of which were published laboratory research), I have numerous publications in peer reviewed journals and textbooks, I've won competitive research grants, and I currently have four research studies awaiting IRB approval.

Oh get over yourself. you claim that reason and purpose are not saught by scince, but find me one paper on evouloution that avoids intentionalist language, just one.

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

Well, many books on evolution do take pains to stress that whilst the processes on show look an awful lot like design and contest they are - in the eyes of the author - just the selection of characteristics that are arrived at randomly.

The Selfish Gene would be an example. It just seems to be happenstance that the molecules that make up genes replicate themselves through a process that seems purposeful - but is nothing more than a hugely complex set of chemical reactions.

Part of the issue is that language such as "design" is so intrinsic to discussing evolution - but that's a heritage of it's origins in the 18th century when design of life was a hot topic. And because it's hard to talk about the development of physical traits without using such language. You strike me as confusing a particular definition of certain words with the be all and end all of their intent in context.

Besides, evolution is hardly all of science is it? Even if it couldn't be found that evolution was purpose-free, that would still leave us with every other scientific avenue to discuss...

And "get over yourself"? You challenged him - he met it - sore loser?

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

This thread was about what is god? can you prove his existance....i dont think its possible to even know if he exists let alone prove him...my only intention was to muse on my wondering on the possibility that it might be something we can not imagine..i do see certain things as so finely determined that i must consider if this unnamed IT may be ...I think we have a duty to consider everything and anything..

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

True, and I will admit to a basic sort of uncommited deism because I like religious stories a lot and can't account for things like first cause - but I think that the more you look into scientific reasoning for why things interlock so finely the sense of awe that results from doing so is akin to that produced by some of the more powerful religious writing - moreso, I would say. I think the vision is more austere - but I have a taste for the austere.

One of the things that strikes me as quite interesting about the two ways of looking at things is - with the possible exception of Hinduism (as they think in cycles of billions of years) - how much grander in scope scientific explanations are: In fact a God who did engineer all of existence into a sort of cosmic seed we call the Big Bang that set of all sorts of subtle and expansive effects for a history of billions and billions of years would strike me as far more impressive than the works of the God of Genesis.

So I do appreciate the vision. I'm not sold on it though (and I'm not suggesting you are either).

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7;36943 wrote:

Oh get over yourself.

You asked, I answered. You seem make bold, sweeping claims about science -- I've given you a little snipet of my background; since you challenged me, where do you happen to fall on that spectrum of expertise that you asked me to answer??

Quote:

you claim that reason and purpose are not saught by scince, but find me one paper on evouloution that avoids intentionalist language, just one.

What is "intentionalist" language?

But since you asked, here are some evolutionary biology articles. Please provide DIRECT QUOTES that discuss "PURPOSE" and "REASON". I don't want to hear fluff about what you think the authors MEANT. I want DIRECT QUOTES. Furthermore, speculation about a biological function is not "REASON" as we're discussing it here, so don't think you can get away with that ruse. Finally, for the umpteenth time, science lives and dies by the quality of its data, and this is evident only in the Methods section -- a section notably absent from philosophical writings.

PLoS Computational Biology: Protein Complex Evolution Does Not Involve Extensive Network Rewiring

PLoS Genetics: Evolution of a Core Gene Network for Skeletogenesis in Chordates

PLoS Pathogens: Evolution of a TRIM5-CypA Splice Isoform in Old World Monkeys

PLoS ONE: The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

You asked, I answered. You seem make bold, sweeping claims about science -- I've given you a little snipet of my background; since you challenged me, where do you happen to fall on that spectrum of expertise that you asked me to answer??

I apoligise if your ignorance led me to conclude your qualifications were less than they are.

Aedes wrote:

What is "intentionalist" language?

Language that would require some kind of purpose to be existant- an intention.

Aedes wrote:

But since you asked, here are some evolutionary biology articles. Please provide DIRECT QUOTES that discuss "PURPOSE" and "REASON". I don't want to hear fluff about what you think the authors MEANT. I want DIRECT QUOTES. Furthermore, speculation about a biological function is not "REASON" as we're discussing it here, so don't think you can get away with that ruse. Finally, for the umpteenth time, science lives and dies by the quality of its data, and this is evident only in the Methods section -- a section notably absent from philosophical writings.

Thank you for providing the links, I will be delighted to prove my point. As to method, I don't really know where to begin as to how to go about explaing the many flaws of this point, whether it be the many phisolophical methodolgys that exist, or the fact that proves all of nothing about philosophy? Which is it to be?

Aedes wrote:

PLoS Computational Biology: Protein Complex Evolution Does Not Involve Extensive Network Rewiring

'protein pairs that participate in the same protein complex' participation being the obvious example here as it indicates an active and intelligent role as opposed to a passive mechanichal one

Aedes wrote:

PLoS Genetics: Evolution of a Core Gene Network for Skeletogenesis in Chordates

'Runx2 directly regulates Indian hedgehog expression, a master coordinator of skeletal development.' Again active roles, this time implying mastery and control over somthing, an even more intenionilist example

Aedes wrote:

PLoS Pathogens: Evolution of a TRIM5-CypA Splice Isoform in Old World Monkeys

'Thus, the mutation, which interferes with expression of the normal TRIM5α protein, instead contributes to expression of a novel protein.' Do I have to make this much more obvious?

Aedes wrote:

PLoS ONE: The Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families

'The most interesting duplication/deletion events from an evolutionary viewpoint are those that involve intact genes. Gene duplication has been hypothesized to be a powerful engine for evolutionary change in general' How much more intentionalist does it get than an the use of an artificial construct in relation to an evouloutionairy abstract?

4 Replies

@avatar6v7,

{Answer responding to First Post In Thread}

Proof

How can I explain my own proof? Well I'll start by talking about what we call consciousness. Generally there is an acceptance that we can communicate with our thoughts. Not in the sense of "magic" or powers but with energy that we are made up of. Why is this so?
Because what is physical is inherently a matrix of understanding. Generally, people understand that there are moments in life where we rely on this energy in the form of emotions and spiritual(energy) guidance. Religion, is indeed a wall to this. But the fact that a religious concept even exists, is proof of this...... connection.

where do we take this known truth in reality? lol, that my friends is what is the comedy and tragedy of life. In more countless scenarios then I could even fathom.

So, The proof is in the pudding. YOU know what the pudding is. Fear is merely a mis-interpretation of what we are and how to realize this. I'm sure many people could rip this argument apart. But this is at the service of Love and Connection.

Moments in your life of extreme content and happiness are the key here. I'm not saying this is where people realize there is a god. Instead its at these moments that individuals realize everything is purposeful and connected.

What would you call something that had consciousness, was united, and present in everything you knew.

God? so be it.

1 Reply

@Joe,

If any person seek proof, simply pick an object up with your hand, then drop that object and watch it fall...

A simple observation of this action shows a basic law which dictate's to that object, that it must fall.

It takes intelligence to understand such, and therefore it takes intelligence to create a law that dictates to that object how it must fall.

Therefore logically, at the start of all starts some form of intelligence must have created all laws which dictate how all things re-act and act with one another in every way, shape, and form, at any give point of perceivable or non-perceivable point of time. (Law's Of Interaction)

Since every person here and on this face of this very earth can agree that the object that you dropped dose not have the power to create such a binding law which dictates such...

This is the core of science which state's that some kind of intelligence existed at one point to create and uphold those binding law's.

And please... nexted time you use the word "god" please tell everyone what "god" you are talking about, since you know as well as I that every person and major body of land on this earth mainly has a diffrent point of view of what "god" is and is not, and what that "god" says, said, will say, dose, did, or will do... (allways lacking logical proof of such of course...)

Yet, since the small task of proving there is a intelligent creator of the laws the dictate how all objects interact with one another is out of the way....

+++Where did that creator come from?+++

(I unsure you the path to the answer to this question shall bring forth more fruit than the last...)

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

I apoligise if your ignorance led me to conclude your qualifications were less than they are.

Is this really the way you think participants in a putative philosophical debate should talk to one another?

Once again I'm just rather bemused that a so-called advocate for gentle Jesus, meek and mild, forgiving and forgetting and turn-the-other-cheeking - should resort to such rudery in an attempt to make his or her point.

I think you're right to point out that such language denotes activity - but does activity denote purpose? Not necessarily if you think that such activity is the result of an accidental process.

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

Thank you for providing the links, I will be delighted to prove my point. As to method, I don't really know where to begin as to how to go about explaing the many flaws of this point, whether it be the many phisolophical methodolgys that exist, or the fact that proves all of nothing about philosophy? Which is it to be?

Well the Method I think Aedes was referring to is the section in the links he gave that describe how the data was captured - what the data is - and how it was used to reach the conclusion.

Philosophical methods are ways of thinking (or to be more precise - thinking about ways of thinking) - whilst it's the same word it's not really describing the same thing.

This is because science usually starts off from taking as given that the data provided is noumena (a thing as it is) - whereas philosophy might just as easily assume it phenomena (a thing as it seems to be).

Now many (though not all) philosophical methods ARE about finding reasons or purposes or meanings to things. But that does not mean scientific methods must do likewise.

So to say Aedes is wrong to cite method because there are philosophical methods isn't really credible - as they are two different things. There is also method acting, and methods in computer programming and methods of baking cakes - there are obvious similarities - but they are not necessarily relevant to one another.

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

avatar6v7 wrote:

'protein pairs that participate in the same protein complex' participation being the obvious example here as it indicates an active and intelligent role as opposed to a passive mechanichal one

Really?

I might say that hydrogen and oxygen molecules participate with one another to form water - but i don't think it's the purpose of hydrogen to form water, nor do I think any intelligence is necessarily involved. It's just something those molecules do under certain circumstances.

0 Replies

@avatar6v7,

Avatar,

I asked you to provide examples of REASON or PURPOSE. You have given me a list of verbs. You completely ignored the question I asked you, which is to say where the authors DIRECTLY make statements about intention, reason, or purpose. Cherrypicking words and then overlaying your own interpretation is exactly what I told you not to do. So try again.

In the meantime, I'll caution you that insults and namecalling like "ignorance" are against the forum rules, and remind you that unproductive, aggressive posturing is not going to be tolerated for very long. Dave has put up with a lot of vitriol from you in this thread without answering in kind. Now I'm apparently your recipient.

So take a breath, take a walk, come back with your pulse a little lower, and try to type a response that demonstrates you have respect for this community and the other participants, whether or not you agree with their views.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Avatar,
I asked you to provide examples of REASON or PURPOSE. You have given me a list of verbs. You completely ignored the question I asked you, which is to say where the authors DIRECTLY make statements about intention, reason, or purpose. Cherrypicking words and then overlaying your own interpretation is exactly what I told you not to do. So try again.

I said intentionalist language, a matter that I have proved. I made no other claims on the subject.

1 Reply

@avatar6v7,

I asked you to define intentionalist. You have yet to do so.

Before you introduced the word intentionalist, you made the following claim:

avatar6v7 wrote:

the 'insatiable need for everything to have a reason or a purpose' is surely the eccence of the scientific and phisolophical spirt

I deny that this is true with respect to science. And I defy you to demonstrate to me that REASON and PURPOSE are to be found anywhere in these scientific publications aside from a purely descriptive or mechanistic context.

1 Reply

I will prove god's existence if....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know