45
   

How do i know God is real?

 
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 07:45 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
@Johnjohnjohn,
I'm not trying to disprove anything. I'm waiting for someone to show some credible evidence to support the god hypothesis.

A scientist does not wait for someone to bring credible evidence. He actively looks for it.


I'm not a scientist, but I've been looking for decades, anyway. You got anything?
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 07:57 am
@FBM,
Quote:

I'm not a scientist, but I've been looking for decades, anyway. You got anything?

Of course I do. But this is not a 'one size fits all' kind of thing. You are a unique individual. Mine won't fit you.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 08:01 am
@Leadfoot,
Then it's not genuine, credible evidence, is it?
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 08:09 am
@FBM,
Quote:
@Leadfoot,
Then it's not genuine, credible evidence, is it?

It is when it fits!

I did try on a lot of ill fitting **** first though.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 08:19 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
It is when it fits!


Nope. Not unless it "fits" the same for independent observers. That's how science gets done. What you have seems to be a subjective preference that makes you happy. Good for you, but it's not credible evidence unless you can share it openly and independent experimenters can verify the results. Otherwise, anybody's claim is just as good as anyone else's, even when they contradict each other.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 08:47 am
@FBM,
I don't mean to say that the basic reality of God is different for everyone, it isn't, but you are trying to make people into interchangeable parts, like a machine. They aren't. It would be very boring if they were.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that finding God IS experimental and it sounds like you have stopped experimenting just because your early attempts failed. People find the same God in different ways. Find your own way.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 08:50 am
@Leadfoot,
Not much interested in red herrings here. Do you have any evidence for your god hypothesis that you can share with independent observers?
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 09:12 am
@FBM,
Nope, gave it my best shot. You're still on your own.
FBM
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2015 09:17 am
@Leadfoot,
Thank you for being honest.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 01:41 am
@FBM,
Note that unless you can define the 'something' you are looking for, all suggestions can be meaningless. Clearly 'science' has nothing to say about the blatantly unscientific 'prime mover' concept despite attempts to establish it in favor of a null hypothesis. We are left with a vague question about 'the meaning of existence' which is fueled by the human cognitive pre-occupation with 'time', 'purpose' and 'planning'. The realization of this in turn has led some to attempt to stand back from cognition/consciousness and try to obtain what amounts to 'a God's eye view' ! And there the path is opened to esotericism and mysticism.

IMO developments in counter-intuitive science (quantum physics and quantum biology) will eventually confine deterministic thinking to the domain of the simple minded. I suggest Einstein's deterministic 'God' represents the limits and the end of the first stage in 'scientific thinking', which let's face it, has had ridiculously short history. The concept of 'evidence' has moved away from simplistic concepts of 'truth' and 'reality' which have their place in the 'courtroom' of social decision procedures, to the more nebulous realm of probability, entanglement, and non-locality.

FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 06:20 am
@fresco,
The 'something' is genuine, credible, ie strong, evidence that can be evaluated by others. Now you'll ask me to define evidence? In this context, I'm not out to push the envelope with regards to semantics, so standard dictionary definitions suffice here.

Just to clarify, I'm not of the illusion that inferential (scientific) knowledge is eternally incontrovertible; obiously it isn't. I only intend to point out that it's proven to be a lot better than going with just anything people claim sans evidence. In the present context, scriptures are the claims, not the evidence.
Amoh5
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 06:34 am
@FBM,
This is only for physics sake not spirituality's sake. If the word god means male immortality, and I said the physique of God the Father is the "Sky" (in relation to Mother Earth) Is the Sky "immortal"?
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 06:49 am
@Amoh5,
If I switch all the definitions for all the words in the dictionary around at random, does that change anything about the world outside the dictionary?
Amoh5
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 07:00 am
@FBM,
God as in male immortality is a well established definition, not an abstract one anyway
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 07:13 am
@Amoh5,
And Eros, as in human love, is a well-established definition...and absolutely abstract, as is your "God is male mortality" thing. It's called symbolism. We're making up new ones all the time, and they still don't change or prove a thing about the world outside of the symbolism.
Amoh5
 
  0  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 07:20 am
@FBM,
If a male being is immortal, then he is a god. If he is not immortal he is not a god but a mere mortal.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 07:22 am
@Amoh5,
If my aunt had a wanger, she'd be my uncle. I don't see what you're getting at. All I see is confused, speculative word-wrangling, when the request was for genuine, credible evidence.
Amoh5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 07:26 am
@FBM,
Do you actually need evidence that the sky is immortal?
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 07:29 am
@Amoh5,
Yes.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Sep, 2015 07:33 am
@Groomers123,
Quote:
How do i know God is real?


Process of elimination. I.e. mainly because evolution has turned out to be a bunch of ideological bullshit and there has never really been any sort of a third choice or possibility.


A proof or disproof is a kind of a transaction. There is no such thing as absolutely proving or disproving something; there is only such a thing as proving or disproving something to SOMEBODY'S satisfaction. If the party of the second part is too thick or too ideologically committed to some other way of viewing reality, then the best proof in the world will fall flat and fail.

In the case of evolution, what you have is a theory which has been repeatedly and overwhelmingly disproved over a period of many decades now via a number of independent lines reasoning and yet the adherents go on with it as if nothing had happened and, in fact, demand that the doctrine be taught in public schools at public expense and that no other theory of origins even ever be mentioned in public schools, and attempt to enforce all of that via political power plays and lawsuits.

At that point, it is clear enough that no disproof or combination of disproofs would ever suffice, that the doctrine is in fact unfalsifiable and that Carl popper's criteria for a pseudoscience is in fact met.

Once again for anybody who may have missed this earlier:

The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?


Fruit flies breed new generations every few days. Running a continuous decades-long experiment on fruit flies will involve more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans on Earth. Evolution is supposed to be driven by random mutation and natural selection; they subjected those flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies.

Richard Goldschmidt wrote the results of all of that up in 1940, noting that it was then obvious enough that no combination of mutation and selection could ever produce a new kind of animal.

There is no excuse for evolution to ever have been taught in schools after 1940.

 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/21/2019 at 02:14:37