Is there any proof God exists?

Post Reply New Topic

Please explain where I have shown dishonesty or lack of integrity. I showed you 20-something examples of your own subjective assumptions. I'm sure you can do the same for me. If I have shown dishonesty or lacked integrity, I would invite the opportunity to improve myself.


Michael Behe is an ID advocate who has been taken to task over several of his claims. Here's one of my favourite, over a test he suggested for producing bacterial flagellum under mock evolutionary pressure:



http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006 ... ification/

In other words, damned if they do and damned if they don't do his experiment. Behe sets unrealistic scales of time and quantity, and then even if the experiment worked, it would be dismissed because it happened in a test tube.

One of the things I learned long ago is to read the both sides of any explanation. It's nice to read things that support what you believe, but you often learn more when you read the debunkers.

I don't have enough time or energy to devote to getting into all the science of it, but this pretty much sealed the deal for me on ID. It's enough for me to observe that the world works and is sufficiently fine-tuned for intelligent, human life. I'm good.

What amuses me are how you did have those experiments…what…back in the 50's, I think?…that showed amino acids could form under hypothesized primordial conditions. You could use that to support chance abiogenesis. But you could also say a Creator or Designer set it up that way just like scientists set up the experiment. In other words, amino acids and self-replicating RNA could not have formed had not an intelligent agent (the scientist) replicated those conditions in a controlled environment. Similarly, an intelligent agent would have been necessary for life to arrive on earth.

Personally, I'm not that impressed with either argument. What interests me more is that the arrival of life on earth seems to coincide with the geological age of the earth, which shouldn't be possible. Life happened just when the earth was starting to cool enough to support it? Creationists/IDers will point out that the odds of life appearing that quickly as a random function would make the development of life much older than the earth. An alternative would be that the building blocks of life formed (guessing) somewhere in or near our solar system and managed to survive an impact with earth. No need to look elsewhere in the universe for aliens…we're all right here! There's just something poetically appealing about that.

I don't know what support there is in the scientific community for the idea of life having an extraterrestrial source, but it does seem to me to make the most sense.

If the earth is said to be, say, 4.6 billion years old, and life began, say, 4.5 billion years ago--that, to me, would give the earth plenty of time to cool off: 100 million years.

I think the 18th century Deists had a really good thing going, even if it might be seen as sort of a cop-out:

God created the universe, then withdrew to allow us to fight it out amongst ourselves.

The thing about odds are.. when you have a universe to work with, billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, then the odds turn to near certainties. With a universe to work with, such things are almost certain to occur, somewhere. The fact that it happened here makes it look coincidental to us, but it would probably feel just as coincidental to the inhabitants of planet xyz in galaxy abc.

Current estimates put the beginning of life in the neighborhood of 3.6 billion years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

Even counting in cooling time, that's still a billion year gap between earth and life.




It is taken seriously by scientists as a possibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia

There is proof that God exists. The proof is that we're all here. If God didn't exist, we wouldn't be here.

Of course! Why didn't I think of that? -facepalm-

Ah of course then we have the opposite of the argument from falsely representing actual science, here we have the argument from utter ignorance

Ah.. but BLISS is so much better than worry...

So what is real..

BLISS OR worry...

Perhaps Cockney Rebel has something YOU
DO NOT..

THE METAPHOR is path..

The feeling of human being IS

REAL..

SO what matters.. 'FACT' or

HUMAN BEING...

AND that my friend..

IS WHAT Philosophy is

ALL about...

It is MUCH DEEPER
than words or math

alone.

"Is there any proof God exists?" - Nothing to convince me so far. I'm with Dawkins in the "Can't say 100% certain there is(are) no god(s) but the lack of evidence makes it unimaginably unlikely to the point where I may as well work on the assumption that there isn't" camp.

"But you have no proof that I don't."
Two sides of the same coin. You can't effectively demonstrate to the other person that you're right (whichever side you're arguing). But neither can they. So why choose to believe the way you do?

I am really sorry you feel this way....

But even if it is not God or whoever, I wish you could believe in something/someone.

I will give you another opportunity to, once again, give a first-hand evidence of your lack of honesty and (scientific) integrity that should be obvious to anyone with rudimentary, or moderately functional, skills in reading and comprehension.

Your ideological assumption that everything that exists caused itself to exist for no reason is in flagrant contradiction to everywhere observable, and always experimentally demonstrable, what we call science.

I refer particularly to what we call entropy, in which order and potential spontaneously dissipate and never, ever accumulate; as is ubiquitously observed and confirmed by experiment.

There is no number, or volume, of gratuitous assertions that enough time will make the scientifically impossible into a "scientifically proven certainty". I contend that your ideology is not just "nonscience", but "anti-science".


and:
And, for any here who might have a sense of humour:
Sorry, but I've been a bit preoccupied with my own affairs for a couple of days... and besides, I'm not one of those politically correct types who suffer fools gladly.