Evidence that God is real

[DaveC426913]

How so? Whatever “force” is behind life, it’s the truth for us all.

Right. And that force could be blue cheese. There's no way to falsify it. Therefore it's useless to science.

This site looks like a great space. You do have a philosophy and religion sub forum? If I am in the wrong spot, I will happily oblige and change rooms. Let me know.

That would be the best thing to do. Continuing this line of thought here is essentially a derail.
Better to start off clean.

 

[BlueSky]

Ok sounds good.

Evidence #1: Reality Itself

This may sound at first as silly, but I don’t think it is. It’s a foundational beginning to this investigation.

We are here. Floating on a chuck of rock, water & dirt in space, surrounded by seemingly endless space, stars & planets.

We are living on a incredibly balanced, symbiotic, inter-connected life-support system that defines logic. It’s just amazing from any position. A self-healing, self-sustaining, self-procreating - creation. Just perfectly sitting in just the Goldilocks zone. It’s shocking at the irreducible complexity. You get the picture.

So what happened? Was it a God? An accident ? Perfect storm of natural material, one in a quadrillion? Were we seeded by ancient aliens traveling around the galaxies? Are we living in a marble around a cats neck?

Something happened. Something big & amazing. Rare it appears to.

I try and look objectively at this as possible.

How many conceivable options are on the table, really?

We were created ( moment of creation ) by:

1. a random perfect storm or yet unknown processes, life from non-life, over eons of time punctuated with changes.
2. an impersonable Force with unknown, unknowns.
3. a God (s) who does/or does not, communicate with its creation.
4. Seeded by unknow space dwellers.
5. Just a natural process of reality.
6. Trans-dimensional seeding by unknown unknowns.
7. We are not actually here, this is all an illusion.
8. A million gods.

So, looking for evidence ‘if God is real’, which of the above makes the most sense ? ( in light of all the evidence ultimately ) Of course you’ve guessed I see the theistic side, and others maybe not. We are intitled to our view, but both views or all of them cannot be all true at the same time.

Here is what I think anyway and why. I would like to know what all of you think to, I find it facinating to discuss.

I can no longer fathom the odds of:

#1. I get the general idea, but I don’t buy it any longer. Too complex. Overwhelming complicated. To much other evidence against it. The evidence for it, is actually evidence for special creation.

#2. It is possible. In absence of other evidence this is a contender.

#3. If you like evidence, this one seems to have a ton of evidence. It’s amazing in ways you might not think. Contender.

#4. Alien seeding. Only problem with this view is that it pushes the ultamate question just back in time. How did the aliens get created? Same problem.

#5. Also possible. Other evidence for other views may outshine this. I feel they do.

#6. Well, I’ve seen no evidence.

#7. I will bet you this guy checks both ways before he crosses the street.

#8. Occam’s razor, no neeed to complicate things when one will do.

None of us were there when this happened. We know very little actually. Lots of theories, mine included. Whatever happened, happened before we got here, so we are products of its truth, not the reverse. We can’t bend that truth, even if we think we can.

So is reality itself an ‘evidence for God’ ? Yes. It can be.

It’s conceivable that a supernatural entity is responsible for this amazing thing we call life.

But there is much much more...

( I would love to hear more creation ideas that any might have. )

Thoughts welcome.

 

[BlueSky]

That would be the best thing to do. Continuing this line of thought here is essentially a derail.
Better to start off clean.

I checked the OP...

The topic here is simple. I invite our resident theists to put forward what you regard as the best evidence for the existence of the God or gods that you believe in.

We are also in the religion sub-section; which one would be more appropriate?

I beleive in the Christian God of the Holy Bible, I will continue with my best evidences as time permits.

 

[Write4U]

Thoughts welcome.

We are a result of mathematical electro-chemical evolution. That concept can be engineered, but can also naturally emerge and evolve as a pseudo-intelligent self-ordering system of patterns or fields (as witnessed by physical sciences).

No supernatural concept can demonstrate exclusivity and any reasonably objective POV should try to avoid any speculative supernatural causalities......IMO..

I believe in the Christian God of the Holy Bible, I will continue with my best evidences as time permits.

Seems to me, philosophically you believe in the secular concept of Christian Virtue, as personified in the human person of Jesus.

Nothing wrong with that.....

 

[DaveC426913]

It’s conceivable that a supernatural entity is responsible for this amazing thing we call life.

Yes, it's conceivable. That's not evidence.

 

[Write4U]

BlueSky said: ↑
It’s conceivable that a supernatural entity is responsible for this amazing thing we call life.

Life is truly amazing, but it is entirely conceivable that it evolved spontaneously. The mathematical nature of physics has allowed us to probe deep into the mysteries of life. It turns out to be remarkably simple. 23 numbers (values), a dozen equations (constants) explain all of existence, except for that which was before. By that definition you can make an abstract case for a creative causality, but if the result is natural why should the causality be supernatural.
Science has a mathematical replacement for theism, metaphysical mathematics.

I like this neat explanation by a more knowledgeable fellow;

Matt Acutt,
studied Computer Science & Philosophy at Griffith University
Answered Mar 11, 2018,
"Math is only a Metaphysical subject insofar as it is an example of a system of consistent relational structure.

Logic, the underlying structure of mathematics, is the subjective attempt to describe the formula for truth, consistent relationships, with laws of thought. This model of the structure of reality is subjective logic, and it’s an attempt to describe the structure itself - objective logic.

Therefore, metaphysics is entirely equivalent to objective logic, upon which subjective logic is based. As mathematics is then a further construction upon the basis of subjective logic, it can be seen that mathematics is the extension of metaphysics into an abstract domain - this abstract domain happens to correspond to physics.

Physics, of course, is indeed a Metaphysical subject, and insofar as math is essentially equivalent to that abstraction of metaphysics called physics, yes, math is a Metaphysical subject."

https://www.quora.com/Is-math-a-metaphysical-subject

Whereas theism proposes an uncaused creator being, metaphysical mathematics proposes a pseudo-intelligent self-ordering evolutionary pattern forming mathematical system, from the very subtle to gross expression in reality. IMO, this state that was before the beginning is now referred to as Pure Potential (That which may spontaneously become reality).
It is also a fundamental philosophical tenet of Bohmian mechanics, which proposes that from the pure potential emerge a hierarchy of mathematical patterns, Implicates which are the dreamlike metaphysical projections of that which is to become expressed in physical reality as the Explicate Order.

 

[sideshowbob]

The point I am trying to make is that whatever the truth is for the creation of the universe and earth is the truth for us all.

And the point that I am trying to make is that if you have no way of knowing exactly what the "absolute truth" is, then whether or not it is "absolute truth" is irrelevant. The only "truth" that we can actually ever have is the closest approximation so far.

Whether it be evolution or special creation, aliens or something else, we cannot bend the truth to our opinion just because we think something is true.

And that is exactly what religionist do.

 

[sideshowbob]

So, looking for evidence ‘if God is real’, which of the above makes the most sense ?

What makes the most sense is/are the options that involve known things and known processes. Alien life forms almost certainly exist, so they are far more likely as our progenitors that any spooky "gods".

#8. Occam’s razor, no neeed to complicate things when one will do.

Of course the first complication that Mr. Occam would eliminate is any god.

 

[billvon]

Ok sounds good.

Evidence #1: Reality Itself

This may sound at first as silly, but I don’t think it is. It’s a foundational beginning to this investigation. . . .

Thank you for posting an actual argument. That's rare to see from theists.

I agree that all the life we see around us is remarkable. However, while "God did it" would be a SUFFICIENT explanation for the life we see, it is not a NECESSARY explanation. We have been looking to make it a necessary explanation for thousands of years. But every time we ask a question - "Did the formation of the planet Earth REQUIRE God?" - the answer is either "no" (or in a few cases "we don't know yet.") If we found a single example that required God, then that would be actual evidence, and a strong argument for God. So far we have not.

In addition, we have an anthropogenic bias here. The odds of life evolving as it did here are trillions to one (at least.) But we see the life that did evolve because we ARE the life that evolved. We don't see the other ~30 billion planets in the galaxy, most of which are surely dead rocks, because we didn't evolve there. We don't see the life that almost surely evolved somewhere else because we are too far away. So of course we see the environment that allowed us to evolve to what we are now. It's like asking "what are the odds that you are you?" In one sense it's billions to one, that you are in your body and no one else's, if there was some way that you could be in a different body. But in another sense, everyone is themselves - so the real answer to that question is 100%.

It’s conceivable that a supernatural entity is responsible for this amazing thing we call life.

Yes, it is. We just don't have any firm evidence that it is, yet.

 

[DaveC426913]

We were created ( moment of creation ) by:
...
8. A million gods.

...

#8. Occam’s razor, no neeed to complicate things when one will do.

Indeed. But you stopped short.

Occam’s razor: no need to complicate things when zero will do.

 

[BlueSky]

Thanks for the thoughtful comments Write4U

We are a result of mathematical electro-chemical evolution. That concept can be engineered, but can also naturally emerge and evolve as a pseudo-intelligent self-ordering system of patterns or fields (as witnessed by physical sciences).

Could you provide an example?

No supernatural concept can demonstrate exclusivity and any reasonably objective POV should try to avoid any speculative supernatural causalities......IMO..

Why try to avoid it, as, when searching for the true truth to our beginning, all avenues should be throughly explored. It’s intirely possible, if not a more cohesive system of explanation given the sheer amount of complexity, balance and apparent meaning. Intentionally avoiding a significant potential explanation, seems to me myopic and limiting, when, in our quarry to find truth, every door should be completely examined.

If there is a God, I surely want to find him if he wants to be found!

Seems to me, philosophically you believe in the secular concept of Christian Virtue, as personified in the human person of Jesus. Nothing wrong with that.....

Indeed, and thank you!

I found these few quotes online. For me, the probability of athestic EV is just too much. There is too much balance, interconnectivity, sheer mind boggling complexity, pregnant with meaning. EV, to quote Sir Fred Hoyle,
...that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd...”

“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’ Aldous Huxley: Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.

“One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was … it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. …so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing — it ought not to be taught in high school’.” Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist; British Museaum of Natural History, London, Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981

“Hundreds of scientists who once taught their university students that the bottom line on origins had been figured out and settled are today confessing that they were completely wrong. They’ve discovered that their previous conclusions, once held so fervently, were based on very fragile evidences and suppositions which have since been refuted by new discoveries. This has necessitated a change in their basic philosophical position on origins. Others are admitting great weaknesses in evolution theory.” (Luther D Sutherland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition (Santee, California: Master Books,1988) pp.7-8)

“Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favourable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate….It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect …higher intelligences…even to the limit of God…such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.” (Sir Fred Hoyle, well-known British mathematician, astronomer and cosmologist)



This last quote, imo, gets closer to the real issue....

“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’ Aldous Huxley: Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.

 

[BlueSky]

And the point that I am trying to make is that if you have no way of knowing exactly what the "absolute truth" is, then whether or not it is "absolute truth" is irrelevant. The only "truth" that we can actually ever have is the closest approximation so far.

I agree. However, we all make conclusions about things, day-to-day based upon all available evidence. Many times we have no absolute proof, ( of an absolute reality ) but the totality of evidence points so strongly in a direction that the conclusion seems obvious.

The true truth is still there in this case, and we cannot ‘nail it to the barn’ but we are still convinced of it’s reality. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck it’s probably a duck...

And that is exactly what religionist do.

Exactly, we all do this, based on evidence, bias, preconceptions etc....question is, which view is closer to the true absolute truth?

 

[BlueSky]

Yes, it's conceivable. That's not evidence.

Agree, but if it conceivable, it’s on the table for consideration, if more evidence shines brighter light, even more conceivable.

 

[sideshowbob]

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, acts like a duck it’s probably a duck...

The problem is that you haven't shown any evidence of anything walking like a god, talking like a god or acting like a god.

Exactly, we all do this, based on evidence, bias, preconceptions etc....

The difference is that people with a scientific attitude TRY to eliminate biases. The major bias that is a millstone around the neck of religionists is WHICH god is the "truth".

... question is, which view is closer to the true absolute truth?

Once again, the idea of "true truth" or "absolute truth" is not doing you any good. If you don't know what the absolute truth is, the concept has no practical value.

 

[BlueSky]

Thank you for posting an actual argument. That's rare to see from theists.

And thank you for thoughtful comments and interest.

I agree that all the life we see around us is remarkable. However, while "God did it" would be a SUFFICIENT explanation for the life we see, it is not a NECESSARY explanation.

I agree, it’s not necessarily necessary - unless it’s the truth, then it becomes necessary. But is it the truth?

We have been looking to make it a necessary explanation for thousands of years. But every time we ask a question - "Did the formation of the planet Earth REQUIRE God?" - the answer is either "no" (or in a few cases "we don't know yet.") If we found a single example that required God, then that would be actual evidence, and a strong argument for God. So far we have not.

Perhaps we have been looking at this evidence from the wrong angle... ( “looking to make it necessary” ) perhaps the religiously of man from even the furthest back of ancients, is because they knew something more clearly than we do today, as they were closer to the actual event of creation? It’s possible.

Let’s pretend that a god did create the earth and in fact, a god who wants to communicate with its creation, what would we expect to see? I would expect to a see a god obsessed mankind, full of deity worship and more in-likely, an effort to try and please this “god”. That’s exactly what we see oddly enough. Not conclusive, I agree, but interesting.

In addition, we have an anthropogenic bias here. The odds of life evolving as it did here are trillions to one (at least.) But we see the life that did evolve because we ARE the life that evolved. We don't see the other ~30 billion planets in the galaxy, most of which are surely dead rocks, because we didn't evolve there. We don't see the life that almost surely evolved somewhere else because we are too far away. So of course we see the environment that allowed us to evolve to what we are now. It's like asking "what are the odds that you are you?" In one sense it's billions to one, that you are in your body and no one else's, if there was some way that you could be in a different body. But in another sense, everyone is themselves - so the real answer to that question is 100%.

I agree, nicely said. We are here, and alive. Something happened. And it happened 100%. Question is, what? Supernatural or natural? The coming evidence will cast more light I feel, hope you stick around.

Yes, it is. We just don't have any firm evidence that it is, yet.

Well, this is a matter of perspective. There is evidence; as I said above, two people can see the same evidence a see different things. One man’s evidence can be another’s anti-evidence. Jury’s get hung all time, even in open and shut cases, OJ?

 

[BlueSky]

Indeed. But you stopped short.

Occam’s razor: no need to complicate things when zero will do.

I agree, touché!

 

[sideshowbob]

as I said above, two people can see the same evidence a see different things. One man’s evidence can be another’s anti-evidence.

That's wrong. Everybody has the same evidence.

For example, a dead body with a hole in it is evidence of a dead body with a hole in it. It is NOT evident that the hole was the cause of death or that OJ was the murderer. A jury might jump to those conclusions but without further evidence, their conclusion would be unfounded.

 

[BlueSky]

The problem is that you haven't shown any evidence of anything walking like a god, talking like a god or acting like a god.

Well, we are getting there. There’s no point of me pasting ten evidences in one post, when there is so much dialog with just one. I will post slowly so we can discuss, rather than having a confusing mish mash of posts. “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord, Isaiah 1:18 ( sorry could not resist )

The difference is that people with a scientific attitude TRY to eliminate biases. The major bias that is a millstone around the neck of religionists is WHICH god is the "truth".

You would be surprised how sneaky bias is. It’s thin edge gets into the smallest of cracks. I would say the very same thing about EV’s. I agree tho, bias is tricky to eliminate entirely, we should be on guard.

Once again, the idea of "true truth" or "absolute truth" is not doing you any good. If you don't know what the absolute truth is, the concept has no practical value.

Sure it does. It has significant value. Look at it this way.

Knowing for sure there is an absolute truth sitting there behind the creation of earth, ( and it’s the truth for us all because it happened before we got here ) gives us a goal to shoot towards, to try and find this answer amoung the data; but I agree, we can’t truely prove what it is one way or the other. But we can make a fairly good assumption based on all the evidence. With more evidence, more conviction.

What we have is evidence that points in directions, not concrete proof of x.

 

[BlueSky]

That's wrong. Everybody has the same evidence.

That’s what I said. We all have the same evidence, but interprete it differently.

For example, a dead body with a hole in it is evidence of a dead body with a hole in it. It is NOT evident that the hole was the cause of death or that OJ was the murderer. A jury might jump to those conclusions but without further evidence, their conclusion would be unfounded.

Totally agree, nicely said.

 

[billvon]

I agree, it’s not necessarily necessary - unless it’s the truth, then it becomes necessary. But is it the truth?

That's the $64,000 question.

Let’s pretend that a god did create the earth and in fact, a god who wants to communicate with its creation, what would we expect to see?

Good question.

We would see structures that could be created and maintained only by God. Floating holy mountains. Parted seas. Huge crosses appearing suddenly.

We would see events that could only be pulled off by God. Occasional stoppages of the Earth's rotation for religious reasons (as described in the Bible.) Partings of seas. Global floods that cover the highest mountains when people became wicked.

We would see signs regularly of God communicating with us. Tablets appearing on the ground with commandments. Words shouted out near mountaintops.

But none of that happens. So either God is doing his best to trick us, or there is some other explanation for the world.

I would expect to a see a god obsessed mankind, full of deity worship and more in-likely, an effort to try and please this “god”.

I don't think we'd see any of the religious strife we see now. No one would be figthing over which God was the true God (or Gods) because everyone would know, via all the signs.

Well, this is a matter of perspective. There is evidence; as I said above, two people can see the same evidence a see different things. One man’s evidence can be another’s anti-evidence.

Well, not quite. The bloody glove was evidence. It was just interpreted differently by different people; the evidence itself stayed the same.

For example, even if we figure out how abiogenesis happened (say we prove the clay substrate/RNA-world hypothesis) then religious folks may claim "yes that's evidence - but it proves that God is trying to test our faith by having life created by a natural process!" Same evidence; different interpretation.