What Would Evidence for God's Existence Be Like?

[bhsmte]

You'll have to give me time to read your link in order to properly respond. I'll do my research and get back to you with my conclusions.
Honestly, I am not current on all of this data. There's a lot here.
Thanks, ill be back around.

If you admit you are not familiar with the scientific evidence, why then do you state you can conclude you don't agree with evolution, without having knowledge of the evidence.

In the meantime, I would like to know what you mean by scientific data that disproves God.
Seriously... Doesn't the ToE discount creation? Is it not still commonplace for evolutionists to say, "see, proof of evolution! There is no God!"
Are you saying that one can fully believe in evolution and still believe in God? If this is the case, apparently I am further behind than I thought. I can't imagine Christians being able to accept the ToE unless it has changed since I was taught it. It was a long time ago, has the ToE evolved to give place to a God or supreme being?
What is your stance on the beginning of this world we live in?

When did I state anything about scientific evidence disproves God, I am confused.

The TOE contradicts biblical creationism, yes, with boatloads of evidence.

If you are not aware, that the majority of Christians in the world agree with the TOE, you do have some catching up to do.

You see, science has never had to adjust what it discovers based on religion, but religion has indeed had to adjust, based on well evidence science, that people could not simply deny, because it went against a previously held belief.

 

[Davian]

I changed my perception by choosing to see what I thought was green as actually being red. After all, it was only my perception that caused me to believe it was green in the first place.
I don't understand the complexity of this argument.
If 'green' was truly 'green' for all to see then there would be no room for argument.
You can't think that it's possible that all people perceive things exactly the same. So, if we all perceive things differently what then is the difference?
The only difference is perception.
Glass half empty, half full for example.
Do you contend that someone who see the glass as half empty can never see the glass as half full? The level or liquid in the glass is consistent. It is your choice how you view or perceive it.

Did you not say, "As to your question, I cannot just believe that all gods are fictional."?

 

[xXLoveisGodXx]

If you admit you are not familiar with the scientific evidence, why then do you state you can conclude you don't agree with evolution, without having knowledge of the evidence.




When did I state anything about scientific evidence disproves God, I am confused.

The TOE contradicts biblical creationism, yes, with boatloads of evidence.

If you are not aware, that the majority of Christians in the world agree with the TOE, you do have some catching up to do.

You see, science has never had to adjust what it discovers based on religion, but religion has indeed had to adjust, based on well evidence science, that people could not simply deny, because it went against a previously held belief.

Never mind the first part, you answered my question.

I'm assuming that you are saying that popular Christian belief is similar to the reply made by Colton at the bottom of the last page?


Science doesn't make adjustments due to religion, agreed, but science constantly makes revisions due to 'new' evidence. I am 32 and just about everything I learned in school is now obsolete and incorrect. (Except the basics)
History, science, biology, etc are all constantly evolving with the latest information. Do you truly believe that we now know everything and that none of the evidence you stand on will ever be negated?

I think the problem with most religious people is that they do not know where the bible came from. They believe it was written by the hand of God and everything in it is 100% accurate. Past that, the can't even agree on what it says.

(Still have not finished my reading...but)
I feel that just as the Christians are trying to prove pieces of the bible, Noah's ark, ark of the cov, etc, scientists are also trying to prove concepts of evolution.
If they found Noah's Ark tomorrow, would that prove the entire Bible is true?
Just like science proving common ancestry doesn't prove TOE.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I missed the second question about Elvis:

Answer to the first silly question:



Second question:



*no

*yes

So it's not unreasonable to ask whether the person really did have a conversation with Elvis, but it is unreasonable to ask them whether they could be mistaken about it? Is that what you are saying?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ya, you're still not getting it. I don't know what I'm saying wrong.
From day one to day one million or so, yes, I should expect to see an increase in living species. One makes two makes three, etc. Get it? A fish has sex with a frog and makes a weird fish frog that has butt sex with another weird fish frog and makes a [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] rat. Lol, species coming into existence, when did that happen, in the fossil record?

That's not how evolution works. You are parroting a common creationist misconception about evolution, which is exemplified best by the crocoduck canard. I recommend that you look into the matter more closely.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I just wanted you to give a brief outline of what you think evolution claims as fact. Thats because many people are not sure themselves. They think that evolution is fact but when they go to describe what those facts are they start to waver. Sometimes they dont really understand what they believe and are just repeating something they have heard.

Its not as black and white as that. Some believe in the old school theory and are pretty set in their ways. Some believe in some of the old school but are willing to accept some adjustments but maintain that the old school Darwinian theory is still valid. Some accept some aspect of Darwinian theory but have updated things with the new discoveries and keep an open mind. Some support the Neo darwinian idea of evolution, some believe in theism evolution and then there are others who think the Darwinian theory should be thrown out and a new theory replace it. Then there are many other versions in between these.

Yes, that's how science progresses, by revising theory when the evidence calls for it to be reconsidered.

Thats why I say its not a fact like some think as there are so many different views out there. But new discoveries in Genetics is what is driving most of the scientists to challenge the traditional theory of evolution. And its not a small movement either. In fact as time goes by its the old school that is looking more and more on the outer. Thats because they cant deny the evidence anymore.

Most? Oh come on, I don't even think you believe that. Evolution is accepted by most scientists, particularly those working in biology.

Because some of the new findings go against what evolution has said for years and many scientists want to stick to the traditional beliefs. These new discoveries are coming out bit by bit and the old school are attributing the findings to the back burners and making out that it hasn't proved anything at the moment. Its sometimes about degrees of change and it takes time for them to find out what the full implications for these new discoveries are.

Like the ENCODE program which is slowly but surely mapping the genome of animals and humans. The new discoveries are showing there there is much more going on in the genome than many scientist thought. This is adding complexity to things and therefor the simpler ideas about how evolution worked with genes and mutations is coming under question. But basically these new discoveries are pointing towards the Darwinian theory of evolution needing to be revised or possibly downgraded a lot, maybe even scrapped. At the least there are no facts about how evolution works at the moment as you and others say.

Source?

Its also about reputations, funding, the status qua and keeping the consensus of opinion. Its harder for any new and contradictory info to be accepted into the mainstream thinking. But as time has been going by and more and more evidence is coming out its beginning to be recognized. The old heads cant keep fobbing off the evidence any more.

You keep talking about this "evidence" that is supposedly forcing scientists to reconsider evolution, but you stop short of actually presenting the evidence, or at the very least, presenting the scientists who think that this emergent evidence is compelling enough to discard the theory altogether.

Then you are denying that scientists are human. They are also subject to the same weaknesses.

That's why science has systems in place to address those weaknesses.

That has been the problem, many people have made them gods and dont question them. If a scientists said it it must be true. But in reality they are the same as anyone else. Especially when it comes to evolution. Because there has always been this evolution and religion debate which often goes beyond the facts. It becomes personal and dogmatic.

Yes, but scientists are not the ones being dogmatic in this debate. If you want to see what dogmatic looks like, look no further than the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. In particular, focus on Nye's answer when asked about what would change his mind, and then consider Ham's response to the same question.

We know that you have all said that many times. Unfortunately as I have said it is hard for evolutionists to admit they also do it.

What's an "evolutionist"? You mean a scientist.

There in lies the problem with evolution at the moment. It is heading towards a revolution in evolution. Anyway here are some more supports about how scientists are challenging the old school beliefs of evolution.

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

According to evolutionary biologist Patrick Phillips at the University of Oregon in Eugene, projects such as ENCODE are showing scientists that they don't really understand how genotypes map to phenotypes, or how exactly evolutionary forces shape any given genome.

Good, so this indicates that this is where we need to do more research.

ENCODE is just one of several projects that are "unsettling old assumptions," Ball says. The new science of epigenetics, too, has added more layers of complexity. The methylation of histone tags on DNA bases, for instance, can affect activity of a gene without altering its sequence. Other epigenetic tags affect the structure of chromosomes, or the accessibility of DNA sequences. The linear "central dogma" of the 1960s (gene DNA -> messenger RNA -> protein) is long gone; it has become clear that multiple players -- DNA, RNA, proteins, splicers, epigenetic factors, post-transcriptional modifiers -- interact in complex networks we can barely fathom.

[FONT=&quot]It gets worse. What if natural selection is less a force for innovation, and more a messy salvage operation[/FONT][FONT=&quot]?
[/FONT]

This is interesting. But in what way does it suggest that we need to overturn the theory of evolution?

[FONT=&quot]While some evolutionists or evolution skeptics might quibble with Ball's assertion that selection operates at all levels, few could dismiss his overall message. Darwinian evolutionists need to abandon their sentimentality and affection for old ways, because those "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]old arguments[/FONT][FONT=&quot], for instance about the importance of [/FONT][FONT=&quot]natural selection[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and random drift in driving genetic change[/FONT][FONT=&quot], are now colliding with questions about non-coding RNA, epigenetics and genomic network theory."[/FONT]
A Circuitous Route to Noncoding RNA

Hang on. There's something wrong here. The link you've provided is to a paper by Wilusz and Sharp (Science 2013; 340: 440–441), but the text here appears to be from a creationist website. This text is not contained in the Science paper. I even downloaded the full paper to check. You've mashed together text from two different sources - one a reputable science journal and the other a creationist website. Was this by accident, or did you want to make it appear that your claims about evolution were being echoed in the published literature and not just on creationist blogs?

Here's a tip: scientists don't refer to other scientists as "evolutionists."

[FONT=&quot]Sixty years on, the very definition of 'gene' is hotly debated. We do not know what most of our [/FONT][FONT=&quot]DNA[/FONT][FONT=&quot] does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level.
[/FONT]

But we do know how it works on the population-level. In any case, this just suggests that, as always, more research is needed.

Instead of occasional, muted confessions from genomics boosters and popularizers of evolution that the story has turned out to be a little more complex, there should be a bolder admission -- indeed a celebration -- of the known unknowns.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7446/full/496419a.html

I downloaded this paper as well, by Philip Ball (Nature 2013; 496: 419–420). In this paper, Ball disagrees with your conclusion that biology is on the precipice of abandoning evolution:

Although it remains beyond serious doubt that Darwinian natural selection drives much, perhaps most, evolutionary change, it is often unclear at which phenotypic level selection operates, and particularly how it plays out at the molecular level.

In a prescient move, Ball goes on to note that detractors are likely to exploit unknowns in an attempt to undermine it:

There may also be anxiety that admitting any uncertainty about the mechanisms of evolution will be exploited by those who seek to undermine it. Certainly, popular accounts of epigenetics and the ENCODE results have been much more coy about the evolutionary implications than the developmental ones. But we are grown-up enough to be told about the doubts, debates and discussions that are leaving the putative ‘age of the genome’ with more questions than answers. Tidying up the story bowdlerizes the science and creates straw men for its detractors. Simplistic portrayals of evolution encourage equally simplistic demolitions.

Your own sources do not support your overblown claim that evolution is essentially being cast aside.

Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? : Nature News & Comment

As I recall, I've already addressed this paper in a previous exchange with you. In any case, given that you are fond of cherry-picking from the papers you read, I'm not inclined to look into it any further.

Maybe individual creatures have so much complexity that it will create major divides between many animals that would be impossible to link them together back to a common ancestor. Maybe that complexity will be impossible to explain how random mutations could build that by a naturalistic chance process. So evolution according to Darwin's Theory is far from fact. It may well end up showing that there had to be a creator. Afterall the more complex and detailed the design of our genome is the more it points to a designer just like how humans design complex computer programs.

At last we get to the crux of it. Not only is evolution being cast aside, but apparently intelligent design is now here to supplant it. Let's suppose for a moment that you are right and that evolution is ready to be discarded in its entirety (the sources you cited don't support this at all, but let's imagine it anyway). Discarding evolutionary theory does not mean that ID wins by default. To replace evolution with ID you need evidence for ID.

It all just doesn't come from nothing and somehow self create itself by a random and non directional process. That defies logic.

steve, do you understand how evolution works? Evolution does not operate on "nothing" and it's not "random".

 

[bhsmte]

Science doesn't make adjustments due to religion, agreed, but science constantly makes revisions due to 'new' evidence. I am 32 and just about everything I learned in school is now obsolete and incorrect. (Except the basics)

Can you give an example of; just about everything you learned in science class is now obsolete?

History, science, biology, etc are all constantly evolving with the latest information. Do you truly believe that we now know everything and that none of the evidence you stand on will ever be negated?

One of the strengths of science, it acknowledges new evidence. Would you want science to ignore new evidence?

I think the problem with most religious people is that they do not know where the bible came from. They believe it was written by the hand of God and everything in it is 100% accurate. Past that, the can't even agree on what it says.

Well, the bible was written by many authors, some of which were anonymous and over a long period of time. Scholars and historians of the NT agree, the authors of the 4 gospels are in fact anonymous and the works were not written until 40-70 years after Jesus died. The originals are lost and only copies starting 200 years after Jesus lived are available and scholars also agree, changes were made to these copies over the centuries.

IMO, the reason many Christians interpret the bible differently, is because they want the book to say what they want it to say and hence, why there are so many denominations of Christianity.

(Still have not finished my reading...but)
I feel that just as the Christians are trying to prove pieces of the bible, Noah's ark, ark of the cov, etc, scientists are also trying to prove concepts of evolution.
If they found Noah's Ark tomorrow, would that prove the entire Bible is true?
Just like science proving common ancestry doesn't prove TOE.

In regards to evolution, I would learn about it and do so from reputable sources. It is one of the strongest scientific theories we have and has withstood 150 years of scrutiny and has only gotten stronger the more science discovers.

 

[xXLoveisGodXx]

'Science class' is perhaps too general of a term. I was thinking along the lines of technology, biology, pharmacology, and psychology. I was considering all math, chemistry, language, etc to be 'the basics'. Obsolete is perhaps not the word I should have used.

My point is that science is evolving. Of course I would expect it to, when faced with new evidence. But that's just it, there is 'new evidence' found every day. Scientific theories are changing constantly, as they should.

Just as you are so sure that one particular theory is correct, there were many scientists before you that thought their theories were just as sound, only to be disproven.
Can you concede this point,
That any day, new scientific evidence could dramatically change the ToE?
If so, can you understand why someone like me, who's believes nothing that I've been told to believe, would not put much faith in the ToE? About as much as I put into the book of Gensis.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

'Science class' is perhaps too general of a term. I was thinking along the lines of technology, biology, pharmacology, and psychology. I was considering all math, chemistry, language, etc to be 'the basics'. Obsolete is perhaps not the word I should have used.

My point is that science is evolving. Of course I would expect it to, when faced with new evidence. But that's just it, there is 'new evidence' found every day. Scientific theories are changing constantly, as they should.

Then what's the problem? Are you complaining because science keeps pace with the evidence, or because you find it difficult to keep pace with it? I can understand your frustration, but that doesn't reflect a weakness in science, just the difficulty we each individually have in keeping abreast of it.

Just as you are so sure that one particular theory is correct, there were many scientists before you that thought their theories were just as sound, only to be disproven.

Disproven by the work of other scientists, or sometimes even by their own work.

Can you concede this point,
That any day, new scientific evidence could dramatically change the ToE?
If so, can you understand why someone like me, who's believes nothing that I've been told to believe, would not put much faith in the ToE? About as much as I put into the book of Gensis.

Why would you do that? Why not go with the best available evidence?

 

[Colter]

So it's not unreasonable to ask whether the person really did have a conversation with Elvis, but it is unreasonable to ask them whether they could be mistaken about it? Is that what you are saying?

Even though Elvis Presley was a Urantia Book reader himself, it would reasonable to question the sanity of a person who said they had spoken with him, weather on acid or not, and completely reasonable to ask them if they might be mistaken and further refer them to Dr Archaeopteryx for counseling!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Even though Elvis Presley was a Urantia Book reader himself, it would reasonable to question the sanity of a person who said they had spoken with him, weather on acid or not, and completely reasonable to ask them if they might be mistaken and further refer them to Dr Archaeopteryx for counseling!

I agree. It would not be unreasonable to question whether the person's experiences were genuinely of Elvis, especially if he intends on using this experience as the basis for claiming authority over others. So why then is it unreasonable to question whether a religious person's experiences are genuinely divine, especially seeing how these experiences are often used by the religious to assert authority on various matters? Why is religion exempt from scrutiny and not held to the same standard?

 

[Colter]

I agree. It would not be unreasonable to question whether the person's experiences were genuinely of Elvis, especially if he intends on using this experience as the basis for claiming authority over others. So why then is it unreasonable to question whether a religious person's experiences are genuinely divine, especially seeing how these experiences are often used by the religious to assert authority on various matters? Why is religion exempt from scrutiny and not held to the same standard?

Its not unreasonable to question religions authority. Autonomous religion institutions have agreed upon doctrines and ecclesiastic authorities which congregants are expected to abide by, but at the end of the day they are purely social institutions. Scrutiny from within is a matter that belongs to each religion. Religion as an institution should be separate from the state. Before Jesus left he passed on the "keys to the kingdom" to his followers.

At one time the Urantia Book was in a trust under copyright protection. The tiny trust in Chicago that had the inherent authority to protect the copyright was sued by another group of UB readers who wanted to reprint the book themselves. It was a huge schism! Eventually a federal judge said that celestial beings can't have a copyright in American law, so the book is now in the public domain.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Its not unreasonable to question religions authority. Autonomous religion institutions have agreed upon doctrines and ecclesiastic authorities which congregants are expected to abide by, but at the end of the day they are purely social institutions. Scrutiny from within is a matter that belongs to each religion. Religion as an institution should be separate from the state. Before Jesus left he passed on the "keys to the kingdom" to his followers.

Scrutiny from within is often viewed as a much more egregious offence than scrutiny from without. In some (most?) religions, such scrutiny is quickly labelled heresy, blasphemy or apostasy. It seems as though religion is far less interested in seeing its dogmas critically examined as compared to seeing them believed without question.

In any case though, you didn't answer my question. Why is it unreasonable to question whether a religious person's experiences are genuinely divine?

At one time the Urantia Book was in a trust under copyright protection. The tiny trust in Chicago that had the inherent authority to protect the copyright was sued by another group of UB readers who wanted to reprint the book themselves. It was a huge schism! Eventually a federal judge said that celestial beings can't have a copyright in American law, so the book is now in the public domain.

An interesting sidetrack, but it doesn't answer the question.

 

[Colter]

Scrutiny from within is often viewed as a much more egregious offence than scrutiny from without. In some (most?) religions, such scrutiny is quickly labelled heresy, blasphemy or apostasy. It seems as though religion is far less interested in seeing its dogmas critically examined as compared to seeing them believed without question.

In any case though, you didn't answer my question. Why is it unreasonable to question whether a religious person's experiences are genuinely divine?



An interesting sidetrack, but it doesn't answer the question.

Why do you keep doing that? Like a grand inquisitor? I felt like I did give an answer to your question?

It is not unreasonable to question if a religious persons experiences is genuinely divine. It wouldn't be unreasonable for a religious person to question how a nonbeliever knows what genuinely divine is.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why do you keep doing that? Like a grand inquisitor? I felt like I did give an answer to your question?

It is not unreasonable to question if a religious persons experiences is genuinely divine.

Have you changed your mind then? When we last spoke about this issue, and I asked you whether agnosticism would be an appropriate response, you more-or-less said no on at least three separate occasions (1, 2, 3). Taken together, my impression was that you think it unreasonable for someone to question whether reported experiences of the divine are genuinely divine. Either I've misinterpreted your views or you've changed them.

It wouldn't be unreasonable for a religious person to question how a nonbeliever knows what genuinely divine is.

I don't think it would unreasonable for a nonbeliever to ask this same question of a believer. In fact, this seems to be similar to the question I asked you earlier.

 

[Colter]

Have you changed your mind then? When we last spoke about this issue, and I asked you whether agnosticism would be an appropriate response, you more-or-less said no on at least three separate occasions (1, 2, 3). Taken together, my impression was that you think it unreasonable for someone to question whether reported experiences of the divine are genuinely divine. Either I've misinterpreted your views or you've changed them.



I don't think it would unreasonable for a nonbeliever to ask this same question of a believer. In fact, this seems to be similar to the question I asked you earlier.

Its fine and normal for one to have an agnostic stance towards the purported religious experiences of others, I think I had thought you were asking me why I wasn't agnostic myself. For me I have had the conversion experience myself, I have a relationship with God and continue to grow in that relationship as well as my understanding of philosophy, cosmology and theology.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Its fine and normal for one to have an agnostic stance towards the purported religious experiences of others, I think I had thought you were asking me why I wasn't agnostic myself. For me I have had the conversion experience myself, I have a relationship with God and continue to grow in that relationship as well as my understanding of philosophy, cosmology and theology.

But you do recognise then that it's not unreasonable for others to not share that belief; that is, that they are not somehow intellectually obligated to it?

 

[Colter]

But you do recognise then that it's not unreasonable for others to not share that belief; that is, that they are not somehow intellectually obligated to it?

Yes I do, everyone has to decide for themselves. Believers can carry the massage but that's about it.

 

[Davian]

Yes I do, everyone has to decide for themselves. Believers can carry the massage but that's about it.

Can you give me a reason to consider this message to be of any value to me?

 

[Colter]

Can you give me a reason to consider this message to be of any value to me?

* The Spiritual rebirth and salvation of your soul leading to life eternal.

* It is your choice as to weather or not you want that.