Why does God leave no tracks?

[cloudyday2]

To clarify, I'm not saying that God can't interact with the world in ways that scientists can detect, nor am I saying that one can never be justified in believing that God has interacted with the world in such ways. The point I'm trying to make is that because of God's unique nature and status as absolutely metaphysically ultimate being, the methods of modern science can't discover him in particular as being the cause of such interactions.

Let's say that Joe Schmoe consistently makes windfall profits time and time again on every single investment he makes. Let's also say that Joe claims that “God” tells him when, where, and how he makes his investments, that his track record of success is so astronomically improbable that random happenstance can be safely ruled out, and that no better alternative explanation for his success can be found. Would science then have discovered that God exists and that he's telling Joe how to invest his money? I don't think so. At most, it would have discovered that Joe is somehow receiving messages from some unknown entity or entities that he refers to as “God,” and that said entity or entities somehow have the ability to convey to him information that has a causal relation to future market states, such that his responses to said information result in substantial profit for himself.

While it might be possible for God to be the one who is giving him this information, I say that we would be unable to infer this from a purely scientific analysis of the evidence. The reason why science can't determine whether or not Joe's “God” = God is because the causal circumstances required in order to produce the phenomena in question would not necessarily point to God as their only possible explanation, and I think the same can be said of any other example we could come up with. I doubt we could definitively rule out, for example, that an alien intelligence vastly more technologically advanced than ourselves might have the ability either to successfully predict future market states or else cause them to happen, and then communicate the relevant information to Joe in order for him to make his successful investments, all via mechanisms that are unknown and perhaps undiscoverable to us in our current state of technological advancement. Furthermore, I don't think we could definitively rule out such a technologically-advanced alien intelligence scenario as at least an epistemically possible scientific explanation for any set of phenomena our wild imaginations could conjure up -- the rub here is precisely that no alien intelligence of any degree of technological advancement, nor any other causal mechanism that operates entirely within the confines of natural, physical law can possibly be identified with what I call “God,” who is necessarily timeless, immutable, impassible, metaphysically simple, and the ultimate origin and end of all things beside himself.

The same argument could be made about anything scientists discover. There is no way to be certain that aliens aren't secretly responsible for gravity or that we aren't living inside a computer simulation.

Let's say that I believe in ESP. Shouldn't ESP leave some tracks? If clairvoyance exists then scientists ought to be able to find some evidence eventually. After finding that evidence, the scientists cannot be certain that clairvoyance exists - maybe it is alien implants. However, if we can't find any persuasive evidence for any of the claimed effects of ESP, then shouldn't we be skeptical of ESP? The same is true for God.

In other words, tracks are a necessary condition for God's existence, but of course they are not a sufficient condition. Lack of tracks can disprove God, so that is why you guys need to show me some tracks. A God that interacts with humans must leave some tracks. A God with a rational personality must have somewhat predictable behavior that can be tested experimentally.

 

[cloudyday2]

... the rub here is precisely that no alien intelligence of any degree of technological advancement, nor any other causal mechanism that operates entirely within the confines of natural, physical law can possibly be identified with what I call “God,” who is necessarily timeless, immutable, impassible, metaphysically simple, and the ultimate origin and end of all things beside himself.

Just wanted to respond to this last part. I confess that some of you post is a little over my head, @Crandaddy , but this last part seems key, and I want to try to address it.

If your definition of God makes him above the law and super-duper in every way imaginable, then I suppose God might be so completely unpredictable that looking for causes and effects would be a waste of time. ... However, such a God cannot have a relationship with humans. When we have a relationship, we understand the other person. The Bible is supposed to describe God's personality. Using the Bible and tales of believers as a guide, we should be able to find God's tracks.

 

[Peter1000]

Please demonstrate (with evidence), that God is the explanation for what we see in science.

The demonstration is simple. Let's take the distance of the earth from the sun. The mathematical facts say that the probability that an earth-like planet can come to rest and orbit in exactly the right distance from the sun that produces life is so close to zero that it is zero. So if scientifically, there is no chance happening for the earth to be the right distance from the sun to produce life, the prudent person would start looking for an alternative reason.

The alternative reason is a highly intelligent, superior being, that has all scientific knowledge and knows the applications thereof and can successfully produce and put in motion an earth, at exactly the distance and orbit of the sun that produces life.

You can have faith in chance happenings, or you can have faith in a highly intelligent, superior being. I choose the second because it scientifically requires less faith than the first.

 

[dhh712]

The problem is that science can never find God's tracks.

That's not a problem, that's the facts; and will likely remain that way. There will never be any empirical evidence of God. If there were, then someone can rest their belief in God on this instead of faith. The purpose of our existence is not so that we can believe in God. If it were that, God would indeed be doing a miserable job. The purpose of our lives (at least part of it) is to glorify God (to enjoy him forever is the second part of that); God's work in that is perfect.

 

[Peter1000]

I second this. I have been trying to learn about neurotransmitters to understand my own issues with depression. It is abundantly clear that the human body was not designed in the way that a human engineer would have designed it. The human body is vastly more complicated than it needs to be, and it doesn't work all that great. When humans begin to create androids, we will see what an engineered humanoid is able to do. Humans will probably voluntarily stop reproducing as we realize all the defects in our design. Or maybe humans will gradually correct their defects through genetic engineering.

You misunderstand the need for a human body. God wants us all to have a human experience, with a human body, but not for thousands of years. Certainly not for ever.

So the body that God has engineered has within it the ability to slowly run down and to eventually die. The godless look at that production as a sign of no God, but the godly, who know the plan of salvation, understand perfectly why God would produce such a frail body.

We are here on earth to have the human experience and be tested to see if we can obey crucial principals that God knows will give us the fullest measure of happiness in this life and for the eternities. This test must be, for the most part, outside of His presence (that's the tricky part). After we leave this life, our frail human bodies will be resurrected into perfect, indestructible, highly mobile, bodies of flesh and bone and spirit, whose actual qualities are not completely known yet. Far more favorable than the body of a robot, no matter how durable and strong it may seem.

 

[bhsmte]

The demonstration is simple. Let's take the distance of the earth from the sun. The mathematical facts say that the probability that an earth-like planet can come to rest and orbit in exactly the right distance from the sun that produces life is so close to zero that it is zero. So if scientifically, there is no chance happening for the earth to be the right distance from the sun to produce life, the prudent person would start looking for an alternative reason.

The alternative reason is a highly intelligent, superior being, that has all scientific knowledge and knows the applications thereof and can successfully produce and put in motion an earth, at exactly the distance and orbit of the sun that produces life.

You can have faith in chance happenings, or you can have faith in a highly intelligent, superior being. I choose the second because it scientifically requires less faith than the first.

If this works for you, knock yourself out.

 

[Crandaddy]

Nihilist Virus,

It seems to be generally considered an unspoken breach of etiquette on internet forums -- at least those of higher class, where the “discourse” doesn't chiefly consist in hurling vulgar epithets at one's interlocutors -- to try to goad someone back into an exchange that (s)he evidently no longer cares to participate in. For my part, the only reason I bowed out of our exchange that concerns you was that I then thought (and still think) that you had no intent to charitably and open-mindedly consider my views, but had made up your mind from the outset that they're false or irrational and were only looking for lines of attack and ways to tear them down. The other reasons for why I bowed out (and the reasons for why I've remained silent on these forums for the past several months) have absolutely nothing to do with you or your arguments, and frankly, they're none of your damn business.

I also think it's a bit rich of you to have cried “off-topic” at every turn in that thread wherever the discussion veered away from the direction you wanted it to go, and yet you come here, to a thread not your own, and interject these remarks to me, which have nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. In other words, they are very much out of place here and off-topic.

So with that out of the way, to the substance of what you write:

So let's see what we have here...

1. You "start with facts on the ground (completely apart from religion) and try to work [your] way to discovering truth from there"

2. You concede that there are contradictions in the Bible

3. You have no idea what possible good reason there can be for contradictions in the Bible

4. You don't think it's reasonable to believe in a divinely inspired book that contradicts itself for no good reason whatsoever

There are no inconsistencies here. It does not follow from “I don't know of any good reasons for x” that “there are no good reasons for x.”

Save for the strict inerrantists who have cropped up only within the last 200 years or so and who constitute a minority of Christendom, Christians have never been the least bit bothered by contradictions or other errors in the Bible, and neither am I.

5. ???

An appropriate reaction from any sane person when confronted with the obviously absurd and self-refuting claim that all language is devoid of any sort of meaning, which is what it looked to me like you were trying to argue at one point in the course of our exchange.

6. You believe in the Bible

I believe the Bible -- errors and all -- to be an invaluable literary testament to the Person of Christ faithfully delivered to us by the authentic Tradition of the Church dating back to its origins.

And on that note, I am now finished with this discussion, so kindly move on to pestering someone else if you wish to continue with it. Thanks.

To cloudyday2: I apologize for the interruption; a response to you will be coming shortly.

 

[cloudyday2]

You misunderstand the need for a human body. God wants us all to have a human experience, with a human body, but not for thousands of years. Certainly not for ever.

So the body that God has engineered has within it the ability to slowly run down and to eventually die. The godless look at that production as a sign of no God, but the godly, who know the plan of salvation, understand perfectly why God would produce such a frail body.

We are here on earth to have the human experience and be tested to see if we can obey crucial principals that God knows will give us the fullest measure of happiness in this life and for the eternities. This test must be, for the most part, outside of His presence (that's the tricky part). After we leave this life, our frail human bodies will be resurrected into perfect, indestructible, highly mobile, bodies of flesh and bone and spirit, whose actual qualities are not completely known yet. Far more favorable than the body of a robot, no matter how durable and strong it may seem.

That sounds like "planned obsolescence" to me. It didn't work too great for Detroit.

 

[Davian]

The demonstration is simple. Let's take the distance of the earth from the sun. The mathematical facts say that the probability that an earth-like planet can come to rest and orbit in exactly the right distance from the sun that produces life is so close to zero that it is zero.

Show your math, and where you got your data.

So if scientifically, there is no chance happening for the earth to be the right distance from the sun to produce life, the prudent person would start looking for an alternative reason.

Why? It happened at least once.

The alternative reason is a highly intelligent, superior being, that has all scientific knowledge and knows the applications thereof and can successfully produce and put in motion an earth, at exactly the distance and orbit of the sun that produces life.

Why would an allegedly all-powerful-all-knowing universe-creating-thing need to bother with such details? Could it not have us living on the surface of the Sun?

Fine tuning, if there is such a thing, is an argument for naturalism as it is for anything.

You can have faith in chance happenings,

"Chance" implies that the universe as we observe it could be fundamentally different. On that we can only speculate.

or you can have faith in a highly intelligent,

Why need it be intelligent? We have no idea what options there were when it came to the properties of our universe. There may be few, if any.

superior being.

Can you define what you mean by "being"?

The only "beings" I am aware of are human beings, living breathing, consuming, excreting organisms, subject to entropy, and depend on a brain, at a minimum, to maintain their "being" status (a headless body kept alive by artificial means would doubtless lose their status as a "being").

I choose the second because it scientifically requires less faith than the first.

But then there is the "faith" needed to get from this mysterious 'being' to the character in a book named "God" that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing.

And, I do not need to toss out virtually all of mainstream scientific knowledge in order to accommodate such beliefs.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nihilist Virus,

It seems to be generally considered an unspoken breach of etiquette on internet forums -- at least those of higher class, where the “discourse” doesn't chiefly consist in hurling vulgar epithets at one's interlocutors -- to try to goad someone back into an exchange that (s)he evidently no longer cares to participate in. For my part, the only reason I bowed out of our exchange that concerns you was that I then thought (and still think) that you had no intent to charitably and open-mindedly consider my views, but had made up your mind from the outset that they're false or irrational and were only looking for lines of attack and ways to tear them down. The other reasons for why I bowed out (and the reasons for why I've remained silent on these forums for the past several months) have absolutely nothing to do with you or your arguments, and frankly, they're none of your damn business.

So which is it... you left for personal reasons, or you quit the debate between us? From looking at your profile page, you left in the middle of our conversation and came back on Easter. If you had been responding to other threads before your hiatus, then your remark about etiquette might be relevant.

I also think it's a bit rich of you to have cried “off-topic” at every turn in that thread wherever the discussion veered away from the direction you wanted it to go, and yet you come here, to a thread not your own, and interject these remarks to me, which have nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. In other words, they are very much out of place here and off-topic.

Agreed.

So with that out of the way, to the substance of what you write:



There are no inconsistencies here. It does not follow from “I don't know of any good reasons for x” that “there are no good reasons for x.”

Correct, but if you do not know of any good reasons for x, why accept x as a premise? You are doing exactly that.

Save for the strict inerrantists who have cropped up only within the last 200 years or so and who constitute a minority of Christendom, Christians have never been the least bit bothered by contradictions or other errors in the Bible, and neither am I.

Well, how many contradictions do you need? Surely if the Bible was tripping over itself on every page, or every sentence, you'd have to pitch it. Where do you draw the line?

An appropriate reaction from any sane person when confronted with the obviously absurd and self-refuting claim that all language is devoid of any sort of meaning, which is what it looked to me like you were trying to argue at one point in the course of our exchange.

I'm not seeing how that is relevant to the syllogism at hand. Many atheists reject nihilism.

I believe the Bible -- errors and all -- to be an invaluable literary testament to the Person of Christ faithfully delivered to us by the authentic Tradition of the Church dating back to its origins.

Why?

And on that note, I am now finished with this discussion, so kindly move on to pestering someone else if you wish to continue with it. Thanks.

Sounding a bit rude there, chap.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The demonstration is simple. Let's take the distance of the earth from the sun. The mathematical facts say that the probability that an earth-like planet can come to rest and orbit in exactly the right distance from the sun that produces life is so close to zero that it is zero.

The chances are two in three.


We have five solid bodies (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars) within a radius of 150 million miles of the sun and there is a 30 million miles wide Goldilocks zone where water can be liquid in standard atmospheric pressure.

A planet randomly falling in that zone is 30/150=20%.

The chances of five failures in five tries is 0.8^5=0.32768, roughly 33%, or one in three.

 

[Peter1000]

That sounds like "planned obsolescence" to me. It didn't work too great for Detroit.

I'm not sure obsolescence is the word, but planned failure, then planned resurrection with a refined body of flesh and bone and spirit to live eternally with.

Detroit?

 

[Peter1000]

The chances are two in three.


We have five solid bodies (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars) within a radius of 150 million miles of the sun and there is a 30 million miles wide Goldilocks zone where water can be liquid in standard atmospheric pressure.

A planet randomly falling in that zone is 30/150=20%.

The chances of five failures in five tries is 0.8^5=0.32768, roughly 33%, or one in three.

Nihilist Virus says?
The chances are two in three.

So you are saying that in 3 tries, the earth will rest and orbit the way it does 2 times. What does this have to do with trillions X trillions of possible planets?

Nihilist Virus:
We have five solid bodies (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars) within a radius of 150 million miles of the sun and there is a 30 million miles wide Goldilocks zone where water can be liquid in standard atmospheric pressure.

We are not talking about 5 planets that have settled into a 150 million mile radius of the sun. We are talking about the probability of all planets settling into a the same position as the earth is from the sun.
This is trillions X trillions of planets and only 1 has succeeded in settling and orbiting around the sun at a distance that will sustain life. The other 5 planets mean nothing in the probability calculation.

Also you say, "where water can be liquid in standard atmospheric pressure", like that is a standard, every-day operating proceedure for solar systems. How many goldilock-bound planets within a billion miles of the earth have "standard atmospheric pressure"? None, except the earth.
The probability of another planet within our sphere of influence is so close to zero, that it is zero again.

Nihilist Virus:
A planet randomly falling in that zone is 30/150=20%.

This is a very interesting non-statement about anything except the length of the goldilocks zone is 20% of the 150 million max radius of the 5 planets from the sun. What does this ratio have to do with the probability that 1 planet in trillions X trillions of planets comes to settle and orbit around the sun at the exact place that the earth resides now?

Nihilist Virus:
The chances of five failures in five tries is 0.8^5=0.32768, roughly 33%, or one in three.

Did you get .8 by taking 1.00 - .20 from the 20% answer above. Not good math.

The entire response does not answer anything. Your math is in fact silly.

Remember 1 planet in trillions x trillions, that is your starting point.

 

[Peter1000]

Show your math, and where you got your data.

Why? It happened at least once.

Why would an allegedly all-powerful-all-knowing universe-creating-thing need to bother with such details? Could it not have us living on the surface of the Sun?

Fine tuning, if there is such a thing, is an argument for naturalism as it is for anything.

"Chance" implies that the universe as we observe it could be fundamentally different. On that we can only speculate.

Why need it be intelligent? We have no idea what options there were when it came to the properties of our universe. There may be few, if any.

Can you define what you mean by "being"?

The only "beings" I am aware of are human beings, living breathing, consuming, excreting organisms, subject to entropy, and depend on a brain, at a minimum, to maintain their "being" status (a headless body kept alive by artificial means would doubtless lose their status as a "being").

But then there is the "faith" needed to get from this mysterious 'being' to the character in a book named "God" that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing.

And, I do not need to toss out virtually all of mainstream scientific knowledge in order to accommodate such beliefs.

Davian says:
Show your math, and where you got your data.

The probability is "1" divided by "all planets in the universe" (trillions X trillions at least)
The probability is so close to zero, science says it is zero. Pretty simple math.

Davian:
Why? It happened at least once.

Yes it did, but it did not happen by chance. If you use the scientific probability model above, earth didn't have a chance to land where it did.

Davian:
Why need it be intelligent? We have no idea what options there were when it came to the properties of our universe. There may be few, if any.

There were few options, there was exactly 2 options. 1 is chance happenings, 2 is a superior being called God. There needs to be a being that is knowledgeable enough to organize the earth, organize the solar system around it to keep it orbiting properly by gravity and organize the universe to keep the solar systems moving in their proper order. This takes an unusual being with all knowledge about science and the knowledge and experience to apply the science.

Davian:
Why would an allegedly all-powerful-all-knowing universe-creating-thing need to bother with such details? Could it not have us living on the surface of the Sun?

He did all his organizing for the purpose of propogating His species (human beings).

Davian:
Can you define what you mean by "being"?

God is an intelligent, living, breathing organism subject to everlasting increase, everlasting expansion, using His brain to maintain His being status. He has a highly refined resurrected body of flesh and bone and spirit that have qualities unknown of man at this point. His body is higher than the human body as the human body is higher than a simple one-celled amoeba. But nonetheless refined flesh and bones and spirit.

Davian:
But then there is the "faith" needed to get from this mysterious 'being' to the character in a book named "God" that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing.

Don't get caught up in the unnecessaries.
We know little about the garden walk.
We know little about the arc experience.
We know little about the dinosaurs.
We know little about the genesis of the earth, only 4 pages of written text. Too little to know exactly how much time it took to organize and to boot it up.

So do not get caught up in the we don't knows and somehow lose your faith in what science is telling us is impossible, like this earth with it's thousands of impossiblities, but is still here going strong. Don't lose your faith in science and don't lose your faith in an intelligent being called God. One day science and God will be the same person.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Nihilist Virus says?
The chances are two in three.

So you are saying that in 3 tries, the earth will rest and orbit the way it does 2 times. What does this have to do with trillions X trillions of possible planets?

We are using our solar system as an example and extrapolating from there. If you reject this then we are left to say we don't know the probabilities in play. That does not make them zero.

Nihilist Virus:
We have five solid bodies (Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars) within a radius of 150 million miles of the sun and there is a 30 million miles wide Goldilocks zone where water can be liquid in standard atmospheric pressure.

We are not talking about 5 planets that have settled into a 150 million mile radius of the sun. We are talking about the probability of all planets settling into a the same position as the earth is from the sun.

Again, we don't know those probabilities. We must either extrapolate or concede that we don't know.

This is trillions X trillions of planets and only 1 has succeeded in settling and orbiting around the sun at a distance that will sustain life. The other 5 planets mean nothing in the probability calculation.

You have made the positive claim that earth is the only planet in the entire universe within the Goldilocks zone. You realize that there are 10^22 or so main sequence stars in the observable part of the potentially infinitely large universe? Yet you claim that there is no other earth-like planet in the Goldilocks zone of a sun-like star. Incredible.

Also you say, "where water can be liquid in standard atmospheric pressure", like that is a standard, every-day operating proceedure for solar systems. How many goldilock-bound planets within a billion miles of the earth have "standard atmospheric pressure"? None, except the earth.

Standard atmospheric pressure means one atmosphere of pressure. Did you never take chemistry?

There is one planet with standard atmospheric pressure in our solar system. Therefore no other planet in the universe has obtained this?

The probability of another planet within our sphere of influence is so close to zero, that it is zero again.

Incoherent.

Nihilist Virus:
A planet randomly falling in that zone is 30/150=20%.

This is a very interesting non-statement about anything except the length of the goldilocks zone is 20% of the 150 million max radius of the 5 planets from the sun.

The size of the bullseye on the target is a non-statement?

What does this ratio have to do with the probability that 1 planet in trillions X trillions of planets comes to settle and orbit around the sun at the exact place that the earth resides now?

Please explain why you are saying that the sun is the only main sequence star among the 10000000000000000000000 other main sequence stars that we know of that can harbor life.

Nihilist Virus:
The chances of five failures in five tries is 0.8^5=0.32768, roughly 33%, or one in three.

Did you get .8 by taking 1.00 - .20 from the 20% answer above. Not good math.

Not good math and yet you worked it out backwards and reported no mistake.

The entire response does not answer anything. Your math is in fact silly.

Meanwhile your math is just the assertion of a probability being zero which you express in incoherent sentences.

Remember 1 planet in trillions x trillions, that is your starting point.

So is yours. Somehow you conclude with no evidence that certain probabilities are zero.

 

[Davian]

Davian says:
Show your math, and where you got your data.

The probability is "1" divided by "all planets in the universe" (trillions X trillions at least)

I did not ask for speculation.

The probability is so close to zero,

Yet it is not zero.

science says it is zero.

<citation missing>

Pretty simple math.

I did not see the math and data that I asked for.

Davian:
Why? It happened at least once.

Yes it did, but it did not happen by chance.

Unevidenced assertion.

If you use the scientific probability model above, earth didn't have a chance to land where it did.

You have not yet produced a scientific probability model that substantiates your opinion.

Davian:
Why need it be intelligent? We have no idea what options there were when it came to the properties of our universe. There may be few, if any.

There were few options, there was exactly 2 options. 1 is chance happenings, 2 is a superior being called God.

That is a [fallacious] false dichotomy. There may be options we are not aware of, and there is always "we don't know".

There needs to be a being that is knowledgeable enough to organize the earth, organize the solar system around it to keep it orbiting properly by gravity and organize the universe to keep the solar systems moving in their proper order. This takes an unusual being with all knowledge about science and the knowledge and experience to apply the science.

Unevidenced assertion.

Davian:
Why would an allegedly all-powerful-all-knowing universe-creating-thing need to bother with such details? Could it not have us living on the surface of the Sun?

He did all his organizing for the purpose of propogating His species (human beings).

Address the question: Why would an allegedly all-powerful-all-knowing universe-creating-thing need to bother with such details? Could it not have us living on the surface of the Sun?

Davian:
Can you define what you mean by "being"?

God is an intelligent,

The only 'intelligence' that I am aware of is the product of a brain. What does your god use for a brain, prior to emergence and evolution of organisms with central nervous systems?

living, breathing

What did this "being" breathe prior to the existence of oxygen?

organism subject to everlasting increase, everlasting expansion,

Like a perpetual motion machine, but better?

using His brain

What was his brain made of?

to maintain His being status. He has a highly refined resurrected body of flesh and bone and spirit that have qualities unknown of man at this point.

How did this 'flesh and bone' body survive in the cold of space, prior to the formation of the Earth?

His body is higher than the human body as the human body is higher than a simple one-celled amoeba. But nonetheless refined flesh and bones

How do you know this?

and spirit.

Define "spirit".

Davian:
But then there is the "faith" needed to get from this mysterious 'being' to the character in a book named "God" that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing.

Don't get caught up in the unnecessaries.

It is not me that is caught up in all of these details. I will not take any of this on 'faith'.

We know little about the garden walk.
We know little about the arc experience.
We know little about the dinosaurs.
We know little about the genesis of the earth, only 4 pages of written text. Too little to know exactly how much time it took to organize and to boot it up.

Who is this "we that you speak for?

So do not get caught up in the we don't knows and somehow lose your faith in what science is telling us is impossible,

I do not have 'faith' in science.

like this earth with it's thousands of impossiblities, but is still here going strong. Don't lose your faith in science and don't lose your faith in an intelligent being called God.

I am ignostic on the topic of "god".

One day science and God will be the same person.

This statement is incoherent. Science is a methodology, not a person. I do not pretend to know what gods are.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Peter1000's logic seems to be this:

1. Observe that earth harbors life
2. Observe that there are trillions upon trillions of planets in the universe
3. Assume that none of them harbor life
4. Conclude that the chances of life coming about naturally are essentially zero

 

[Crandaddy]

The same argument could be made about anything scientists discover. There is no way to be certain that aliens aren't secretly responsible for gravity or that we aren't living inside a computer simulation.

Let's say that I believe in ESP. Shouldn't ESP leave some tracks? If clairvoyance exists then scientists ought to be able to find some evidence eventually. After finding that evidence, the scientists cannot be certain that clairvoyance exists - maybe it is alien implants. However, if we can't find any persuasive evidence for any of the claimed effects of ESP, then shouldn't we be skeptical of ESP? The same is true for God.

Well, we shouldn't just go around shouting “aliens!” at everything we have a hard time explaining. The facts should certainly evidentially point to whatever we explain them by so as to render that explanation the most plausible available. I do agree with that.

As far as God and evidence goes, there is a school of thought known as Reformed Epistemology that denies that any sort of evidence is needed to justify belief in God, but I am inclined to disagree with those folks. Even so, I think there are different types of evidence that people can experience, and what might be sufficient evidence to convince one person might not be sufficient to convince someone else. Specifically, I have religious experiences in mind. I personally have had such experiences (as have most Christians, I suspect), but I don't bring them up as ammunition in debates because I don't quite think they work that way. I do, however, count them as evidence of a sort.

In other words, tracks are a necessary condition for God's existence, but of course they are not a sufficient condition. Lack of tracks can disprove God, so that is why you guys need to show me some tracks. A God that interacts with humans must leave some tracks. A God with a rational personality must have somewhat predictable behavior that can be tested experimentally.

But God leaves different kinds of tracks, I think. It seems the tracks you're looking for are the sort that Jesus made when he came and “dwelt among us” and founded a Church. But scientific research alone won't reveal to you Jesus as God Incarnate; at best, it will only reveal to you Jesus the man -- a rather extraordinary man, perhaps, but still just a man.

The kind of tracks that I think you should be looking for are rather tricky to see, as well as to show. They're literally everywhere and in everything, but seeing them will require you to think about the world in very different ways than you're probably accustomed. This will probably sound odd to you, but it'll require you to do a lot of thinking about existence, because if you take my view of things, that's kind of what God is...

Just wanted to respond to this last part. I confess that some of you post is a little over my head, @Crandaddy , but this last part seems key, and I want to try to address it.

If your definition of God makes him above the law and super-duper in every way imaginable, then I suppose God might be so completely unpredictable that looking for causes and effects would be a waste of time. ... However, such a God cannot have a relationship with humans.

What makes you so sure of that? The two principal influences on my views -- Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus -- were not only Christians, but the former is officially recognized as a saint and doctor of the Catholic Church, and the latter has been formally beatified by the Catholic Church. Certainly neither of those men would agree with you there.

When we have a relationship, we understand the other person. The Bible is supposed to describe God's personality. Using the Bible and tales of believers as a guide, we should be able to find God's tracks.

But those would be tracks of the former sort that I mentioned above. The Bible and tales of believers aren't all that's required to see those, I'm afraid. They lie within domain of what's known as “special revelation.” Yes, those tracks can be found, but a bit of divinely-inspired insight is needed to recognize them. That's called the “gift of faith,” and only God can give you that.

 

[cloudyday2]

Well, we shouldn't just go around shouting “aliens!” at everything we have a hard time explaining. The facts should certainly evidentially point to whatever we explain them by so as to render that explanation the most plausible available. I do agree with that.

As far as God and evidence goes, there is a school of thought known as Reformed Epistemology that denies that any sort of evidence is needed to justify belief in God, but I am inclined to disagree with those folks. Even so, I think there are different types of evidence that people can experience, and what might be sufficient evidence to convince one person might not be sufficient to convince someone else. Specifically, I have religious experiences in mind. I personally have had such experiences (as have most Christians, I suspect), but I don't bring them up as ammunition in debates because I don't quite think they work that way. I do, however, count them as evidence of a sort.



But God leaves different kinds of tracks, I think. It seems the tracks you're looking for are the sort that Jesus made when he came and “dwelt among us” and founded a Church. But scientific research alone won't reveal to you Jesus as God Incarnate; at best, it will only reveal to you Jesus the man -- a rather extraordinary man, perhaps, but still just a man.

The kind of tracks that I think you should be looking for are rather tricky to see, as well as to show. They're literally everywhere and in everything, but seeing them will require you to think about the world in very different ways than you're probably accustomed. This will probably sound odd to you, but it'll require you to do a lot of thinking about existence, because if you take my view of things, that's kind of what God is...



What makes you so sure of that? The two principal influences on my views -- Thomas Aquinas and John Duns Scotus -- were not only Christians, but the former is officially recognized as a saint and doctor of the Catholic Church, and the latter has been formally beatified by the Catholic Church. Certainly neither of those men would agree with you there.



But those would be tracks of the former sort that I mentioned above. The Bible and tales of believers aren't all that's required to see those, I'm afraid. They lie within domain of what's known as “special revelation.” Yes, those tracks can be found, but a bit of divinely-inspired insight is needed to recognize them. That's called the “gift of faith,” and only God can give you that.

Thanks, @Crandaddy , those are some good thoughts for me to think about.

Here is a webpage with some quotes that I like about knowing God. Take a look if you have time.

In the Orthodox Church we believe that God reveals Himself to us in truth. This means, basically, that as human beings we have the inherent ability to know God directly and simply i.e., personally. Just as Enoch and Noah “walked with God,” (Gen. 5:24, 6:9), and just as Moses “spoke with the Lord face to face, as a man speaks to a friend,” (Ex. 33:11), so are we able to enter into the same intimate communion with the Triune God. The knowledge of God that is the outgrowth of becoming united with Him is what we call theology. As such, all genuine theology is not merely the knowledge about God, but the knowledge of God – because it is experiential in nature.

http://www.pravmir.com/the-science-of-sciences/

 

[Davian]

Well, we shouldn't just go around shouting “aliens!” at everything we have a hard time explaining. The facts should certainly evidentially point to whatever we explain them by so as to render that explanation the most plausible available. I do agree with that.

And don't forget parsimony.

As far as God and evidence goes, there is a school of thought known as Reformed Epistemology that denies that any sort of evidence is needed to justify belief in God, but I am inclined to disagree with those folks.

Reformed Epistemology does seem to have all the earmarks of special pleading.

From the wiki page: "[A common objection to reformed epistemology], the Great Pumpkin Objection states that Reformed epistemology is so liberal that it allows belief in any sort of far-fetched entity to be justified as simply foundational or basic. Someone might, for example, take as basic the belief that The Great Pumpkin is all-powerful, just as the Reformed epistemologist takes a similar belief in God as basic."

Even so, I think there are different types of evidence that people can experience, and what might be sufficient evidence to convince one person might not be sufficient to convince someone else. Specifically, I have religious experiences in mind. I personally have had such experiences (as have most Christians, I suspect), but I don't bring them up as ammunition in debates because I don't quite think they work that way. I do, however, count them as evidence of a sort.

As I do. Evidence that the human mind is capable of deceiving itself.

...
But those would be tracks of the former sort that I mentioned above. The Bible and tales of believers aren't all that's required to see those, I'm afraid. They lie within domain of what's known as “special revelation.” Yes, those tracks can be found, but a bit of divinely-inspired insight is needed to recognize them. That's called the “gift of faith,” and only God can give you that.

Self-deception can also give you that.