Does God exist?

[Fusion_power]

The simplest self sufficient organism is a microscopic single celled sea creature with approximately 1345 genes. They exist in the ocean in uncountable trillions. By one evolutionary theory, they have achieved the penultimate genetic structure to support their ecological niche. Every gene they have is used and needed. That they are highly successful is demonstrated by their presence in virtually every drop of ocean water.

While I am not arguing for or against evolution, this particular organism has apparently achieved near perfection in its genetic profile. An argument can (and has) been made that they are living proof that evolution occurs because the sheer number of them has achieved genetic stassis, i.e. a point at which no further improvement can be made and any mutations that occur inevitably are less efficient than the original.

That at least is the evolutionary argument.

Using some of Jinydu's logic from above, to state that evolution does or does not occur does not preclude or prove the existence of God.

Mally, I think you missed one of my points above and in other threads. Jesus' life and example is totally unexplainable in human terms so to me is a very real proof that God does exist. My argument above that "multiverses" inherently cannot be proven from within this universe and that God's existence can was meant to take the air out of the multiverse theory. When you add in the observable fact that the universe appears to have had a beginning and that it is based on some very precise balancing points such as the exact rate of expansion and the precise value of the strong Nuclear force, the likelihood of intelligent design becomes more supportable. I'm the kind of person who wants to know both sides of an argument.

If it helps any, I've read the bible through from start to finish multiple times, studied in detail the epochs of biblical history, and tried in every way I could to figure out how to explain Jesus. I can quote long passages and can readily reference most of the new testament from memory.

Start a new thread if you want or send private messages on this if you choose since its not relevant to this thread. Is baptism necessary to salvation? Please support your conclusion by appropriate scriptures. I would suggest a reading of 1 Peter chapter 3 as a good beginning.

Fusion

[XYYXF]

There's no really straight connection between the Big Bang and the existense of God. The Big Bang, as well as quantum R-procedure, is just believed to be an example of so called objective randomness.

We are used to cause-and-effect relations, you know, all the mathematics is built on this (and thus is appreciably anthropomorphic), so we try to find the reason of these objective random "choices", including the Big Bang.

I've taken a bit broader view of this question in the neighbour thread. These random "choices" simply reflect the originality of our Universe, and should be considered in isolation from the idea of time.

The arrow of time, BTW, is also an anthropomorphic idea, because it is based on the separation of present - the moment we have a free will - from the past and future, and the idea of causal effect, while all the physical laws are symmetrical about the sign of t.

P.S. Please forgive me my poor English

[jinydu]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

Jesus' life and example is totally unexplainable in human terms so to me is a very real proof that God does exist.

Well, I would say that this is only the case if one accepts the Bible's claims about Jesus' life, which I think are just dubious as the claims about God's existence.

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

As best that I can tell, "evolution" as a theory, atempts to explain things post facto. It does not fall into the classic "scientific method" form. I see it as squishy as gellatin. I have yet to hear a testable, disprovable hypothosis en re evolution. While the idea in general might be nice and might seem to explain things, it does not seem to have any rigorous basis. I am familiar with the pepper moth and such, but where is the proof for a species that has spawned another seperate one. With the current knowledge base of millions of species, there must be a few.

Well, the claim "Evolution may occur" is not falsifiable, but the claim "Species X evolved from Species Y through such and such a sequence" is falsifiable. I'm sure you have seen examples before: The evolution of whales from land mammals, the evolution of modern horses from a previously much smaller species and the most famous example, the evolution of humans and chimpanzees from a common ancestor. And if all life forms do not have a common ancestor, how else can one explain the great similarity of all life forms on a microscopic scale? How can you explain the fact that so many species rely on the same basic chemical reactions to power their cells?

In any case, intelligent design is the most unfalsifiable hypothesis of them all, since an omnipotent designer can simply bring about any outcome it desires.

As a side note, perhaps I should add that according to modern evolutionary theory, most genetic changes in sexually reproducing organisms arise not from mutation but from another process known as genetic recombination.

[XYYXF]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

The surprising thing is just how narrow the difference
is. To strike the perfect balance between too fast and
too slow, the force, something that physicists call
"the Dark Energy Term" had to be accurate to one part in
ten with 120 zeros.

1) these values are not yet actually confirmed by astronomers

2) imagine one schoolboy found out that the value pi should lie between

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375
and
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399376

in order to make mathematics working.

"It will be a miracle if the actual value hit these narrow limits!.." - he thinks

[jinydu]

Originally Posted by XYYXF

We are used to cause-and-effect relations, you know, all the mathematics is built on this (and thus is appreciably anthropomorphic), so we try to find the reason of these objective random "choices", including the Big Bang.

This is a bit offtopic, but mathematics does not rely on causality. Mathematics makes statements such as "If A is true, then B is true"; but this is not the same thing as saying "A causes B". The latter statement claims that A came before B, and hence makes reference to time; the first statement makes no reference to time. My linear algebra professor pointed this out.

[XYYXF]

Originally Posted by jinydu

This is a bit offtopic, but mathematics does not rely on causality. Mathematics makes statements such as "If A is true, then B is true"; but this is not the same thing as saying "A causes B". My linear algebra professor pointed this out.

AFAIK, mathematics begins with a theory of sets. We build the empty set - zero, then {empty set} - unity, then {emptyset, {emptyset}} - 2, and so on, making a base for calculation with mathematical induction. First time a countable set, then a continuum and so on.

The principle of mathematical induction is based on our succesive thinking, which appears because of the causality in our minds. We obtain the idea of uncountable infinity, which doesn't seem to be implemented in nature; we obtain some paradoxes as the axiom of choice or quantum uncertainty and so on - all of this is just an artifact of that anthropomorphism.

P.S. Some thoughts leaded me to the idea of parallel thinking. A mind with such a thinking would use parallel calculation (instead of our succesive Turing machine), with parallel algebra, based not on 1, 2, 3, ..., but on sets like the set of zeros of Riemann zeta function. I hope that quantum computers we try to build nowadays will gain us a better understanding of this qualitatively new stuff.

[brunoparga]

I was wondering why is it that the evolution issue had taken so long to come up...

Uncwilly, I've read one of the books you mentioned, Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe. And I've read some criticism to it, too.

Behe's only argument is, as it seems recurrent here, one of ignorance: he can't see how some structures could have evolved, therefore they cannot.

To do this he introduces a concept, irreducible complexity. His example for an irreducibly complex structure is the kind of mousetrap his parents used. The trap is composed of some parts, each of which is absolutely essential for it to work; Behe then compares some biological structures with the mousetrap, arguing that if a biological system requires, say, protein A and protein B to work, an organism couldn't live by, via evolution, just producing either of them.

A good answer to Behe's example are Roman arches. They're made up of several stones, and none can be taken out without causing the arch to collapse; however, the arches do exist. They're built by means of a wooden structure which shapes the arch; the first stones are placed upon this structure, and when the last stone is put on top of the previous ones, the arch is complete and the wooden structure becomes unnecessary. In biological terms, this would be a simpler protein C, which worked together with protein B; when protein A appeared, it worked more efficiently than protein C and superseded it, that's why we don't see it.

The article on Wikipedia about that book is quite interesting. It does state the fact, which I can't deny, that it is quite a well-written book. It's just not science. It's religion.
Bruno

[jinydu]

Following on brunoparga's post, some intelligent design advocates have continued to use examples of alleged "irreducible complexity" long after scientists have found that they are in fact made up of simpler parts that can work independently. This to me shows that they aren't really interested in genuine science. One example is a certain protein responsible for blood clotting. Proponents of ID continued claiming that the protein was irreducibly complex, even after scientists discovered a smaller subcollection that could work independently.

One good source of information (although it may or may not contain the above example, I don't remember exactly) is the ruling written by a judge in a well-publicized case about ID:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmil...miller_342.pdf

[brunoparga]

Another link, plus a (cynical) strategic argument for evolution.

This link here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html discusses the blood-clotting issue jinydu mentions and other points. They're well explained, in layman's terms, without hiding facts.

Now, the argument. I'll take as a fact that the US has had a dominance over the world since the World Wars (arguably since WWI, definitely since WWII). One of the pillars upon which this dominance was built was the high value placed on science - e.g. the atom bomb. Don't antievolutionists think that lowering the standards of science to make room for intelligent design and other forms of pseudoscience may, in the long run, favor the fall of American power in the world? I mean, I don't think anyone in China seriously questions evolution...

Bruno

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by XYYXF

But it's just a heuristic argument, not a proof.

To what do you refer as "just a heuristic argument"?

The existence of objective reality is non-provable, because all the information that we directly get is just our subjective reality, and even thoseare just information we subjectively read. Thus, one may only believe in objective reality.

Yes, yes -- I've been down that road -- it leads to the conclusion that no one can prove anything about anything, which is not useful.

BTW, let me replace my example of a table in a room (I didn't intend for the artificial nature of a table to influence the discussion) with the example of the Earth's Moon:

The existence of the Earth's Moon, as more than only an idea in human minds, can be established by various objective means such as instrumental readings.

The preceding example is at what I consider a useful level of argument.

If you insist that all instrument readings and even the personal experiences of 12 astronauts are not objective reality, then you quickly reach that point of finding that no one can prove anything and that, furthermore, you are the only being in existence (all others being products of your imagination). If that's what you want, fine, and it's great philosophy, but don't bother me with it here. I prefer to assume a useful level of objective reality (in which the Moon does exist) for discussions in this forum.

Every subjective reality is unique, individual, personal, because, roughly speaking, there are no two absolutely identical subjects.

Fine. So what?

And, once you believed in objective reality, you must concede that it's also unique, just because our Universe is namely such as it is and no other (otherwise it would be absolutely another Universe, but it just doesn't exist for us, because existence is a difference between presence and absence, but other Universes make no differences in our Universe, otherwise they would be a part of our one ).

Okay, fine, but I don't see what useful bearing that has on what I wish to communicate.

So, since the objective reality is unique, it should have a self-contained criterion of existence.

"it should have ..."? Don't you mean, "I prefer it to have ...", or "I want it to contain ..."?

Once personalized, it becomes to be God, but this personalization really doesn't matter here.

So, this appears to be where you define God as an idea in your own mind. If I read you correctly, you're defining God as a personalized self-contained criterion of existence in objective reality, right?

[XYYXF]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

To what do you refer as "just a heuristic argument"?

To fifty years.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Yes, yes -- I've been down that road -- it leads to the conclusion that no one can prove anything about anything, which is not useful.

It doesn't lead to that.

Every proof is based on some premise and some rules of inference, so it has sense only within them. E.g. the proof of Pythagorean theorem doesn't work in non-euclidean geometry. What premise would you use to prove the existence of objective reality? And which rules?

Originally Posted by cheesehead

The existence of the Earth's Moon, as more than only an idea in human minds, can be established by various objective means such as instrumental readings.

Have you seen a movie "The Matrix"?

Originally Posted by cheesehead

If you insist that all instrument readings and even the personal experiences of 12 astronauts are not objective reality, then you quickly reach that point of finding that no one can prove anything and that, furthermore, you are the only being in existence (all others being products of your imagination).

That's the very point of subjective idealist.

But I don't insist on that point. I just pay attention to it.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I prefer to assume a useful level of objective reality (in which the Moon does exist) for discussions in this forum.

The word "useful" just demonstrates our subjective view of the objective reality. Useful for what? For whom?

Originally Posted by cheesehead

"it should have ..."? Don't you mean, "I prefer it to have ...", or "I want it to contain ..."?

I mean "it should have".

Look: the objective reality is all and only all that does objectively exist; all beyond this does not objectively exist. So we have a splitting, a binary function which I mentioned before. The existense of objective reality automatically implies objective distinguishability between it and non-it. That's the sense of self-consistent criterion.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

So, this appears to be where you define God as an idea in your own mind.

No.

I define God as the criterion of existence of objective reality. This definition is an idea in my mind, but not the God himself.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

If I read you correctly, you're defining God as a personalized self-contained criterion of existence in objective reality, right?

No. Yet another time: I define God as the criterion of existence of objective reality. Its self-consistence is just its integral property; personalization is just an anthropomorphic add-in, it's up to you whether to use it.