This thread is for proof that God exists

by juandefiero 375 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  shepherdless

  Sorry, I could only get back to this now. I am a sole recalcitrant in a JW household with limited confidential access to a computer.

  Slimboyfat: But reality shows that evolution tends toward similar forms all the time. It seems to have a deeps structure.

  The articles you link in support appear to support your proposition, but are limp when looked at in detail. Yes birds and bats both have wings to fly (no surprise there) but look closely at the outlines of those wing structures. In birds, the fingers on the dinosaur hands have virtually disappeared, presumably to minimise weight. In bats, the fingers have become long spindly supports for the wing. In pterodactyls, you will see another wing structure again. Hence there is only limited convergence, at least as far as I can see.

  I could make the same point about shark fins vs dolphin fins. So at this stage, I have to agree with Cofty on that one.

  Slimboyfat: Intelligence itself seems to be the natural result of the process, not a random freak. So what does that tell us? What does it mean if the universe is actually built in such a way as to result in a brain which can understand it?

  This is your better point. It certainly (to me at least) is one of the better arguments for a creator that I have ever heard. The universe has indeed resulted in a brain which understands (or tries to understand) it.

  However, at the moment, I am not satisfied on the first assumption, ie that "Intelligence itself seems to be the natural result of the process, not a random freak." Some evolutionary processes are rare. Cofty points out that flight has evolved at least 3 times (I count 4), making it unusual. Only once has evolution produced a species (our ancestor, homo erectus around 100 million years ago) that learnt to use fire as a tool.

  I would argue that when homo erectus learnt to use fire as a tool (giving it huge advantages but a need for a bigger brain), it meant there was a "natural selection" advantage in being bigger brained, more imaginative, more capable of planning, more capable of abstract thought, etc. (This is a big topic in itself.) This evolutionary outcome has only happened once in the history of life on Earth, and only comparatively recently, so it is not a "natural result".

  Also, the proposition assumes that humans are somehow superior to all other life forms, solely on the basis that humans are more self aware, capable of conceptual thought and curious about the universe, is presumptuous. It could be that this self awareness is just a byproduct of our niche in nature.

  Further, if as you speculate, that "Intelligence itself seems to be the natural result of the process, not a random freak." you still have to get around the "endless turtles" conundrum I referred to in an earlier post.

  I hope this all makes sense. Feel free to ignore it if it doesn't.
• 

  slimboyfat

  About convergence, I don't think it's about how similar wings are across species, for example. But about what it says about the nature of reality that matter has its within itself to organise itself in such a way as to result in solutions to "problems" like flight, sight, sonar, and ultimately consciousness. And we know the process: that random variation and selection combine to produce variety. But why? And why seemingly a particular kind of outcome? Why is reality constructed in this way to result in these apparently predictable outcomes.
• 

  Coded Logic

  What does it mean if the universe is actually built in such a way as to result in a brain which can understand it?
  -SBF

  . . . Then it would mean that the universe was built in such a way that a brain could understand it. Starting with that assumption - that's the only conclusion we can reach.

  Perhaps a better question to ask might be, "Does a universe which can have complex systems that are capable of understanding itself (brains) suggest it was designed that way?"

  My short answer is - I dunno. Even if we gained knowledge that there was a Universe Creating Intelligence - we still couldn't conclude our universe was designed. Because we have no way of telling the difference between designed universes and non-designed universes. We have no metric via which we can look at our universe and say "look - it matches a designed universe" or "what-do-you-know, it matches a non-designed universe."

  We would have to know that MOST or ALL universes are created by a UCI to conclude that our universe was created by a UCI. At which point, the question of looking at intelligence inside a universe to infer if it's designed or not - becomes a moot point.

  Why is reality constructed in this way to result in these apparently predictable outcomes.

  Because subatomic particles behave in predictable ways. Because atoms behave in predictable ways. Because molecules behave in predictable ways. Because space/time behaves in a predictable way. Because reality behaves in predictable ways. Etc.

  As far as we know the laws of physics cannot be broken. I don't think it's necessarily "constructed" that way because I don't know if a universe can exist with a different set of physics or if a universe can exist without physics all together. But I would think that a universe without physics would tear itself apart pretty quickly.

  In regards to the larger questions your asking I think it's important to remember that the carbon atoms of which you and I are composed were first forged and manufactured in the heart of a dying star. We are quite literally the remnants of a stellar core. The children of a supernova. Because it's not just we who are inside the universe but it's also the universe that's inside of us. We ARE the universe . . . seeking to understand itself. And I feel the fewer assumptions we start with when asking questions about our existence the richer and more fulfilling our answers will be.
• 

  scotoma

  God (referring to a personal God not a philosophical function) either exists or he doesn't exist.

  If such a God exists he apparently hasn't used all the tools available to him to prove his existence.

  That leaves an open question: Is God using subtle ways to influence people or is he using everything possible to communicate his existence.

  If God is all powerful he isn't using his power. This leaves it up to human apologists to explain what God is doing or not doing in the way of communicating with humans.

  There are very simple things an all powerful God could do to show his existence.

  Which would be more effective. Fill yankee stadium with ordinary people sleeping through 8 days of Bible lectures or filling yankee stadium with 20,000 down syndrome children along with their families and then instantly curing them of their genetic defect.

  I am pretty sure that the world would take notice and be impressed.

  Instead we get serpents and rocks.
• 

  Ruby456

  slim (re your last post) , sort of like ritual logic meets magical thinking logic -religion meets science - kind of thing. Religion or any tight group formation reflecting the universe forming patterns kind of logic while science brings magical thinking logic to bear on problematic beings and relationships - Mary Douglas meets Levi-Strauss sort of thing?

  edit: btw any chance of getting my flagged status removed?
• 

  Ruby456

  slim I sent you a pm
• 

  slimboyfat

  Ruby what do you mean when you say you have been flagged? I thought it was particular posts rather than posters that could be flagged. Or is it your whole account? I've never flagged anything or been flagged as far as I know. It's probably some mistake I wouldn't worry about it.
• 

  prologos

  shepherdless: "flight has evolved at least 3 times (I count 4), making it unusual. Only once has evolution produced a species (our ancestor, homo erectus around 100 million years ago) that learnt to use fire as a tool.

  Life, particularly when it defies gravity, by walking upright and committing levitation, is doing the nearly impossible, not the easy, but the difficult, like doing the kennedyesque going to the moon.

  The universe's origin, start, by separating matter (gravity) from energy ( not a null sum but 2 sum entity) and life, disrupting successfully the race to entropy, have the mark of a driving force, a master worker perhaps.
• 

  shepherdless

  prologos:

  Life, particularly when it defies gravity, by walking upright and committing levitation, is doing the nearly impossible,not the easy, but the difficult, like doing the kennedyesque going to the moon.

  Nature may be fascinating. However, nature does not care what we think is "nearly impossible".

  The universe's origin, start, by separating matter (gravity) from energy ( not a null sum but 2 sum entity) and life, disrupting successfully the race to entropy, have the mark of a driving force, a master worker perhaps.

  1. Minor point, but I think you have some of the physics slightly muddled there.

  2. The words, "life, disrupting successfully the race to entropy" suggest to me that you have read some fundamentalist Christian literature that suggests that life or evolution contravene the second law of thermodynamics. I have read this argument in JW literature. I have also read this argument in other fundamentalist Christian literature. If this is where you are coming from, please let me know, so I can explain why that argument is wrong and dishonest.

  3. Just to repeat a point I made earlier in this thread. Lets say that you are correct; there is a "master worker" that created the universe. Who created the "master worker"? And who created the creator of the "master worker"? And who created the creator of the creator of the "master worker"?
• 

  cofty

  The words, "life, disrupting successfully the race to entropy" suggest to me that you have read some fundamentalist Christian literature that suggests that life or evolution contravene the second law of thermodynamics - Shepherdless

  I can see why you might think that Shepherdless but actually Prologos is correct.

  All living things locally and temporarily defy entropy.

  Defining life is fraught with exceptions but seeing it in this way - from physics rather than biology - might be useful.