Proof of God

A friends question

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

IF we Humans are the result of Evolution from Monkees.....why are there monkees remaining - and why haven't the next 'versions' of humanoids been found?

....just curious.....

[tim politicus]

The theory of random evolution is just that, a theory. It is taught as fact at a popular level, but in fact, but among scientists themselves, quite a bit of debate swirls around various aspects of this theory. Some scientists even go so far as to question its fundamental premise, that order will, over time, arise spontaneously out of chaos. For more information on the scientific debate surrounding evolutionary theory, do a web search on "intelligent design".

Meanwhile here's something to think about:

The dominant teaching today is that all life develops randomly toward ever higher order. The science used to show this is basically the fossil record, which most interpret as clearly showing a biological development or evolution towards greater order over a vast period of time.

Those who argue against this do so on a number of grounds. For one, granting that the fossil record does show this, there is absolutely no evidence of the changes being random. In fact, the lack of vast quantities of various forms of mutations in the fossil record actually argue against order arising out of 'a sea of chaos'.

But on a simply practical level, order never really seems, in normal experience to arise spontaneously; except sometimes, to especially small children, and very primitive peoples.

For example, when is the last time that your sink of dishes spontaneously washed themselves?

But the basic logical argument of those who support random evolution is this:

Given a sufficent amount of time, things will accidentally organize themselves or become organized due to simply random motions.

Here is the basic argument against that view: In all experiments, simple RANDOM motion, in all cases, is seen to produce steadily increasing entropy, or what we usually call ‘decay’. In fact, as the random motion abounds, so does decay, with the result that we actually become ever farther from any increase in order.
Sure, order can be MADE to arise out of chaos-- simple eating and digestion demonstrates this-- but ONLY, in EVERY OBSERVABLE event, due to another **pre-existing** order.

So with both reason and the vast array of human experience arguing against RANDOM evolution, why is the view being vigorously taught and defended by most public schools and college campuses as though it is fact?

My guess is because the vast majority of public school teachers and college professors have evolved a culture where fashionable political ideologies have replaced basic intellectual honesty.

"Nothing comes from nothing." --Shakespeare's King Lear

[massconservative]

Read "Show Me God" by Fred Heeren or "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Schroeder (sp?). Both are filled with scientific proof and theories that point to a personal, omnipotent God.

[Sungirl]

To: ALL

Thanks for all the interesting information. I will read every one and see if I can at least make my friend question her doubt.

[tortoise]

IF we Humans are the result of Evolution from Monkees.....why are there monkees remaining

Common misperception. Evolutionary biologists don't claim that we evolved from monkeys. Rather, we had a common genetic ancestor (now extinct) about 5 million years ago if I remember correctly. The recent advent of cheap DNA testing and analysis is showing evidence of a more convoluted and complicated evolutionary history however.

[BibChr]

On the whole question of "proof" in general and God in particular, ponder this: Why I Am (Still) a Christian.

Dan

[good1]

I was going to write a reply to this poster, but yours is excellent. Sounds like someone has been listening to "The Battle for the Beginning." Well done.

If I could add one thing, it would be to all concerned: "Either believe in Creationism or evolution." Don't try to mix the two as they are totally contradictory. The only eyewitness to creation recorded; who did it, how it was done, and how long it took. One either believes the Bible or one doesn't.

[damnlimey]

Proof of God?

[Hank Kerchief]

Here is the real question: If God exists; who created God? Answer that please. If you say God has always existed; you could say that about the universe as well.

Oddly put, but your response is essentially the correct refutation of the argument that since everything must have a cause, there must be a God, else, where did the universe come from? Even if the "big-bang" is granted, it just pushes the question back to, alright then, where did the "bib-bang" come from? But if the answer is God, then God must have a cause, because, if God does have a cause, then the premise of the argument, that everything must have a cause, is denied.

But, this does not mean there is no God, or that there is not good evidence for God.

Dostoevsky asked a very interesting question in Notes from Underground. "What is the ultimate reason for existing?" We exist, without a choice, but to continue to exist does require a choice. But ultimately, even if you choose to continue to exist, that choice will be thwarted.

It's like this. What's the point? There can be no objective in choosing not to live. That's the end of all objective. But if you choose to live, at best, you can only be successful temporarily, and then you die and you will have failed to fulfill your choice.

If God exists, there could be a point. That does not mean God exists. But if God does not exist, there is no point, and how does a pointless existense come to be?

Hank

[garycooper]

If you can prove the existence of love, please be my guest!

[Maelstrom]

Proof Positive:
Without God, there is no conscience.

It's a conclusion of proofs derived from the lack of any proveable absolutes even in mathematics. The foundation of Mathematics is Logic, and logic teaches us that there is no self-consistent system that does not rely upon an arbitrary Truth beyond the system. Mathematics is consistent, however, so there is an arbitrary Truth beyond the system. (See Euclidean, non-Euclidean Geometry).

This esoteric mathematical derivation is reflected in Science. Science has shown us that it is *impossible* to observe a system without affecting it. Observation of an event changes the event. Sub-atomic theory and Quark experimentation has shown us the answer to the allegory: If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, it does NOT necessarily make a sound.

It is also reflected in Nature, especially Evolution. Random mutations do not happen quickly enough for positive and negative mutations to be filtered into new speci. However, an ecological system under stress WILL undergo short-term and rapid mutation TOWARD INTELLIGENT adaptation to the stress.

Thus, bacteria causing ear infections that are constantly stressed by anti-biotics *can* adapt and become resistant to that medicine within few human generations (3-4).

God is ALIVE! Rejoice.

[Lessismore]

It is about faith.

Proofs about God were a driver of Western philosophy and metaphysics up through Immanuel Kant in the late 1700s. Since then, the topic has been pretty much given up.

[Vinnie]

MSNBC had a special dealing with NDE. Howard Storm's story was one of those profiled. Very convincing.

[Hank Kerchief]

The theory of random evolution is just that, a theory.

This is a quibble, I know, but technically, evolution is not a theory, when used as an explanation for the origins of life on this planet. A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven by experiment (or formal argument). Evolution is acutally a hyposthesis, and those who know the folly of it should call it that.

Unfortunately, the truth that "nothing comes from nothing" applies to all things, and therefore to God also, unless you do not believe God exists.

There cannot be an argument for the existense of God, just as there cannot be an argument for your consciousness. You know you are conscious, and I believe you are, but neither you or I can demonstrate (that is, actually show it to someone) or prove it.

Hank

[Maelstrom]

Never needed to go into that much detail myself.

By all known science and logic, I should be dead, I should be dead a dozen times over.

My Lord, God exists, and He loves me though I am but a sinner.
I am grateful for the Gift of Life, and I have sorely abused it, I will accept God's Divine Judgement in due course.

[PollyFolk]

Yes She did a good job :)

[tortoise]

Oddly put, but your response is essentially the correct refutation of the argument that since everything must have a cause, there must be a God, else, where did the universe come from?

Part of the problem with this discussion is definitions. The way most people view causality in the universe is pretty simple and based in the classical physical universe that we observe every day. However, the REAL scientific definitions get very weird because they have to deal with mathematics and conditions that add new degrees of freedom to causality that are really beyond the average human experience, though easily measurable in a good laboratory.

Many of the conservation and causality laws that we all learned in basic physics are actually "white lies"; they aren't really true and are adaptations of the real mathematics with all the strange stuff removed. To a certain extent this makes sense, as it makes it much easier to learn a practical approximation that is perfectly applicable for what most people would use it for. Only physicists and the occasional engineer have to burden themselves with the real equations.

[tim politicus]

Thank you for the correction.

I didn't understand what you were saying about ‘nothing’. A difficult topic, I'm sure.

But I do understand what you are saying about proving God, or consciousness. Current scientific fashion holds both to be an illusion. But to what observer? Neither can we prove 'being', that is, objective existence. Ultimately some things [or at least one thing] MUST be taken as a given.

These things seem to be in themselves fairly simple. The trick seems to be getting people to actually think.

[ex-Texan]

You might consider studying the Ontological Proof of God's existence which was developed by Rene Descartes:

From the University of Toronto

And St. Anselm also wrote on this subject.

As for me, I say just take a walk in nature and look around. Is it all accidental? Pure chaos?

Oh, it is accidental, huh? Then please explain why mathematics, science and astrophysics all work so perfectly. And even chaos theory may be proven mathematically.

Reality exists in the mind of God.

[tim politicus]

I disagree to the extent that any definative qualitative or quantitative assertion can be said to be false, not quite ‘jiveing’ with observable or measurable reality.

All that amount to saying is that there is no such thing as a perfect circle. True, materially speaking. But cognatively, the only way we know what a cirle is, is by comparison to a ‘perfect’ idea of a circle.

Well, the same holds true for ANY other idea by which we are actually ABLE to get a functioning grasp of just what is going on; whether thermodynamics or Newtonian physics or even current particle physics.

They are all ideas, and so, in comparison with ‘the-real-thing-in-itself’, you could say they are all 'white lies'. In fact, in that view, everything said is a white lie, lacking perfect correspendence with the ‘object-in-itself’.

So then, if these are all 'white lies', just how do you suppose we have any idea of what is true? Do our ideas ever appoximate reality? How can that be?