I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you

[SelfSim]

Since the answers are generally based on the logic in this post, I want to answer to all of them through this post.

Answer for the first paragraph:

A snowflake is a pattern/an order, just as you said. Water vapor is also an order, the formation of a snowflake from water vapor is also an order as well, for example how they together form the order of atmospheric phenomena or the order of the climate cycle. The mistake in your reasoning is that you fall into an imaginary assumption about something you have not observed or gained knowledge about, as if you had observed it. In other words the fact that you have not observed how a snowflake forms does not mean it was not build by a conscious willful power, you can only say "I dont know," you cannot make any conclusions about it. But I can prove to you that it was made by a conscious willful power, just give me a piece of paper and a pen, and I will design a snowflake for you. Now you have one piece of information: a snowflake has been designed by a conscious willful power. You can no longer say "I dont know", now you know.

Our intelligence exists .. So what?

Answer for the second paragraph:

The fact that planets are not in perfect symmetry does not mean they are not part of an order or they are not an order. A car seat might also be irregularly shaped but it is still part of the overall order of the car. Or a part in the engine may not look orderly at all, but it is still part of the engine's system. Also when we examine that part in detail, we discover that it consists of elements, atoms, revealing an underlying order.

There is an abundance of objective evidence supporting that: a car has been specifically designed by human intelligence, for the purpose of travel.

That we see 'order' amongst the set of the shapes of planets, implies the possibility of our own intelligence distinguishing a set of physical laws having attributes of predictability, across the observable universe that we can understand. The notion that there exists a purpose beyond our own understanding of those universal laws, can be shown as being a belief held by the same conscious, wilful-power-possessing, intelligent human minds.

Answer for the third paragraph:

As I mentioned in the examples above, the fact that you dont see molecules combining and forming complex patterns being carried out by a conscious willful power at that very moment does not mean itis not happening that way. You also dont see who or how these words are being written to you, yet you think that a human is writing them, because you were designed by a conscious willful power to act according to info, and the info you have tells you that a human is the one writing these.

The words I see, convey in-common, shared meanings amongst our conscious, wilful-power-possessing, intelligent human minds. (There's abundant objective evidence supporting this conclusion). I infer that a human mind has conveyed thoughts via the meanings and usage of in-common, shared words (language). I can also test for the development of human language for specific human purposes, over recorded history.

The meanings conveyed in the claim: 'you were designed by a conscious willful power to act according to info', is not an objectively untestable proposition, yet I understand its meaning. I infer from observation, that a human mind has conveyed those thoughts to me. The only possible conclusion I can draw from this, is that the proposition satisfies an objectively testable definition of 'a human belief'.

Where, by 'a belief' there, I use the operational definition:
'A belief is any notion held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests, and is not beholden to the rules of logic'. (Objective tests, followed by the application of logic rules, is a necessary condition).

 

[SelfSim]

@The_Order:

Its worthwhile recommending your consideration of the demonstrable fact that Science does not use logic to create its fundamental models. My last post was based on the scientific approach .. but without the benefit of this distinction, one won't readily recognise that.

Science uses logic within its models .. they are logical syntaxes .. but it does not use that logic to create those models.
This is trivially obvious; one can see this in any elementary description of the scientific method vs. the logical syntax of mathematics ... they are visibly different.
Science establishes its fundamental models on tested results and observations .. not logical propositions.

 

[partinobodycular]

Then you're posting under the wrong flag.

It might seem that way, and I'm glad if it does, but no, of all the available 'flags' agnostic is definitely the one that fits me best. Not that I'd object to being described as a Christian, or a Daoist, or a Hindu, or simply a stoic for that matter. But which one should I choose if I'd happily ascribe to any philosophy or theology who has a core tenet that includes the doctrine of loving thy neighbor as thyself?

As Paul said in 1 Corinthians, 'I have become all things to all people'... because to me it's not the name that matters, it's the compassion that matters, it's living one's life in the 'manner' of a Christian that matters, but not necessarily living it in the name of a Christian.

So why 'Agnostic'? Because the one thing that I can't deny, is that I'm trapped in what philosophers refer to as an 'egocentric predicament'. I.E. I can never gain a perspective outside of my own mind. I am therefore, by my very nature, an epistemological solipsist, which is essentially agnosticism followed to its logical conclusion.

I can by choice attempt to be a Christian, or a Daoist, or a Muslim... but I can never choose to be anything other than an agnostic, because there will always be certain essential things about me, and about reality, that I simply cannot know. I'm an agnostic, simply because I'm human.

Hence the flag 'Agnostic'.

Wife and I are in our advanced age, and believe me, we're well ministered to.

As I said, anytime that I see someone caring for the elderly, or the needy, or the homeless, or the abused... I see evidence of God. Not God as you may imagine Him to be, but God as I imagine Him to be. So it makes me wonder why you would look for such evidence on a dollar bill, when far greater evidence exists all around you.

Would you know it, if Micah 6:8 was being employed?

Unfortunately, I miss so much of the good that people do, precisely because it's done with humility. Alas, it's not a clanging cymbal, and so I often fail to notice. But what I try not to do, is to overlook it simply because it wasn't performed by someone who carried the title of Christian. I try very hard to see it in everyone.

But, as I said, I do see glimmers, and I treasure them very, very much.

What about hating the things God hates?

I'll leave that to God, lest I be so overwhelmed by hating my fellow man that I forget to love them. But what I will do, is try my best to live by the principles of Micah 6:8, and leave the hating to God.

As they say, be wary of becoming the thing that you hate... i.e that which grieves God.

 

[dlamberth]

This is precisely why we invented science in the first place -- to sort out our imagine scenarios from reality and stick to real data. I don't know how this gets you to your proof of god.

I'm having the hardest time understanding anything that Order has presented is proof of God. I just don't see it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm having the hardest time understanding anything that Order has presented is proof of God. I just don't see it.

It's a standard (and weak) form of argument common among Islamic apologists. We hear Christians do it too. It's not a good argument (as should be clear). It works like this:

1. Assert order can only come from intelligence.
2. Demonstrate there is order.
3. Show scale of order (laws of physics, etc.) is so vast that intelligence must be god-like
4. Bingo! God must be true.

It is much like the design argument the creationists like to make with "design" instead of "order".

 

[Gene2memE]

Fair enough, but I think we may have different assumptions of what makes something "True". For me just because we don't currently have evidence of something, doesn't make it "False".

There's no reason for me to even suppose the involvement of intelligence in these interactions, or even consider it as a possibility. I can only start to rule it in when there are reasons to. So, what have you got?

There are many obvious examples of this when we look back in history. For example just because early physicians had no idea about bacteria or viruses, doesn't mean they didn't exist then. I think the only honest answer we can give about whether intelligence is involved is "We don't know".

"We don't know" is fine as an answer. But, "we don't know, and there's no evidence to support any such hypothesis" is even better, as it happens to be a more accurate (and honest) description.

 

[stevevw]

Believing God is not a problem with the mind, nor with the intelligence, but with the heart that is wicked, heardened like a stone. Share the gospel and pray to God to have mercy on the sinner.

Your right in a way because if we are honest and step back from science itself we see that this is but one way of knowing the truth. Its a particular way of seeing reality without any supernatural causes. That in itself when viewed in the overall scheme of the different ways we can know reality is a belief itself.

 

[stevevw]

It's a standard (and weak) form of argument common among Islamic apologists. We hear Christians do it too. It's not a good argument (as should be clear). It works like this:

1. Assert order can only come from intelligence.
2. Demonstrate there is order.
3. Show scale of order (laws of physics, etc.) is so vast that intelligence must be god-like
4. Bingo! God must be true.

It is much like the design argument the creationists like to make with "design" instead of "order".

Its a bit like Dawkins famous quote, 'life has the appearence of design'. But its not because of natural selection. Natural selection can create life that looks designed but its not designed for a purpose.

 

[The_Order]

This is precisely why we invented science in the first place -- to sort out our imagine scenarios from reality and stick to real data. I don't know how this gets you to your proof of god.

I have explained what I needed to explain, from here on its up to the persons own effort and intention. Also we are not inventing science, science is just the stuff we observe and notice in life. They were already there, we just discovered them.

 

[BCP1928]

I have explained what I needed to explain, from here on its up to the persons own effort and intention. Also we are not inventing science, science is just the stuff we observe and notice in life. They were already there, we just discovered them.

No, science is how we observe and notice, not what we observe and notice.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have explained what I needed to explain, from here on its up to the persons own effort and intention. Also we are not inventing science, science is just the stuff we observe and notice in life. They were already there, we just discovered them.

You have explained exactly nothing. You have provided no evidence. You haven't even come close to an explanation. At best (if I am generous, and I often am) is an argument from personal incredulity.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have explained exactly nothing. You have provided no evidence. You haven't even come close to an explanation. At best (if I am generous, and I often am) is an argument from personal incredulity.

The_Order, be careful making good points.

You'll end up on their IGNORE list.

And I'm speaking from experience here.

 

[The_Order]

The_Order, be careful making good points.

You'll end up on their IGNORE list.

And I'm speaking from experience here.

I really dont care, maybe you will never see me again. I am just checking if there is anyone who is still genuinely interested. I try to keep my ego out of this as much as possible. People generally dont even try to understand, the only thing they focus on is trying to come up with opposing arguments.

 

[SelfSim]

I really dont care, maybe you will never see me again. I am just checking if there is anyone who is still genuinely interested. I try to keep my ego out of this as much as possible. People generally dont even try to understand, the only thing they focus on is trying to come up with opposing arguments.

And if what you say there is not all about protecting your own ego, then I don't know what is?

 

[Discussion]

I really dont care, maybe you will never see me again. I am just checking if there is anyone who is still genuinely interested. I try to keep my ego out of this as much as possible. People generally dont even try to understand, the only thing they focus on is trying to come up with opposing arguments.

Apologies, I'm just joining this conversation now. I'm going to focus on this list of evidence you gave just for now:
1. the Bible
This proves exactly nothing there are many other religious texts the fact that one exists does not make it true.
2. time divided into BC & AD
This only proves that Christianity has been the religion of the conquering world (not very Christian of them).
3. organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army
There are some wonderful Christian charities, there are also wonderful non-christian charities whether that be atheist or another religion.
4. hospitals built by Christian organizations
Same as above there are nice Christian hospitals and nice non-christian hospitals. I don't really see what you're getting at here?
5. Christian artwork, edifices, statuary, and literature
There is indeed lots of this but there's also a lot of this for all other religions but regardless the fact there is a culture around something doesn't make it true.
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins
Christianity is indeed the leading religion in the west. This proves nothing.
7. UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance
Ironically this was only adder in 1954 during a period of extensive Christian lobbying (it's actually very intesting would reccomend reading up on it).
8. the Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public
Christians do like to be very public with their ideas, this also means nothing.
9. Christmas & Easter
A religion has holidays wow (you're probably getting at something else here but I don't know what it is)
10. symbols on bumper stickers and flags
There are lots of different stickers and things on flags this does not make what they represent true in any way.
11. public debates in the name of Christianity
Christians are trying to save people as they are told to in the bible this is not shocking at all (how could this possibly be evidence for God)
12. crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ
Same as above
13. two major nations founded on His existence
I actually don't know which 2 you're referring to but nations being founded is not very surprising.
14. martyrs
There are martyrs for many things, I imagine you're talking about those who actually lived around the time of Jesus but there is no reliable evidence of those.
15. Christians & Jews
That they exist? People from other religions exist.

I imagine you're going for a cumulative case for Christianity here but there being a religion that was that of the conquering world is popular and has had influence is really not surprising at all, this basically just proves it is popular not even that God exists or even that Christianity is true.

Have a beautiful day.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

13. two major nations founded on His existence
I actually don't know which 2 you're referring to but nations being founded is not very surprising.

First off: that list isn't @The_Order's, it's @AV1611VET's.

Secondly, this part of the list, he's referring to the United States of America (which is kind of a no-brainer if you pay attention to the whole 'IN GOD WE TRUST' thing) and Israel.

 

[AV1611VET]

I imagine you're going for a cumulative case for Christianity here but there being a religion that was that of the conquering world is popular and has had influence is really not surprising at all, this basically just proves it is popular not even that God exists or even that Christianity is true.

There was once a man who captured a Leprechaun and forced him to reveal where he hid his pot of gold.

It was hidden at the base of a tree, deep in the woods.

After tying a yellow ribbon around the tree, he made the Leprechaun promise he wouldn't touch it.

He then went to his truck and got a shovel and came back.

To his horror, the Leprechaun had tied a yellow ribbon around every tree in the forest.

Think about it.

Have a beautiful day.

And you too as well.

Stay away from iron pyrite though.

It can trick you into believing you're rich.

 

[AV1611VET]

First off: that list isn't @The_Order's, it's @AV1611VET's.

Secondly, this part of the list, he's referring to the United States of America (which is kind of a no-brainer if you pay attention to the whole 'IN GOD WE TRUST' thing) and Israel.

JERUSALEM !!!

 

[Discussion]

First off: that list isn't @The_Order's, it's @AV1611VET's.

Secondly, this part of the list, he's referring to the United States of America (which is kind of a no-brainer if you pay attention to the whole 'IN GOD WE TRUST' thing) and Israel.

My bad I must have misread, I had thought Isreal but I couldn't think of the second one as:
Treaty of Tripoli 1797

Drafted by Ambassador Joel Barlow (March 24, 1754 – December 26, 1812) who was an American poet and Jeffersonian republican.

Ratified 1797 unanimously by the Senate with NO OBJECTION as to language.

Signed 1798 by President John Adams

Article 11

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

 

[Discussion]

There was once a man who captured a Leprechaun and forced him to reveal where he hid his pot of gold.

It was hidden at the base of a tree, deep in the woods.

After tying a yellow ribbon around the tree, he made the Leprechaun promise he wouldn't touch it.

He then went to his truck and got a shovel and came back.

To his horror, the Leprechaun had tied a yellow ribbon around every tree in the forest.

Think about it.



And you too as well.

Stay away from iron pyrite though.

It can trick you into believing you're rich.

Presumably you're attempting to say that the gold is under one of the trees but confusingly admitting that we don't know which tree it's under. I believe this is disanalogous as there is no "gold" under any of the trees. My point was that assuming there was "gold" you wouldn't know which one it was under as you seem to understand.