I will scientifically prove the existence of God to you

[Hans Blaster]

How do you know there is no intelligence involved in these phenomena?

What about the bond length in NaCl implies intelligence?

 

[jacks]

What about the bond length in NaCl implies intelligence?

Are we playing answer a question with a question? I think that is another forum.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are we playing answer a question with a question? I think that is another forum.

Nope, we are not. You are assuming something is based on intelligence, but you need to show *why* that thing implies intelligence. In this case, why crystal structures which are based on the uniformity of specific bond lengths, demonstrate an intelligence. So let me ask my question again:

What about the consistency of chemical bond lengths implies an intelligence behind those bond lengths?

 

[Gene2memE]

How do you know there is no intelligence involved in these phenomena?

Through observation. There is no evidence - direct or indirect - of any intelligence being involved in them. Nor of any intelligence being required for them.

Unless you'd like to suggest some?

As for me - ‘Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.

 

[AV1611VET]

What about the consistency of chemical bond lengths implies an intelligence behind those bond lengths?

Colossians 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

 

[partinobodycular]

Would you buy their story?

Nope, absolutely not. But I'm not John. Were you under the impression that I was claiming to be?

Or would you be like Thomas and refuse to believe unless you saw it yourself?

Obviously, I'm not Thomas either. Yet contrary to what it says in my profile I do consider myself to be a Christian, if not a very good one, and I didn't need stories told by disciples to get there, nor to place my fingers in His wounds, or to read about Him in a book. Loving thy neighbor is simply what my conscience was called to, and that calling isn't the product of evidence... it is the evidence.

You keep quoting the bible, or referring to the words 'In God we Trust' as if they're evidence... they're not. The evidence is you being compassionate, you being merciful, and you being humble.

So tell me again about all your supposed evidence.

 

[partinobodycular]

Hold on to those "glimmers", they are the Lord tapping you on the shoulder.

I don't just hold onto them, I treasure those suckers. I just wish that people knew how much.

 

[AV1611VET]

You keep quoting the bible, or referring to the words 'In God we Trust' as if they're evidence... they're not.

Then perhaps you're setting your standards too high?

What partievidencecular evidence would convince you?

The evidence is you being compassionate, you being merciful, and you being humble.

Sorry ... I'm not buying that.

If that were true, then Buddhism should have pushed you out of the agnostic realm, shouldn't it have?

So tell me again about all your supposed evidence.

1. the Bible
2. time divided into BC & AD
3. organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army
4. hospitals built by Christian organizations
5. Christian artwork, edifices, statuary, and literature
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins
7. UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance
8. the Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public
9. Christmas & Easter
10. symbols on bumper stickers and flags
11. public debates in the name of Christianity
12. crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ
13. two major nations founded on His existence
14. martyrs
15. Christians & Jews

 

[partinobodycular]

Then perhaps you're setting your standards too high?

I just said that I consider myself to be a Christian, perhaps you missed that.

What partievidencecular evidence would convince you?

A lot of little things, like a PRIDE flag in front of a church. A country caring for the homeless and needy. Or a community ministering to the elderly. Wherever Micah 6:8 is put into practice... there's evidence.

If that were true, then Buddhism should have pushed you out of the agnostic realm, shouldn't it have?

Ah, I see that I've confused you. My agnosticism concerns claims about the existence of the supernatural. And when it comes to that, I really don't care. Whereas my Christianity concerns the existence of empathy, and compassion, and mercy, and humility, and all the things that I've chosen to spend my life trying to exemplify... and mostly failing. But the goal isn't to succeed, the goal is simply to try.

If that means that I'm a Buddhist, then I'm a Buddhist. If it means that I'm a Daoist, then I'm a Daoist. If it means that I'm a Hindu, then I'm a Hindu. It's not about the name, it's about the desire.

And wherever I see that... I see a Christian.

 

[The_Order]

I am away from home and cant respond by reading the messages in detail but based on a general look, I can say this: you are making the same mistake most people tend to make. I call this mistake the "sailor-on-land syndrome."


In other words, if there is no immediate danger, if a person is within their comfort zone, they tend to ignore information and become captivated by imaginary scenarios.


"Sailor-on-land syndrome" is a term I came up with. I use it to describe the tendency to ignore real knowledge and instead follow obsessive, imaginary thoughts. This is something that comes from human nature. But a person must resist this tendency.


To give an example of this syndrome: when you cross the street, you check whether a car is coming. You observe, gather information, act accordingly. You dont just stand there getting lost in imaginary thoughts. You dont say, for example, "Maybe a truck is coming and I can explain that possibility using some obscure law someone once mentioned." or to mention the example that gave this syndrome its name: when a sailor is caught in a storm, he starts praying to God, because the human machine is designed that way. Under stress, we are inclined to act based on information, we use info to survive. But once the sailor escapes the storm and reaches the shore, he begins to ignore that same knowledge and starts chasing imaginary thoughts again.

When I am in a more comfortable environment, I will try to read the messages in detail and respond accordingly.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The main problem here is that you're trying to do two things at once: use science to prove something religious. By the nature of both, they cancel each other out.
Science cannot prove anything religious since science only deals with the natural world, and anything religious only deals with the supernatural and also faith, which is as the Bible describes "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1) (I'm just copying and pasting from the internet so the quote and the link given won't be the same word for word translation).

When you add science into anything, you practically invite people to come in and pick it apart from the scientific viewpoint, which is the exact opposite clearly for what you're trying to do here.

 

[SelfSim]

To give an example of this syndrome: when you cross the street, you check whether a car is coming. You observe, gather information, act accordingly. You dont just stand there getting lost in imaginary thoughts. You dont say, for example, "Maybe a truck is coming and I can explain that possibility using some obscure law someone once mentioned." or to mention the example that gave this syndrome its name:

When I go to cross the street, I look to see if something's coming. This is a test of the hypothesis of: 'A car might take me out!'
It follows the scientific method.
There's a theory that's already been tested there also, which makes the prediction of (something like): 'It is likely that stepping in front a speeding car will result in a person being taken out'.

when a sailor is caught in a storm, he starts praying to God, because the human machine is designed that way. Under stress, we are inclined to act based on information, we use info to survive.

The scientific thinker above, used a well tested theory to make a prediction and then tested the related hypothesis, in order to eliminate the likelihood of being taken out by a speeding car before stepping out.
That person used their knowledge of science to realise a survivable outcome.
Sailors take analogous actions in order to mitigate the effects of dangerous storm situations. It serves them well in the real world.

But once the sailor escapes the storm and reaches the shore, he begins to ignore that same knowledge and starts chasing imaginary thoughts again.

I don't forgot scientific theories that make predictions that have been well tested in objective reality .. like when I go to cross a busy street.
It has served me well throughout my life ... on countless situations .. I'm still here .. I'm still alive .. and I like knowing how to stay alive.

 

[The_Order]

Snowflakes. They have patterns to them. They aren't perfectly symmetrical, but they do have a degree of order. They formed from fairly disorderly water vapor. We've learned how snowflakes formed, and there was no intelligence directing their formation.

As another example, planets are rounded. A sphere is a pretty orderly shape. Planets aren't perfectly spherical, but they can sure look close to it from a distance. They are rounded by gravity, in a very understandable natural process. No intelligence is necessary to intervene in this process.

Molecules can combine together in nature to form complex patterns without intelligent intervention. I see so many things like this that I have to conclude that order can indeed arise naturally.

Now, I'm not ruling out an intelligence getting involved on some grand scale. However, you seem to be just asserting that order is established by intelligence/will/power, and I don't see the necessity for that.

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.

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.


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.

 

[AV1611VET]

I just said that I consider myself to be a Christian, perhaps you missed that.

Then you're posting under the wrong flag.

A lot of little things, like a PRIDE flag in front of a church.

That's like saying you'll consider me a good cop, if I'll assist when someone robs a bank.

Ezekiel 16:49a Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride,

A country caring for the homeless and needy.

From AI Overview:

The United States is the largest donor of humanitarian aid, providing billions of dollars annually, according to Pew Research Center and other major donors include the European Commission and Germany.

We're a Christian nation.

Or a community ministering to the elderly.

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

Wherever Micah 6:8 is put into practice... there's evidence.

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

Can a person walk humbly with God and demonstrate against sin simultaneously?

Ah, I see that I've confused you. My agnosticism concerns claims about the existence of the supernatural.

Fair enough.

My caption confuses people as well.

They tend to think I'm advertising an anti-science stance.

And when it comes to that, I really don't care. Whereas my Christianity concerns the existence of empathy, and compassion, and mercy, and humility, and all the things that I've chosen to spend my life trying to exemplify... and mostly failing. But the goal isn't to succeed, the goal is simply to try.

Okay ... so you follow the Golden Rule.*

What about hating the things God hates?

* Or go overboard with it.

If that means that I'm a Buddhist, then I'm a Buddhist. If it means that I'm a Daoist, then I'm a Daoist. If it means that I'm a Hindu, then I'm a Hindu. It's not about name, it's about the desire.

That's what got Eve into trouble.

And wherever I see that... I see a Christian.

Okie doke.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am away from home and cant respond by reading the messages in detail but based on a general look, I can say this: you are making the same mistake most people tend to make. I call this mistake the "sailor-on-land syndrome."


In other words, if there is no immediate danger, if a person is within their comfort zone, they tend to ignore information and become captivated by imaginary scenarios.


"Sailor-on-land syndrome" is a term I came up with. I use it to describe the tendency to ignore real knowledge and instead follow obsessive, imaginary thoughts. This is something that comes from human nature. But a person must resist this tendency.

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.

To give an example of this syndrome: when you cross the street, you check whether a car is coming. You observe, gather information, act accordingly. You dont just stand there getting lost in imaginary thoughts. You dont say, for example, "Maybe a truck is coming and I can explain that possibility using some obscure law someone once mentioned." or to mention the example that gave this syndrome its name: when a sailor is caught in a storm, he starts praying to God, because the human machine is designed that way. Under stress, we are inclined to act based on information, we use info to survive. But once the sailor escapes the storm and reaches the shore, he begins to ignore that same knowledge and starts chasing imaginary thoughts again.

When I am in a more comfortable environment, I will try to read the messages in detail and respond accordingly.

 

[Larniavc]

I am away from home and cant respond by reading the messages in detail but based on a general look, I can say this: you are making the same mistake most people tend to make. I call this mistake the "sailor-on-land syndrome."


In other words, if there is no immediate danger, if a person is within their comfort zone, they tend to ignore information and become captivated by imaginary scenarios.


"Sailor-on-land syndrome" is a term I came up with. I use it to describe the tendency to ignore real knowledge and instead follow obsessive, imaginary thoughts. This is something that comes from human nature. But a person must resist this tendency.


To give an example of this syndrome: when you cross the street, you check whether a car is coming. You observe, gather information, act accordingly. You dont just stand there getting lost in imaginary thoughts. You dont say, for example, "Maybe a truck is coming and I can explain that possibility using some obscure law someone once mentioned." or to mention the example that gave this syndrome its name: when a sailor is caught in a storm, he starts praying to God, because the human machine is designed that way. Under stress, we are inclined to act based on information, we use info to survive. But once the sailor escapes the storm and reaches the shore, he begins to ignore that same knowledge and starts chasing imaginary thoughts again.

When I am in a more comfortable environment, I will try to read the messages in detail and respond accordingly.

I think you are getting it backwards. You are asking people to imagine something is true when there is no evidence. The sailor in your metaphor is being asked to imagine that behind the mountains there are dragons.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

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.

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.


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.

So, you're going with "God of the gaps" then?

 

[AV1611VET]

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 disagree.

I believe science is an honorary gift bestowed upon some of us by God.

Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.

1 Corinthians 13:2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

 

[Yttrium]

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.

The formation of snowflakes is well-understood and can be observed under laboratory conditions.

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.

I said that they were in order, since they formed near-spherical shapes.

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.

We see molecules combining and forming in complex patterns due to fundamental physical forces, in processes that we understand quite well, with no intelligent intervention. Again, we can observe this in laboratory conditions.

Things can go into order around us simply due to physical principles. Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force. Molecules only combine in certain ways, and these ways will form patterns. The forces will mold clumps of matter into identifiable shapes. Since order does come about naturally, then order doesn't always require intelligent intervention.

 

[jacks]

Through observation. There is no evidence - direct or indirect - of any intelligence being involved in them. Nor of any intelligence being required for them.

Unless you'd like to suggest some?

As for me - ‘Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.

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 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".