Does God Exist? - Beliefs & Evidence

[H2O]

Why?

Hi everybody...

Ok so this is a first posting...

The question of "Does God exist?" Well what a hummdinger...
Most people look at this question and go... Big Bang! And they all
tried so hard to make it stick, and it did. Even I think the big bang
theory is quite plausible, but here is the silly question that just
begged for asking once we were introduced to the big bang theory:

"What or whom caused the big bang? Where did all that matter
come from and how did it originate?"




Despite of these and the other multitude of questions that surround this topic, I do not think that God can be explained or noted as
a something or somebody. I think it is a force that has many names
given through small amounts of understanding.
God is not a whom or an It, God is a Why?
Why?
The most content soul would be the one who holds the answer to why?
Ever wonder if Science isn't just another form of curiosity, a need
to know why? A study of everything?
We do not even know what exactly holds atoms together, we still cannot
say what exactly causes gravity, and yet we presume to know why?
I think there are answers out there, but we do not see them yet because we are not ready. To not know, is belief in itself.

Ok folks, so... that may not make sense, but that was not the aim of
my little ditty...


H2O

 

[Pseudonym]

Originally posted by Eh
. . . evolution is a theory that a. explains the available evidence within a single consistent model and b. has made many successful testible predictions.

Eh, please explain (possibly on another thread if this is too off topic) for my uneducated self:

How does a "transition" animal survive the hundreds of genetic changes necessary to be considered a different species? What are the mathematical odds of this occurring for all the species alive today, given the frequency at which beneficial mutations take place?

Name a few testable predictions that the evolution model has made that cannot be explained by small-scale natural selection involving existing genetic material.

 

[FZ+]

How does a "transition" animal survive the hundreds of genetic changes necessary to be considered a different species?

Transition animals are a distraction. In evolutionary history species do not exist as distinct steps, and evolution is a continuous process. There are only general types of animals that have been stable over a longer period of time than others to appear as a separate type of fossil. It is hard to classify when one species ends, and another begins. That is part of the essence of evolutionary biology.

How does it survive? Easily. Drastic changes generally do not appear. In cases of so called irreducible complexity, scaffolding characteristics have been located - features that appeared, and then became redundant as the mechanism became more efficient.

What are the mathematical odds of this occurring for all the species alive today, given the frequency at which beneficial mutations take place?

Near certainty, since you did not define a time period. In bacteria/virus, new "species" appear daily.

Name a few testable predictions that the evolution model has made that cannot be explained by small-scale natural selection involving existing genetic material.

Evolution is small scale natural selection. Evolutionists deny the existence of a barrier between small scale evolution, and this evolution accumulating to "species changes". Mutation can also not be denied, making "existing genetic material" an idealistic impossibility.

 

[scott]

It has been demonstrated that the existence of God can be neither proved nor disproved. In order to form a valid deductive proof, it must be built on premises which have been established as true. Since we cannot observe God, we cannot obtain any empirical evidence with which to establish premises upon which we can all agree. Therefore, we cannot draw any conclusions one way or the other about the existence of God.

What I think this boils down to is two paradigms of thought - faith vs. skepticism. Faith is believing in the absence of physical proof, or simply believing what you are told. Skeptics question everything. Science is founded on skepticism. No idea is generally accepted until it passes scrutiny, and ideas can be overturned based on new evidence.

Faith on the other hand, accepts information on its face in an unquestioning way.

Consider this text taken from a religious website:

One of the strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. These future predictions are called “prophecies.” The Old Testament was written between approximately 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by God’s prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other “sacred writing” has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future.

This argument was not written for an audience of skeptics. Can you imagine any serious scientist making claims about anything ever having 100% accuracy, or "perfect" predictions? However, if you were given to faith-type reasoning, you'd likely read this and think - "hey, that sounds good to me", while the skeptic would never accept such claims on their face.

 

[Thallium]

And then again, evolution is a THEORY, not directly a justifiable truth. We can find evidence for almost all theories we make up(incl. evolution) as long as we do not find anything in nature that makes our theoru impossible or unlikeable. Therefore all theories might be true - to our eyes.

That was a little digression. I had to let it out.

 

[ewoodlief]

Originally posted by dodik
This is a physics forum. There is a thing on the internet called religion forums. I am sure they would love to hear your ideas.

Remember, this particular thread is about the philosophy of God's existence. It is not about whether or not God does or does not exist. If on the other hand, philosophy is said not to belong in a physics forum, in general, then consider this: religion is increasingly taking on the form of metaphysics which require a physical framework in order to be applied to reality. And science and religion do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive.

I am reading this thread not because I believe or do not believe in the existence of God, but because I am curious as to how others have approached such a logical proof (from a philosophical point of view.)