Scientific Evidence of God

...every time you try to say you have some sort of scientific explanation for something supernatural.
Click to expand...

I think you are presuming too much here. First of all, I haven't given a scientific explanation for anything. I presented scientific evidence, information you can use to determine whatever you like. You also presume something is "supernatural" when you haven't proved that conclusion. Things are said to be "supernatural" when they are outside human understanding of the natural world. In any event, human behavior and animal behavior, are certainly not supernatural, and that was the basis of my argument.
 
Dixie said:
Atheists often suggest there is no scientific evidence of God, and that theory can't even be entertained because it lacks the testable observations required for a hypothesis. I think this is a total load of crap, espoused by fools who simply don't want to admit they might be wrong.

The specific branch of science we can look to, is the study of animal behavior. After careful observation and study of a variety of creatures, one thing we consistently see is, animals behave in a certain way for a reason. There is no such thing (as far as we can tell) as a behavior without purpose or reason, in any species we've observed. If the animal is behaving normally, and functioning within the parameters of normalcy, any behavior exhibited is of purpose and reason. Sometimes, it may take us years to discover what the reason for a specific behavior is, but eventually it is found there is a purpose and reason for it.

Darwin's own collection of theories on evolution, also attest to this principle. Darwin theorizes that behaviors not conducive with survival, are discarded by the species. Retained are behaviors which promote survival of the species. This is defined by Darwin as "natural selection" and is a huge part of his theory of evolution. So the scientific evidence is clear, species behave a certain way for a reason, every behavioral characteristic is with purpose, otherwise, it would have long been discarded by the species.

If we study a history of human spirituality, the belief in something greater than man, we find that it parallels with the very history of civilized man. From the earliest human civilizations, we find evidence of human worship, and this behavior continues throughout the history of man. Certain periods of history are full of violent upheavals and persecution, mostly over religious beliefs. Through all the religiously-based wars, through all the assorted attempts to strip man's faith in what he worships, mankind continues to worship, it is a behavior that can't be suppressed. If Darwin is correct, this behavior in man most certainly serves a vital purpose and role in the survival of the species.

I believe this is the clearest scientific evidence we have, there is a God. If there were not a God, mankind would have no real compelling reason to continue a belief in God. However, mankind will risk his own death to maintain his spiritual beliefs. There is such a fundamental connection between man and spiritual beliefs, that nothing has ever been able to erase this behavior in the species, in spite of monumental efforts to do so.
Click to expand...


What a load of illogical bullshit. Science is the study of natural phenomena. God, by definition, is supernatural, and there is no scientific evidence of the existence r nonexistence of the supernatural. If there was, It would not be supernatural. It isn't the atheists who can't admit they might be wrong, but the superstitious ignoramuses who try to pervert language, logic, and science to "prove" their invisible man in the sky exists. They simultaneously try to establish that a) faith is the equivalent of knowledge, and b) there is no such thing as knowledge. The incoherence of such a moronic position hasm clearly escaped them. They also talk of "subjective evidence," as if such a thing could even exist. Evidence can only be objective. Deal with it.

In the screed/rant/idiotic blather (pick one) quoted above, the author bases his/her/its specious reasoning on what logicians call the Fallacy of Division, which is the invalid conclusion that because a whole has a certain property, that all its parts must also possess that property. Specifically, the false conclusion is that since behavior writ large is genetically programmed to further the continued existence of the species exhibiting that behavior, that every behavior has survival value. Not only is this logically fallacious and invalid reasoning, it is also factually false, and exhibits a clear misunderstanding of the mechanics of natural selection. Nowhere did Darwin claim that all behaviors have survival value. Quite the contrary. He specifically touched on behaviors that are survival neutral, or even have negative survival value. The latter occur when changing environmental factors render whagt used to be a trait with a positive survival value into one that threatens the species' survival. Oh, and by the way, Einstein, populations of organisms don't "discard" traits that are disadvantageous. Those displaying the deleterious trait die and don't pass the trait on. Furthermore, the elimination of a deleterious trait doesn't occur overnight. It can take millennia for a disadvantageous trait to disappear. Take for example the kind of delusional mental incapacity required to insist not only on the existence of something for which there is not one shred of objective evidence, but also to insist upon pain of death that all others not only accept that delusion, but embrace it. If we don't believe in your invisible playmate, you claim it is because we are under the influence of your playmate's invisible enemy (which he is for some reason unable to destroy, despite allegedly being the supreme being in the universe, and the creator of both the universe and his enemy. WTF?), and apparently, this means that we must be put to death as servants of this invisible enemy we don't even believe exists, because since you are so sure he exists, and you are incapablre of being mistaken on this point, that for anyone to claim a disbelief in the enemy's existece is proof of their deception and service to the invisible enemy of your invisible playmate, so they must die. Unless of course they confess, in which case they die, but less horribly. Oh, goodie.

Trust me, the rest of us have been waiting centuries for you deluded, violent, ignorant, psychotic fucks to die off, but evolution seems to be taking its sweet time on eliminating your peculiar faulty gene. Bummer.
 
zoombwaz said:
What a load of illogical bullshit. Science is the study of natural phenomena. God, by definition, is supernatural, and there is no scientific evidence of the existence r nonexistence of the supernatural. If there was, It would not be supernatural. It isn't the atheists who can't admit they might be wrong, but the superstitious ignoramuses who try to pervert language, logic, and science to "prove" their invisible man in the sky exists. They simultaneously try to establish that a) faith is the equivalent of knowledge, and b) there is no such thing as knowledge. The incoherence of such a moronic position hasm clearly escaped them. They also talk of "subjective evidence," as if such a thing could even exist. Evidence can only be objective. Deal with it.

In the screed/rant/idiotic blather (pick one) quoted above, the author bases his/her/its specious reasoning on what logicians call the Fallacy of Division, which is the invalid conclusion that because a whole has a certain property, that all its parts must also possess that property. Specifically, the false conclusion is that since behavior writ large is genetically programmed to further the continued existence of the species exhibiting that behavior, that every behavior has survival value. Not only is this logically fallacious and invalid reasoning, it is also factually false, and exhibits a clear misunderstanding of the mechanics of natural selection. Nowhere did Darwin claim that all behaviors have survival value. Quite the contrary. He specifically touched on behaviors that are survival neutral, or even have negative survival value. The latter occur when changing environmental factors render whagt used to be a trait with a positive survival value into one that threatens the species' survival. Oh, and by the way, Einstein, populations of organisms don't "discard" traits that are disadvantageous. Those displaying the deleterious trait die and don't pass the trait on. Furthermore, the elimination of a deleterious trait doesn't occur overnight. It can take millennia for a disadvantageous trait to disappear. Take for example the kind of delusional mental incapacity required to insist not only on the existence of something for which there is not one shred of objective evidence, but also to insist upon pain of death that all others not only accept that delusion, but embrace it. If we don't believe in your invisible playmate, you claim it is because we are under the influence of your playmate's invisible enemy (which he is for some reason unable to destroy, despite allegedly being the supreme being in the universe, and the creator of both the universe and his enemy. WTF?), and apparently, this means that we must be put to death as servants of this invisible enemy we don't even believe exists, because since you are so sure he exists, and you are incapablre of being mistaken on this point, that for anyone to claim a disbelief in the enemy's existece is proof of their deception and service to the invisible enemy of your invisible playmate, so they must die. Unless of course they confess, in which case they die, but less horribly. Oh, goodie.

Trust me, the rest of us have been waiting centuries for you deluded, violent, ignorant, psychotic fucks to die off, but evolution seems to be taking its sweet time on eliminating your peculiar faulty gene. Bummer.
Click to expand...

Well said. I would add that for either 'side' to endeavour to change the other is firstly self defeating and secondly against the basic beliefs of both.
There are people, and I know many, who would be unable to function without a belief in the supernatural. I would not dream of destroying what little hope they have even if it has been manufactured and fed to them on little spoons. Similarly for a believer to argue the point and to try to impose his views on the non believer flies in the face of what he believes. The destruction caused by the insistence that 'you become like me' or that 'I become like you' is legendary.
Although it has served, in the past, to limit populations to some degree!!
 
zoombwaz said:
What a load of illogical bullshit. Science is the study of natural phenomena. God, by definition, is supernatural, and there is no scientific evidence of the existence r nonexistence of the supernatural. If there was, It would not be supernatural.
Click to expand...

The supernatural is anything outside human understanding of the natural world. Mr. Spock would conclude, it is illogical to assume we know all about the natural world. We've already gone over "existence" and if you mean "physical existence" then you are correct, there is no scientific evidence to suggest a physical existence of God. I stated that in my well-founded post.

It isn't the atheists who can't admit they might be wrong, but the superstitious ignoramuses who try to pervert language, logic, and science to "prove" their invisible man in the sky exists. They simultaneously try to establish that a) faith is the equivalent of knowledge, and b) there is no such thing as knowledge. The incoherence of such a moronic position hasm clearly escaped them. They also talk of "subjective evidence," as if such a thing could even exist. Evidence can only be objective. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

We've already been over the "superstitious" charges, if human spirituality were mere superstition, 95% of all humans, wouldn't worship something. We can scientifically observe the phenomenon of superstitions over the course of human history, and we find they eventually fade into novelty, every time. Human spirituality is quite different, in spite of your total lack of understanding regarding it.

Oh, I understand you have to be hateful and vitriolic about God, it's part of your godless ideology to be like that. You are probably also rude and inconsiderate of others, selfish and self-absorbed... most people like you are.

In the screed/rant/idiotic blather (pick one) quoted above, the author bases his/her/its specious reasoning on what logicians call the Fallacy of Division, which is the invalid conclusion that because a whole has a certain property, that all its parts must also possess that property. Specifically, the false conclusion is that since behavior writ large is genetically programmed to further the continued existence of the species exhibiting that behavior, that every behavior has survival value. Not only is this logically fallacious and invalid reasoning, it is also factually false, and exhibits a clear misunderstanding of the mechanics of natural selection. Nowhere did Darwin claim that all behaviors have survival value.
Click to expand...

Where did I ever state that Darwin claimed this? Where did I ever claim it? Do all behaviors have to be vital to survival? I didn't say that, and clearly, you are surviving without spirituality, so the evidence against that is self-evident. Only an idiot would make such a point, and apparently, only an idiot would assume someone is making that point.

Every behavior does have a point and purpose. That is what I stated, and that is true. If you'd like to dispute this, you need something from science to show me, otherwise my point stands. Score: Dixie 2 Pinhead 0

Quite the contrary. He specifically touched on behaviors that are survival neutral, or even have negative survival value. The latter occur when changing environmental factors render whagt used to be a trait with a positive survival value into one that threatens the species' survival. Oh, and by the way, Einstein, populations of organisms don't "discard" traits that are disadvantageous. Those displaying the deleterious trait die and don't pass the trait on. Furthermore, the elimination of a deleterious trait doesn't occur overnight. It can take millennia for a disadvantageous trait to disappear. Take for example the kind of delusional mental incapacity required to insist not only on the existence of something for which there is not one shred of objective evidence, but also to insist upon pain of death that all others not only accept that delusion, but embrace it.
Click to expand...

Not many humans have died from over-worshiping, so it's obviously not detrimental to the species. In fact, it is human spirituality which gives us humanity, benevolence and compassion. In literally billions of case studies, believers in something greater than self, report a fulfillment and sense of comfort and stability from their experience. This might inspire them to accomplish greatness, or contribute something to humanity as a result. But it may do nothing more than fill an emptiness or void, and allow the person to cope with life in general. It is hard to argue with the evidence of how important spirituality is to man and mankind.

{Skipped the anti-religion rant}

Trust me, the rest of us have been waiting centuries for you deluded, violent, ignorant, psychotic fucks to die off, but evolution seems to be taking its sweet time on eliminating your peculiar faulty gene. Bummer.
Click to expand...

No, you've been waiting more than centuries, you've been waiting since the dawn of civilized man, and you will wait a lot longer too. Human spirituality is something that has been with mankind since the beginning of mankind, and I seriously doubt mankind would last long without it.
 
am i the only one thats going to point out that we're only discussing the monotheistic religions? what if there are multiple gods? what if, god forbid (hehehe), god is a woman? this is my entire issue with the "intelligent design" theory, if you can call it that. who or what is the intelligence that supposedly designed us and the world?

since there is no proof for any of single religion's superior being(s) (man or woman, one or many), the only thing we could maybe agree on is that there is a higher power that designed us. then comes the argument about which religion is right. i would advocate that until the various religions of the world are made into 1 single religion, we put this discussion on hold.
 
Luckily, we don't need the God Delusion to live moral lives.

Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.

People who insist on god do so to say god sanctifies the oppressive hierarchical structures that elitists love so much.
 
MOe said:
am i the only one thats going to point out that we're only discussing the monotheistic religions? what if there are multiple gods? what if, god forbid (hehehe), god is a woman? this is my entire issue with the "intelligent design" theory, if you can call it that. who or what is the intelligence that supposedly designed us and the world?

since there is no proof for any of single religion's superior being(s) (man or woman, one or many), the only thing we could maybe agree on is that there is a higher power that designed us. then comes the argument about which religion is right. i would advocate that until the various religions of the world are made into 1 single religion, we put this discussion on hold.
Click to expand...

I have always laughed at the idea that God must be a man. As if gender were an issue.

Everyone believes that their faith is the ONLY accurate one, and everyone else is either misguided or have been duped by the devil.
 
Dixie said:
Atheists often suggest there is no scientific evidence of God, and that theory can't even be entertained because it lacks the testable observations required for a hypothesis. I think this is a total load of crap, espoused by fools who simply don't want to admit they might be wrong.

The specific branch of science we can look to, is the study of animal behavior. After careful observation and study of a variety of creatures, one thing we consistently see is, animals behave in a certain way for a reason. There is no such thing (as far as we can tell) as a behavior without purpose or reason, in any species we've observed. If the animal is behaving normally, and functioning within the parameters of normalcy, any behavior exhibited is of purpose and reason. Sometimes, it may take us years to discover what the reason for a specific behavior is, but eventually it is found there is a purpose and reason for it.

Darwin's own collection of theories on evolution, also attest to this principle. Darwin theorizes that behaviors not conducive with survival, are discarded by the species. Retained are behaviors which promote survival of the species. This is defined by Darwin as "natural selection" and is a huge part of his theory of evolution. So the scientific evidence is clear, species behave a certain way for a reason, every behavioral characteristic is with purpose, otherwise, it would have long been discarded by the species.

If we study a history of human spirituality, the belief in something greater than man, we find that it parallels with the very history of civilized man. From the earliest human civilizations, we find evidence of human worship, and this behavior continues throughout the history of man. Certain periods of history are full of violent upheavals and persecution, mostly over religious beliefs. Through all the religiously-based wars, through all the assorted attempts to strip man's faith in what he worships, mankind continues to worship, it is a behavior that can't be suppressed. If Darwin is correct, this behavior in man most certainly serves a vital purpose and role in the survival of the species.

I believe this is the clearest scientific evidence we have, there is a God. If there were not a God, mankind would have no real compelling reason to continue a belief in God. However, mankind will risk his own death to maintain his spiritual beliefs. There is such a fundamental connection between man and spiritual beliefs, that nothing has ever been able to erase this behavior in the species, in spite of monumental efforts to do so.
Click to expand...

this theory is not falsifiable and is therefore not a scientific theory
 
Dixie the whole state of Ala is laughing at you, ah the ones with more than a GED that is. God is a comic book charecter made for kids to be able to sleep at night.
 
MOe said:
am i the only one thats going to point out that we're only discussing the monotheistic religions? what if there are multiple gods? what if, god forbid (hehehe), god is a woman? this is my entire issue with the "intelligent design" theory, if you can call it that. who or what is the intelligence that supposedly designed us and the world?

since there is no proof for any of single religion's superior being(s) (man or woman, one or many), the only thing we could maybe agree on is that there is a higher power that designed us. then comes the argument about which religion is right. i would advocate that until the various religions of the world are made into 1 single religion, we put this discussion on hold.
Click to expand...

I am not actually discussing ANY specific religious belief. I have already stated, religion is merely mankind attempting to understand something it can't comprehend. Organized religion is simply a testament to human spirituality, they aren't one in the same, religion is the result of spirituality.

I think most people who believe in a higher power, do not believe that power is gender specific. That is a human characteristic, again, one man has applied to something he can't comprehend. We call God "He" because of our culture, not because we believe God has testicles.

I think there are other aspects about the gods we worship, which have been created by man in an attempt to explain what is incomprehensible. The notion that God cares if you worship him... Why would an omnipotent God care... about ANYTHING? God certainly wouldn't require acceptance or praise, those are things humans desire, God would have no need for them.

When it comes to intelligent design, we can set all of this aside, because ID doesn't necessarily mean "by a God." In arguments on origin of life and ID theory, I often mention the 'Ancient Aliens' theory. This is the belief that an ancient alien civilization visited Earth, and began the processes of life. Yeah, it's out there, but the point is, it's an ID theory that doesn't include God. So, it is possible to believe we were the product of intelligent design, without belief in a God. Designed by intelligence doesn't mean Designed by God.

I've left a lot of room for criticism of organized religion, it certainly has had its drawbacks through history. But my point was not about religion, it was about human spirituality, an attribute man has always had, and has never been without. From a purely scientific standpoint, the pathology suggests there is a vital reason humans worship.
 
Topspin said:
Dixie the whole state of Ala is laughing at you, ah the ones with more than a GED that is. God is a comic book charecter made for kids to be able to sleep at night.
Click to expand...

Topspin, if you would like to be the next pinhead who has the dubious honor of making my ignore list, just continue posting the empty insulting comments. I am here to discuss the issues and have intelligent debate, not to try and out-juvenile the nitwits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top