The Good God Paradox

MayCaesar

Perhaps the god does not want to be found and wants people to live their lives their own way. So he makes sure that people preaching his existence do it in as illogical a way as possible, so everyone would think, "If that is the best arguments they can come up with, then god certainly does not exist".

Not saying that I find this hypothesis likely, but it is not completely impossible.

TruthSearcher

@MayCaesar your point has merit.

Happy_Killbot

@TruthSearcher Perhaps you can turn the question on its head, and suppose there is an evil god.

In this case, there is far too much good in the world for us to consider any potential gods evil, and we run into a similar problem.

Perhaps we are jumping the gun a little with these assumptions. What exactly is "good" and "evil"? Are they physical properties, like mass, charge, and spin? Or are they rather, human abstractions of what would help us to survive and cooperate with others?

I think it is very obvious that the latter is the case and good and evil are metaphysical constructs. This is evidenced by the fact that what might be good for one person (i.e stealing, stopping terrorism) is not always good for everyone (i.e. getting robbed, losing your rights and resources). Good and evil are relative.

To put a human label like "good" or "evil" onto any natural or supernatural forces is to anthropomorphize them. To me it seems much more likely that people invented gods and demons and then gave them human qualities to suit our needs, rather than the other way around.

TruthSearcher

@Happy_Killbot it is interesting that you contrast good and evil with  charge and spin. These “physical properties” are no less abstract. Don’t get me wrong, good and evil being relative is a defensible position, but I don’t believe contrasting that with charge and spin is the best comparison as they too are nothing but useful tools for humans in trying to understand the universe.

To be clear, the term “good” as I used it is meant to be defined in the sense that it is used in Judeo-Christian beliefs.To your point though, even that definition is not universally agreed upon.

Happy_Killbot

@TruthSearcher No matter who you are, where you are, or what you are, mass, charge and spin will always be the same physical properties, because they are not tools invented by man, but rather they are fundamental parts of reality, we can not just decide one day that these things do not exist and then they vanish, they were here long before us and will long outlast us. The words we use to describe them are arbitrary, however the underlying concepts which they describe are constant absolute truth, contingent only on the single assumption that reality exists.

That being said, can we say the same for good and evil?

Can you imagine a scenario where people invent gods as a means to justify their surroundings and provide explanations to the explainable, including things such as good and evil?

TruthSearcher

@Happy_Killbot how do you define reality in this assumption?

Happy_Killbot

@TruthSearcher Reality is the things that exist regardless of if we want them to or not. Everything which is not imaginary.

TruthSearcher

@Happy_Killbot the irony in that definition is that the only way existence could ever be defined is if you observed it to. Your very definition requires imagination for it to be true. How can you define something as having existed if you never observed it or its affects? The only reality is that for something to exist it must be imagined.

Happy_Killbot

@TruthSearcher
If reality requires imagination to exist, then nothing can exist which was not first imagined. Every day we see things that were never once thought of by anyone or anything.

At some point in the past people thought the world was flat.

Then they thought it was round and at the center of the cosmos.

We then thought the sun was at the center,

Then the galaxy,

then some distant point in the past.

Today there is evidence that in fact the universe as we know it was not the beginning, but only an infinitesimal shard in an infinitely repeating cosmos, which is itself embedded into a much greater multiverse.

At every stage, something was discovered which defied all expectations and revealed a reality beyond our wildest imaginations.

You don't have to observe reality for it to exist.

Happy_Killbot

@TruthSearcher

I think we are getting a little off topic here.

Can you imagine a scenario where people invent gods as a means to justify their surroundings and provide explanations to the explainable, including things such as good and evil?

TruthSearcher

@Happy_Killbot not sure we were as off topic as you think.  Your reality of the universe existing despite your being here is every bit as inventive as good and evil.

Happy_Killbot

@TruthSearcher

Is there any evidence that you would except, either explanation of an expert or demonstration via experimentation that reality exists regardless of your being here?

Dee

Since the first man ever came up with the idea of a god every type of god and every type of characteristic of proposed gods has been put forward as possibilities .

While maybe philosophically amusing what's the point as its all based on an assumption that a supernatural entity might  exist 

Dee

@TruthSearcher

I think one reality is certain and indisputable: our own individual reality which is intuitively perceived without the need to any empirical data or substantiation.

TruthSearcher

@Dee you are spot on with that last statement.

TruthSearcher

@Happy_Killbot I think you are missing my point. The point is that your observation is required in order to even define “reality “as you are defining it. From that perspective, reality itself, in your world is relative. See Dee’s last post.

Happy_Killbot

@TruthSearcher I understand perfectly well what you are saying, and I completely disagree.

Perhaps you have never known what it means to experience the world through the eyes of any other, have never peered into the mind and consciousness of any other person or being. The overwhelming majority of people never have tried, and only a privileged few will truly know what it means to be anyone but themselves.

There are numerous problems with the solipsistic worldview, most notably the fact that it denies the prospect of agency in any other individual. The second problem is that it fails to address what happens when that someone is not present or doesn't exist.

Consider, does your alarm clock work when you go to sleep? If not, how can it wake you up at the desired time? This simple objective truth demonstrates a major flaw in this line of reasoning. It shows that the world continues to exist regardless of if we are there to experience it, and we witness it every night when we sleep.

This does not point to a relative existence, but rather to an objective one.

The subjective experience we all observe and the qualia that go with them are not real, they represent reality the way that words represent meaning, but are themselves not real. The only reality we can be sure doesn't exist is the one we experience in our minds, and I can prove this in more than one way.

The first is through the understanding that light is the fastest anything can travel and that distant objects are well, distant. When you see an object you are seeing the light bounce off that object and enter your eye. This means you don't see the object now but rather as it was in the past. Everything you see now is in the past and no longer exists as you see it.

The second is personal for me, and perhaps not for you but it is for a large number of people. Perhaps you have encountered a thought experiment where someone asks if we all see colors the same, that is suppose someone sees green the way you see red, but we would bother recognize green and red for what they are, how would we know?

I can personally tell you that the answer to this is that it is 100% plausible, because I am one of those people who perceives colors differently in each eye. My left eye sees much more red and is better at seeing in the dark, my right eye sees more blue and is practically blind in the dark.

There are many more ways that we can demonstrate that the reality we perceive is false and an objective reality lies behind those perceptions. You do not need to imagine reality for it to exist, reality existed before any of us were born, it will continue after all of us are dead. That is the reality, and not just what I want to be true.

Sand

@TruthSearcher

Good question.

I can answer it if you explain the following:

Can matter give information?

Please give an example where matter gives information and adds it to or increases it in the genome.

TruthSearcher

@Happy_Killbot I am really just arguing the “brain in a vat” idea. Everything you know is simply a manifestation in your mind. You can’t be sure if you are in a VR world vs a real world. The 2 are indistinguishable from on another.

TruthSearcher

@Sand I’m sorry but I’m not sure I understand your question 

Happy_Killbot

@TruthSearcher Here is the thing though, even if the world is just a simulation or you are just a brain in a vat, there is still an external reality. This doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it off.

Either way there has to be an external reality that is objective and doesn't rely on us or our perceptions to exist.

No matter what, this is guaranteed. No one is the center of the universe, just another infinitesimal part of it.

TruthSearcher

@Happy_Killbot To that I will agree; however in acknowledging that possibility, you acknowledge that the physical laws we use to describe our observations may not define the objective reality you spoke of. It invites the possibility that other forces are at work in determining your observations.

Now then, getting back to my original post - given the possibility of god as one of those other forces, how can he or she expect us to believe in him or her when they have put us in this environment with our sense of logic - knowing that people are capable of making claims similar to that of the Bible, for instance.

Sand

@TruthSearcher ;

Obviously, genes have information.

https://www.britannica.com/science/allele

"Gene, unit of hereditary information that occupies a fixed position (locus) on a chromosome."

So some form of matter placed information in the Genes.

Please give an example where matter gives information and adds it to or increases it in the genome.

Happy_Killbot

@TruthSearcher I don't really understand what you are asking, I think we need to back up a bit here.

While it is possible that reality is somehow false, there is nothing to suggest this is the case, and even if it were, it wouldn't matter because it is useful to think that reality does exist and is not just a simulation or something similar, where the laws can change. We have never witnessed any changes in the laws of nature.

Given that no such changes have ever occurred, why would we assume then that there is some entity or external force which makes such changes, and in particular why assume that that entity should have gender and be either benevolent or evil?

TruthSearcher

@Happy_Killbot you ask a good question and I never said we should assume that. I am hoping someone can explain to me why we should.

Happy_Killbot

@TruthSearcher I don't think there is any answer to that question. The best answer I can think of has something to do with tradition and maintaining a lose idea of moral conduct. Neither of which are exactly suitable or satisfying.

TruthSearcher

@Sand Sorry, I missed your post.  How is that relevant to this discussion?

Happy_Killbot

@Sand ; I'm sorry, are you asking for a description of what a gene does exactly?

You question is very confusing, because first off DNA is matter, and because DNA can replicate itself and transfer information via RNA to create proteins, the technical answer would be itself then.

RNA can form through natural processes under the right conditions, and even reproduce itself naturally, although it is much slower than DNA replication in any advanced organism.

Sand

@TruthSearcher

In light of your debate.

>>>The Good God Paradox<<<

>>>In debating the existence of God in my own head throughout my life, one question I ask myself that I always stumble on is this: “Why would a good god immerse me in a sea of people that lie to take advantage of others and provide the only “proof” of his existence in the form of something that is indistinguishable from the works of those same people?” I can find no answer to that question.<<<

You are questioning God's existence.

That would mean to me that you have another take on how life came about.

In order to have life several things have to be in play, one of them is DNA.

If you take all the letters in any language at random and place them in a book you would not get anything.

If you take all the code in any program at random and place them on any computer you would not get anything.

If you take all the nucleotides in any DNA at random and place them in any cell you would not get anything.

Just for your information:

"DNA contains the instructions needed for an organism to develop, survive and reproduce. To carry out these functions, DNA sequences must be converted into messages that can be used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in our bodies. Each DNA sequence that contains instructions to make a protein is known as a gene. The size of a gene may vary greatly, ranging from about 1,000 bases to 1 million bases in humans. Genes only make up about 1 percent of the DNA sequence. DNA sequences outside this 1 percent are involved in regulating when, how and how much of a protein is made."

https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Deoxyribonucleic-Acid-Fact-Sheet

That is why DNA is referenced as information.

So your other take of how life came about would have to mean that matter provided that information.

That is why I asked:

Please give an example where matter gives information and adds it to or increases it in the genome.

It is ok if you cannot provide an example.

But that would mean that any and all information must have intellect, therefore intelligence is needed to start life.

That would address your question that there is more "proof" in the "existence of God".

But then again I am not sure you are honestly looking for an answer, this may be a rhetorical question.

I may be confused by your name Truth Searcher.

What do you think of my conclusion?

RickeyD

@TruthSearcher ; You live in a fallen-World with fallen-people who are inundated with sin and debauchery and this is no reflection on God's goodness but on man's rebellion and sin-nature. God is not far from you but you must possess a heart that truly desires to know God and wants His love and forgiveness to reign over your life; otherwise, God will remain an enigma to you and you will die in your sin without hope (John 8:24; John 3:16).

The first step in knowing God the Father is to acknowledge the truism that you're a sinner (Romans 3:23) in need of forgiveness and a Savior. You must be willing to repent of your sin and sincerely believe in your heart, confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is God who died to pay your sin-debt and that He was resurrected for your justification leading to eternal life (Romans 10:9-10). If you are willing to confess Jesus as Lord, you will receive the indwelling Holy Spirit who will instruct you in the ways of wisdom, discernment, peace, joy, assurance, knowledge, contentment via the process of sanctification (Ephesians 1:13; 1 John 2:27). Jesus is the ONLY Way to know God the Father and receive forgiveness of sin and life in Eternity (John 14:6)

Happy_Killbot

@Sand So I see what you are saying now.

I am no evolutionary biologist and no method proving abiogenesis has been proven to date.

Lets do a little thought experiment here: suppose in the future a scientist can prove that abiogenesis can occur, and then can to your satisfaction demonstrate that it could have led to all life on earth via evolution.

Would this then make you question or lose your god beliefs?

For the record, RNA (which can form naturally) can replicate itself, and it is possible that this could have occurred in a naturally formed membrane barrier.

https://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/10/9/a034801.full

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

If this scientist could demonstrate it without interaction. Yes, I would change my beliefs.

Nevertheless, let's continue the experiment: suppose the future scientist claimed he could demonstrate abiogenesis only to and set up the experiment and it doesn't work.

Would this then make you question or lose your evolution of species beliefs?

Happy_Killbot

@Sand

No, because it means that the experiment as the scientist set it up is not a way to cause abiogenesis, the way hitting things with a hammer doesn't cause abiogenesis.

This experiment has been done every moment of every day, and every time it fails, we know another way that abiogenesis doesn't occur.

I do not believe in evolution because I can observe it with my own eyes should I choose to.

Whenever insects gain immunity to pesticides, that is evolution at work.

Whenever we look at old art that shows watermelon with little or nor fruit and lots of pulp, compared to today's fruit which has lots of fruit, that is evolution at work.


Whenever we compare wild strawberries to the domestic variety and see that they are much bigger and juicer, that is evolution at play.


When fish change size and lose armor depending on water quality, we can observe them changing in just a few decades.


Then there are all the plants that we commonly eat that are completely different from their wild ancestor:


Here is the bottom line, evolution has been observed directly happening right before our eyes. Now you might argue that this is just micro evolution, and has nothing to do with macro evolution, or one species into another, but if we extrapolate these findings we come to the inevitable reality that a changing environment could cause macro evolution to occur over long time periods. To deny evolution would be to deny reality, and that is not something I can easily do, since if reality doesn't exist then anything goes and there is no such thing as 

Vaulk

TruthSearcher said:

In debating the existence of god in my own head throughout my life, one question I ask myself that I always stumble on is this: “Why would a good god immerse me in a sea of people that lie to take advantage of others and provide the only “proof” of his existence in the form of something that is indistinguishable from the works of those same people?” I can find no answer to that question.

I'm going to give this an honest shot so bare with me here.

Pretend you're a God.  Now pretend that you decide to create another living being that will do whatever you want because you desire something or someone to love.  Now pretend that your little created being is in this little world you've given to them and you're giving them everything.  They want water and food to drink and eat and poof...you provide it to them.  Now they want shelter and warmth and poof...you give it to them.  But now they're lonely because you're not actually there and they want someone else to socialize with, to bond with and to share with so poof you create them a little buddy.  Now your created beings are beebopping around by themselves on this little planet and you start to wonder "How can they love me if I'm forcing them to do it"?  So you decide to give your little people free will.  But then you start to wonder "How will I know that these free-willed creatures actually love me vs just depending on me for everything I give them"?

Similarly to the issue that very wealthy people have, "Are my friends spending time with me because they truly appreciate me or is it because I have unlimited wealth"?  

Since you've decided that true unconditional love is what you desire, you need your free-willed creatures to be able to decide whether or not they love you on their own accord...without your direct influence.  They'll still need guidance and direction so you send them a book to read with instructions on how to live a good life.  Your beings are free willed so they'll also need motivation for choosing to do what you want, influence is ok but forcing them would defeat the purpose of free will.  So you create a rewards system...much like parents do with children.  But your creatures only live for a short period of time...you can't keep the rewards system active indefinitely so you'll need a culmination point.  So you decide that, when they die, you'll review how they lived their life and decide whether they've lived a life worth rewarding with an eternal gift.  But some of your little creatures are not only choosing not to love you....they're choosing to be evil because it's within their free will mechanism...this is weird.  It seems that your creatures also need punishment.  As with children on your planet, as a parent you cannot simply have rewards with no punishment...so you decide to implement an eternal punishment for your creatures to influence them from turning away from you and down a path to evil. 

In the end, some choose good and some choose evil and while bad things happen on your little planet, you cannot intervene for the sake of preserving the ultimate free will choice.  After all, what's good without evil?  What is light without dark?  You notice that good people are really defined during hardship and strife, that's really when the good comes out of good people and they show their brilliant design...the ability to choose righteousness in the face of struggle.  So you keep your hands out of the cake mix and simply influence those who decide to love you with small indirect acts of kindness and compassion while they attempt to spread your book to those who are on the path to evil in an attempt to convince them to be good.

This is my best shot of explaining why a God would put you here on this planet with so many hardships.  If everything were good and no one ever got sick and babies always survived and everyone lived forever in bliss and contentment...there would be no reason to thank anyone for it...it would take a few years and everyone would take it for granted...because we're human.  

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

That's the same thing about creation.

Creation happens more than evolution.

Creation has been observed directly happening right before our eyes and more often than evolution. Now you might argue that this is just inventions, and has nothing to do or discussions, but if we extrapolate these findings we come to the inevitable reality that an intelligent being could cause life to exist. To deny creation would be to accept that man has all the answers to every question, and man will never have all the answers to every question.

Sounded cooler.

The Evolutionist is not supposed to say something is possible unless it is intuitively perceived with any empirical data or substantiation.

But we often find evolutionist teaching and claiming evolution of the species and abiogenesis is possible before substantiation, which is the definition of belief.

So Evolutionists lie about the results before substantiation in order to create a cycle of other believers.

It is very hypocritical to point at someone else's beliefs and lie that you do not go on beliefs.

You believe microevolution will eventually extrapolate.

Nevertheless, MayCeasar explained to you why that is not the case.

"People misunderstand this a lot. The principle according to which all possible states of the system will eventually be achieved assumes that the pathway to those states exists."

Basically he is saying it is an assumption a belief.

I am happy you continue to stand for your beliefs.

I am glad you work hard to find evidence to support your ideals.

Mostly because I like learning from you.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand The thing I have noticed about all the things that you provided is that none of them exist in nature. Human inventions do not just randomly form, or if they do it is only very rarely.

I think you misunderstand what MayCeasar is saying. What he is saying is that in order to get to C from A there must be some path, we will call B to get there. If no such path B exists, then there in no way to get to C from A.

However with evolution there is a very clear path which we have directly observed, as you can clearly see in all of the examples I provided:

The offspring sill be slightly different from the parents, and over time these changes can be very great. This isn't a belief, it is an observation based on overwhelming evidence.

Where is the evidence for a creator?

Vaulk

Happy_Killbot said:

@Sand The thing I have noticed about all the things that you provided is that none of them exist in nature. Human inventions do not just randomly form, or if they do it is only very rarely.

I think you misunderstand what MayCeasar is saying. What he is saying is that in order to get to C from A there must be some path, we will call B to get there. If no such path B exists, then there in no way to get to C from A.

However with evolution there is a very clear path which we have directly observed, as you can clearly see in all of the examples I provided:

The offspring sill be slightly different from the parents, and over time these changes can be very great. This isn't a belief, it is an observation based on overwhelming evidence.

Where is the evidence for a creator?

I think you've misunderstood the concept of a "Creator".  There is no evidence of a creator, at least not on par with evidence of what we know from Science.  The Creator concept is a supernatural concept "Beyond the understanding of Science".  It requires Faith which by definition would have no evidence to prove.

The true issue between the naturalistic and supernatural explanations of the origins of life or how life came to be and changed over time is that we mistakenly try to stand the two up against each other as if they could ever be competing explanations.

The only similarities between a naturalistic and supernatural explanation of life is that, at some point, both require faith because neither can be proven at a specific point.  The supernatural explanation (Faith based) obviously requires more faith in the sheer number of independent ideas that must be accepted without proof but the naturalistic explanation requires faith on a larger level for the fewer independent ideas that must be accepted without proof.

Example: Charles Darwin, the Father of Evolution stated clearly that, if the theory of evolution were to be taken seriously, that there would be innumerable transitional fossils in the fossil record.  So many that they could not be reasonably counted by a Human being.  And if you think about it...that makes sense.  If every living creature on Earth did come from a common ancestor then there should literally by so many transitional fossils on the planet that we could build every house on Earth out of their fossilized bones.  We'd have fish with legs, birds with reptile scales, sea creatures that possess both gills and partial lungs...they'd all be there in the fossil record and in such a large number...it would be like trying to count the stars...impossible.  But so far we have 12 and an airtight case for the 12 we have cannot be made, all are in dispute because there exists a reason to dispute all 12.  So with Darwins own concession on the record regarding the fossil record and how it impacts the theory of evolution...does that cause the scientific community to look elsewhere?  No of course not...insert faith here.  "We'll believe it's still accurate despite the missing pieces necessary to serve as rational justification of the theory".  

Likewise creationists use faith to substantiate their beliefs in the intelligent design of the Earth and all living creatures upon it...they just insert faith more frequently.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk You bring up the concept of faith almost immediately, and to that I might ask why I, or anyone for that matter, should ever except something based on faith as the foundation for how they live their lives?

I don't know what a naturalistic explanation is, but there is no need to except evolution based on faith unless you look at the specific unknowns. For evolution by natural selection, we don't deal with specifics, such as "70 million years ago how many children did this particular T-rex have?" We only deal with the broad changes that happen over many generations.

Not every animal turns into a fossil, so we will not find fossilized remains of such creatures.

Everything is a transition species, because there is no end goal for evolution, it just happens randomly depending on selection pressure.

The theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin is not held in as high regard as you might think. It is mostly wrong, and only the very general assumptions he made are correct. Our current understanding of evolution is much more robust than just "12 and an airtight case for the 12 we have cannot be made" The theory is constantly changing and itself evolving as new data and new insights are discovered. This goes back to the frequent (and incredibly annoying) assertion that evolution is based on faith when it is not.

I have no idea what or where that 12 number came from, or for that matter what it is referring to. What I o know is that we have fossil remains of over 6,000 individuals who are believed to be either human ancestors or humanoid primates not related to us.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

That is a fact of evolution that many don't talk about, most of the humanoid species were not human ancestors and are now extinct. In some rare cases, these other species interbred with our ancestors and we know this because we have found their DNA mixed in with ours. The creation myth as it exists in most religions and in particular in the Abrahamic religions, makes no reservation for this objective truth: If a god made people, then what's the deal with all the extinct non ancestors and non-direct ancestors with which our ancestors interbred with to produce modern humans?

The fact that Neanderthals existed and are we have some of their DNA, but only if you are European or Asian, is pretty damning evidence for creation theory and in particular ones that assert a young 6,000 year old earth.

Vaulk

Happy_Killbot said:

@Vaulk You bring up the concept of faith almost immediately, and to that I might ask why I, or anyone for that matter, should ever except something based on faith as the foundation for how they live their lives?

The answer to your question is:

You should accept something based on faith because without faith there can be no such thing as hope.  We ultimately have faith in many things and people without really any proof that we should.  Children assume faith in their parents in almost all cases until the parent gives good reason not to and even then...it takes a while for that faith to diminish.  

Hope allows people to approach problems with a mindset and strategy-set suitable to success, thereby increasing the chances they will actually accomplish their goals. ... Hope-related cognitions are important. Hope leads to learning goals, which are conducive to growth and improvement.

Your question of "Why should I ever accept something based on faith as the foundation for how I live my life" opens the doors to all of the reasons why the naturalistic explanation of life and the subsequent naturalistic worldview are questionable.  If you truly believe that there's no reason to live your life based on a foundation that requires faith then you're making a case against both Atheism and Creationism, Science and Religion.

Because at some point, whichever ideology you choose to follow, you will have to adopt belief in something that has no proof.  Essentially you will have to stake that "You know" something that you honestly do not know for certain...you simply believe because you are convinced despite the lack of evidence...that's called faith.

Belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
Faith is complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Proof is evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

So if you Believe in something but don't have evidence that establishes what you believe in as a fact then what you have is faith.

Scientific theories cannot ever serve as proof of anything.  Our best theories, like the theory of evolution, the Big Bang, and Einstein's General Relativity have an underlying quantitative framework, they allow us to predict what will happen in a variety of situations, and we can go out and test those predictions empirically.  These theories have demonstrated themselves to be valid. Where their predictions can be described by mathematical expressions, we can decide not only what should happen, but how much. For these theories in particular, among many others, measurements and observations that have been performed to test these theories have been supremely successful.

But as validating as that is and as powerful as it is to falsify alternatives...it's completely impossible to prove anything in science.

It's a leap of faith to assume that it will, and while these are often good leaps of faith, you cannot prove that these leaps are always valid. If the laws of nature change over time, or behave differently under different conditions, or in different directions or locations, or aren't applicable to the system you're dealing with, your predictions will be wrong. And that's why everything we do in science, no matter how well it gets tested, is always preliminary.

Don't take my word for it.  Get in touch with the National Science Foundation, National Academy of Sciences, International Council for Science, National Science Board or any other credible scientific organizations...they will tell you the exact same thing.

Happy_Killbot

@Vaulk There is no logical necessity for hope to be a derivative of faith from a religious context.

You can have hope that you will win the lottery, but live in disbelief that you will knowing the odds are so low.

There is no logical connection between hope and learning goals either, in fact I could argue exactly the opposite:

The major driver of all scientific progress has been warfare, the fear of being subjugated by one's enemies has forced many to learn so as to be better equipped to deal with emerging problems. Therefore it was dread and despair that drive learning.

I agree that everything must be based on some axioms that we can not prove but assume to be true, for example science rests on the assumption that a common reality exists, reality is uniform, and that everything has a natural cause. This is not faith though, because if we can devise a way to test any of these axioms we will not hesitate to give them the ax should they prove unreliable. With faith there can be no such assumption, it can never be disproved by design. The axioms of science could theoretically be disproved with a single experiment, but you can not disprove god.

Theories are not supposed to be proof, this is semantic and I don't see a need to talk about it, needless to say that evolution as a theory has evidence to back it up, creation does not.

The real problem with faith is that it isn't useful the way that science is. The real killer of religion is ironically, the philosophy that was supposed to save it. If you believe that snakes and donkeys can sometimes talk, the sun stopped in the sky at any point in history, you turn into a cow when you die, or holy people can violate thermodynamics then you have nothing to gain whatsoever. If we expect that animals don't talk then we would be fine with say, having a private discussion around animals knowing that they can not tell anyone in the future, or expect that if we just wait and pray that our plates will be filled with food, or live our lives without giving tons of money to obvious charlatans who are spreading their faith so they can have a mansion and a private jet.

It doesn't matter if you have faith the size of a mountain, you can not move a mustard seed.

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

>>>However, with evolution, there is a very clear path which we have directly observed, as you can clearly see in all of the examples I provided:<<<

Your examples are small variations.

No one is denying that evolution is false.

Want people are denying is the evolution from one species to another, which has already been proven false.

It is just evolutionists who continue to promote it as if it is still possible.

I can show you variations of any animal.

Why can't they show the controlled experiment of a dog evolves into a cat, elephant into rhinoceros, or a bufflo into anteater?

Because they tried for over 100 years and build Millions of controlled species to document how far the small changes would go.

This was their conclusion:

"concluded ‘that species are fixed within limits beyond which they cannot change’"

"properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314267096_Mendel's_Paper_on_the_Laws_of_Heredity_1866_Solving_the_Enigma_of_the_Most_Famous_'Sleeping_Beauty'_in_Science

You are assuming there is a clear path.

Evolutionists have not seen it nor can you demonstrate it.

Send me the experiment documenting one species to another, because you know I will no longer bring it up.

Fish to Amphibian - Amphibian to Reptile - Reptile to Bird - Bird to Mammal
Reptile to Mammal - Bird to Amphibian - Fish to Mammal

Don't show me stuff that people found, and call it evolution of species.

By some estimates, at least 30,000 plants are not discovered yet.

https://www.adventure-life.com/amazon/articles/about-rainforests-by-the-numbers

By some estimates at least 10 Million marine life is not discovered yet.

https://ocean.si.edu/ocean-life/one-fish-two-fish-estimating-undiscovered-species

By some estimates, possibly 87 million animals are not discovered yet.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/8/110824-earths-species-8-7-million-biology-planet-animals-science/

I only use MayCeasar as a reference to information from the Feynman path.

>>>I think you misunderstand what MayCeasar is saying. What he is saying is that in order to get to C from A there must be some path, we will call B to get there. If no such path B exists, then there in no way to get to C from A.<<<

Exactly!

Allow me to alter your example:

You are showing pictures demonstrating evolution of species A.
A1, A40, A164.
I say there has never been an "A" that turns into a "B".
You said look at A4575 and A75837 it's evolving and eventually, it will be a B.
Nevertheless, time goes on and on and no "B". You say we are at A657943 it's coming.

There is no pathway for Evolution from one Species to another.

A Dog is still a Dog, short, long, big, small, variety of colors, hair, eyes, etc. But still a dog.

Look at your pictures, plants are still plants, fish to another fish, berry to another berry, melon to melon.

To me when someone finds a new animal and says this proves evolution.

I just turn it around to see if a person can say the opposite.

God made this new animal while you weren't looking.

As silly as that sounds, is the way evolutionist sound, when they present some strange -looking animal, claiming it evolved while we weren't looking.

>>>Where is the evidence for a creator?<<<

Just for starters:

#1 The probability of possibility

Some 2,000 different proteins are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity and the chance that all of them will occur at random is 1 in 10^40,000.

"Impossible" is calculated by mathematicians as 1 in 10^50.

It is like the hardest puzzle you can possibly imagine and allowing your dog to solve it on the first try.

In the book, Science Speaks, (Peter Stoner) illustrated 1 in 10^17 as:

If you took silver dollars and covered the state of Texas (266,807 square miles) to a depth of two feet. If you marked one silver dollar among them and then had a blind person wandered the whole state and found the marked coin in one try.

But odds for life to occur is not 1 in 10^17, 10^40, 10^400, 10^4,000, no but 1 in 10^40,000.

That is just for life.

#2 Information in the Genes

Genes are not random letters. It is orchestrated into 1000s of volumes of information that is used to build and rebuild the Body.

All information must have intellect, therefore intelligence is needed to start life. Take a page out and life is not possible.

#3 Understanding the Conscience

Why do we have conscience thought?

Why are we able to ponder our existence?

We do not know everything about consciousness.

Richard Swinburne put it like this:

1. Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist.
2. There is an explanation for the existence of mental states.
3. Personal explanation (PE) is different from natural scientific explanation (NSE).
4. The explanation for the existence of mental states is either a PE or a NSE.
5. The explanation is not an NSE.
6. Therefore, the explanation is a PE.
7. If the explanation is PE, it is theistic.
8. Therefore, the explanation is theistic.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand

I know we have talked about this before, but you still seem to hold the same misconceptions about evolution.

A cat will never evolve into a dog because they branched off millions of years ago, the same way that none of your children will be your cousin.

I want you to look at this picture again and just think about how crazy it is:


You don't accept macro evolution because you seem to think it happens in a way that it doesn't. This is a clear example of speciation, observed in human life times.

If you want to say that it just popped into existence, then we would expect animals to just apear all the time, which doesn't happen. It is completely useless to assume this.

Here is the problem with the low probability hypothesis: it assumes a limited number of instances. No matter how low the ods of something happening, if there are enough attempts, it will happen somewhere.

Information doesn't need intellect to exist, and there is no intelligence in the organic materials that make a cell live. You are confusing what information is in a classic sense (meaning semantics) with information in a physical sense. Any time anything interacts with anything else, there is a transfer of information. In the case of DNA, the information is in the pattern of genes which express protein formation in a very physical way, more akin to the way a rock rolling down a hill will leave a trail that is the same as the pattern on the rock.

Humans don't have conscious thought. If you can prove that statement false you will win a Nobel prize.

jmcdavidson92

I have a simple question. Can someone please tell in this world where we live in with all its evil and hate how do you still believe there is a god? I really need to know! 

Vaulk

jmcdavidson92 said:

I have a simple question. Can someone please tell in this world where we live in with all its evil and hate how do you still believe there is a god? I really need to know! 

How to believe in something that you have no tangible evidence of.

Q: How do you know that you had a great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, Grandmother?
A: I had to have had one, after all I'm here so she must've existed.

Q: Have you seen her, has anyone you know ever seen her?
A: No

Q: So what you're saying is that you don't need physical proof in order to believe that something happened, something like having a great great great great great great great great great Grandmother?
A: I suppose so yea.

Q: If the universe suddenly came into existence...no matter how, would it have had a cause?
A: Yes

Q: If that cause was the big bang...then something must have caused the big bang to happen correct?
A: Yes

Q: And if something caused the big bang to happen, then something else must have caused that to happen as well correct?
A: Yes

Q: So you see the issue here?  If you apply a cause and effect model to the beginning of everything you end up on a non-stop, never-ending journey of cause and effect and it would continue infinitely because everything has a cause.
A: Yes

Therein lies the issue.  Not everything could have had a cause because if it did then time would have had no beginning nor would the events that led up to the creation of the universe.  It would have been an infinite track of causes which means there never would be a start, no beginning, no cause.  In order to fit an explanation into the beginning there must be something that was Uncreated...something that was always there.  Something beyond time and beyond the physical and natural world.  


Now take into account that without "Evil and Hate" as you've identified...there would be no Good and Love.  It's called relationship.  In order to understand something fully you must also understand its opposite.  In order to fully understand what a good feeling is...you must experience a bad feeling.  Every good feeling afterwards will be subconsciously compared to that bad feeling in order to make a comparison model in your mind so that you can identify just how good it is.  Mind you that opposites aren't the only comparison being made but they are necessary.

This is why Evil and Hate are necessary in our life.  Without them there would be no good.  Ask yourself this: In what situation are good people the most identifiable?  What circumstances must be present to make the good actions of one person truly stand out most clearly and visibly?  The answer is "When bad things happen".  During crisis, strife, stress, emergency, sorrow, sadness, panic, fear, and most importantly danger are people truly outlined for how good they are.  This is why we have a habit of showcasing people's actions during traumatic or difficult situations.  "Hero kid saves little brother from house fire" "Stranger saves woman from being crushed in subway" "Man intervenes and risks life to save young girl from being raped"...sound familiar?  We make big deals out of these situations and are constantly on the lookout for the people who show incredible fortitude when they happen. 

It's too easy to be a good person when everything is going your way.  When life seems to be perfect and all the stars align in your favor, traffic on the way home seems to be non-existent, your car is in great shape, you're healthy and no one in your family is struggling...of course it's easy to be a good person.  It's when everything is falling apart and life's really beating you down...THAT'S when the true natures of people are revealed.  

Inversely when something amazingly good happens...like the birth of a child or the celebration of something wonderful like a wedding or anniversary...that's when truly evil people are defined.  Nothing is viewed as being more evil than when someone tries to take advantage of a good situation by doing something bad.  Kidnapping is horrible but ask yourself this: Which is worse, kidnapping a baby out of the crib at home or kidnapping the baby in the maternity ward just minutes after its born?  The wonderful celebration of birth is what makes the act extra despicable.

If you had created living beings and you wanted them to love you...would you have given them everything they needed and desired?  Would you make them impervious to sickness and let them live forever in a wonderful paradise?  If so...why?  Would they truly love you if you gave them everything? Would they appreciate you if you made them want for nothing?  If they were immortal and had nothing to fear or worry about...would they even remember your name?

Having free will is required in order for someone to truly love you, and free will unfortunately means that you're subject to good AND bad things.  Sometimes life will be good and sometimes it will be bad.  For some it will be mostly bad and others it will be mostly good.  A creator couldn't intervene or else free will would be in jeopardy...a creator couldn't float in the sky for all to see or else belief and faith wouldn't be required...everyone would simply know.  

The alternative is that there is no God, life has no purpose and we're all here for no reason.  In that case there'd be no point to much of anything.

Sand

>>>A cat will never evolve into a dog because they branched off millions of years ago, the same way that none of your children will be your cousin.<<<

Did a Dog have cats or did Cats have dogs?

Make a general map of the animals, who first, second, and third.

You can't you know why because you and I were not there, so you are speculating.

Which is a belief, you believe Cats branched off from dogs.

>>>I want you to look at this picture again and just think about how crazy it is:<<<

It says it in the writing, over hundreds of years farmers were breeding one plant into dozen of varieties.

Did the farmers breed the plant to another organism?

What if they kept going, could they breed it into another organism?

>>>You don't accept macroevolution because you seem to think it happens in a way that it doesn't. This is a clear example of speciation, observed in human lifetimes.<<<

I do accept macroevolution, I do not think it leads to a separate species.

>>>If you want to say that it just popped into existence, then we would expect animals to just appear all the time, which doesn't happen. It is completely useless to assume this.<<<

No one is claiming popped in existence, but if it did it would prove your abiogenesis.

>>>Here is the problem with the low probability hypothesis: it assumes a limited number of instances. No matter how low the ods of something happening, if there are enough attempts, it will happen somewhere.<<<

You are assuming you have multiple opportunities.

Notice the words of the same evolutionist:

"Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (10^80), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out. He claimed: The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Though Hoyle declared himself an atheist, this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand led him to the conclusion that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and ... there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." He would go on to compare the random emergence of even the simplest cell without panspermia to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" and to compare the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cubes simultaneously."

Lol, You sound like Jim Carrey man:

No, I am telling you there is No chance. Lol.

>>>Information doesn't need intellect to exist, and there is no intelligence in the organic materials that make a cell live. You are confusing what information is in a classic sense (meaning semantics) with information in a physical sense. Any time anything interacts with anything else, there is a transfer of information.<<<

Then you can give an example where matter gives information and adds it to or increases it in the genome.

>>>In the case of DNA, the information is in the pattern of genes which express protein formation in a very physical way, more akin to the way a rock rolling down a hill will leave a trail that is the same as the pattern on the rock.<<<

You sound like you are saying the information was already there.

How did the information get there?

I can't do it with intent and you can't do it, yet all this information came together without structure or intent?

Specific information?

You know there are 118 elements to the periodic table?

The ability to separate all the elements and make a long connection of components (1000 volumes of them) then program these components in a specific way to work in harmony with a specific 2000 proteins that are needed for life in a controlled environment is not only impossible it is improbable.

Which takes us back to Feynman path, you could have infinite opportunities there is just no way, there is no path.

Listen to MayCeaser's words:

"People misunderstand this a lot. The principle according to which all possible states of the system will eventually be achieved assumes that the pathway to those states exists."

You are saying eventually it will happen given enough tries, the question remains HOW? We need a path.

Look at it this way, you are trying to debunk miracles of the Bible.

John Edensor Littlewood calculates odds of a miracle to be 1 in 10^6.

Yet you present miracles as unbelievable (1 in 10^6) but abiogenesis as believable (1 in 10^40,000)?

What Creationists propose is not as far fetched as Evolutionists.

>>>Humans don't have conscious thought. If you can prove that statement false you will win a Nobel prize.<<<

That may be the problem.

Are you self aware of what you are saying?

Do you consciously think before you conclude?

I don't think you read John Searle's information on Consciousness. - The Oxford companion to philosophy

"No one would think of saying, for example, "Having a hand is just being disposed to certain sorts of behavior such as grasping" (manual behaviorism), or "Hands can be defined entirely in terms of their causes and effects" (manual functionalism), or "For a system to have a hand is just for it to be in a certain computer state with the right sorts of inputs and outputs" (manual Turing machine functionalism), or "Saying that a system has hands is just adopting a certain stance toward it" (the manual stance)." ("Consciousness" p. 263)

It is the most widely agreed-upon notion that consciousness exists.

You might want to go back and rethink some of your conclusions.

But that is just me.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand You are still failing to understand the theory of evolution. Cats did not come from dogs and dogs did not come from cats, they shared a common mammal ancestor that is neither a cat nor a dog, which live 42 million years ago. The same way that your cousin did not give birth to you and you did not give birth to your cousin, but you both share grandparents.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/why-have-big-cats-evolved-but-not-big-dogs/

It's literally the same concept, and if you can't understand this we can not continue this discussion.

Has it ever occurred to you that your family tree is fractal?

Yes the farmers bred plants into different organisms, look at the picture.

"No one is claiming popped in existence, but if it did it would prove your abiogenesis."

Ummmm...

I just turn it around to see if a person can say the opposite.

God made this new animal while you weren't looking.

As silly as that sounds, is the way evolutionist sound, when they present some strange -looking animal, claiming it evolved while we weren't looking.

You said that!

So you calculate the probability that life formed and say "look how small it is" but here is the thing, a creator such as the Christian god is much, much, much much, much, more complex, and would therefore have a smaller probability! This doesn't solve the problem at all!

Then you can give an example where matter gives information and adds it to or increases it in the genome.

It's called RNA, I sent you a link above. I'm starting to get the feeling you aren't reading what I am suggesting.

Information is formed whenever anything interacts with anything else, it is seen in an increase in entropy. Consider a universe of just two atoms, if they hit each other they share information such as changing direction. This is an increase in information.

See here is the thing, you claim there is no path but there is a path. RNA reproduces itself, eventually it forms proto-cells. Proto-cells can reproduce but not under there own power, they need external influence. Eventually through random changes in the RNA structure the RNA starts forming simple proteins which aid the proto-cell. Eventually these machines can aid the cell enough that it can start to metabolize certain compounds, and then through more random mutations it becomes a cell.

The thing is, it's not like a bunch of stuff just happened to come together into a cell one day, that isn't what we are saying, it's a straw man. We are saying the boundary conditions that occur naturally shifts the odds far enough that it can happen spontaneously.

There has never been a single publication worth reading about consciousness, especially in philosophy.

Sand

@Happy_Killbot

>>>You are still failing to understand the theory of evolution. Cats did not come from dogs and dogs did not come from cats, they shared a common mammal ancestor that is neither a cat nor a dog, which live 42 million years ago. The same way that your cousin did not give birth to you and you did not give birth to your cousin, but you both share grandparents.<<<

What is the common ancestor?

How do you know it was 42 million years ago?

>>>It's literally the same concept, and if you can't understand this we can not continue this discussion.<<<

I understand,  I just say its wrong. Where is the study?

Just saying it doesn't make it true.

Your article has no references.

We are to trust Luis Villazon?

"Luis trained as a zoologist, but now works as a science and technology educator. In his spare time he builds 3D-printed robots, in the hope that he will be spared when the revolution inevitably comes."

>>>Has it ever occurred to you that your family tree is fractal?<<<

What tree?

>>>Yes the farmers bred plants into different organisms, look at the picture.<<<

Is it no longer a plant?

"if a person can say the opposite"

Do you feel that is a claim?

Because I said "if"

Not claim the opposite.

>>>So you calculate the probability that life formed and say "look how small it is" but here is the thing, a creator such as the Christian god is much, much, much much, much, more complex, and would, therefore, have a smaller probability! This doesn't solve the problem at all!<<<

Not necessarily, but it is a possibility unlike the Evolution of the species.

>>>It's called RNA, I sent you a link above. I'm starting to get the feeling you aren't reading what I am suggesting.<<<

I read it. It didn't answer the question.

RNA is a copy machine and a messenger, thats it.

It copies the information from DNA and takes it to other parts of the cell.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-information-in-dna-is-decoded-by-6524808/

>>>Information is formed whenever anything interacts with anything else, it is seen in an increase in entropy. Consider a universe of just two atoms, if they hit each other they share information such as changing direction. This is an increase in information.<<<

You are about to teach me something!

Are you suggesting that atoms place information in DNA?

What is your reference?

>>>See here is the thing, you claim there is no path but there is a path. RNA reproduces itself, eventually it forms proto-cells. Proto-cells can reproduce but not under there own power, they need external influence. Eventually through random changes in the RNA structure the RNA starts forming simple proteins which aid the proto-cell. Eventually these machines can aid the cell enough that it can start to metabolize certain compounds, and then through more random mutations it becomes a cell.<<<

You had me up to "mutations".

Mutations have disastrous results to cells.

"Changes in DNA caused by mutation in a coding region of DNA can cause errors in protein sequence that may result in partially or completely non-functional proteins. Each cell, in order to function correctly, depends on thousands of proteins to function in the right places at the right times. When a mutation alters a protein that plays a critical role in the body, a medical condition can result."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Where is the information in DNA coming from?

RNA needs DNA.

>>>The thing is, it's not like a bunch of stuff just happened to come together into a cell one day, that isn't what we are saying, it's a straw man. We are saying the boundary conditions that occur naturally shifts the odds far enough that it can happen spontaneously.<<<

Great where is the study!?!?

Or are you teasing me with more speculation?

>>>There has never been a single publication worth reading about consciousness, especially in philosophy.<<<

So which statement would you make?

"Having a hand is just being disposed to certain sorts of behavior such as grasping" (manual behaviorism)

"Hands can be defined entirely in terms of their causes and effects" (manual functionalism)

"For a system to have a hand is just for it to be in a certain computer state with the right sorts of inputs and outputs" (manual Turing machine functionalism)

"Saying that a system has hands is just adopting a certain stance toward it" (the manual stance)."

If you say none then you have just contradicted yourself.

Happy_Killbot

@Sand
We know this creature existed because of fossils and genetic analysis. Everything points to such a creature as having existed.

Your family tree.

Yes they are all still plants. Chimpanzees and Humans are both animals.

There is no evidence a god existed, there is evidence (and very strong at that) for evolution.

The question is answered. RNA is like the path a stone makes as it rolls down a hill. There is information in the path which is formed from the shape of the stone, with RNA it is the same thing but chemical. I can't give a better answer than this but this is what is happening.

RNA doesn't need DNA, it can just happen in nature. In complete Eukaryote cells RNA is manufactured, but in nature the right circumstances can lead to it just existing.

Most mutations have no effect on the cell, your assumption is false.
https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/mutationsanddisorders/neutralmutations

I don't have the time to show you studies to prove all of these things, and this doesn't really matter anyways. I get it that you don't think evolution is real (it is) and if you are actually interested in an answer, you are going to need to find the answer to your questions yourself. On top of it, this doesn't matter much for this debate anyways we are supposed to be talking about the good god paradox, which exists independently of evolution being true or not, suppose a god exists outside time and space, caused the big bang and everything fell into place, eventually creating humans via evolution. This doesn't answer the question any more than if we assume that 26 minutes ago some deity snapped its fingers and everything popped into existence just as it is.

The way I see it, there are two answers to this question: God is not all good, or god does not exist. Either way it is a mortal blow to Christianities view of a good and powerful god.

TKDB

God gave humanity the ability to think, create, live, thrive, survive, multiply, and care for ourselves, and each other.

Yet humanity has become a sad paradox, or caricature of itself:

Murder, sexual assault, abortion, mass shootings, murder/ suicide, domestic violence and abuse, substance abuse addiction, some raising their kids around their own substance abuse addictions, terrorism, suicide bombers, War going as far back into humanities history, that maybe humanity is confusing blunt force violence with acceptable applications of violence, because some of humanity can't separate the two?

Yeah, humanity in general, is a walking, talking, living, and breathing paradox of itself, yet God gets blamed for what Humanity in general, can't seem to purge from his own mindful actions, because blaming God is easier, than humanity giving a global care about the billions of humans around the other humans around them?

Blaming God, for what Humanity does to itself hour after hour, is the best form of a paradox that Humanity can come up with to blame its global failures on?

How does Humanity get a Pass, while God gets persecuted by Humanity itself? 

That's a paradox that Humanity can't, or refuses to address. 


par·a·dox

/ˈperəˌdäks/

noun

1. a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true.

   "in a paradox, he has discovered that stepping back from his job has increased the rewards he gleans from it"

   Similar:

   contradiction

   contradiction in terms

   self-contradiction

   inconsistency

   incongruity

   anomaly

   conflict

   absurdity

   oddity

   enigma

   puzzle

   mystery

   conundrum

   oxymoron

   antinomy

   • a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.

     "a potentially serious conflict between quantum mechanics and the general theory of relativity known as the information paradox"
   • a situation, person, or thing that combines contradictory features or qualities.

     "the mingling of deciduous trees with elements of desert flora forms a fascinating ecological paradox" 
     

Happy_Killbot

@TKDB What about evil from non-human sources, such as earthquakes, floods, poisonous plants, and dangerous animals?

Evil is not unique to humans.