Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Does God exist ? origin of God - metaphysical reality » " There is no evidence for God " . Really ?!!

" There is no evidence for God " . Really ?!!

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 " There is no evidence for God " . Really ?!! on Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:24 am

Admin


Admin
" There is no evidence for God " Really ??!!

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1440-there-is-no-evidence-for-god

In our search for God, where we start will often determine where we end. If you search for God only to show yourself that He is not there, then you will not find Him. But if you seek him like a starving man seeks for bread or a thirsting man seeks for water, then the Bible is filled to the brim with promises that you will find Him. Or more correctly, that He will find you.

"For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." - Luke 11:10

Why does the universe exhibit the ‘appearance’ of ‘fine tuning’? How did life originate? Why does biology exhibit the ‘appearance’ of ‘design’? How did human consciousness come into being? Where does ‘free will’ come from? Why are humans so contradictory in nature? Why do transcendent moral truths exist? Why do we believe human life to be precious? Why do pain, evil and injustice exist in our world?these questions ARE in my view best explained through creations and ARE therefore evidence for creationism, and intelligent design. There are just personal preferences of explanations and world views for all that exists.  So rather than say, there is no evidence for God, you should say: Intelligent design and creationism and theism are not my preferred explanations, for whatever reasons.

The right philosophical question is: what is the best explanation for our existence. 
There are not proofs, whether God exists, or not. To prove, God does not exist, you would need to be all-knowing. You are not, therefore, you cannot prove Gods existence or inexistence.

We could ask the question "Is there evidence that God exists?" and we could mean "Is it reasonable to think that God exists?" 2In other words, are there pieces of evidence from which I could reasonably conclude that God exists even if the evidence is not completely conclusive and utterly compelling?

You're not actually talking about evidence, you're talking about an interpretation of the evidence. As in, there is no evolutionary interpretation of the evidence which supports creation. This equivocation is used to deny any interpretation of the evidence which does not support evolution, which is exactly what a creation interpretation of the evidence does.

So, to remove the interpretation, let's look at the first claim in the Bible: that God created the earth and the universe. Surely you would agree the earth and the universe exist. Therefore there certainly is evidence outside of the Bible. Of course, your response will be that it's only a claim in the Bible that God did it. That's fine, but it's beside the point. The point is that the existence of the earth is the actual evidence. How the earth came to be, whether through special creation or through stellar evolution, is a matter of interpretation of the evidence.

There is no evidence for God’s existence.
There is at least one major problem with this line as it is typically presented.

One often hears, “there is no evidence for God, therefore Christians believe in fairytales,” (or something to that effect) when what is actually meant is more like, “there is no physical proof of God’s being in the physical world, therefore Christians believe in fairytales (since all ‘real’ things are physical).”

The fact that Christians have never claimed to believe in a physical God – as merely one more physical being among all other physical beings in the universe – does not stop these sorts of atheists from thinking they have laid waste to 40 centuries of religious thought, experience, and refinement with the mere mention of this evidentiary boogieman. It rarely occurs to them that such physical proof would actually run 100% counter to Judeo-Christian theistic claims. Their argument against a physical God is actually applauded and defended by Christians.

This fact is not, of course, proof that the Christian claim is true, but merely proof that with such attacks the atheist has not even begun to swing in the direction of Christianity.

However, if what they mean is something more like, “There is no logical evidence of God’s existence…” then the straw man suddenly becomes a brick wall. The logical arguments for God are vast and time tested against some of the greatest minds of all time working tirelessly against them. They are well-known arguments and can be easily found online or in print, but let me give one quick example. I recently read someone who claimed that I conceded the atheist’s argument that God is not real since the faith teaches He is not physical. Let me help those who might struggle with this idea using a quote from David Bentley Hart: “Why can’t there be a physical explanation of existence? Because anything physical is, by definition, something that exists. So there cannot be a physical cause of existence.” The faith claims this non-physical, yet real, the entity is God. His absolute “existence” is more real than physical existence by order of priority.

But besides logical arguments, an additional reason why atheists often fail with this approach is because they run up against Christians with living experiences with God. There is no amount of speculative babbling from the uninitiated that can oppose the one whose faith is built on a living subjectivity to the presence of God. On these matters Kierkegaard had it right – in objectivity, there is no truth for the single individual; the truth is subjectivity.




1. http://www.shenvi.org/Essays/RightQuestions.htm
2. https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/



Last edited by Admin on Sun May 07, 2017 7:43 pm; edited 16 times in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
No Evidence for God? 1



I often encounter atheists who claim that there is no evidence for God.
Question: Is this true?
A: The most obvious answer is a quite resounding no.
No one can claim there is no evidence in the universe for the existence of a supreme being.  Yet, arm chair atheist pseudo-experts and wannabe philosophers say dumb things like that all the time because they never think anything through deeply enough to see how foolish such statement is.
Proof? Ask them to prove there is no evidence for God.  Gee – End of discussion right there – if they were honest, but they are not.
What has been said of lawyers easily applies to atheists – its only 99% of atheists that give a bad reputation to the rest.
It is simply not – by any means – a logical or justifiable claim.   Why?  Well obviously no atheist can possibly offer any evidence for his own claim!  He can’t offer any justification for such a stupendous claim, therefore he must bare alone the burden of proof that there is no evidence for God.  Can he? No, of course not.
The atheist positing such thus puts himself in the exact same position that he claims theists are in! Claiming that which cannot be proved.  This is hardly surprising since atheists also vehemently and religiously claim there is no God all while admitting they can’t prove a negative!
His position implies that he has indeed searched out and deeply examined all proposed evidences of God and found them all lacking.   Of course there are no atheists who can even be aware of all the evidences that may exist for God, nor even of all proposed evidences since this would require a knowledge of every argument for God that has ever existed as well as all possible other evidences. Yet another knowledge claim that atheists cannot uphold.
To truly know there is zero evidence for God’s existence implies that the atheist claiming this knows all possible evidences for God’s existence.   No single human being ever has, nor ever will, be able to do this, thus all such flippant dismissals of all evidence for God are mere arrogant pretensions to unavailable knowledge.
That in itself destroys all claims by any atheists that there is no evidence for God.  It also demonstrates what every theist knows – that atheists are almost invariably arrogant blowhards making foolish claims they cannot back up.


Dismissal of all evidence is not an argument against God

 It is mere denial of reality that there are indeed infinite evidences for the existence of a first cause.  Claiming there’s no evidence for God is tantamount to claiming to have proved that all proposed evidences, ever,  are wrong.  This has never been done by anyone, ever.
Moreover, claiming that any proposed evidence is wrong or insufficient does not prove that it is in fact wrong or insufficient.   Worse, even if one were able to truly refute all proposed evidence, that still does not imply that there is no God.  There may be other evidences that one is unaware of, the wrong analysis tools and methods may have been used for devising evidence, etc.
Atheist Kai Nielsen stated,



“To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false….All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists.” – Reason and Practice (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 143-44.

The atheist, though he will always deny it, because of personal wishes that there be no God, is always left with nothing to found his own beliefs on.  What do we see instead?  Nothing but denial and lame attempts at shirking his share of the burden of proof.  Atheists always shirk this by mere caviling and, as always,  denial that they even have any such burden. But they do have such a burden anyway – shirked or not, admitted or not.
Atheists tend to assume that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one ought to believe that God does not exist.  False.  What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a knowledge claim “There is no God” as theism’s “There is a God”.  Thus, as Ravi Zacharias states,

“the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence”.

The atheist cannot say, “Well I don’t claim there is no God, only that I don’t believe there is”.  But such would lead to agnosticism, not real atheism.  If one does not know there is no God, one has no grounds to believe there is no God, no ultimate first cause. Back to burden of proof!  Is there evidence that no God exists? No.  None whatsoever.
Is there evidence of a first ultimate cause? Yes, everything that exists is evidence of a first and ultimate cause, by implication of the laws of cause and effect! (Quantum theories notwithstanding).  To say a singularity started it all, or a quantum fluctuation started it all is to say “we have no idea what started it all”!  Fluctuation of what? etc.

Consider the following evidence, for example:
Information is evidence of God.  Information itself is metaphysical.  Logic is metaphysical.  Now, if metaphysical things exist then that itself is yet another evidence for the possibility and probability of the existence of God, who, by very definition, is metaphysical!  But atheists claim there is no such thing as a “metaphysical” something.  All is matter and energy.
Thus atheism is little different than insanity, for claiming that nothing metaphysical exists is as bad as claiming that information doesn’t exist! So where does the atheist get this tasty bit of information?!
We know information is metaphysical because it is always other or different from the medium in which it is stored. The ink on the paper in a book, by itself is not information.  It’s just a dye.  Ink on paper, by the way it’s used and structured to form symbols that, in turn, represent specific concepts and meanings, is merely the container, the medium through which information is conveyed. All symbol systems imply metaphysics and intelligence.  The collective symbols, by the way they are organized on the paper can contain meaningful information, to a mind that knows the symbolic convention, or code, used.
Again, the pixels on your screen are not the information they contain.  They are mere colored light spots. However, the pixels encode information that requires a mind – a mind that has been taught the symbol convention used (say the alphabet or icons) – to interpret it. That information is not random – it isn’t a meaningless blotch – but is structured and semantic.  It has syntax, semantics (meaning) and purpose.  No symbolic convention (code) is without purpose. But the very concept of purpose implies intention which implies mind and volition.
Encoded algorithmic information is a symbol system, whether that symbol system be such as the English or Hebrew alphabets or the ATCG chemicals of DNA.  Such symbol systems cannot exist without intelligence (they intrinsically imply intelligent origin) thereby demonstrating that metaphysical intelligence must exist in order to explain the humongous levels of algorithmic information contained in the DNA molecule.
That intelligence – given its complexity, depth and intricacy – is best and most simply (Occam’s Razor) explained by what men have always called “God”.  The Intelligent originator.

1) https://borne.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/no-evidence-for-god/



Last edited by Admin on Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:07 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Admin


Admin
There is no evidence for God’s existence


There is at least one major problem with this line as it is typically presented.
One often hears, “there is no evidence for God, therefore Christians believe in fairy tales,” (or something to that effect) when what is actually meant is more like, “there is no physical proof of God’s being in the physical world, therefore Christians believe in fairy tales (since all ‘real’ things for the atheistic-materialist are assumed to be physical).”
The fact that Christians have never claimed to believe in a physical God – as merely one more physical being among all other physical beings in the universe – does not stop these sorts of atheists from thinking they have laid waste to 40 centuries of religious thought, experience, and refinement with the mere mention of this evidentiary boogieman. It rarely occurs to them that such physical proof would actually run 100% counter to Judeo-Christian theistic claims. Their argument against a physical God is actually applauded and defended by Christians. The Bible proudly declares many times over that God is spirit.
Simply put: Christianity believes in a immaterial God, thus to demand material proof of His existence is nonsensical.
This fact is not, of course, proof that the Christian claim is true, but merely proof that with such attacks the atheist has not even begun to swing in the direction of Christianity.
Many atheists will protest saying rather that God’s ‘activity’ should be detectable in the physical world, not His actual being. Fair enough, but when presented with evidences of God’s activity in the world these same atheists roundly reject them, regardless of the scientific or philosophic soundness of the evidence. There simply seems to be no evidence of God’s activity in the world that passes the jury of popular atheist opinion. Many seem to think that admitting a single evidence into their court would equal a total breakdown in their case against Christianity.  I remind the reader to please keep in mind: “evidence” does not equal “proof”. One is not intellectually forced to accept Christianity based on good evidence. So relaaaaax.
For one of many excellent presentations of arguments for God, try the book Evidence for God, which gives 50 separate evidences in science, philosophy, and theology each by top-notch scholars in the respective fields.
However, if by “no evidence” an atheist has in mind something more like, “There is no logical evidence of God’s existence…” then the straw man suddenly becomes a brick wall. The logical arguments for God are vast and time tested against some of the greatest minds of all time working tirelessly against them. They are well-known arguments and can be easily found online or in print. But what is discouraging when engaging with atheists in debate, particularly online, is the constant charge that the faith is illogical, irrational, or the stuff of ancient fairy tales believed only by the ignorant and the mentally ill. It’s one thing to willfully deny the evidence for God after giving it an honest hearing, its another thing to remain willfully ignorant of an opposing view while claiming the opposing view is ignorant. I have found that such behavior is typically a sign of a person woefully insecure about his or her position, using an abundance of insults as cover for a bankruptcy of insight.


https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum