Arguments and empirical evidence that god(s) exist

[Scott]

This thread is for members to post clear, direct arguments and credible empirical evidence that at least one god exists.

People may use the word 'god' to refer to different things. To avoid equivocation, these are the only definitions to be used in this thread:

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

So this thread is only for posting arguments and empirical evidence for the existence of one of those things above, and direct critiques or attempted rebuttals of those arguments and evidence. If you wish to post an argument or evidence that a god who does not meet one of those definitions exist, create a new thread; don't post it in this one.

This thread is not for posting empirical evidence or arguments that no gods exist. (Of course, direct rebuttals or criticisms of the evidence presented in this thread is encouraged). There is a different thread for posting arguments and evidence that NO gods exist.

This is not for discussing why or why not to have faith in the existence or non-existence of gods without evidence. This is not for discussing the value of empirical evidence or the usefulness of logic. This is not an epistemological discussion or a philosophy of logic discussion. It's only for presentations of and attempted rebuttals of the arguments and evidence that at least one god exists.

This is not for discussing the advantages or disadvantages of belief in god. This is not about the merits of atheism or theism. This is not about anything but the direct arguments and empirical evidence that at least one god exist.

If you want to discuss any of that other stuff, make a different thread.

Most importantly, do not post anything close to an ad hominem remark about theists or atheists in general, or about any members on this forum. In a similar vain, make sure to use the principle of charity when interpreting and attempting to rebut any evidence.

Keep all posts completely on-topic. Off-topic posts will be deleted.

If you understand all that, then let's get to it: What arguments or credible empirical evidence is there that a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions, actually exists? Or what arguments or credible empirical evidence is there that one or more beings of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality, actually exists?

Don't limit the proof for existence of a biblical God.
Religious people (theists) try to explain the nature of God. To define It.
It's foolish. So, here foor for doubt in the (non-)existence in a Creator of our Universe.

The Big Bang...
Explained by quantum fluctuations and virtual particles.
It may not be a proof per se but it's a big thorn in the foot of "rational" scientists... Moreover, one they put here themselves...
And it can induce doubt, for sure.

1. No reality can exist, at any time, in any form, without conscious observation. (meaning some level of conscious participation, interaction, involvement)

2. No "scientific" explanation for the biological evolution of gender distinctions.

I agree, in part, with Persecrates. Scott, if your looking for finger nail clippings or the spontaneous appearance of a mountain where there wasn't one before then I will submit that there isn't any such evidence, nor should there be, or can there be given the nature of our being.

What can be proven, as Persecrates suggests, is the "nature" of God manifest in our creation and the creation of the universe.

[Scott]

Again, this is thread is not for posting explanations of why one wouldn't expect empirical evidence of the existence god to be found. Please start or post in a different thread for that. This thread is for posting empirical evidence, if you know any, that god exists as well as logical arguments that god exists.

***

Juice,

No reality can exist, at any time, in any form, without conscious observation.

What do you mean by 'reality' and how is this evidence for the existence of god(s)? What evidence or argument do you have to support that assertion? Can you elaborate this argument/evidence into a syllogism? In comparison, there may be, for instance, some solipsists who think that when they die and their mind stops functioning that what they call 'reality' ceases to exist, or even when they have a dreamless, unconscious sleep that 'reality' is not existing; but I don't see how that's an argument that a god exists--let alone why it would be considered a sound argument. At the very least, you'd have to elaborate and specify to make it an argument that god exists.

2. No "scientific" explanation for the biological evolution of gender distinctions.

Even if that is true, would it be evidence that a god exists? The lack of evidence for X is not necessarily evidence for Y unless Y is mutually exclusive to X, and thus the lack of a evidence for an explanation of something that doesn't entail god (i.e. "a 'scientific' explanation") is not evidence that the true explanation entails a god. There's plenty of questions that cannot be answered using the scientific method particularly because of technological and physical limitations. For instance science cannot tell us how exactly dinosaurs looked in the same way it can tell us exactly how Paris Hilton looks because we physically cannot study dinosaurs appearance in the same way, but that is hardly evidence of some other explanation such as that involves a god. A thousand years ago the technological and physical limitations of the researches meant they couldn't use science to explain disease; nowadays with our advanced technology and with years of attempts we have explained those diseases. But it would have been incorrect for those ancient people to conclude that the lack of scientific explanation was evidence of a supernatural explanation let alone a specific supernatural one such as, 'a god exists.'

Anyway, I also am not sure depending on what you mean that your statement is correct. There is not one agreed upon explanation of the formation of sexual reproduction (such as in mammals, many fish, many plants, etc.). One of if not the most accepted theories to explain the evolution of sex is that it evolved as an adaptation to assist sexual individuals in resisting parasites (source: The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature by Matt Ridley). Also, sexual reproduction is better at the "removal of deleterious genes" or as I would word it discarding harmful mutations (source). There are other hypotheses and theories as to why organisms evolved sexuality and why it increased their fitness; the issue seems to be not a lack of explanations but an array of them with varying levels of validation making it difficult to unify them into one singular simple explanation with a certain level of scientific validity.

Very simple. We accept, for the charge of murder, evidence to put a man (or woman) to death based upon the evidence of 3 upstanding (Credible) members of society having witnessed it. Upon the same logic, we have recorded not thousands, but millions of individuals, from your average merchant, to your kings and pharohs, of having had direct, both visual and auditory, contact with what they called Gods.

Second, all ancient creation stories share the same basic premise, though they ascribe different names to both the entropy of before, and the entity that brought order from it. In this we find a similarity that makes even the fundamental laws of physics seem so much more staggeringly debated by scientists, let alone those who do not believe in those laws.


As Scott did not ask for proof of an omnipotent being, only the proof of the existence of the entities that human kind has called gods, I think this should suffice.

[Scott]

Abiathar, your so-called evidence is anecdotal. By your logic, I could easily prove that alien abductions have frequently occurred, that Big Foot exists, that the Loch Ness monster exists and that vampires exist. I could also prove that all major politicians are actually shape-shifters, since a large collection of 'conspiracy theories' believe that and many claim to have witnessed it. Such anecdotal evidence and conclusions based off rumors, urban legends and non-scientific stories are not really 'evidence' to me.

This is like asking for emperical evidence that an atom exists, which as Quantum Mechanics (in many experiements) has shown they, at a fundamental level, do not. However, you can See one, you can look at one, you can manipulate one, and thus we deem them to exist. There is a certain level of argument that is like asking for emperical evidence that my name is John, which none of you can prove or disprove, however I have documentation that shows otherwise... incidently, that documentation, no matter the sort, can be falsified or simply a mispelling of my actual name.

You're asking for scientific evidence, in both threads, for something that there is no scientific evidence for either side... thus why the debate has continued for thousands of years.

Any Scientific theory or find that has no explaination (such as the big bang), can be accredited to God or Science.

2. No "scientific" explanation for the biological evolution of gender distinctions.

I know I said I wouldn't, but I ran across this: Here is an article which gives an explanation of the evolution of sexual reproduction. And it's old--I'm sure you could easily find many more details on the topic.

Alun-I am well aware of the rationals given for "sexual reproduction" my concern is not for its obvious viable success after the fact but for the physical, biological, co-evolution of separate biologically distinct organisms into physiologically distinct but physically reproductively compatible entities. As life supposedly evolved at some point in that history an organism evolved into two sexually distinct entities which then further evolved systems and structures which allowed for reproductive coherence securing survival.

From article;

...additional ways were evolved to take advantage of the redundant information available. The diploid stage of the cycle was probably transient in early organisms, but began to take on a more significant role as genome size increased, since it provided protection against the expression of deleterious mutations.

Emphasis added. Ask yourselves this fundamental question pertaining to the most important aspect of life and that is the appearance of gender distinctions and sexual dichotomies, which, when, logically and reasoned by examination of inference and historicity through causal regression, when, where and how this occurred (evolved) as an undirected "natural" process with such successful results.

What ways were they "evolved"?

How is this process "possible" to a conclusion?

I had the opportunity to pose this question to a woman who is presently completing her doctorate in biological sciences. She was surprised as she thought back and concluded that at no time in all of her studies was this question addressed, and as she further contemplated on this question realized that she, nor anyone she knew of, give it any attention.

There is no biology book in print which touches on this very simple and profound concept of the evolutionary process which gave rise to gender. We can talk about limbs and other structures and make connections and theorize over the evolutionary process which may have produced them as long as we stay away from the evolution of "sex".

My friend took the opportunity to ask this of a professor from whom she is studying for a career in stem cell research who looked at her and admitted that the topic has become generally taboo in biological circles. She called me and told that as she thought about it she realized, as a Hindu, how spiritual teachings seem to center around male and female opposites as a focal point in creation and the lives of god(s) and God. An observation I pointed out to her in our original discussion.

Look, leave the science behind for a moment and take your spouse, girlfriend or boyfriend in your arms and make love. Notice the expression of emotion, the effort to give as well as receive. The intimacy and closeness and ask yourself "WHY". Sure we can come up with scientifically reasoned explanations for the evolution of these things to assist in the inducement (as if survival is not inducement enough) for these emotional aspects for reproduction but seriously which part can we have done without, the physical act or the emotional process? The heartbreak and expectations.

There is no way to reconcile the co-evolution and appearance of gender with a natural undirected process. Biological science knows this hence the determined avoidance of this subject whether through theory, fact or the fossil record. It happened as if "magically".

[Scott]

Juice, there are plenty of scientists who have worked on the evolution of sex. There are explanations for, first, the development of sexual reproduction (which even many plants have) from asexual reproduction, and, then next, the development of gender distinctions from hermaphroditism for sexual purposes, and then perhaps of non-sexual behavior distinctions between genders (e.g. hunters vs. homemakers), and of at least in mammals, particularly for the genus homo and evolutionary ancestors thereof, the development of the things we find special like orgasms, monogamy, and the chemical and genetic aspects of emotions like infatuation, love and attraction. There are books about this subject and researches who focus on it. In fact, I provided a link to such a book in one of my previous posts in this thread.

Moreover, the lack of known scientific explanations for something would not be evidence that a god exists.

***

Abiathar, if you or anyone believes that there is no scientific evidence or otherwise non-anecdotal, credible empirical evidence that a god exists, then the OP instructs you not post in this thread except, if you wish, to critique and attempt to rebut any alleged evidence that is posted.

This thread is for members to post clear, direct arguments and credible empirical evidence that at least one god exists.

This is a very narrow approach at a broad topic. I'll do my best to stay within the guidelines, however difficult it may be.

Firstly, things (everything present in the world) does exist. Things are created by one means or another; accidental or on purpose. This is speculative empirical evidence of God(s).

The idea of God(s) existence exist. Because the idea is present makes the existence of God(s) viable. The idea not only exist; it is present in nearly all cultures around the globe. This constitutes abstract empirical evidence.

Finally (I can think of others but will leave on this note) historically, it was always taken for granted that God(s) exist. It was the task of the non-believer to prove against the thought of God(s) existence. Today, it is the opposite. Now, God(s) existence needs proof to be believed, rather then as in the past where proof of God(s) non-existence was necessary for that thought to be believed.

[Scott]

Thank you for reply Algol!

Firstly, things (everything present in the world) does exist. Things are created by one means or another; accidental or on purpose. This is speculative empirical evidence of God(s).

I agree with the first statement. I'm unsure about the second. But in any case I neither agree with the third statement nor believe the third statement follows logically from the first two.

Also, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but the second statement seems to contradict the possibility of the existence of a god or any eternal or non-moral being.

***

You go on to mention how allegedly most if not almost all societies believe in god(s). However, that is not evidence that such beliefs are true. It would be an appeal to popularity fallacy to use it as such. For instance, patriarchal sexism is also a belief system that exist and at least was historically popular across the world even though we agree it is incorrect.

You go on to mention how allegedly most if not almost all societies believe in god(s). However, that is not evidence that such beliefs are true. It would be an appeal to popularity fallacy to use it as such.

It may be a fallacy, but it is an empirical fact that most if not all societies have a conception of God(s). Granted, thoughts are abstract, but the thought of the divine was present. In other words, it is an empirical fact that the beliefs of God(s) were present in the minds of ancients.

I had a longer rendition of this argument in another forum post about a year ago and saw no rebuttal to it. It went something like this:

Think of any event that you are certain was planned or "premeditated," intended by a conscious being to have turned out how it did? What is the earmark of that event that unquestionably defines it as brought about by intentional intelligent purpose?

Let me suggest that when an event has evidence of "thinking ahead" to the possible future effects built into one or more of the causal links in the chain of events, we can safely conclude that it was designed or brought about by an intelligent being. Only conscious, intelligent beings can transcend the material causal chain, abstract from it, make predictions about possible outcomes and intervene in the causal sequence accordingly to bring about a predictable result....

For example, if you saw the words, HELP ME made by twigs and branches interlayed on a path in some remote area, you would likely conclude that some intelligent being put those twigs there. Why? Because the person in need "foresaw" that someone walking on the path would see the branches there and foresaw that the creature might be an intelligent being who would interpret the letters in a way that would bring about a desired result. This "foreseeing" or predicting of future effects in a causal chain, then setting up the situation to bring about a desired outcome is a trademark of intention.

We would conclude that if some of the events in a causal chain show evidence that anticipate future events and intervention in a purposeful, directed way, is evident, the events would very likely have been planned and brought about by some intelligent "controller," especially when the critical antecedent events themselves are highly unlikely to have merely occurred on their own.

In fact, the more unlikely the sequence, the more certain we could conclude intention and intelligence. Take the twigs on a path example. If there were just two twigs forming an arrow, well that could simply be accidental and really provide little certainty. If the twigs formed the letters HELP, well we could safely conclude probable intent, but the infinitesimal likelihood of all the letters in HELP ME I AM BEING HELD CAPTIVE IN AN OLD MINE SHAFT being formed of twigs and the fact that these letters have conspicuous meaning and function specifically to bring about a predictable outcome, i.e., getting another person to help, would make this sequence of events virtually certain of being designed by an intelligent being.

It seems to me that if within the workings of causal chains in nature or the cosmos itself, if we were to find improbable outcomes that have built into them a strong component of "looking ahead" or foreseeing intended outcomes, of transcending the causal chain, looking ahead towards a predictable outcome and of purposeful manipulation to bring about the outcome, then we could safely conclude intelligence in the design itself. Do we have examples like the twigs on the path in nature or the universe itself?

We do in fact have many. For example, the "writing" found in the genetic DNA of plants and animals is a far more complex and intelligently ordered "code" than the words HELP ME made of sticks. Surely, you would agree that HELP ME with sticks could only have been placed on a path by some intelligent being?

The genetic code case is very similar to the twigs. It is embedding form into a material in order to transfer "abstract" information. The information does not exist in the material itself, neither in the twigs nor in the DNA. These only serve as "media" for transfer. The information can only be "decoded" in the future under the right circumstances. Further, there is also the manipulation of the circumstances such that decoding will occur. The twigs are placed "on the path" where traffic will happen upon them. The genetic code is written into cells where it will be transferred to new cells through reproduction, then decoded. The circumstances are manipulated to bring about the decoding....

Energy by itself could not have accomplished this ordering. It would require a looking into the future to see how cells could make use of the DNA, then ordering the development of life through cell division to make use of it. That would be much less probable than some energy force such as wind or water writing "HELP ME I'M BEING HELD CAPTIVE... with sticks in a conspicuous place by mere chance. In both cases there is complex information being "abstractly" written into other material then "reconstituted" by being taken out of the material to bring about an intended outcome. The cases are similar.

We are compelled to say, "An intelligent being did this!" in the case of the twigs and being much less probable, must conclude it is also the case with genetic engineering.

For what other purpose has genetic engineering happened except to bring about a deliberate "future" outcome – an outcome that could only be comprehendible to an agent capable of abstracting information from the causal series, able to "comprehend" the function of biochemical entities and capable of coding key information into DNA molecules. For what purpose except to sustain, replicate and manipulate those life forms and to preserve these past one generation?

How could energy itself, a non-conscious entity, "transcend" the material causal sequence, look ahead to the need for "preserving" and improving forms of life if these are to survive, then begin to "order" the genetic material, the "sticks" in meaningful causal, highly complex ways, ways guaranteed to result in reproduction and survival?

Could simple energy on its own have carried out such a sequence of events? How could energy or matter have foresight to build into complex life forms the need for self-replication except for the purpose of keeping those forms going? Yet why would matter have a stake in keeping certain forms going? Why not, as in all other instances of inorganic matter, simply have formation -> deformation instead of reproduction?

Genetic coding is extremely complex and "intelligent" human beings have, only recently, been able to "decode" the genetic material with the aid of powerful algorithms on supercomputers. All this the work of blind energized matter merely pushing forward? How would matter/energy manipulate such an extensive number of variables to bring about such a complex outcome?

Why would "energy" itself have any inclination to preserve certain forms above others? Energy would have no tendency in this regard. ... Yet why would energy arrange highly complex information in cells in order to promote and extend those life forms forward into the future? There is certainly some "future" gazing going on here. A prediction of what could happen and a complex ordering of events to make it happen by passing complex information into the future by coding it in a neutral material in order to bring about a deliberate outcome. Yet how could energy "anticipate," plan and order in this way?

Further, that the arrangement of genetic material in highly complex ways, ways that are highly effective in preserving forms of life and in fact developing stronger, more capable forms of life, is much more complex than the ordering of a few sticks on a path. The sticks being ordered in such a way is considered almost certainly to be the work of intelligence. Yet those few hundred components are from the standpoint of probability much more likely to have merely assembled randomly than genetic coding that has millions of elements that must fit together properly in order to bring about a much more complicated, far-reaching, improbable and critically important result - sustaining millions of forms of life on Earth.

I can see one difference... In case of HELP ME example one intelligent being passes the coded information to another intelligent being. In case of DNA the addressee of the code is not an intelligent being but a molecule - why would an intelligent being be sending a message to a molecule?

Also the alphabet is more complex as a code than DNA sequences. DNA is not a code, transferring any sound or sense, it is a code transferring the structure - and it is based on multiple repeating of the same 4 elements. It is an "alphabet" with 4 letters only, and these 4 letters are only compatible between themselves and form only 2 pairs of chemical partners. This code is unsuitable for writing Iliad in it, all it can do is to specify the order in which chemical synthesis of the replicated molecule is happening. One can say that one molecule passes the message to another molecule using the DNA code - but hardly that one intelligent being sends a message to another with it.