Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

Good job that the use of fallacies isn't rationed, Alan.

We'd have a large and sudden exodus from the forum if it was, Gord me boy

[Shaker]

* "When confronted by allegedly (note that word, Alan - its important) "supernatural" events, what means or methodology do you employ to find out whether it's true or not?"

Anyone who has served on a jury will verify that for any given situation, there is no foolproof method of determining the truth.  What you need to do is look at the available evidence, then apply your gifts of intelligence and common sense to determine what is most likely to be true.

While not an answer to the question I posed - I didn't actually expect one - that's exactly what I already do, as it happens.

[Alan Burns]

Another of your arguments from incredulity.

Ultimately does not everything boil down to personal credulity?

I can't bring myself to believe in something I perceive to be untrue.

[Shaker]

I can't bring myself to believe in something I perceive to be untrue.

Spoken like the good atheist about all the other gods you don't believe in that you are, Al

[Maeght]

Richard Dawkins, and the vast majority of scientists who work in the field, including people who do believe in God, see no issue with a natural, unguided process resulting in complexity such as the human eye. You have an issue because it conflicts with your beliefs.

There are a significant number of scientists (though they may be in a minority)

There is no 'may' about it - they are vastly in the minority and most, as has been said, are creationist pseudo scientists who have little or no peer reviewed work to their names  but who inhabit creationist websites in the main.

.. who maintain that the unguided natural selection process can never be capable of anything more than a fine tuning process on something which is already complex.

They may maintain it but have never been able to invalidate the ToE by natural selection.

And the human body has many complex organs - some, like the brain, are much more complex than the human eye. The problem is that there is no valid way of verifying that the unguided natural selection process alone was responsible for bringing life into existence.

Are you doing the usual switch of moving from evolution to abiogenesis? They are different processes of course.

I am aware that naturalists have tried to demonstrate the viability of the natural selection process using mathematical models, but the parameters used for these models are light years away from true reality.

Are you referring to evolution by natural selection, which is very well supported by evidence, or abiogenesis?

My own view on this is based on the ability of human beings to exercise their free will to bring about human creativity.

Feel free to hold whatever view you want but why should anyone else take any notice of it?

This is evidence that intelligent design can and does occur in this universe, driven by free will,

Only if you are desperate to look for support in your belief in free will

so whatever gave us this gift of free will must also posses this ability, and must have used it to interact with nature to bring us into existence.  And the bible says that we are made in God's image.

Just your beliefs, nothing more.

[Alan Burns]

I can't bring myself to believe in something I perceive to be untrue.

Spoken like the good atheist about all the other gods you don't believe in that you are, Al

There is only one truth, and we only have one lifetime to discover it.

[Alan Burns]

They may maintain it but have never been able to invalidate the ToE by natural selection.

There is no way to prove that the process of evolution was not intelligently guided.  It is an assumption based on the belief that God does not exist.

[torridon]

They may maintain it but have never been able to invalidate the ToE by natural selection.

There is no way to prove that the process of evolution was not intelligently guided.  It is an assumption based on the belief that God does not exist.

Negative proof fallacy.

There is no way to prove that the sun isn't pulled across the sky by a team of mapic pixies.

The duty to justify the belief in intelligent design lies with those making the claim of intelligent design.

[torridon]

I can't bring myself to believe in something I perceive to be untrue.

Spoken like the good atheist about all the other gods you don't believe in that you are, Al

There is only one truth, and we only have one lifetime to discover it.

Why does your god hide it then ? He is happy to burst into your life unbidden but keeps his truth unrevealed from others. Such a capricious god is not consistent with a good god. Makes no sense to me.

[Maeght]

They may maintain it but have never been able to invalidate the ToE by natural selection.

There is no way to prove that the process of evolution was not intelligently guided.  It is an assumption based on the belief that God does not exist.

Science doesn't do proofs and so of course there is no way to prove that the process of evolution was not intelligently guided, but scientists who work in the field have found no evidence for intelligent guidance. You cannot provide evidence for intelligent guidance beyond your incredulity regarding a non guided process, and the theory of evolution by natural selection has not been invalidated. Until that point it stands as a strong and robust theory with a great deal of supporting evidence. There is no assumption that God doesn't exist but no presumption of intelligent guidance as in your case. Start with an hypothesis and find supporting evidence, develop a theory and then test that theory and make predictions based in it which can be checked out by further  investigation. If the predictions are found to be correct then this supports the theory, if they don't then the theory is invalid. Its called the scientific method and has worked very well for ToE by Natural Selection despite claims to the contrary by a tiny minority of pseudo scientists who are driven by their creationist beliefs. You want there to be intelligent guidance and so seek out the views of the tiny minority.

[Alan Burns]

So I stand back in wonder and awe at the most complex object in the known universe, a human DNA molecule.  A microscopic object containing all the information and mechanisms needed to build and maintain a human being, complete with the undefinable gift of self awareness.  Yes, it is absolutely 100% personal incredulity that this object came into existence without any intelligently guided process.

[Alan Burns]

Why does your god hide it then ? He is happy to burst into your life unbidden but keeps his truth unrevealed from others. Such a capricious god is not consistent with a good god. Makes no sense to me.

I have to accept reality as it is, not how I would want it to be.
But I also have to accept that reality could not exist without God.

[torridon]

But I also have to accept that reality could not exist without God.

I don't see how that follows.  What's your justification for that statement ?

[torridon]

So I stand back in wonder and awe at the most complex object in the known universe, a human DNA molecule.  A microscopic object containing all the information and mechanisms needed to build and maintain a human being, complete with the undefinable gift of self awareness.  Yes, it is absolutely 100% personal incredulity that this object came into existence without any intelligently guided process.

If it were intelligently guided then it would not contain thousands of inherited encoded disorders that afflict humans; if it were cleanly designed then it would not contain redundant genes from all our prehuman ancestors, it would not contain non-human viral insertions, it would be free of redundant junk.

[Leonard James]

So I stand back in wonder and awe at the most complex object in the known universe, a human DNA molecule.  A microscopic object containing all the information and mechanisms needed to build and maintain a human being, complete with the undefinable gift of self awareness.  Yes, it is absolutely 100% personal incredulity that this object came into existence without any intelligently guided process.

If you really studied and understood the process described in the TOE, you would never say such a thing. No external intelligence is needed for it to take place.

Whether or not the universe is the work of an intelligent force, we don't yet know. The universe might have been designed by such a force, but on the other hand it could be the unanticipated fall-out if an experiment in some vast "other" universe. A bit like Hiroshima, in which intelligent beings went ahead with a plan but were totally unaware of all the side effects that would be the result. It wasn't designed to produce those side effects, they were just the unfortunate result.

[Alan Burns]

But I also have to accept that reality could not exist without God.

I don't see how that follows.  What's your justification for that statement ?

If God did not exist, then I would not exist - and neither I nor anyone else would  be aware of reality.

[torridon]

But I also have to accept that reality could not exist without God.

I don't see how that follows.  What's your justification for that statement ?

If God did not exist, then I would not exist - and neither I nor anyone else would not be aware of reality.

That's just circular self referential reasoning Alan. Try again;  What's your justification for that statement ?

[Maeght]

So I stand back in wonder and awe at the most complex object in the known universe, a human DNA molecule.  A microscopic object containing all the information and mechanisms needed to build and maintain a human being, complete with the undefinable gift of self awareness.  Yes, it is absolutely 100% personal incredulity that this object came into existence without any intelligently guided process.

Great that you admit it is due to personal incredulity. Why not stick to that then rather than to try to spread your incredulity around.

[Maeght]

I have to accept reality as it is, not how I would want it to be.
But I also have to accept that reality could not exist without God.

Fine, you accept that. Just don't think its something everyone else should accept.

[Alan Burns]

But I also have to accept that reality could not exist without God.

I don't see how that follows.  What's your justification for that statement ?

If God did not exist, then I would not exist - and neither I nor anyone else would not be aware of reality.

That's just circular self referential reasoning Alan. Try again;  What's your justification for that statement ?

I just believe that God is the essence of reality.  God is simply that which exists outside our universe, and brought our universe into being.

[Maeght]

But I also have to accept that reality could not exist without God.

I don't see how that follows.  What's your justification for that statement ?

If God did not exist, then I would not exist - and neither I nor anyone else would not be aware of reality.

That's just circular self referential reasoning Alan. Try again;  What's your justification for that statement ?

I just believe that God is the essence of reality.  God is simply that which exists outside our universe, and brought our universe into being.

You should have just said 'I just believe' and left it at that, because that is all there is to it.

[torridon]

But I also have to accept that reality could not exist without God.

I don't see how that follows.  What's your justification for that statement ?

If God did not exist, then I would not exist - and neither I nor anyone else would not be aware of reality.

That's just circular self referential reasoning Alan. Try again;  What's your justification for that statement ?

I just believe that God is the essence of reality.  God is simply that which exists outside our universe, and brought our universe into being.

That's not justification, that's just a statement of your belief. You have to have some grounds for a belief.

[Alan Burns]

If it were intelligently guided then it would not contain thousands of inherited encoded disorders that afflict humans; if it were cleanly designed then it would not contain redundant genes from all our prehuman ancestors, it would not contain non-human viral insertions, it would be free of redundant junk.

You rightly point out our imperfections.

But in order to recognise imperfections, we need to have a concept of perfection.  Perfection does not exist in our material world, but it does exist as a concept within the human mind - but where does this concept come from if it does not exist?  Could our concept of perfection be a God given insight into the nature of Heaven?

[Maeght]

Could our concept of perfection be a God given insight into the nature of Heaven?

Only if you've got a very vivid imagination.

[ekim]

But I also have to accept that reality could not exist without God.

I don't see how that follows.  What's your justification for that statement ?

If God did not exist, then I would not exist - and neither I nor anyone else would not be aware of reality.

That's just circular self referential reasoning Alan. Try again;  What's your justification for that statement ?

I just believe that God is the essence of reality.  God is simply that which exists outside our universe, and brought our universe into being.

You should have just said 'I just believe' and left it at that, because that is all there is to it.

He could have done or he could have just signed off and not returned but this is a site for discussing beliefs.  Now that he has said this :  "I just believe that God is the essence of reality.  God is simply that which exists outside our universe, and brought our universe into being." it might have been better if he had related his reply to the topic heading and suggested how to search for this 'essence' and realise it (make it real) rather than just believe in it.  Also, if his God exists outside of the universe, how does this relate to 'the Kingdom of Heaven within' and 'our Father who is in Heaven' and does it mean that his God is not omnipresent and therefore not omniscient?  Perhaps you could answer this, Alan.