How do you convince people god exists?

Well here's another analogy....

Einstein comes up with the hypothesis of relativity, which funnily enough replace newton's accepted theory for the preceding 200 hundred years.

Did everyone believe in this theory at first? 1905
Was there any evidence for his theory? He only finalised it in 1916.
First experiment to test it in 1919.

And today there are many alternative theories that might update or replace it completely.

As I said, I kind of just fell upon this thread, and the concept of ID, to date is not proven (even if some claim it is), but in the future, as it is explored more and technology advances, it may be proved and somehow testable....

Maybe we will discover parallel universes, that could lead to more info, maybe an advanced alien race will land with the plans and details of it all or maybe it will never be proved (which does not necessarily means its not possible.

Maybe I'll ask another question, is evolution proved without doubt? Not that it occurs, but that all life stared from it, and evolution itself cannot be part of a designed system?

Like Newton and Eisteins, it is possible new evidence may come that will prove or disprove it once and for all (for a while at least )

There is no way you can convince a person by evidence that a god really exists. However you can show him by using logic. Ask him you can only convince me that your god is true and exists, if you throw yourself from the 5 story building and ask your god to save . If Your god saved you. Then I would believe and worhsip your god in whole my live. if he could not save you and you die. then you god is lie. Try this competition with different people who believe in different God ( Jesus, Baghwan, Allah, Odin,)

Or i would belive in Jesus if he sends one billion dolloar to my acount. I dont need to tell in what bank account. Because he is all seing, all hearing

Again I will say firstly, I do not believe ID is proven in anyway to date and therefore a God is not proven. But for for pure science people here...

Do you think the people searching for life on other planets are pseudo scientists, as we have no firm testable evidence of this?

Do you believe life more intelligent than us is possible in our universe, should we stop looking for it because we have no current evidence?

Do you believe other universes are possible, are scientists that look for clues to this wasteing their time? Scientists who deal in string theory, multi verse etc.

Do you believe our planet could have been seeded with life from another planet, by a more advance life within the universe, could we do this to a distant planet (probe with dna, basic bacteria?) that we ourselves can not reach, or are extinct before they evolve to our level?

If we started every science discovery, with the pre requisite that it must be testable or abondon it immediately, then many discoveries, that take years to complete, would not have happened.

If we found a silicon in chip on a distant planet, with no other prove of life and not of Earth origin, would we say the silicon chip must have evolved, as there is no proof of a creater (aliens lifeforms), or could we make a reasonable assumption it must have been designed?

Again I am in no way say we can say this about our life, our planet, our universe today, but who knows what we may start to discover in the future...if we keeping looking, keep investigating the hypothesis.

ForestFire wrote: »

Okay but every scientific idea or hypothesis starts with little or no evidence, and this is what needs to be done to prove it.

ID Is still at this stage and not proven, but to say you started with an assumption, then everything later is invalid is not correct.

Did Newton not start with an assumption of a force "pulling" the apple to his head and then whet on to collect the evidence, to finally prove the law of gravity?

(I must confess(to somebody?) I only stumbled in here and have not read the entire thread)

Start with this post. ID is back door creationism and therefore nonsense.

ForestFire wrote: »

If we started every science discovery, with the pre requisite that it must be testable or abondon it immediately, then many discoveries, that take years to complete, would not have happened.

Actually, they only happened because they were testable. If they weren't in some way testable, then there would be no way of determining if any proposed mechanism was true. Falsifiability is absolutely necessary for science to work.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, it's like saying that "Peptides can form without amino acids" and then showing it in a peer reviewed scientific paper (here is the original paper).

When they say "Peptides can form", what they actually mean is that peptides *can be formed/synthesized* (in a lab under the agency of intelligent chemists). Correct?

kelly1 wrote: »

According to the vid below, the probability of a single functional DNA strand forming randomly

Is this called the "conclusion fallacy"? I can not remember as it has been so long since I have corrected someone for using it on this or any forum that I have lost touch with the lingo.

Anyway let me explain the fallacy your video link has duped you with. So you can be angry at the video makers for lying to you when they likely know better.

The fallacy involves you working backwards from a given event and declaring it is too unlikely for that event to have happened i that way. For example if you get 100 decks of cards and deal out all 5200 cards in a random order and then work out the probability of getting exactly THAT order of cards.... you will get a monumental result.

The fallacy is based on misleading you that that result is somehow significant. With a random link of 5200 cards you realise it is not significant. With DNA it is the same thing however. The video causes you to be looking at the strands of DNA that built the first life on this planet and saying "Wow that is unlikely".

But they do not mention that there could have been any number of other perfectly functional sequences that would have resulted in life on this planet, which would have looked back going "wow that was unlikely!".

Douglas Adams coined a useful analogy for this fallacy. Imagine a puddle which magically becomes sentient and it looks at the hole it is in and thinks "This hole MUST have been made for me, for it fits my dimensions and therefore my requirements so precisely and accurately it could not have happened by chance!!!!".

The puddle of course misses the point that it formed to fit the hole, not the other way around, and it would have woken up in a hole of ANY shape making exactly the same fallacious error. You, or at least the video that is lying to you here, are the puddle.

kelly1 wrote: »

According to James Tour (organic chemist), the problem becomes practically insoluble because a single (simple) cell needs to be completely formed in order for it to survive and replicate.

This fallacy is one I am not sure there has ever been a name for. There probably is. However I used to call it the "Arch Bridge Fallacy". The reason being that if you look at a really impressive arch bridge you are given the impression it could not have been built laying one stone block at a time. At some point it would have collapsed under it's own weight.

The fallacy comes from only imagining the blocks you can see in the Bridge however. You CAN build an arch bridge one block at a time if you place supporting blocks which you then remove later.

The "cell needs to be completely formed" fallacy, or the ANYTHING needs to be completely formed fallacy (there are other things other than the cell that creationists like to play the same fallacy with, the one that jumps to mind is the mechanism of blood clotting, though there a few others I could name if you want. Creationists used to like using a mouse trap as an analogy for this until an actual Evolutionary Scientist not only explained the fallacy, but used a mouse trap to demonstrate their error. I never saw them use a mouse trap in their talks again after that.) usually misses the fact that you are looking at the cell/function as it is NOW and not seeing the support blocks that would have come and gone over it's evolutionary history.

kelly1 wrote: »

IMHO, the above is about the strongest argument I've come across.

The fallacy in play here also has a name I forget. It's the fallacy of assuming two conclusions and therefore presenting a rebuttal to one as evidence for the other. This is worth learning, it is rare that if you take two completely unsubstantiated claims and then rebut one.... that you have provided ANY evidence for the other.

What you presented above as "the strongest argument" was a poor attempt to rebut Evolutionary Science. Let us imagine for one minute that you actually did that. You totally mathematically prove that evolution could simply not have happened as science currently believes it did.

That is not remotely, for one moment, a single shred of an iota of evidence for a god. At the very most.... the VERY MOST.... it would be a signal that we still do not know how life came about, and we currently have no hypothesis with evidence for them.

To pretend "This proves evolution false.... therefore god" is a god of the gaps fallacy, an argument from ignorance, and a "two conclusion fallacy" all rolled into one.

kelly1 wrote: »

Life had to start with a minimum of a complete cell.

That is a MASSIVE assertion that science does not claim and, if true, would be a very interesting fact to add to science. So if you can substantiate it in any way, rather than simply assert it by fiat, it would be a useful move to make.

However I have not seen a single thing suggesting that claim is valid. So if you have anything to support it, please let us know. Preferably BEFORE you get noticed by the Nobel Prize Committee after which you are likely to forget the little people like us here.

kelly1 wrote: »

Ultimately, faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit.

Circular nonsense. It is a crass move to make belief in an asserted conclusion be predicated on belief in the conclusion. It ranks somewhere on the level of "I know you are, but what am I?" in terms of rhetorical quality to be honest.

But I have long suggested that as a useful definition of the word "faith". Many people on this very forum have suggested definitions of the word "faith" like "believe without evidence" or even "belief in spite of the evidence".

My own definition has often been "Faith is using the conclusion that something is true as the focal part of the evidence that something is true". Or put another way.... the evidence for a god only works if you pre-suppose the conclusion that it works.

kelly1 wrote: »

Cells are the fundamental units of life. Do you know of anything less that can survive long enough to replicate? Something that would be considered life?

There is an interesting and rather telling constraint you are putting on your question there which I am unsure from your posts so far is an error you are making, or an intentional dishonest move to confound. I am erring so far towards the former as you do not yet exude the dishonesty creationists have in the past. So I am going to assume good faith on it here.

But why would the "something that can replicate" also have to be "something that would be considered life"? After all the whole point of suggestions like the "RNA World" is to discuss a function pre-cursor to life. So by definition the functional replicator is something that would NOT "be considered life". So your constraint here is invalid, misleading and damaging.

All "life" would have needed to form is Evolution and Natural Selection. And as a very devout Catholic Biology Scientist once pointed out you functionally only need very very basic things for Evolution and Natural Selection to occur. Which are:

1) Something that replicates at all.
2) The replication exhibits near, but not perfect, fidelity.
3) There is some level of differential success in the variants produced in each Generation.

kelly1 wrote: »

Just what is unscientific about ID?

Creationism.... what it is actually called before they very cynical and transparent attempt to rebrand as ID to get around a high court order in the States.... is unscientific mainly because of the "two conclusion fallacy" I described above.

That is to say it does not actually provide ANY evidence for it's own claims and conclusions... that a designer exists. Rather they expect people to accept that conclusion based solely on their flapping and failed attempts to debunk the competing conclusion.

And that is NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. If you have no evidence for your claim in science, then you do not often manufacture evidence by attacking someone else's claims in science. You could 100% debunk and destroy someone else's claim in science more completely than anything has ever been debunked in science before.... and your own claim will STILL be unsubstantiated when the dust settles.

So as long as they play the "Evolution is false, therefore god" move they are and will remain to be entirely unscientific in their approach to their own claims.

Further to this however....

kelly1 wrote: »

The only difference between ID and "mainstream" Darwinian science is that both groups come to different conclusions based on their observations.

... there are other differences. For example "prediction" is a huge thing in science. You make theories that make predictions and you go and test if those predictions are true. This is being done, and has been done, in Evolutionary Science in spades. I can regale you with beautiful examples at the microscopic and macroscopic level if you wish.

I am unaware of a single "testable prediction" made by Creationism however. So again: Not really science.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The fallacy involves you working backwards from a given event and declaring it is too unlikely for that event to have happened i that way. For example if you get 100 decks of cards and deal out all 5200 cards in a random order and then work out the probability of getting exactly THAT order of cards.... you will get a monumental result.

Sorry, not a very good analogy because 5200 cards in random order is nothing special and has no useful purpose. On the other hand, the order and structure of DNA and proteins is highly specific. If you get the order (or structure) wrong, the molecule is totally useless, it is not functional. In the case of cards in a random order, it's not like one particular order has special properties. All orders are useless, they serve no purpose.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The fallacy comes from only imagining the blocks you can see in the Bridge however. You CAN build an arch bridge one block at a time if you place supporting blocks which you then remove later.

You really think somethings more complex than the cell existed and then it later simplified? How plausible is that??

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What you presented above as "the strongest argument" was a poor attempt to rebut Evolutionary Science.

We're talking about abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution assumes existing life, doesn't it?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Let us imagine for one minute that you actually did that. You totally mathematically prove that evolution could simply not have happened as science currently believes it did.

If evolution is false, biological science comes to a dead-end because there is no scientific alternative to evolution.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is not remotely, for one moment, a single shred of an iota of evidence for a god. At the very most.... the VERY MOST.... it would be a signal that we still do not know how life came about, and we currently have no hypothesis with evidence for them.

If it can be shown that an intelligent agent is required to create life, then I think we have a good argument for God. The "aliens did it" argument doesn't work.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is a MASSIVE assertion that science does not claim and, if true, would be a very interesting fact to add to science. So if you can substantiate it in any way, rather than simply assert it by fiat, it would be a useful move to make.

Do you know of anything less than a cell that would be considered "life"? Afaik, viruses don't meet all the criteria of a living organism.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But why would the "something that can replicate" also have to be "something that would be considered life"? After all the whole point of suggestions like the "RNA World" is to discuss a function pre-cursor to life. So by definition the functional replicator is something that would NOT "be considered life". So your constraint here is invalid, misleading and damaging.

But now long can RNA survive? Genuine question, I don't know the answer, but I'm assuming it can't last long without some form or protection and something that would repair any damage done to it.

Again I go back to the probability problem that hundreds of specific proteins are required to build a cell. If say 300 distinct proteins are required, how could they possibly survive for long periods of time and come together in a small point in space and assemble into a functioning cell? It's like trying to build a house of cards in a storm.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

All "life" would have needed to form is Evolution and Natural Selection.

But again, I'm talking about how life began. Life is required for evolution to occur.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is to say it does not actually provide ANY evidence for it's own claims and conclusions... that a designer exists. Rather they expect people to accept that conclusion based solely on their flapping and failed attempts to debunk the competing conclusion.

I do see where you're coming from but if you rule out the chance hypothesis, what are you left with? When you also have a cumulative case for design, that strengthens the case for God, IMO.

My own *opinion* is that science has hit a glass ceiling when it comes to cutting edge investigation. I don't believe science will ever discover the cause of the big-bang, or the reason for the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants of nature, or the origin of life. We can not assume science will ever come to complete knowledge. I completely understand that invoking God puts an end to the scientific route but it's a possibility that should be admitted.

smacl wrote: »

I agree. Scientific knowledge, as a subset of all human knowledge, is and in all probability will always be, finite. It is however expanding, and rather than hitting a glass ceiling it is growing exponentially. Buckminster Fuller noted it was doubling century on century but that rate of change is accelerating rapidly. It seems probable that we will see greater than human artificial intelligence with a few decades, which will mean another order of magnitude increase. Still a fart in a hurricane at a universal level but I rather doubt there'll be much talk of ID at that point. From where I'm sitting it seems considerably more likely that we will make god in our own image than the reverse, but then I guess we always have.

I could be wrong but it seems to me our knowledge is growing rapidly in technology rather than science. e.g. when was the last great leap forward in physics? Was it not with General Relativity? I wouldn't call the discovery of the predicted Higgs Boson a great leap.

Likewise in life sciences, how much progress have we really made? From what I've read, the problems are becoming more difficult as our knowledge of cell structure and mechanisms increases.