Now let me ask you: show me a member of the clergy, or of any religious organization or congregation, or anyone else, indeed, who can prove the existence of god. I bet you that you can show me no one. — szardosszemagad

The periodic table of the elements lists all the known elements from 1 - 119, according to electron count. We did not create the elements nor the number of electrons each has. We only observed that there is something to count, and then we assigned little squiggles (which we call numbers) to quickly identify how many electrons each element has.

In other words, there is an observable, provable numerical sequence encoded into the building blocks of all matter which we did not put there. Even if you do not think of mathematics (which includes something as simple as counting from 1 - 119) as a language you must still recognize that there is a pattern which is so consistent that when the table was first being organized, scientists were able to leave gaps for previously undiscovered elements.

These days atheistic scientists have taken to using complexity as an explanation for complexity, but this is not a rational way to interpret evidence. They suggest that the more we learn about just how tremendously complex the universe is, the less need there is for any intelligence behind that complexity. It's an irrational conclusion, but that is the point of concepts like greed, fear, and in the case of a non-existent God who can be explained away by our own brilliant observations of the universe, pride. Conclusions based on these concepts will always be irrational even if they can be made to sound compelling under the guise of respectable, scientific, expert opinion.

I myself am generally sympathetic to the design arguments. But, the same argument will do nothing to sway someone who hasn't got a predisposition to believe it. — Wayfarer

This is a simple matter of definitions. "Designed" and "random" mean two different, opposing things like up and down, full and empty, on and off etc. Something cannot be random if it is designed, and the opposite is true. Technically, there is nothing in the universe that can be said to be totally random, because everything has a cause. However, the word still has meaning in that we can talk about something like a dice program which is programmed to roll random numbers, or a person who says random things not related to the topic at hand.

The words only have meaning if they are used according to what they actually mean. It may be that we have different ideas of what the words mean, but most people in the world will have the same basic idea, which is why we have dictionary definitions, to avoid this kind of dilemma.

If there is no designer, then there is no purpose or intent behind the universe. It is random. If you want to say the universe is not random, then you must give an explanation for how it is designed. Those are the only two options for "how did we come to be here".

This is why atheistic scientists invariably use phrases like, "laws" of physics, or natural "selection" or "evolutionary arms race". They do not really want a cold, dead theory devoid of any meaning or purpose. What they really want is the absence of a designer who has the right to place expectations on them and assign consequences for going against those expectations. All humans crave meaning and purpose and we all sometimes chafe at authority.

Designed" and "random" mean two different, opposing things like up and down, full and empty, on and off etc. — John Days

In this context, namely, the existence of the Universe, that is a simplistic view.

But as several other people have noted, you can't prove[ it one way or the other. — Wayfarer

But, proving the existence of God is inconsequential to the real point of what this God wants, anyway. Even the Bible says this; "you think there is something special about believing there is a God? Even the devils believe, but it doesn't change their behavior".

Traits like character, integrity, loyalty, and courage are hard to find. Who wants people who only listen to you because your authority to make demands of them has been so irrefutably proven that they have no other choice but to go along with what you want?

Thousands of people are recorded to have witnessed first-hand, irrefutable miracles in Jesus' day, and yet they still killed him. Personal faith is just that; personal. When you have no choice but to believe because you've been overwhelmed by the power of God, then what good does that achieve in terms of personal development?

I talked to a some-what militant atheist who basically said that even if the existence of God were irrefutably pointed out to her, she would still need to cross-examine this God to be sure that he he was worthy of her loyalty. Without realizing it, she'd hit the nail square on the head; all this proof and evidence stuff is just a smoke screen. The real issue is whether or not our creator is worth following, much like a child who recognizes that his parents have authority over him, and yet still chooses to be a bad boy.

That is a simplistic view. — Wayfarer

Yeah, most people discussing this topic prefer a lot of complexity. It's great for hiding. :p

No, I think your posing a false dichotomy. I have tried to explain it, will leave it there.

No, I think your posing a false dichotomy. I have tried to explain it, will leave it there. — Wayfarer

You talked about historical phenomenon. I talked about what random and designed actually mean in terms of concepts, and then attempted to accurately apply those definitions to the topic at hand. So no, you did not try to explain. You tried to make it complicated, which is why you complained when I made it simple. There is no "false dichotomy" here anymore than a door being open or closed is a false dichotomy.

I think MikeL had the right of it when he named this thread. I feel his frustration.

What do you think Buddhists would make of it? They don't believe that God created the Universe, but they also don't think that things just randomly happen. So they don't fit into your dichotomy.

I also think its intelligent design, but I don't think we are the sculpture, or anyone or anything else. I think the design is in atoms. The outcome is left to chance. Atoms self-assemble into sentient beings.

I don't understand how the observations by gob smacked scientists as they run around cataloging all the changes and postulating where from and where to somehow rules out the idea that atomic dice were cast and perhaps someone's waiting to see if they roll a seven when its all over.

What do you think Buddhists would make of it? They don't believe that God created the Universe, but they also don't think that things just randomly happen. So they don't fit into your dichotomy. — Wayfarer

Of course they fit into the reality of either random or designed. Just because they may think they don't, doesn't mean they are right. See, this isn't an issue of who can prove that their religion is correct. I'm talking about observing a verifiable fact of reality. Based on what the two words actually mean, they cannot both be true at the same time, any more than a door can be opened and closed at the same time.

I also think its intelligent design, but I don't think we are the sculpture, or anyone or anything else. I think the design is in atoms. The outcome is left to chance. Atoms self-assemble into sentient beings. — MikeL

Sure, like a powerball machine; the balls bounce around and pop out through the chute randomly, but the balls, machine, and chute (as well as the person operating the chute) are all designed to be random. It's still intelligent design, even if that's the way the creator designed time/space/matter to work in practical reality.

Yeah, that's a good way of putting John.

Nah, you've misunderstood the point. The answer was "I am that I am" and it was given in an unpronounceable series of letters (i.e. no vowels). The vowels were added later to make it pronounceable. The point was that God can be who or whatever he wants to be. We humans like special titles and designations because they help us to quickly organize information, but invariably we end up giving the titles special meaning which go beyond organizational utility. — John Days

Well that's the thing about ancient writings, you can interpret them in many different ways. If you are trying to assert a specific interpretation as "the correct interpretation", this requires reference to context, not personal feelings.

Even if your suggestion that "I am that I am" is correct in the sense of an eternal present, we're talking about the creator of time/space/matter in this context. How can you suggest that a being who is able to exist outside of time/space/matter is somehow contradicting itself by saying, "I exist right now"? — John Days

I don't think you read my post. If God is said to be "now" in an absolute sense, then this contradicts the premise that "now" is relative.

this requires reference to context, not personal feelings. — Metaphysician Undercover

Actually, I did give context. Here it is again...

"We come to enjoy the respect that often comes with special titles. Try calling a doctor by his first name (instead of "Doctor Bob"). Try calling your parents by their names, instead of "mom" and "dad" . Try calling your boss by his name, instead of "sir" or "Mr", and you'll quickly see that we humans love the respect and prominence that comes from special titles. Most of these people will become irrationally angry at being denied their special title and they will argue that they deserve the respect implied in the title. Do you see it? The title is no longer about communicating general information quickly, but rather about demanding the respect which we feel we deserve, and when respect is demanded, we're not even talking about respect anymore.

God wanted to make it clear to both Moses and pharaoh that he was not just another name on the long list of Gods to be trotted out and categorized into his appropriate box. He didn't need a special title to prove anything to pharaoh".

I don't think you read my post. — Metaphysician Undercover

I read it very carefully.

If God is said to be "now" in an absolute sense, then this contradicts the premise that "now" is relative. — Metaphysician Undercover

The context is that of a CREATOR who is able to exist in the past, present, and future all in the same instant, AND is able to exist outside of all 3 of those concepts at the same time. Perhaps you should try clarifying how you've come to the conclusion that a creator who is able to do this, is somehow cornered by your personal understanding of reality...

The complexity becomes an argument for why the complexity exists in the first place. It makes no sense. — John Days

Yes, it is a big closet they can hide in. It's do, so, big, and complex. Someday.

Actually, I did give context. Here it is again... — John Days

What I meant by "context", is the context in which the statement was used, the bible, not the context of your personal example. I have no doubt that you can produce an example which would make what you're saying make sense, but we need to consult the context in the Bible, to see what was meant.

God wanted to make it clear to both Moses and pharaoh that he was not just another name on the long list of Gods to be trotted out and categorized into his appropriate box. He didn't need a special title to prove anything to pharaoh". — John Days

Right, God didn't need a special title (a name) so what he gave was a brief description of Himself. He didn't want to be known as just another name, but as the one who "is". Therefore His brief description of Himself was "I am that I am". It's very clear from the context, in the Bible, that when Moses asked for a name, God's response was a refusal to give a name. He wanted the Israelites to know Him as "I am", and this is not to signify a name, but to signify existing, being at the present time.

The context is that of a CREATOR who is able to exist in the past, present, and future all in the same instant, AND is able to exist outside of all 3 of those concepts at the same time. — John Days

Now you're speaking nonsense. Where did you ever read that God is able to exist in the past, present and future, as well as completely outside of these, all at the same time. That's pure contradiction, and I've nowhere heard that God supports contradiction.

What I meant by "context", is the context in which the statement was used, the bible, not the context of your personal example. I have no doubt that you can produce an example which would make what you're saying make sense, but we need to consult the context in the Bible, to see what was meant. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your own conclusion is evidence that my interpretation is accurate. You say it's nonsense that the creator of time/space/matter can exist outside of time while simultaneously existing in the past, present, and future; just another human being telling "I am what I am" that he can't be what he is.

When we speak of randomness, we are talking about unpredictable events enmeshed within a contextual order. Take the two most common examples of randomness, gambling devices and radioactive decay. A six-sided die can provide one of six results {1,2,3,4,5,6}. It doesn't come up with zero, or seven, or 19. A decaying radioactive atom will emit particles which can be theoretically described. It doesn't turn into a pink elephant or become a six-sided die.

Randomness is, therefore, enmeshed in a context of order. We do not have even language to describe what "decontextualized randomness" would look like. What is probably the closest word to describe it is irrational, but used with the full apparatus of imagination, something which we rarely do (and when we do it we often recoil from it in horror).

In other words, the dichotomy order x randomness ought to be named order x irrationality.

***

But the entire program of establishing evidence for God from observations of Nature is misguided, because Nature is not immediate for us, whether in our created artifacts (dice and roulette included), whether in given experiences. We bring our interpretative schema into the issue when we do that, and this is why the debates are non-conclusive. It is more efficient to trace back the idea of God through history and to realize that the God we are talking about did not present itself (as an idea, without begging the issue of its 'reality-out-there') through natural manifestations, but rather in the human psyche (which is, indeed, immediate to us). It was only after the human psyche (I'm using this term in its Platonic sense, by the way) identified and developed the idea of the divine that it applied this notion to natural manifestations -- including social and cultural manifestations under this umbrella --, rather than vice versa.

In effect, the main driver of the modern atheist-theist debates is a conception of man (which is often embraced by both sides) in which the human psyche is isolated from the universe. The debate then becomes, "God exists only in the human psyche" vs. "God exists both in the psyche and outside the psyche". The discontinuity between psyche and reality, a nonsensical position, is taken for granted in this framing of the debate.

Interesting (Y)

When we speak of randomness, we are talking about unpredictable events enmeshed within a contextual order. Take the two most common examples of randomness, gambling devices and radioactive decay. A six-sided die can provide one of six results {1,2,3,4,5,6}. It doesn't come up with zero, or seven, or 19. A decaying radioactive atom will emit particles which can be theoretically described. It doesn't turn into a pink elephant or become a six-sided die.

Randomness is, therefore, enmeshed in a context of order. We do not have even language to describe what "decontextualized randomness" would look like. What is probably the closest word to describe it is irrational, but used with the full apparatus of imagination, something which we rarely do (and when we do it we often recoil from it in horror).

In other words, the dichotomy order x randomness ought to be named order x irrationality. — Mariner

I guess the other issue here is whether order is primordial, or chaos is primordial. If order is primordial, then chaos would emerge out of order. But if chaos was primordial, then the contextual order you make reference to would be emerging out of pure randomness no? Then that primordial randomness would create both the contextual order and the unpredictable randomness we notice inside of the contextual order.

I guess the other issue here is whether order is primordial, or chaos is primordial. — Agustino

Aristotle already answered that in the Metaphysics. Act has metaphysical precedence over potency.

Aristotle already answered that in the Metaphysics. Act has metaphysical precedence over potency. — Mariner

Hmmm - but there certainly seems to be a difference between act and order/chaos. The Aristotelian act/potency dichotomy seems to be beyond the dichotomy of order/chaos.

It is true that thinkers prior to Aristotle did associate potency with chaos (I'm thinking primarily Anaxagoras {I think it was}, but I don't see this as a necessary association).

Chaos is unlimited potency, while order (of a given kind) is a given actualization of said potency.

How else would you categorize chaos and order?

Chaos is unlimited potency — Mariner

Why would you say chaos is unlimited potency? Afterall, potency without act is nothing.

How else would you categorize chaos and order? — Mariner

I would characterise chaos as lacking in pattern/predictability/explanation. Whereas I would characterise order having pattern/predictability/explanation.

Afterall, potency without act is nothing. — Agustino

Nope. Potency without act is something. Nothing is no thing. In nothing, there is no potency.

Nope. Potency without act is something. Nothing is no thing. In nothing, there is no potency. — Mariner

Well potency cannot actualize itself - infinite potency (in the absence of act) is just infinite nothing - it doesn't do anything, it cannot do anything. In what sense is potency without act something? In the sense that it could be something if acted upon?

And how does infinite potency represent chaos? Have you heard of logistic mapping?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_map

I think of chaos more like this. Something that lacks pattern and lacks predictability.

Well potency cannot actualize itself - infinite potency (in the absence of act) is just infinite nothing - it doesn't do anything, it cannot do anything. — Agustino

It does not do anything and cannot do anything, but that does not make it "nothing". It makes it "something which cannot do anything". Pretty much congruent with chaos.

In what sense is potency without act something? In the sense that it could be something if acted upon? — Agustino

Yep. Just as nothing would not become something "if acted upon". If you act upon nothing, what you get is nothing. (Else you would be acting upon something).

Prime matter (as per Aristotelian usage), or "stuff" for our modern-day sentences, is something. It is undetermined (since any determination is an act), but it is something nonetheless.

We are here on the edges of discourse, so I cannot do much more than refer you to the Aristotelian discussion... and this discussion was not supposed (by Aristotle) to end the subject, but rather to point the student to a stance from which he would grasp the potency/act distinction. Aristotle was very clear that this distinction cannot be defined or explained (on pain of infinite regress), it has to be immediately grasped. (And this takes us back to my original comment about how all evidence for God requires immediate experience, rather than experience mediated by some concepts)

By the way, chaos as defined in mathematics has very little to do with chaos as used in metaphysics (and in everyday discourse, too).

It does not do anything and cannot do anything, but that does not make it "nothing". It makes it "something which cannot do anything". Pretty much congruent with chaos. — Mariner

Well I think it's wrong to say chaos cannot do anything, that's precisely my problem in fact. I view chaos as something that DOES something, but does it without pattern and unpredictably, and quite possibly without reason either.

Prime matter (as per Aristotelian usage), or "stuff" for our modern-day sentences, is something. It is undetermined (since any determination is an act), but it is something nonetheless. — Mariner

Yes, I am quite familiar with what Aristotle did there. Basically, there is a category between act (being) and absolute nothing and that is potency.

By the way, chaos as defined in mathematics has very little to do with chaos as used in metaphysics (and in everyday discourse, too). — Mariner

I don't think so, because in my mind chaos is actually something which acts. That's why I'm confused when you try to tell me that chaos is infinite potency.