The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular Liberty.com

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
12 votes

I would like to hear your best evidence for a Creator

I'm putting together another list, and I could use your help. Opposing evidence is welcome as well.

*EDIT* Here are the answers I have gleaned from this thread.
http://www.dailypaul.com/315168/evidence-for-a-creationist-m...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I prefer not to go into philosophy.

But rather, into something that is either true or false (tangible and not).

It is true that the human brain is the most complex "machine" in the universe. But let's not go there, let's just stick to the more general area of DNA, the blueprint of life.

Now imagine this: If i were to open up the hood of a car to expose the engine, could I in my wildest imagination consider the engine (and the outer shell of the vehicle) to have been created by random chance?

Likewise, if I reverse-engineered a piece of software, let's say a video game, to expose the code/language it was written in, could I imagine that it was randomly sequenced by chance?

Even if i gave several billion years for things to evolve, there is not way I can believe such a thing. I think only those who've studied bio-chemisty and/or organic-chemistry understands that what the majority understands of DNA is only the icing on the cake, because most do not understand the intricate chemical "dance" that must take place in order for a strand of DNA to just replicate. When one studies DNA and it's replication process at the molecular level in detail, it is hard to deny that it was engineered.

So if I can look at a car engine or piece of software code and be utterly convinced it was engineered/designed, I cannot with a right conscious believe that life with all of its bio-chemical complexities could possibly be randomly evolved. Because truly these modern-day analogies are nowhere near the level of DNA complexity. And this is just considering the process of DNA replication.

IMHO, it seems obvious that there is a "creative energy" behind life and it's universe.

By defining

God as the creator, the issue becomes the characteristics of the creator as opposed to whether or not there is a creator.

Two things: The progress of mankind and the paradox.

1. The Progress of Mankind. According to Science, Mankind will continue to learn and grow until it travels in time and space and then continues on discovering the secrets of the universe and eventually knowing all things and having power over all things including time, space etc.. therefore by evolving into that you would be what God is. And since time is irrelevant He would already exist right now.

2.The Paradox: If somehow you could peer into all of the past and understand all the future and everything in it you could truly say there is no God. However if you had that power you would be God.

One other comment. God isn't arbitrary and random. The Laws he makes are perfect and wonderful. God can't lie otherwise you couldn't trust Him. God has to be trusted otherwise the things he gives Laws and commandments would not obey Him. All Powerful doesn't mean He can do anything it means He has every possible Power that can be had by anyone. God's glory is enhanced by our obedience to the Laws he gives. That is why there is place for those who don't want to chose to live his Laws (Hell). Only with God are all things possible.

according to 'God and the New Physics' by Paul Davies:

The universe is so orderly and predictable as a result of how matter organizes itself at each level (he quotes Feynman here) from quarks to molecules to waves and surface tension in water etc, that if there is a creator God it appears that he did not have any choice at all in how the universe would end up looking. In other words God could not have made the universe in any other way.

http://www.amazon.com/God-New-Physics-Paul-Davies/dp/0671528...

Chris Indeedski!

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.

LOL

Scientists are explorers, investigators, blind men groping in the dark and children seeing the world for the first time.

Of course the Universe that God made is self consistent. Why wouldn't it be. But to say that God could not have created it any other way is childish. Of course he could, every rule of physics could be different.
mathematics, logic and reality could be different.

Scientists used to look at the universe with a sense of awe, but lately there seems to be too much arrogance and the number of times they are proven wrong is way to high to have that kind of arrogance.

Well since something can't come from nothing

Something had to make the universe. QED : Creator

And of course the creator couldn't come from nothing, and since that is the principle that logically demands the universe had a creator, the creator had to have a creator.

And of course the universe's creator's creator couldn't just come from nothing. That's absurd. We've already established things can't come from nothing, or else the universe wouldn't have had to have a creator.

So the universe's creator's creator had to have a creator.

And so on.

Now one might argue that something could come from nothing, but in that case we've obviated the logical necessity for a creator whatsoever! Which clearly isn't true.

What would be really crazy would be to say one thing had to have a creator, but that thing didn't have to have a creator. So since we can rule that out as plain idiotic..

It's turtles all the way down.

God is supernatural, not natural

The big bang could not happen. The structure of the universe is not random and random events do not sufficiently describe creation.

Natural things of this universe require a first cause - a supernatural event. Creation.

As God is supernatural He can exist fully outside of the law of nature and therefore does not need to have a creator. Natural things must.

This is not a proof of the existence of the God of Moses per se. But it is a requirement for a supernatural creator - who very well could be the God of Moses.

This is classic begging the question

First off because you don't understand something doesn't make it 'supernatural'.

Second off if there is such a thing as 'supernatural', beyond our knowledge, then you certainly don't know anything about it that you didn't just make up. Because it's beyond our knowledge. That means you don't know.

Third off you don't know that anything can exist outside the laws of nature, or even what the laws of nature are in any remotely complete way.

If things need creators then creators need creatrs.
If things don't need creators then they don't.

You're making a claim about the universe without evidence, and much worse, making a claim about something that by definition you can't comprehend or possibly know.

If there is a God, how can you possibly say he wasn't created? You've inferred all sorts of thing about him, motivations, morality, benevolence, vengefullness (accrding to some), gender, etc that are directly analogous to human beings. So then how, and why, can you possibly say he didn't have a creator?

It's preposterous that some (not all) Christians make all sorts of claims of fact about God, and then turn around and claim he's beyond our knowledge. "Gods ways are not for men to understand." Well ok but then why do we make knowledge claims about God?

Wrong - you don't know what begging the question means

It is not begging the question it is answering the question.

1) How could the universe have started?
2) Not through nature since every result of nature needs a cause.
3) Therefore the start of the universe is supernatural.

It is a simple construct - it is not begging the question it is proposing the only possible answer.

When you have ruled out the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, is the truth...

Your supposition is worse:

1) How could the universe have started?
2) Not through nature since every result of nature needs a cause.
3) Yes, through nature but I have no idea how.

That is begging the question. It is the definition of begging the question.

Begging the question is assuming the conclusion

This is exactly what the argument in discussion does.

By definition I cannot possibly be begging the question. I am not making an argument. I am debunking an argument.

I'm not making any assertion about the nature of reality. I'm not saying things need creators or they do not need creators. I'm not making a claim that God does not exist.

This is why you lose. I am merely showing that this particular argument for the existence of God is absurd.

If all things need creators then fine. If all things do not need creators then fine. But don't tell me this one thing here needs a creator, without any evidence to show, and this other thing over here doesn't need a creator without any evidence to show, and also I might add, that the other thing exists at all.

'Supernatural' is just an excuse for the unknown that people seize upon to further their own agenda.

There are only three categories of things.

The known.
The unknown.
The unknowable.

God is clearly not in the first category.
He may be in the second category. And then in the fullness of time we will know his nature.
If you want to tell me he is in the third category, then stop making knowledge claims about God. Because you cannot possibly know anything about him, by definition.

Because surely you wouldn't be so silly as to claim, the things you like to believe about God, you know are true, despite his being beyond our knowledge. But the things you don't like to believe about God, are not true, also despite his being beyond your knowledge.

If you believe in God fine. Don't pretend there is a logical proof he does exist.

I don't believe in God. I don't pretend there is a logical proof God doesn't exist.

Only three categories of things?

Who decided that rule. If there are unknowns, isn't one of the unknowns another category of of things.

The misknown, makes at least four.

peAce

Liberty = Responsibility

You seem to have ruled out

You seem to have ruled out the possibility of a thing that doesn't need to be created, but you haven't offered why. If everything needs a prior sufficient cause, i.e., no thing is necessary or sufficient in itself, than you've committed yourself to an infinite regress of causes. Are you comfortable with that?

What's wrong with postulating something that exists outside our conception of time, and so doesn't have before and after, but is just the fundamental reality, necessary in its existence. Why necessary? Because by definition it would have to exist in order for everything that is not necessary, every contingent reality to exist.

This can terminate the infinite regress of causes. Whether this fundamental, timeless stratum is an inexplicably 'given' nature, or a mind, would be the subject of philosophical debate or metaphysical discussion, or, if accessible to science, to scientific description.

But to say that the only possible answer is an infinite past history of sufficient causes, never terminating, doesn't seem to be rationally justified by any argument.

Well I have to rule that out don't I?

I mean if something doesn't need to have a creator then there goes the proof for God.

If things have to have creators then we get a creator, and an infinite regress of creators. A high order of infinity in fact because there's no reason to suppose that any given creator only creates one thing.

If things don't have to have a creator then we lose the logical necessity for god as there's no reason to assume something not in evidence otherwise. Even worse imputing properties to the thing not in evidence (creator) that are contrary to our understanding of the things in evidence (universe).

I'm willing to accept things have to have creators. I'm willing to accept things don't have to have creators. What pretty silly is to say this one thing has to have a creator but this other thing, which we have no evidence of in the first place, does not have to have a creator.

Now it's certainly possible some things need creators and other things do not, but there is no reason to think that and plenty of reasons not to. But it's also certainly possible that there is a planet out in the universe which is made from cheesecake and rains ice cream. But there's no particular reason to think that and plenty of reasons not to.

No, you wouldn't have to rule

No, you wouldn't have to rule it out. We are trying to understand the truth, not to prove or disprove our pet hobby horses or prior ideological commitments.

The need that every thing have a prior cause is not an attribute of theism. Theism only claims that contingent, non necessary things require an explanation of their existence in some necessarily existent thing. Or, that things that begin to exist have a sufficient cause.

You seem to be equivocating the claim that created things need a creator, with all things need a creator. But uncreated things don't need a creator.

If everything does actually need a sufficient cause, and nothing is necessarily existent, than you have an infinite regress of past causes and events. But an actual infinite isn't logically possible, only a potential infinite. http://lyceumphilosophy.com/?q=node/

I agree with you that not everything needs a creator. But is the universe and past time actually infinite? The evidence suggests not. Could there be something beyond the universe, that is timeless, necessarily existent, but not conscious or personal?

It's conceivable. But if we stick with rational thought, and don't appeal to irrationality, we have to ask: What kind of thing is outside space (nonphysical), outside time (timeless), and then creates things that are physical and temporal? The theistic argument is that the only known thing that is spaceless, timeless and necessarily existent is an abstract reality like numbers, but abstract things don't cause things.

Another thing that is conceivably spaceless and timeless is the idea of Mind as something non physical. It's controversial, but the counter claim that mind and consciousness can be explained materially has not been proven or demonstrated.

So a mind is arguably the best fit for the timeless, spaceless, necessarily existent thing that is able to cause all other things.

Or, we just can't apply rational thought along these far out conceptual edges. But if we commit to the idea that rational thought is not fundamentally always reliable, we undercut all arguments and all sentences. And after all on materialism and nauralism, thoughts and sentences are essentially meaningless, deterministic things.

See William Lane Craig debate the author of the Atheists Guide to Reality Alex Rosenberg: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhfkhq-CM84 Warning: It's brutal...

You missing the elephant in the room

Sure we can imagine a thing and ascribe arbitrary properties to it. So what?

The logic that everything needs a creator and therefore the universe must have a creator is sound, but the validity is impossible to determine.

But if that logic is used to deduce that there is a God then that God must have a creator.

If the God does not have to have a creator then the argument is neither valid nor sound.

Beyond that they are just making stuff up.

I'm not making a claim about the 'needing-creator-ness' of things or not. I'm saying if the 'needing-creator-ness' of all things is the premise, then the argument that God exists but does not himself have a creator fails even if we accept the premise.

The argument also already begs the question of the 'needing-creator-ness' of all things, but even if we accept that as given, it doesn't save the argument.

I'm also not claiming there is no creatorless God. There could be. Again I'm just pointing out that this argument is ridonkulous.

Also you are conflating finite/infinite vs created/uncreated. There's no reason a thing can be finite and uncreated. Particles come into existence all the time, and then disappear.

The cat that jumped over the moon.

You've jumped right over the moon again. No one argues that everything needs a creator, that would be unsound and self defeating, since then the creator would be the created. Unless you are arguing that the concept of an uncreated creator or an uncreated thing is logically unsound, you have no argument.

I'm not making an argument

I'm debunking the argument that God must exist because everything needs a creator.

In logic the easiest thing to do is tear apart bad logic. If you can't follow a disproof, you can't possibly know when you have a good proof.

Which is probably why we seem to be at odds so often.

But there isn't anything

But there isn't anything logically contradictory or incoherent in the concept of a creator, or final cause. You've simply misstated the argument, that anyone claims "everything needs a creator."

Cosmos host Neil DeGrasse Tyson

discussing "The god of the gaps".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IzHxftS8MI

Just listened to that whole

Just listened to that whole thing. Wow did you hear it different than me.

10-15 million more voters need to believe in non-interventionism (liberty) at home and abroad to change America. Minds changed on Syria. Minds changing on privacy. "Printing money" is part of the dialogue. Win minds through focus, strategy.

SteveMT's picture

I guess so.

DeGrasse had no answer to some of the videos. Make your own decision after watching some of the hundreds of videos by Jarrah White Moon Faker about all of this. There are literally hundreds of anomalies that cannot be explained about Apollo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qjRP_w2rhk&list=PLC643B524ED...

There we have it. Around 13

There we have it. Around 13 minutes. Poor guys being scared that Tyson might cause "seekers" and other Christians to question the bible. Which isn't, as Tyson rightly points out, a scientific textbook.

If there now is a creator, and there might be(we simple do not know), then why would he let the majority of earths population worship a different book than the bible? Or no book at all for that matter. If that specific book have all the answers?

They were discussing the

They were discussing the problems with Tyson's reasoning. Tyson is the one claiming the Bible is supposed to be a science text book, and then dismissing the strawman argument.

A creator as opposed to

A creator as opposed to naturalism? I believe God created natural law, but also interacts supernaturally with his creation at important times in God's plan to fill the earth will his glory.

The Bible is really a complete rendition of this plan, but it takes more than natural eyes to read it. I do not mean some quasi-reality but more a clear-sightedness that only God, because he is perfectly free, give to you. So all you can do is ask from a humble place, that is, recognize that you can not perceive it in your own strength or ability. And God has no obligation to choose you.

The basic story of the Bible is that God created, man chose to leave God, and God has supernaturally acted to accomplish a way to return to God.

First, Abraham by faith alone, that is, God came to him and not the other way around and all Abraham did was consider what God said authoritative, promised Abraham that he would make a great nation from him and all the nations of the earth would be blessed in him. God then assembled a people and taught them everything to become a great nation and Israel was a great nation for a time. But this was only part one of God's promise. Israel failed and God scattered them across the face of the earth in preparation for his next act.

Sending Jesus was more than just a person, it was sending David, except without the faults David had. David was Israel's greatest King until Christ. God currently is organically building the Kingdom of God all throughout the earth, if one has the eyes to see it. That is the eyes of faith, which believes something about the nature of God that God is the only good, and that God is building a kingdom just like a seed grows into a mature tree in time. My belief is to plant seeds, water them, and tend to them, but it is not I that causes them to grow, they have free will. God wants a kingdom of free people.

The only way to be spiritually, that is truly, free is to accept it as a gift from God, and learn how this is possible. I have found more than adequate information in the Bible where you can trace the birth of righteousness, faith, justice, redemption, etc and watch them grow and be exemplified in the person of Christ.

The evidence is not found through man's effort alone. Sometimes the more you toil the less you will know, for one because it is far better to learn by revelation than trying to fight every battle by your own, but also because God wants you to know that he is and there is no other besides him, we are not right when we are separate from him.

Very simple...

Ever read a book that was NOT written by a person? Impossible since there are no books in existence that wrote themselves. Now apply that to DNA. Even the most simple organism such as an amoeba has the equivalent of 3 or 4 dictionary's worth of information contained within. If one book cannot write itself then what makes you think 3 or 4 could write themselves. Something had to write them and that something is god.

Label Jars, Not People!

So... DNA came from

So... DNA came from somewhere, therefore that somewhere is god? Tell us how you get from A to B. Don't just tell us A, therefore B.

Right on brother

Let's don't stop there though!
Ever seen a person who wrote a book who didn't have DNA?
Ever seen anything that created anything which didn't have DNA? Ever seen DNA which doesn't exist in a universe?

So if the DNA of a mere amoeba has several dictionaries worth of information just imagine how much information is in the universe's creators DNA?! Gotta be like a pickup truck full of dictionaries.

The one thing we know for a fact is something can't come from nothing.. ever. No how, no way.

So what about the god that created the universe of the god that created our universe? Must have like a Walmart full of dictionaries worth of information in her DNA.

And what about the creator of the creator of the creator of our creator? I don't even know what's bigger than a Walmart full of dictionaries but it would be like that big.

Maybe even bigger.

Man that's trippy.

Denise B's picture

Yes, faithkills,

your point is well taken if you believe that all of the universe and it's Creator exists only in the physical realm where all laws remain constant; however, the Bible tells us that there is more than just the physical realm, there is also the "spiritual" realm, which can only be discerned spiritually. Think of it as a colorblind person trying to find an orange flower in a sea of red ones...it is impossible because that person does not have the necessary ability to discern which is red and which is orange. The same is true for those who try to discern and understand God, who exists in the spiritual realm, from only a physical point of view (or realm). In John 3:6 Jesus states "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit." and goes on to state in John 3:12 "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?"

Eternity is a concept which is difficult to understand because we live in a realm where we are subject to the laws of time. God lives outside the laws of time, in fact He created time for us and He is not subject to it in the same way that we are. It is futile, then, to try to understand from a physical viewpoint how something which exists spiritually and is not subject to time can exist without first being created. We will never understand God from a physical view point, or as the bible puts it "in the flesh" because he is spiritual and is only discerned spiritually and knowledge and proof of God is given by God only to those who choose to believe in Him first. If one wants proof of God, he can be given that, but he must take that first step in faith. I can tell you from personal experience that once a person genuinely does that and accepts God at His Word and acknowledges that he is a sinner that needs a Savior that God will in fact prove himself and His existence to that person. I myself have experienced Jesus in a very personal and intimate way and I no longer question the truth of the Bible in even the slightest bit because I have experienced Him firsthand and the miraculous changes He has made in my life and who I am. I KNOW that God and Jesus are real and exist just as the Bible details.

To answer the OP's question, if you want the best proof that God exists, genuinely believe in Him and accept His Son and He will prove His existence to you over and over again. God is happy to offer proof of His existence to us, the only problem being (for many people) is that it only happens on His terms and in His way.