The Improbability of God

by Richard Dawkins

The following article is from Free Inquiry MagazineVolume 18, Number 3.

Much of what people do is done in the name of God. Irishmen blow each other up in his name. Arabs blow themselves up in his name. Imams and ayatollahs oppress women in his name. Celibate popes and priests mess up people's sex lives in his name. Jewish shohets cut live animals' throats in his name. The achievements of religion in past history - bloody crusades, torturing inquisitions, mass-murdering conquistadors, culture-destroying missionaries, legally enforced resistance to each new piece of scientific truth until the last possible moment - are even more impressive. And what has it all been in aid of? I believe it is becoming increasingly clear that the answer is absolutely nothing at all. There is no reason for believing that any sort of gods exist and quite good reason for believing that they do not exist and never have. It has all been a gigantic waste of time and a waste of life. It would be a joke of cosmic proportions if it weren't so tragic.

Why do people believe in God? For most people the answer is still some version of the ancient Argument from Design. We look about us at the beauty and intricacy of the world - at the aerodynamic sweep of a swallow's wing, at the delicacy of flowers and of the butterflies that fertilize them, through a microscope at the teeming life in every drop of pond water, through a telescope at the crown of a giant redwood tree. We reflect on the electronic complexity and optical perfection of our own eyes that do the looking. If we have any imagination, these things drive us to a sense of awe and reverence. Moreover, we cannot fail to be struck by the obvious resemblance of living organs to the carefully planned designs of human engineers. The argument was most famously expressed in the watchmaker analogy of the eighteenth-century priest William Paley. Even if you didn't know what a watch was, the obviously designed character of its cogs and springs and of how they mesh together for a purpose would force you to conclude "that the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use." If this is true of a comparatively simple watch, how much the more so is it true of the eye, ear, kidney, elbow joint, brain? These beautiful, complex, intricate, and obviously purpose-built structures must have had their own designer, their own watchmaker - God.
So ran Paley's argument, and it is an argument that nearly all thoughtful and sensitive people discover for themselves at some stage in their childhood.

Throughout most of history it must have seemed utterly convincing, self-evidently true. And yet, as the result of one of the most astonishing intellectual revolutions in history, we now know that it is wrong, or at least superfluous. We now know that the order and apparent purposefulness of the living world has come about through an entirely different process, a process that works without the need for any designer and one that is a consequence of basically very simple laws of physics. This is the process of evolution by natural selection, discovered by Charles Darwin and, independently, by Alfred Russel Wallace.

What do all objects that look as if they must have had a designer have in common? The answer is statistical improbability.

If we find a transparent pebble washed into the shape
of a crude lens by the sea, we do not conclude that it must have been designed by an optician: the unaided laws of physics are capable of achieving this result; it is not too improbable to have just "happened." But if we find an elaborate compound lens, carefully corrected against spherical and chromatic aberration, coated against glare, and with "Carl Zeiss" engraved on the rim, we know that it could not have just happened by chance. If you take all the atoms of such a compound lens and throw them together at random under the jostling influence of the ordinary laws of physics in nature, it is theoretically possible that, by sheer luck, the atoms would just happen to fall into the pattern of a Zeiss compound lens, and even that the atoms round the rim should happen to fall in such a way that the name Carl Zeiss is etched out. But the number of other ways in which the atoms could, with equal likelihood, have fallen, is so hugely, vastly, immeasurably greater that we can completely discount the chance hypothesis. Chance is out of the question as an explanation.

This is not a circular argument, by the way. It might seem to be circular because, it could be said, any particular arrangement of atoms is, with hindsight, very improbable. As has been said before, when a ball lands on a particular blade of grass on the golf course, it would be foolish to exclaim: "Out of all the billions of blades of grass that it could have fallen on, the ball actually fell on this one. How amazingly, miraculously improbable!" The fallacy here, of course, is that the ball had to land somewhere. We can only stand amazed at the improbability of the actual event if we specify it a priori: for example, if a blindfolded man spins himself round on the tee, hits the ball at random, and achieves a hole in one. That would be truly amazing, because the target destination of the ball is specified in advance.

Of all the trillions of different ways of putting together the atoms of a telescope, only a minority would actually work in some useful way. Only a tiny minority would have Carl Zeiss engraved on them, or, indeed, any recognizable words of any human language. The same goes for the parts of a watch: of all the billions of possible ways of putting them together, only a tiny minority will tell the time or do anything useful. And of course the same goes, a fortiori, for the parts of a living body. Of all the trillions of trillions of ways of putting together the parts of a body, only an infinitesimal minority would live, seek food, eat, and reproduce. True, there are many different ways of being alive - at least ten million different ways if we count the number of distinct species alive today - but, however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead!

We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being?

The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. [/b]These small steps of chance are caused by genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure. Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. [b]A minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction. By this process of natural selection, those random changes that turn out to be beneficial eventually spread through the species and become the norm. The stage is
now set for the next small change in the evolutionary process. After, say, a thousand of these small changes in series, each change providing the basis for the next, the end result has become, by a process of accumulation, far too complex to have come about in a single act of chance.

For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed, spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is in practice inconceivable. The quantity of luck involved is much too large. The "correct" recipe involves changes in a huge number of genes simultaneously. The correct recipe is one particular combination of changes out of trillions of equally probable combinations of chances. We can certainly rule out such a miraculous coincidence. But it is perfectly plausible that the modern eye could have sprung from something almost the same as the modern eye but not quite: a very slightly less elaborate eye. By the same argument, this slightly less elaborate eye sprang from a slightly less elaborate eye still, and so on. If you assume a sufficiently large number of sufficiently small differences between each evolutionary stage and its predecessor, you are bound to be able to derive a full, complex, working eye from bare skin. How many intermediate stages are we allowed to postulate? That depends on how much time we have to play with. Has there been enough time for eyes to evolve by little steps from nothing?

The fossils tell us that life has been evolving on Earth for more than 3,000 million years. It is almost impossible for the human mind to grasp such an immensity of time. We, naturally and mercifully, tend to see our own expected lifetime as a fairly long time, but we can't expect to live even one century. It is 2,000 years since Jesus lived, a time span long enough to blur the distinction between history and myth. Can you imagine a million such periods laid end to end? Suppose we wanted to write the whole history on a single long scroll. If we crammed all of Common Era history into one metre of scroll, how long would the pre-Common Era part of the scroll, back to the start of evolution, be? The answer is that the pre-Common Era part of the scroll would stretch from Milan to Moscow. Think of the implications of this for the quantity of evolutionary change that can be accommodated. All the domestic breeds of dogs - Pekingeses, poodles, spaniels, Saint Bernards, and Chihuahuas - have come from wolves in a time span measured in hundreds or at the most thousands of years: no more than two meters along the road from Milan to Moscow. Think of the quantity of change involved in going from a wolf to a Pekingese; now multiply that quantity of change by a million. When you look at it like that, it becomes easy to believe that an eye could have evolved from no eye by small degrees.

It remains necessary to satisfy ourselves that every one of the intermediates on the evolutionary route, say from bare skin to a modern eye, would have been favored by natural selection; would have been an improvement over its predecessor in the sequence or at least would have survived. It is no good proving to ourselves that there is theoretically a chain of almost perceptibly different intermediates leading to an eye if many of those intermediates would have died. It is sometimes argued that the parts of an eye have to be all there together or the eye won't work at all.
Half an eye, the argument runs, is no better than no eye at all. You can't fly with half a wing; you can't hear with half an ear. Therefore there can't have been a series of step-by-step intermediates leading up to a modern eye, wing, or ear.
This type of argument is so naive that one can only wonder at the subconscious motives for wanting to believe it. It is obviously not true that half an eye is useless. Cataract sufferers who have had their lenses surgically removed cannot see very well without glasses, but they are still much better off than people with no eyes at all. Without a lens you can't focus a detailed image, but you can avoid bumping into obstacles and you could detect the looming shadow of a predator.

As for the argument that you can't fly with only half a wing, it is disproved by large numbers of very successful gliding animals, including mammals of many different kinds, lizards, frogs, snakes, and squids. Many different kinds of tree-dwelling animals have flaps of skin between their joints that really are fractional wings. If you fall out of a tree, any skin flap or flattening of the body that increases your surface area can save your life. And, however small or large your flaps may be, there must always be a critical height such that, if you fall from a tree of that height, your life would have been saved by just a little bit more surface area. Then, when your descendants have evolved that extra surface area, their lives would be saved by just a bit more still if they fell from trees of a slightly greater height. And so on by insensibly graded steps until, hundreds of generations later, we arrive at full wings.

Eyes and wings cannot spring into existence in a single step. That would be like having the almost infinite luck to hit upon the combination number that opens a large bank vault. But if you spun the dials of the lock at random, and every time you got a little bit closer to the lucky number the vault door creaked open another chink, you would soon have the door open! Essentially, that is the secret of how evolution by natural selection achieves what once seemed impossible. Things that cannot plausibly be derived from very different predecessors can plausibly be derived from only slightly different predecessors. Provided only that there is a sufficiently long series of such slightly different predecessors, you can derive anything from anything else.

Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God. But is there any evidence that evolution actually has happened? The answer is yes; the evidence is overwhelming. Millions of fossils are found in exactly the places and at exactly the depths that we should expect if evolution had happened. Not a single fossil has ever been found in any place where the evolution theory would not have expected it, although this could very easily have happened: a fossil mammal in rocks so old that fishes have not yet arrived, for instance, would be enough to disprove the evolution theory.

The patterns of distribution of living animals and plants on the continents and islands of the world is exactly what would be expected if they had evolved from common ancestors by slow, gradual degrees. The patterns of resemblance among animals and plants is exactly what we should expect if some were close cousins, and others more distant cousins to each other. The fact that the genetic code is the same in all living creatures overwhelmingly suggests that all are descended from one single ancestor. The evidence for evolution is so compelling that the only way to save the creation theory is to assume
that God deliberately planted enormous quantities of evidence to make it look as if evolution had happened. In other words, the fossils, the geographical distribution of animals, and so on, are all one gigantic confidence trick.

Does anybody want to worship a God capable of such trickery? It is surely far more reverent, as well as more scientifically sensible, to take the evidence at face value. All living creatures are cousins of one another, descended from one remote ancestor that lived more than 3,000 million years ago.

The Argument from Design, then, has been destroyed as a reason for believing in a God. Are there any other arguments? Some people believe in God because of what appears to them to be an inner revelation. Such revelations are not always edifying but they undoubtedly feel real to the individual concerned. Many inhabitants of lunatic asylums have an unshakable inner faith that they are Napoleon or, indeed, God himself. There is no doubting the power of such convictions for those that have them, but this is no reason for the rest of us to believe them. Indeed, since such beliefs are mutually contradictory, we can't believe them all.

There is a little more that needs to be said. Evolution by natural selection explains a lot, but it couldn't start from nothing. It couldn't have started until there was some kind of rudimentary reproduction and heredity. Modern heredity is based on the DNA code, which is itself too complicated to have sprung spontaneously into being by a single act of chance. This seems to mean that there must have been some earlier hereditary system, now disappeared, which was simple enough to have arisen by chance and the laws of chemistry and which provided the medium in which a primitive form of cumulative natural selection could get started. DNA was a later product of this earlier cumulative selection.
Before this original kind of natural selection, there was a period when complex chemical compounds were built up from simpler ones and before that a period when the chemical elements were built up from simpler elements, following the well-understood laws of physics. Before that, everything was ultimately built up from pure hydrogen in the immediate aftermath of the big bang, which initiated the universe.

There is a temptation to argue that, although God may not be needed to explain the evolution of complex order once the universe, with its fundamental laws of physics, had begun, we do need a God to explain the origin of all things. This idea doesn't leave God with very much to do: just set off the big bang, then sit back and wait for everything to happen. The physical chemist Peter Atkins, in his beautifully written book The Creation, postulates a lazy God who strove to do as little as possible in order to initiate everything. Atkins explains how each step in the history of the universe followed, by simple physical law, from its predecessor. He thus pares down the amount of work that the lazy creator would need to do and eventually concludes that he would in fact have needed to do nothing at all!
The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of physics, whereas I am a biologist, more concerned with the later phases of the evolution of complexity. For me, the important point is that, even if the physicist needs to postulate an irreducible minimum that had to be present in the beginning, in order for the universe to get started, that irreducible minimum is certainly extremely simple. By definition, explanations that build on simple premises are more plausible and more satisfying than explanations that have to postulate complex and statistically improbable beginnings. And you can't get
much more complex than an Almighty God!

Foolishness on all fours. Most of these people don't realise the truth until its far too late

Ishilove:

Foolishness on all fours. Most of these people don't realise the truth until its far too late

Did you read it ?

Yep i did Jay. My belief in God stems from personal experience not religion. One foolish western scientist cannot tell me my convictions are hallucinations,or that i am a product of chance. U seem to be a cool headed person Jay. I suggest you ask God for directions because there are many mysteries in this world,and when it can't be unravelled,the ilk of Mr Dawkin begin to postulate improbables

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." - 1 Corinthians 3:18-20

"Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:" -1 Corinthians 2:6

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." - 1 Corinthians 1:19-21

“So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of GOD.” - Rom 10:17

"The Lord reigns"!

Ishilove:

Yep i did Jay. My belief in God stems from personal experience not religion. One foolish western scientist cannot tell me my convictions are hallucinations,or that i am a product of chance. U seem to be a cool headed person Jay. I suggest you ask God for directions because there are many mysteries in this world,and when it can't be unravelled,the ilk of Mr Dawkin begin to postulate improbables

At least you read it and that's commendable. Nobody is forcing it down your throat, its simply another point of view. We would all be happy if we live and let live. About being cool headed, thanks for the compliment *blushing*. Seeing a lot of the insults/abuse here on nairaland, I want to try as much as possible to eschew those things in my posts. I may not always succeed though.
As for asking God, I simply don't believe in that entity anymore, so what good would that do ?

HISchild:

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." - 1 Corinthians 3:18-20

"Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:" -1 Corinthians 2:6

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." - 1 Corinthians 1:19-21

“So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of GOD.” - Rom 10:17

"The Lord reigns"!

Thanks for your quotes about wisdom. It would have been more objective of you to quote certain other passages such as "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." Prov 14:15

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 17:11
Also the verse about testing every spirit. I'm sure you might claim these quotes support your point, but I can claim the same as well. Thats the problem of the bible.

You might as well tear up your certificates which you spent a lot of your life acquiring since it is the "wisdom of this world" and as a consequence, foolishness with God. Incidentally that is a sentiment that is probably appreciated by a certain sect known as "Boko Haram".

HISchild:

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." - 1 Corinthians 3:18-20

"Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:" -1 Corinthians 2:6

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." - 1 Corinthians 1:19-21

“So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of GOD.” - Rom 10:17

"The Lord reigns"!

The scriptures you are quoting were written by sone-age tent dwellers who did not know what an atom was , niehter did they know that germs were the causes of disease. God was their answer to every thing they did not understand.
I find it very hypocritical for people to  consume products of scientific knowledge such as computers nd cell phones, and then at the same time mentally reject scientific ideas.
The proof is in the pudding. Science proves its value. And religion? History is our witness.

[center]Disputing God With Logic[/center]

The Babel fish is small, yellow, leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
    Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the NON-existence of God.
    The argument goes like this:
    `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
    `But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
    `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
   

from
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
written by Douglas Adams

"Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain." - 1 Corinthians 3:18-20

"Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:" -1 Corinthians 2:6

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." - 1 Corinthians 1:19-21

“So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of GOD.” - Rom 10:17

"The Lord reigns

You just post what you dont have vidence of, the Bible is not the real word of God.its just a piece of literature.dont you know that

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” -2 Timothy 3:16-17

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." -2 Peter 1:21

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." - 1 Corinthians 1:18-21

I tell you,

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

An Interview With God

I dreamed I had an interview with God.

"So you would like to interview me?" God asked.

"If you have the time" I said.

God smiled. "We have until your alarm clock rings.
What questions do you have in mind for me?"

"What surprises you most about humankind?"

God answered,
"That by worrying about the afterlife,
they throw away their one real life,
sometimes literally by trusting prayer instead of medicine,
or flying a plane into a building full of infidels."

"That with thousands dead from an 'Act of God',
they flock to churches like flies to a bloated corpse."

"That with all their fantastic science,
and libraries full of great literature
they still think glurge like this is profound"

God's hand took mine
and we were silent for a while.

And then I asked,
"As a parent, what are some of life's lessons
you want your children to learn?"

"To learn that to make someone love you,
make them feel guilty for your sacrifices.
and if that doesn't work,
make their life hell."

"To learn to forgive by killing your own son,
but don't forget to blame the Jews."

"To learn that it only takes a few seconds
to kill those you love,
but three days to bring them back."

"To learn that a rich person
is not one who works hard,
but one who knows how to make a buck
off of cheap sentimentality like this."

"To learn that there are people
who say they love you dearly,
but really hope you burn in hell
because you have more sex than they do."

"To learn that two people can
look at the same thing
and see it differently,
but it takes religion
to make that into a long bloody war."

"To learn that it is not enough that they
forgive one another;
they must get a priest to do it."

"Thank you for your time," I said humbly.

"Is there anything else
you would like your children to know?"

God smiled and said,
"Just know that I am ,  only a dream."

http://www.jhuger.com/interview_with_god

I reiterate,foolishness on all fours

Ishilove:

I reiterate,foolishness on all fours

Its allowed.

It never ceases to amaze me that people seem to credit Richard Dawkins with any degree of intelligent insight whatsoever.

jayriginal:

The Improbability of God

by Richard Dawkins

The following article is from Free Inquiry MagazineVolume 18, Number 3.

Much of what people do is done in the name of God. Irishmen blow each other up in his name. Arabs blow themselves up in his name. Imams and ayatollahs oppress women in his name. Celibate popes and priests mess up people's sex lives in his name. Jewish shohets cut live animals' throats in his name.

It is noteworthy that the write-up itself states that these were done in the “name” of God, and not “by God.”


That is an important distinction, and already in itself conveys the reality of manipulation by human beings which has nothing whatever to do with God.

The achievements of religion in past history - bloody crusades, torturing inquisitions, mass-murdering conquistadors, culture-destroying missionaries, legally enforced resistance to each new piece of scientific truth until the last possible moment - are even more impressive.

Here the writer himself states – “the achievements of religion in past history”. . . .if he could read at all, he would recognize that that in itself speaks volumes – for as he himself knows and believes – religion is a creation of man and not any “god” or “gods”. It is thus silly and contradictory to set up a refutation of the existence of God based on religions that were set up by men in deference to Gods that do not exist.


Dumbfounding, actually.

We now know that the order and apparent purposefulness of the living world has come about through an entirely different process, a process that works without the need for any designer and one that is a consequence of basically very simple laws of physics. This is the process of evolution by natural selection, discovered by Charles Darwin and, independently, by Alfred Russel Wallace.

This is so starkly devoid of reasoning or depth, I would be astonished, if not already acquainted with the shallow quality of the mind of Richard Dawkins. I state this for –


1. It is well known that the theory of evolution addresses the development of living things and says nothing about the development of the universe and support systems for such living things.


2. The question therefore remains the source or cause of the entire super-system.


3. The basic laws of cause and effect state most clearly that you cannot have effects without causes. This is corroborated within the standard laws of motion. The fact thus remains that it remains ridiculous to commence an argument seeking to render a creator non-existent, from the point of view of living things only, when the super-question remains the existence of all things – living and non living – and the articulated source of all things. To frame the question the timelessly simple philosophical fashion – why something instead of nothing?


4. Even as an argument built up from the point of view of living things, it is very well documented from the experiments of the French Scientist Louis Pasteur and several others that life is known to emerge from pre-existing life. It is thus a staggering claim from Dawkins to state that science now confirms that the wonders of life may emerge through odd  chance in a pre-biotic soup. As it happens, he does not even address this necessary commencement and the irredeemable riddle contained therein at all: he simply


    a. Assumes the existence of things already


    b. Avoids the question of the first instance of generation of living things and


    c. Commences his discussion with a full fledged biological evolutionary process already magically in place –


And thereby assumes that this suffices to obviate the requirement for an initial causative factor going beyond the scenario that he has ridiculously commenced with. 

If we find a transparent pebble washed into the shape of a crude lens by the sea, we do not conclude that it must have been designed by an optician: the unaided laws of physics are capable of achieving this result; it is not too improbable to have just "happened." But if we find an elaborate compound lens, carefully corrected against spherical and chromatic aberration, coated against glare, and with "Carl Zeiss" engraved on the rim, we know that it could not have just happened by chance. If you take all the atoms of such a compound lens and throw them together at random under the jostling influence of the ordinary laws of physics in nature, it is theoretically possible that, by sheer luck, the atoms would just happen to fall into the pattern of a Zeiss compound lens, and even that the atoms round the rim should happen to fall in such a way that the name Carl Zeiss is etched out. But the number of other ways in which the atoms could, with equal likelihood, have fallen, is so hugely, vastly, immeasurably greater that we can completely discount the chance hypothesis. Chance is out of the question as an explanation.


This is not a circular argument, by the way. It might seem to be circular because, it could be said, any particular arrangement of atoms is, with hindsight, very improbable. As has been said before, when a ball lands on a particular blade of grass on the golf course, it would be foolish to exclaim: "Out of all the billions of blades of grass that it could have fallen on, the ball actually fell on this one. How amazingly, miraculously improbable!" The fallacy here, of course, is that the ball had to land somewhere. We can only stand amazed at the improbability of the actual event if we specify it a priori: for example, if a blindfolded man spins himself round on the tee, hits the ball at random, and achieves a hole in one. That would be truly amazing, because the target destination of the ball is specified in advance.

This is nothing short of directionless rambling and the writer indeed recognized that when he alluded that this might “seem like a circular argument.” The truth is that he knows that it is a most s.illy circular argument indeed.


What he needs to address to himself in this instance is the riddle posed by design elements such as those found within the human eye and human brain, and address the functionalities of those organs vis-a-vis the design contained therein.

We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance.

I am inclined to rest my argument on this admission by the writer, which essentially makes nonsense of his entire write-up.

The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. [b]Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence.

What leaps of logic here. In the first breath he “safely concludes that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance.”  - - - and then wait for it - - - !


In the second breath he then states that many small such incidents of “chance” could have done the trick – mind you – the trick here, is having such incidents of chance arrive at structures as mind-blowing fit-for-purpose, complex and intricate as the human brain.


This is sheer id.iocy, and we must name it for that which it is.

For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed, spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is in practice inconceivable.

I was actually going to continue responding to the rest of the write-up, but the quote above has stopped me in my tracks. It takes the all time award for grand st.upidity.


Just read it. This fellow ends his own comments by alluding to the very same inconceivability of the emergence of the eye which Darwin himself noted.


Ridiculous, plain ridiculous. The painful thing is just how many shallow minds read this c.rap and feel on top of the world in their ill-considered atheistic world-view on account of this baloney.

Deep Sight:

It never ceases to amaze me that people seem to credit Richard Dawkins with any degree of intelligent insight whatsoever.

Don't be so arrogant as to presume you know anything about Dawkins. The problem, as I see it, is that many people on message boards are only aware of the Richard Dawkins as anti-religion wannabe "philosopher", not as the brilliant scientist he actually is. He's poor as a philosopher, but extremely erudite and insightful when it comes to biology and zoology.

There are some of what you've written with which I agree or don't think need addressing, so I've done some snipping.

This is so starkly devoid of reasoning or depth, I would be astonished, if not already acquainted with the shallow quality of the mind of Richard Dawkins. I state this for –


1. It is well known that the theory of evolution addresses the development of living things and says nothing about the development of the universe and support systems for such living things.

Reading back on what Dawkins wrote, I think you misunderstood what he meant. He was strictly speaking about life as we know it. Which is why he was speaking solely, at the point you're critiquing, about "apparent purposefulness of the living world": Biosphere. At least that's how I interpreted it.

3. The basic laws of cause and effect state most clearly that you cannot have effects without causes. This is corroborated within the standard laws of motion. The fact thus remains that it remains ridiculous to commence an argument seeking to render a creator non-existent, from the point of view of living things only, when the super-question remains the existence of all things – living and non living – and the articulated source of all things. To frame the question the timelessly simple philosophical fashion – why something instead of nothing?

We've discussed it before, and we may have to agree to disagree, but you're wrong on basing the philosophy or science of why there's something on the argument of a "law" of cause and effect. Actually, thinking about it, maybe it's a problem of language, as one could argue that all effects have causes. However, not all phenomena necessarily need causes.

4. Even as an argument built up from the point of view of living things, it is very well documented from the experiments of the French Scientist Louis Pasteur and several others that life is known to emerge from pre-existing life. It is thus a staggering claim from Dawkins to state that science now confirms that the wonders of life may emerge through odd  chance in a pre-biotic soup. [snip]

He's right.

What he needs to address to himself in this instance is the riddle posed by design elements such as those found within the human eye and human brain, and address the functionalities of those organs vis-a-vis the design contained therein.

What design elements are found in the human eye and brain? And why couldn't they have evolved? Are those supposed design elements also found in other animals? How so?



I am inclined to rest my argument on this admission by the writer, which essentially makes nonsense of his entire write-up.

For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed, spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is in practice inconceivable.

Just read it. This fellow ends his own comments by alluding to the very same inconceivability of the emergence of the eye which Darwin himself noted.


Ridiculous, plain ridiculous. The painful thing is just how many shallow minds read this c.rap and feel on top of the world in their ill-considered atheistic world-view on account of this baloney.

This may surprise you, but he's actually right when it comes to eyes - particularly in "less complicated" (to use a somewhat vague term) creatures. Also, Darwin goes on to give an idea of how an eye can emerge naturally in the same paragraph of that book of his.

Deep Sight, I'm surprised at your bile. First of all Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man and his credentials and credibility are superior to yours (for now at least). That is not to say that you are unintelligent in anyway but to go around bashing him in such a manner is unworthy of you.

From some of your posts, I have been led to believe that you are a man of science (I may be mistaken). You are not wrong for holding contrary views (indeed it is healthy) but your manner of expression in this post leaves a lot to be desired.
I read the article from Dawkins and I didn't get any of the impressions you got. This may be partially due to the fact that I am not a man of science, but its also largely due to the fact that a lot of your rebuttals come from errors of logic and semantic misconstruction (whether deliberate or not).

As KAG pointed out Dawkins may not be the best Philosopher. You made a point somewhere

1. It is well known that the theory of evolution addresses the development of living things and says nothing about the development of the universe and support systems for such living things.


2. The question therefore remains the source or cause of the entire super-system.

These are not quite rebuttals. Dawkins never claimed to have all the answers. If you read the article properly, you would have met this

The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of physics, whereas I am a biologist, more concerned with the later phases of the evolution of complexity.

Your post is filled with many instances of this, rebutting or seeming to rebut claims that weren't made.

I'd prefer a more robust debate. We can all learn more from it. KAG is a brilliant person and seems to be well versed science wise. It would seem that you are on the intelligent design spectrum. You can make your arguments and let viewers be the judge, though I suspect some creationists would take up arms here too.

There is an article I found and I started a thread on it. Its an article on intelligent design. It would be interesting to hear your comments.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-763915.0.html

One more thing. I have a feeling that Dawkins would write differently if he was publishing in an academic journal. The fact that he is writing for the layman might lead him to simplify certain concepts which might be easily misconstrued.

KAG:

Don't be so arrogant as to presume you know anything about Dawkins. The problem, as I see it, is that many people on message boards are only aware of the Richard Dawkins as anti-religion wannabe "philosopher", not as the brilliant scientist he actually is. He's poor as a philosopher, but extremely erudite and insightful when it comes to biology and zoology.

Delighted to hear your confirmation of his philosophical illiteracy. Now it is more than shocking that someone supposedly insightful in biology and zoology would be so able to arrive at the abysmal conclusions that he draws. However I am pleased to note within his write-up that he himself acknowledges that the forms of living things can hardly be conceived of as products of chance. He just knocks his whole write up into shreds when he admits just that and then begins to set up a fantasy about how little pieces of chance could make a human eye pop out of bare skin.

That is just ridiculous.

There are some of what you've written with which I agree or don't think need addressing, so I've done some snipping.

Oh, bless this long awaited day, for K.A.G agrees with my lowly self!

Reading back on what Dawkins wrote, I think you misunderstood what he meant. He was strictly speaking about life as we know it. Which is why he was speaking solely, at the point you're critiquing, about "apparent purposefulness of the living world": Biosphere. At least that's how I interpreted it.

I got that. My quarrel is that he could make the leap of applying those limited facts to conclude that there is no requirement for the existence of God. That is an inchoate argument because the existence of God is primed on the existence of all things – living and non living. Indeed it may even be said that given that the universe preceded life on earth specifically, then the existence of a first cause such as God is said to be should first be approached from the stand point of the cause of the universe - which makes it wholly inappropriate for anyone to draw such conclusions based on his observations about life on earth.

Now when you add to that the fact that his very own comments disclose that his observations about life on earth are that life forms are “billions of times too complex and intricate” to have emerged by chance, then his entire surmise appears to be clinging in a most ungainly fashion on the cliff of absurdity.

We've discussed it before, and we may have to agree to disagree, but you're wrong on basing the philosophy or science of why there's something on the argument of a "law" of cause and effect. Actually, thinking about it, maybe it's a problem of language, as one could argue that all effects have causes. However, not all phenomena necessarily need causes.

Your evidence for such phenomena without causes being virtual particles in a quantum vacuum right? Have we not so trashed that argument of yours that you ought to be hiding away quietly rather than making the same unfounded assertions yet again?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-393099.32.html#msg6849507

He's right.

What design elements are found in the human eye and brain? And why couldn't they have evolved? Are those supposed design elements also found in other animals? How so?

Dear, I have never disputed evolution in my life, so I don’t know what you are on about. Please go and read his statements again. He was seeking to rebut the existence of God by that argument. Personally, I do not see that evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. This fellow admits that its inconceivable that a process of chance could have led to such definite fit-for-purpose intricacies as the eye and brain. He then argues that small pieces of chance could make same happen. That’s inconsistent.

Aside that, it does not tally with what is evidential about the nature of those functionalities – which obviously disclose clear purposes.

I have to reproduce some thing I wrote earlier in the week to elucidate a little on this point –

Indeed I will also go so far as to say that I am also sometimes bemused when people advance this same argument as evidence of evolutionary biology: for in the same vein as stated above, blind chemicals have no compulsion towards adaptation for survival. Blind chemicals could not care if they exist in a pre-biotic inanimate soup or if they exist in a living breathing body. Blind chemicals could thus have no inherent propulsion towards survival of a living body such as to compel them to develop through evolutionary biology. Rather, the course of the existence of a creature may have such a propulsion, and in its collective development my evolve biologically.

Thus whilst I accept evolutionary biology in some degree, I do not subscribe to the notion that it is a result of pure directionless chance either in its commencement or continuation. For me, it seems obvious that there is a quality of mind behind it - and this is not obviated even with the understanding of the process of natural selection. This fact is all the more compelling when organs with the shocking intricacy of design and fitness for purpose as the human eye, are studied. Darwin himself was known to comment that the eye constituted an evolutionary riddle. Nevertheless I digress: let me just point out that the eye can only exist and could only conceivably be required by a conscious, deliberately self aware creature with a need to observe its environment. That is the point I seek to make: that such an organ would not be blindly and purposelessly contrived by inanimate and disinterested chemicals. . .

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-759178.96.html#msg9181636

This may surprise you, but he's actually right when it comes to eyes - particularly in "less complicated" (to use a somewhat vague term) creatures. Also, Darwin goes on to give an idea of how an eye can emerge naturally in the same paragraph of that book of his.

And what sense did those ideas make to you? Tell me.

jayriginal:

Deep Sight, I'm surprised at your bile. First of all Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man and his credentials and credibility are superior to yours (for now at least). That is not to say that you are unintelligent in anyway but to go around bashing him in such a manner is unworthy of you.

From some of your posts, I have been led to believe that you are a man of science (I may be mistaken). You are not wrong for holding contrary views (indeed it is healthy) but your manner of expression in this post leaves a lot to be desired.
I read the article from Dawkins and I didn't get any of the impressions you got. This may be partially due to the fact that I am not a man of science, but its also largely due to the fact that a lot of your rebuttals come from errors of logic and semantic misconstruction (whether deliberate or not).

As KAG pointed out Dawkins may not be the best Philosopher. You made a point somewhere

These are not quite rebuttals. Dawkins never claimed to have all the answers. If you read the article properly, you would have met this
Your post is filled with many instances of this, rebutting or seeming to rebut claims that weren't made.

I'd prefer a more robust debate. We can all learn more from it. KAG is a brilliant person and seems to be well versed science wise. It would seem that you are on the intelligent design spectrum. You can make your arguments and let viewers be the judge, though I suspect some creationists would take up arms here too.

There is an article I found and I started a thread on it. Its an article on intelligent design. It would be interesting to hear your comments.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-763915.0.html

Well please pardon my bile: its simply because it irritates me to see such pedestrian logic being glorified the way the abysmal write-upd of this man are.

No, I am not a scientist, I am a lawyer by profession and a (wannabe) philosopher by spirit and yearning.

Deep Sight:

Well please pardon my bile: its simply because it irritates me to see such pedestrian logic being glorified the way the abysmal write-upd of this man are.

No, I am not a scientist, I am a lawyer by profession and a (wannabe) philosopher by spirit and yearning.

Well you certainly could have fooled me. I'm a lawyer too though I no longer practice (at least not litigation).

About the pedestrian logic thingy, I still dont agree with you, but its a free world.

That said, whats your position Deist or Theist ?

I think it will help me understand where you are coming from.

Deep Sight:

Delighted to hear your confirmation of his philosophical illiteracy. Now it is more than shocking that someone supposedly insightful in biology and zoology would be so able to arrive at the abysmal conclusions that he draws. However I am pleased to note within his write-up that he himself acknowledges that the forms of living things can hardly be conceived of as products of chance. He just knocks his whole write up into shreds when he admits just that and then begins to set up a fantasy about how little pieces of chance could make a human eye pop out of bare skin.

That is just ridiculous.

I didn't say his was philosophical illiteracy, nor that he is an illiterate when it comes to philosophy. Just that he is poor at it. Not to be pedantic, but they not quite the same thing. He's right when he argues that "little pieces of chance" can effect the occurrence of an eye out of bare skin. Your argument from incredulity isn't going to change what has been a detailed study on the different varaints of the evolution of eyes in many diverse species. For a better grasp on eyes and the different strategies that have caused them in several ways in species, I would, in my humble opinion, start from wikipedia.

Oh, bless this long awaited day, for K.A.G agrees with my lowly self!

No need for blessings.

I got that. My quarrel is that he could make the leap of applying those limited facts to conclude that there is no requirement for the existence of God. That is an inchoate argument because the existence of God is primed on the existence of all things – living and non living. Indeed it may even be said that given that the universe preceded life on earth specifically, then the existence of a first cause such as God is said to be should first be approached from the stand point of the cause of the universe - which makes it wholly inappropriate for anyone to draw such conclusions based on his observations about life on earth.

You're poorer at philosophy than Dawkins - with all due respect. I agree that it is indeed an inchoate argument to jump from facts on evolution to there are no gods, the problem is that's a strawman version of what Dawkins was presenting. His argument appears to be, that having discovered, with strong, often independent lines of evidence, how the origins and diversification of species may have occurred without any gods, that avenue for hidning the gods in that fallacy becomes closed and helps one to extrapolate when faced with the continued absence of gods except when they are presented in fallacies, gaps in knowledge or myths. It's still not the most cogent of philosophical arguments, but it's a sight better than your strawman.

Now to why you're a poorer philospher than Dawkins. An empty assertion like "existence of God is primed on the existence of all things – living and non living.", is patently nonsense. It's merely an utterance. Yes, the universe precedes the earth and the earth's biosphere, but that the universe may not have a deity (and, yes, God, particularly written with a capital "G" is a noun, hence a deity) renders that utternace moot. Note that I have argued this point in the same spirit you've written yours and with the same amount of evidence.

Now when you add to that the fact that his very own comments disclose that his observations about life on earth are that life forms are “billions of times too complex and intricate” to have emerged by chance, then his entire surmise appears to be clinging in a most ungainly fashion on the cliff of absurdity.

Yes, that's why he mentions natural selection. It removes his argument from what you think he ought to say, to what he actually means:

"These small steps of chance are caused by genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure. Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. A minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction. By this process of natural selection, those random changes that turn out to be beneficial eventually spread through the species and become the norm. The stage is now set for the next small change in the evolutionary process. After, say, a thousand of these small changes in series, each change providing the basis for the next, the end result has become, by a process of accumulation, far too complex to have come about in a single act of chance."

Your evidence for such phenomena without causes being virtual particles in a quantum vacuum right? Have we not so trashed that argument of yours that you ought to be hiding away quietly rather than making the same unfounded assertions yet again?

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-393099.32.html#msg6849507

Yup. And you'll notice that I stopped bothering after it became apparent we were talking past each other. We can give it another go. However, the fact remains that virtual particles have no known cause. One thing I noticed in that thread was that the goalposts were shifted several times and terms constantly redefined. To whit, yes, virtual particles can occur in space which is nothing but zero energy, that doesn't mean they have a cause. Arguing on a priori is still not showing cause for a phenomenon.

He's right.

What design elements are found in the human eye and brain? And why couldn't they have evolved? Are those supposed design elements also found in other animals? How so?

Dear, I have never disputed evolution in my life, so I don’t know what you are on about.

I didn't say that you've ever disputed evolution (in this life nor another), so I don't know what you're on about, either. Instead, I was asking questions because you made this statement:

"What he needs to address to himself in this instance is the riddle posed by design elements such as those found within the human eye and human brain, and address the functionalities of those organs vis-a-vis the design contained therein."

Hence:

"What design elements are found in the human eye and brain? And why couldn't they have evolved? Are those supposed design elements also found in other animals? How so?

Please go and read his statements again. He was seeking to rebut the existence of God by that argument.

Okay? I didn't say he wasn't. I'm starting to think you may have mixed up what I wrote with someone else's.

Personally, I do not see that evolution and intelligent design are mutually exclusive. This fellow admits that its inconceivable that a process of chance could have led to such definite fit-for-purpose intricacies as the eye and brain. He then argues that small pieces of chance could make same happen. That’s inconsistent.

Personally, I see them as somewhat mutually exclusive, especially if by intelligent design, you're referring to the type promoted by Behe, Dembski, and the ID movement. He argues, like I pointed out above, that chance by itself wouldn't - in fact, couldn't - have resulted in the complexities of life. Chance (random mutations) and selection, however, can and has.

Aside that, it does not tally with what is evidential about the nature of those functionalities – which obviously disclose clear purposes.

Yes, the purpose of surviving and passing on genes. Only those that survive long enough to reproduce thrive. Those selfish genes, eh?

I have to reproduce some thing I wrote earlier in the week to elucidate a little on this point –

Indeed I will also go so far as to say that I am also sometimes bemused when people advance this same argument as evidence of evolutionary biology: for in the same vein as stated above, blind chemicals have no compulsion towards adaptation for survival. Blind chemicals could not care if they exist in a pre-biotic inanimate soup or if they exist in a living breathing body. Blind chemicals could thus have no inherent propulsion towards survival of a living body such as to compel them to develop through evolutionary biology. Rather, the course of the existence of a creature may have such a propulsion, and in its collective development my evolve biologically.

Thus whilst I accept evolutionary biology in some degree, I do not subscribe to the notion that it is a result of pure directionless chance either in its commencement or continuation. For me, it seems obvious that there is a quality of mind behind it - and this is not obviated even with the understanding of the process of natural selection. This fact is all the more compelling when organs with the shocking intricacy of design and fitness for purpose as the human eye, are studied. Darwin himself was known to comment that the eye constituted an evolutionary riddle. Nevertheless I digress: let me just point out that the eye can only exist and could only conceivably be required by a conscious, deliberately self aware creature with a need to observe its environment. That is the point I seek to make: that such an organ would not be blindly and purposelessly contrived by inanimate and disinterested chemicals. . .

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-759178.96.html#msg9181636

Your point essentially boils down to an argument from incredulity again. From the bottom up very qucikly (I can clarify and expand any points you feel are rushed). Once again, you're misquoting or misunderstanding Darwin and the style with which he wrote. You need to read on after the bit where he raises doubt. It's so he can continue on to a possible soultion to the problem raised.

Second, no, eyes are not borne out of conscious desire, etc, but by selection to result in some advantage for a species. The reverse is also true: wherein species losing the function of eyes when it became a disadvantage or unnecessary.

Third, if intricate organs are evidence of intellignet design, then are not so intricate and clunky organs evidence of unintelligence? That's the logic at play with that sort of argument. The unintelligent designer forgot humans need vitamin C. That, or an unguided process through mutation and selection has led us down this path.

Finally, to conclude the point, it can be shown how those supposedly complex organs evolved and how they're lacking in ways that suggest a lack of intelligence or incomptence.

This may surprise you, but he's actually right when it comes to eyes - particularly in "less complicated" (to use a somewhat vague term) creatures. Also, Darwin goes on to give an idea of how an eye can emerge naturally in the same paragraph of that book of his.

And what sense did those ideas make to you? Tell me.

Which ideas. I've quoted my post again, because I'm not quite sure to what you're referring in that section.

@Deep Sight, I'm still waiting for your answer to the Deist/Theist question.

It occurs to me however that you seem to be against anything that says or purports to say that there is no God. As KAG has said, you cannot point to the Universe as an argument for God. It is a blindingly fallacious argument. It prevents learning. In such a way, you fall victim to confirmation bias. If all mankind accepted the God theory, we would still be in the dark ages. We would be praying instead of going to physicians, we wouldn't know the world as it is now.

Science is still a long way from proving conclusively the origins of the universe (and may never be able to do so), but if we all just accept that "God did it" we will never learn.
Look at the stem cell research controversy, something that holds promise for mankind. It is strongly opposed by religious fervents. This is an example of how religion can hold back progress.

Coming back to Dawkins, the basis of your position seems to be "how can he say this when the universe itself argues for God". I suspect that you would have no problems with Dawkins' essay if he presented the same arguments in favour of God.
I read the essay and failed to draw the same conclusions you did.

For me, I'm willing to bet that there is no God and never was, but I cannot say for sure. What I can definitely say for sure is that if there is a God, its definitely not the God of the Bible. I'm sure of that. The Deist notion of God is the only probable likelihood of any such being existing.
If we admit of a God, we have to question who made it, and who made the maker of God and so on. Luckily christianity solves that problem in a totally simplistic manner that contradicts itself.

We dont have a need for God anymore. If we do, we might as well stop learning and researching.

jayriginal:

@Deep Sight, I'm still waiting for your answer to the Deist/Theist question.

I am Deist, and I draw this position from both logic and intuition.

It occurs to me however that you seem to be against anything that says or purports to say that there is no God.

Yes: because God exists – perhaps simply not in the manner conceived by the Religious Theist. 

As KAG has said, you cannot point to the Universe as an argument for God.

Why not?

The best current cosmological scientific thinking for the commencement of the universe is the big b.ang theory which indicates that the universe commenced expansion from a singularity. The critical questions are –

1. What caused such an expansion?

2. Where did the energy therein come from?

It doesn’t make any sense to ask where God came from and yet refuse to ask the very same necessary question with regard to the singularity and the energy inherent in it from which the expansion that brought the universe as we know it commenced.

Now given the law of cause and effect, it is only rational, indeed, painfully obvious and logical, that the cause of such an event must –

1. Have preceded the event

2. Is not the event itself

We are therefore left with the logical conclusion of the existence of a preceding causative element – which is what God is said to be.

It is a blindingly fallacious argument.

Given the foregoing, clearly not.

It prevents learning. In such a way, you fall victim to confirmation bias. If all mankind accepted the God theory, we would still be in the dark ages. We would be praying instead of going to physicians, we wouldn't know the world as it is now.

I am sorry, but I don’t see how the logic of a preceding causative element will lead to an unlearned world.

It would indeed interest you to know that virtually all the leading innovators who drove modernization through novel technical and scientific creations were theists.

Thus your suggestion is eminently presumptuous and utterly unfounded.

Science is still a long way from proving conclusively the origins of the universe (and may never be able to do so), but if we all just accept that "God did it" we will never learn.

Did acceptance that “God did it” stop all the theist scientists in history from investigating human anatomy and developing medicinal solutions?

Why then should an acceptance of the existence of God impede the continuation of scientific inquiry into the universe? Does the nation that leads space research today – the United States – not have as its motto – “In God we Trust?” Does that stop them from continuing with space research?

Please stop making these huge assumptions and logical leaps.

Look at the stem cell research controversy, something that holds promise for mankind. It is strongly opposed by religious fervents. This is an example of how religion can hold back progress.

I am not religious and I do not support such fundamentalism.

For me, I'm willing to bet that there is no God and never was, but I cannot say for sure.

The bolded words make you agnostic – and that is fair enough.

Certain and convinced atheism is what is rationally ridiculous. It requires omniscience.

What I can definitely say for sure is that if there is a God, its definitely not the God of the Bible. I'm sure of that. The Deist notion of God is the only probable likelihood of any such being existing.

Quite agreed, and as said before, I am deist.

If we admit of a God, we have to question who made it, and who made the maker of God and so on.

That is the conundrum of the infinite regress. But it is not a problem for the mind who understands that the preceding causative agent is an eternal element. Eternity by its very nature is self-existent: it is therefore uncaused. This is why the creative element is referred to as the uncaused cause.

Do some light philosophical research on the distinction between necessary things and contingent things.

We don’t have a need for God anymore. If we do, we might as well stop learning and researching.

As stated above, this is factually incorrect. Learning throughout the ages did not stop on account that men believed in God: and it remains on record that most of the most important scientific breakthroughs have in fact been accomplishments of men who believed in God.

I think it is much more apt to change the title of this thread to, "The Improbability of The Jewish/Christian/Islamic God". Because, as i suspect, when atheist make claims that there is no God, they are always meaning the "One True Gods" of the world religions, especially those of the Abrahamic faiths, the 3 middle eastern desert dogmas. Those "Gods" that exist only on the pages of the scriptural texts of these religions. These scriptural Gods can be easily disproved as being responsible for the creation of this reality by the atheists. But to say that there is no intelligent creator at all responsible for creating this reality, this existence, makes the atheists look just as ridiculous as their opposites, the religious, in their school of thought.

There is a CREATOR of this physical reality, and that CREATOR is what we refer to in general as - even though the word is a pretty much bastardized one which i hardly use nowadays - GOD. To say that this physical reality - at whatever scale - was not created by an intelligent mind and just happen by CHANCE( ) is re.tar.ded, even insane. For nothing exists that was not created by an intelligent mind. There is no amount of research and discoveries that will ever prove that the creation of this universe, or any other universe, could have been achieved without the intelligent mind of a creator.

And the fact of the great possibility - confirmed by physicists that there is no solidity to this physical existence - that this physical reality is nothing more than just a programmed 3D virtual reality is enough to end all this silly debates for good.

If you have the time have a look at these two documentaries, Everything and Nothing.
They show the latest discoveries on our understanding of space and everything in it, and relevent to this discussion, how 'something' can be detected spontaneuosly emerging from 'nothing' in the second part.

humankinds knowledge and understanding of this vast and magnificent universe is increasing at an exponential rate and there is still so much more to discover.

Enjoy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXliM19h6YI

@Deep Sight, thank you for responding. Now that you have said that you are a Deist, I understand where you are coming from. You said I am agnostic. It may sound like that because I said "Im willing to bet that there is no God but I cant say for sure". I can clearly confirm to you that I am not agnostic. I'm uncertain that the most hardcore atheist can say bonafide that he is certain that there is no God.
When I say Im willing to bet, it means that thats the side I stand with. Nobody can claim to know everything.

You have stated that you are not religious. It seems to me however that you are even if slightly so. Your responses give that impression. I do believe though that you are not religious in the way most of the theists here are. I might have mentioned in this thread or some other that if there is a God, it probably is closer to the Deist concept than any. In the same vein, I mentioned that if there is a God, one thing Im certain of is that its clearly not the God of the bible.


Now Deep Sight, I need a clearer picture and I'll beg you to answer these questions. I know you said you are a deist, but its better we put this issue in the light. The reason is when an atheist argues with a theist and you jump to their aid, you are poles apart from the side you are defending and the other side.
The improbability of God refers to the religious God of whatever creed. Not necessarily the Deist God. If you read Dawkins essay again, you see some place where he makes reference to the Deist concept, without necessarily mentioning it. Here

There is a temptation to argue that, although God may not be needed to explain the evolution of complex order once the universe, with its fundamental laws of physics, had begun, we do need a God to explain the origin of all things. This idea doesn't leave God with very much to do: just set off the big ba.n.g, then sit back and wait for everything to happen.

When you want to join an argument like this, it would be better you clearly define your position. I wouldnt necessarily make the same points if I'm arguing with a Deist that I would if I was arguing with a theist. Quite simply, God means different things to them.

My questions are as follows
1) Do you believe in the God of the bible ?
2) If the answer above is no, do you believe in a similar entity (Allah, Buddha, etc) ?
3) Do you believe that the God which you recognize intervenes in human affairs by means of supernatural means ?
4) Does your concept of God answer prayers offered to him by mankind ?
5) Is there a prescribed mode of reaching/ speaking with him akin to worship ?
6) Is there an afterlife ?
7) What happens to people who dont believe in your concept of God ?
8| Do you believe the world was created like countless religious myths would have us believe ?
9) Where is the God now and how can we prove him ?
10) If he cant be proven, why not and wherein lies your certainty (or are you just guessing/hoping) ?
I know what the Deist concept of God is but I need you to answer these questions so I can understand your position better. Humour me please.


You said

I am Deist, and I draw this position from both logic and intuition.

This I understand. I think though that the intuition is on the higher side.

The best current cosmological scientific thinking for the commencement of the universe is the big b.ang theory which indicates that the universe commenced expansion from a singularity. The critical questions are –

1.   What caused such an expansion?

2.   Where did the energy therein come from?

It doesn’t make any sense to ask where God came from and yet refuse to ask the very same necessary question with regard to the singularity and the energy inherent in it from which the expansion that brought the universe as we know it commenced.

Now given the law of cause and effect, it is only rational, indeed, painfully obvious and logical, that the cause of such an event must –

1.   Have preceded the event

2.   Is not the event itself

We are therefore left with the logical conclusion of the existence of a preceding causative element – which is what God is said to be.

Not so fast Barrister. I've noticed a tendency in your arguments to assume what you seek to prove. You may be right or wrong. We dont know yet and I dont see that it is even important. We had creation stories before but we know that they are ridiculous at the least, hence the quest for the origin of the universe.

I am sorry, but I don’t see how the logic of a preceding causative element will lead to an unlearned world.

It would indeed interest you to know that virtually all the leading innovators who drove modernization through novel technical and scientific creations were theists.

Thus your suggestion is eminently presumptuous and utterly unfounded.

No it is not unfounded. As I have pointed out we are talking about two different kinds of Gods here. I'm addressing the theistic concept and you the Deistic concept . They are worlds apart. Surely you wouldnt say they are the same thing ?

Did acceptance that “God did it” stop all the theist scientists in history from investigating human anatomy and developing medicinal solutions?

Why then should an acceptance of the existence of God impede the continuation of scientific inquiry into the universe? Does the nation that leads space research today – the United States – not have as its motto – “In God we Trust?” Does that stop them from continuing with space research?

Please stop making these huge assumptions and logical leaps.

My response above is sufficient. I'm not making assumptions and leaps. You are the one who came to the debate with a different topic.  As for the "in God we trust" bit, surely you know that the founding fathers of the US were Deists, not theists. It proves no point but I'll let it slide because there is no point debating when we arent debating the same thing.

Certain and convinced atheism is what is rationally ridiculous. It requires omniscience.

I sort of agree with you here, but the opposite is the case as well. Nobody can be certain about the origin of the universe. We can only weigh up evidence and decide which theory is more plausible.

That is the conundrum of the infinite regress. But it is not a problem for the mind who understands that the preceding causative agent is an eternal element. Eternity by its very nature is self-existent: it is therefore uncaused. This is why the creative element is referred to as the uncaused cause.

It is also a very creative excuse to stop all questions which is not acceptable to a purely logical mind. This is why I said you were probably guided more by intuition than by logic. You will also remember this quote of yours

The best current cosmological scientific thinking for the commencement of the universe is the big b.ang theory which indicates that the universe commenced expansion from a singularity. The critical questions are –

1.   What caused such an expansion?

2.   Where did the energy therein come from?

It doesn’t make any sense to ask where God came from and yet refuse to ask the very same necessary question with regard to the singularity and the energy inherent in it from which the expansion that brought the universe as we know it commenced.

Which brings us to the same point. The scientist (not atheist this time) might stammer at this point because he doesnt know yet, but he will in the same vein, keep from giving an answer like an "uncaused cause" unless he has good evidence to back it up. The uncaused cause puts a full stop to all queries at that point. Dont you think so ? If we never query what we think we know, we remain stagnant. I'll address this later.

As stated above, this is factually incorrect. Learning throughout the ages did not stop on account that men believed in God: and it remains on record that most of the most important scientific breakthroughs have in fact been accomplishments of men who believed in God.

The above was in response to my saying we have no need for God again or we might as well stop learning.
I'm not sure you got the import of that. As I've mentioned before, God here refers to the typical theist God. The God of Frosbel if you will (couldn't resist that). The God you refer to is the Deistic concept (it remains to be seen whether you adopt the whole of Deism or just some aspects hence the above questions).
There may have been religious theist scientists who have accomplished scientific breakthroughs (I dont know about the "most of" part). However you must realize that calling yourself religious or a christian doesnt necessarily make you one. They may be selective adherents like most people today. Also they are following a culture and they see nothing wrong with it.
To illustrate, the christian faith has it that sin causes bad things, illness included. The remedy is in prayer and penitence, and somewhere (I think in James) it says if any is sick, he should send for the elders of the church and they will lay hands on him. Now there were physicians even in the time of the bible but think for a moment if these teachings were followed strictly because "God" (theist) said so.
Think about the other unscientific declarations in the bible.
We wouldnt even need to pursue evolution because the origin of the world is found in every religion. Without evolution, you wouldnt have your intelligent design theory to work with. We would "know" for certain, the origin of the universe.
However, because some people decided to think and not swallow what was thrown to them, the world is a better place. Evidence is sometimes denied. If it was possible to conclusively prove to a christian that there is no God, he still wont accept. Try it one day. Ask a christian friend what it would take for him to believe there is no God. All the responses I have gotten are "Nothing"!

Deep Sight, this has been a long post, thank you for the time spent reading it. Please answer the questions, respond to the rest of the post if you deem it fit so to do.
Finally, I'd appreciate if you opened another thread detailing your own concept of the origins of the Universe. You seem to be absolutely sure of your theory, so I hope you accept this challenge and educate us in the process.

Thank you.

jayriginal:

@Deep Sight, thank you for responding. Now that you have said that you are a Deist, I understand where you are coming from. You said I am agnostic. It may sound like that because I said "Im willing to bet that there is no God but I cant say for sure". I can clearly confirm to you that I am not agnostic. I'm uncertain that the most hardcore atheist can say bonafide that he is certain that there is no God.

The most hardcore atheists do positively assert that there is no God or gods.

There is no atheist that says he is not sure. . . such a statement denotes agnosticism.

You have stated that you are not religious. It seems to me however that you are even if slightly so. Your responses give that impression. I do believe though that you are not religious in the way most of the theists here are. I might have mentioned in this thread or some other that if there is a God, it probably is closer to the Deist concept than any. In the same vein, I mentioned that if there is a God, one thing Im certain of is that its clearly not the God of the bible.

I am not religious at all.

But as a spirit being, I am, and always seek, spirituality in my essence and being, in the purpose of my existence upon this watered blue rock circling a red fire ball.

Now Deep Sight, I need a clearer picture and I'll beg you to answer these questions. I know you said you are a deist, but its better we put this issue in the light. The reason is when an atheist argues with a theist and you jump to their aid, you are poles apart from the side you are defending and the other side.

Appreciated, but I am aiding nobody: not that they would want or need such aid. They anchor their belief system on faith, which for them moves from the unction of their guts. You and I are free to call it indoctrination, but we will not be the criteria by which they will determine the credibility of their faiths.

The improbability of God refers to the religious God of whatever creed.

Which is shatteringly lazy. No serious thinker should limit himself to the shadowy ideas of religions which they mock. Seriousness should begin by thinking wholly and philosophically about the essentials of a precept.

My questions are as follows
1) Do you believe in the God of the bible ?

My answer will have to be, in general terms, no.

But I should very carefully add that the concept and ontology of God within the bible is varied and evolves, and there are certainly many elements within the biblical precepts of what God is, which are spot on. Such as the idea of the unity and eternity of the God element.

2) If the answer above is no, do you believe in a similar entity (Allah, Buddha, etc) ?

Allah is merely the the Arabic word for the same entity delivered within the biblical conception. In my view, the ontology delivered within the Quoran is purer to the extent that it insists on the unity of the God element, its absolute oneness and indivisibility, and it does not, unlike some corrupted suggestions within the bible, make any claims that a human being who walked the earth is God himself.

Having said that, I should again note that the concepts of God in both books is varied and evolves, and in most cases bears a greater resemblance to a blood thirsty pagan deity than the coherent idea of an eternal cause of all things, which I understand to be God.

The Buddha, is not God, and scarcely made any teachings of God as far as I know. He was a man who laid down certain interesting ideas by which the human spirit could detach itself from the worldly cycles and attain nirvana. This says nothing about God, so I need comment on that no further.

There are many entities that are worshipped as God or gods. The only that concerns me is that element which I conceive of as eternity itself, and the origin of all things.

That element, I call God, but in all truth it needn’t have a name.

3) Do you believe that the God which you recognize intervenes in human affairs by means of supernatural means ?

I believe that God being eternity itself is the compound of all self-existent laws. That is the best definition I can give to it, that element that I call God. I further believe that these laws, being self-existent, are accordingly immutable and take effect within existence according to the intrinsic nature of these self-existent laws. I believe that human beings will have their destinies determine by their attunement to these laws – that is to say, these laws will take effect on the way in which they lead their lives and deliver natural results accordingly.

4) Does your concept of God answer prayers offered to him by mankind ?

Within the core of the human spirit, there rests an unsearchable and unquenchable longing for the depth of God. It is innate, and can also be very personal to each person. I might describe it as the instinct to unite with a source. It is spiritually refreshing to inwardly commune with the source of all things.

However I believe that what determines what happens to people, not their prayer, but their Karma.

God itself, being life itself, is a force for life and light, and accordingly there is the inherent grace of God in life. God itself, and God only may know about the dispensation of the grace of God, and the elements therein.

If you are asking if I pray, the answer is yes: I commune with my maker. However I do not do this in the fashion that most people understand. My prayers consist of simple things like the awe and wonder I feel in my heart when I behold the dazzling and wondrous array of the cosmos and living forms.

I speak to my source, I commune with my source within my heart, for I am a living spiritual being from a core that is alive.

5) Is there a prescribed mode of reaching/ speaking with him akin to worship ?

I don’t believe so, but my advise to anybody would be to live life to the fullest and absorb every experience with a view towards building himself as a human being, in love with fellow beings and the living world.

As far as I know, that is the real and only way to worship God.

6) Is there an afterlife ?

YES.

7) What happens to people who dont believe in your concept of God ?

Nothing. Nobody is required to believe any such, if they can see no reason with it., if it does not resonate within their minds. Even an absolute atheist may be in excellent stead so long as he lives life to the fullest and absorbs every experience with a view towards building himself as a human being, in love with fellow beings and the living world.

8| Do you believe the world was created like countless religious myths would have us believe ?

Yes. However I understand creation to be a continuous stream of emanation from the element of eternity. Thus I don’t know if it happened at a point in time, but my notion is that it is an eternal emanation.

9) Where is the God now and how can we prove him ?

God is an intangible and transcendental element, and as such you cannot look for a location for God, because it is an intangible eternal element.

God is proven by the reasoning of causes and effects and the laws inherent within creation. God is proven by the indisputable design elements found in built-for-purpose living organisms with complex and purpose-fitted design elements and organs. Finally, God is proven by the phenomenon of consciousness, and more particularly, sentience.

10) If he cant be proven, why not and wherein lies your certainty (or are you just guessing/hoping) ?

Its simple really. There is abundant proof that God exists. It rests in every instant of existence and in the fibre of every thing that is observed in and around us. It’s frankly undeniable and even obvious.

But my personal and real certainty about this rests in my conscious experiencing of the quality of mind. That is the one thing that points to the existence of a core mind, like nothing else does.

Great thread! This is worth every of its bandwidth in gold.

Deep Sight:

I am Deist, and I draw this position from both logic and intuition.

Yes: because God exists – perhaps simply not in the manner conceived by the Religious Theist. 

Why not?

The best current cosmological scientific thinking for the commencement of the universe is the big b.ang theory which indicates that the universe commenced expansion from a singularity. The critical questions are –

1. What caused such an expansion?

2. Where did the energy therein come from?

It doesn’t make any sense to ask where God came from and yet refuse to ask the very same necessary question with regard to the singularity and the energy inherent in it from which the expansion that brought the universe as we know it commenced.

Now given the law of cause and effect, it is only rational, indeed, painfully obvious and logical, that the cause of such an event must –

1. Have preceded the event

2. Is not the event itself

We are therefore left with the logical conclusion of the existence of a preceding causative element – which is what God is said to be.

Given the foregoing, clearly not.
I am sorry, but I don’t see how the logic of a preceding causative element will lead to an unlearned world.

It would indeed interest you to know that virtually all the leading innovators who drove modernization through novel technical and scientific creations were theists.

Thus your suggestion is eminently presumptuous and utterly unfounded.

Did acceptance that “God did it” stop all the theist scientists in history from investigating human anatomy and developing medicinal solutions?

Why then should an acceptance of the existence of God impede the continuation of scientific inquiry into the universe? Does the nation that leads space research today – the United States – not have as its motto – “In God we Trust?” Does that stop them from continuing with space research?

Please stop making these huge assumptions and logical leaps.

I am not religious and I do not support such fundamentalism.

The bolded words make you agnostic – and that is fair enough.

Certain and convinced atheism is what is rationally ridiculous. It requires omniscience.

Quite agreed, and as said before, I am deist.

That is the conundrum of the infinite regress. But it is not a problem for the mind who understands that the preceding causative agent is an eternal element. Eternity by its very nature is self-existent: it is therefore uncaused. This is why the creative element is referred to as the uncaused cause.

Do some light philosophical research on the distinction between necessary things and contingent things.

As stated above, this is factually incorrect. Learning throughout the ages did not stop on account that men believed in God: and it remains on record that most of the most important scientific breakthroughs have in fact been accomplishments of men who believed in God.

@Deep Sight
In the light of your write-ups in this thread and our recent exchange where I sought to maintain that while the existence of God is both intuitive and logical enough for some, including me, I am not convinced that what is logical for one person may be for another, what do you think of the findings of this research?

@Deep Sight, thank you very much for your response. It was wonderful insight into your way of thinking.
I'd like to discuss some of your responses further.

There is no atheist that says he is not sure. . . such a statement denotes agnosticism.

An agnostic says he doesnt know if there is or there is no God.
I say I do not believe there is a God (I am referring to the religious type of God here). I cannot of course prove that there is no such thing as God (all gods including the deist concept) and neither can anyone else no matter how staunch an atheist is. On the other hand, no gods (including the deist concept can be proven). I think we are both agreed on this point. The only difference is the "label". I mentioned in another thread (perhaps for the first time) that I do not really like being called an atheist. Typically, if someone asks me if I am an atheist or a free thinker or an agnostic, my typical reply is to say "My name is (my name)".
Me admitting that I cannot disprove the existence of God does not make me an agnostic.

I am not religious at all.

But as a spirit being, I am, and always seek, spirituality in my essence and being, in the purpose of my existence upon this watered blue rock circling a red fire ball.

Ok.

Appreciated, but I am aiding nobody: not that they would want or need such aid. They anchor their belief system on faith, which for them moves from the unction of their guts. You and I are free to call it indoctrination, but we will not be the criteria by which they will determine the credibility of their faiths.

You might not actually set out to defend them, but without understanding your position, it seems you are doing exactly that. If an theist is arguing the origins of the universe (a christian lets say), he is necessarily arguing from the creation story (genesis) point of view. If he is arguing with an atheist and a deist jumps to the argument and advances his own notions, it will seem (regarding the topic) that the deist is on the side of the christian. Perhaps the term God is to blame. You have referred to it as the "cause" and the "uncaused cause" which you choose to call God.
Put another way, if I were to discuss with you the probability or otherwise of God, I wouldnt use the same arguments against your God that I would the christian or other religious God. Its not the same God.

The improbability of God refers to the religious God of whatever creed.

Which is shatteringly lazy. No serious thinker should limit himself to the shadowy ideas of religions which they mock. Seriousness should begin by thinking wholly and philosophically about the essentials of a precept.

No Sir. That is a harsh thing to say, considering that we are not writing a text or philosophical treatise. It is a debate which has been narrowed down.
I would agree with you only to the extent that not every religion has the same concept of God and so all cannot be dismissed using the exact same arguments.
In general, the gods of the major religions are all creators and supernatural beings who intercede and break natural laws on behalf of their worshipers. Those gods are easy to dismiss generally.

My questions are as follows
1) Do you believe in the God of the bible ?

My answer will have to be, in general terms, no.

But I should very carefully add that the concept and ontology of God within the bible is varied and evolves, and there are certainly many elements within the biblical precepts of what God is, which are spot on. Such as the idea of the unity and eternity of the God element.

"In general terms no". I think thats a fair answer. As for the eternity of God. That raises another question. Given that he created the world, what is he doing now or what has he done since he created the world or what can he do ?

Having said that, I should again note that the concepts of God in both books is varied and evolves, and in most cases bears a greater resemblance to a blood thirsty pagan deity than the coherent idea of an eternal cause of all things, which I understand to be God.

There are many entities that are worshiped as God or gods. The only that concerns me is that element which I conceive of as eternity itself, and the origin of all things.

Very clear statements. Thank you.

That element, I call God, but in all truth it needn’t have a name.

Exactly my point. Because we all say God, you defend where you have not been attacked. I understand the concept very well and I agree it neednt be named.

3) Do you believe that the God which you recognize intervenes in human affairs by means of supernatural means ?

I believe that God being eternity itself is the compound of all self-existent laws. That is the best definition I can give to it, that element that I call God. I further believe that these laws, being self-existent, are accordingly immutable and take effect within existence according to the intrinsic nature of these self-existent laws. I believe that human beings will have their destinies determine by their attunement to these laws – that is to say, these laws will take effect on the way in which they lead their lives and deliver natural results accordingly.

Deep Sight, I know you can be very clear when you want to as you have shown before.
The question is simple. Do you believe that the God which you recognize intervenes in human affairs by means of supernatural means ? I want a yes or no answer after which you may expantiate.
I detect a reference to karma but the question is simple enough. Thank you.

4) Does your concept of God answer prayers offered to him by mankind ?

Within the core of the human spirit, there rests an unsearchable and unquenchable longing for the depth of God. It is innate, and can also be very personal to each person. I might describe it as the instinct to unite with a source. It is spiritually refreshing to inwardly commune with the source of all things.

However I believe that what determines what happens to people,*(is)* not their prayer, but their Karma.

God itself, being life itself, is a force for life and light, and accordingly there is the inherent grace of God in life. God itself, and God only may know about the dispensation of the grace of God, and the elements therein.

If you are asking if I pray, the answer is yes: I commune with my maker. However I do not do this in the fashion that most people understand. My prayers consist of simple things like the awe and wonder I feel in my heart when I behold the dazzling and wondrous array of the cosmos and living forms.

I speak to my source, I commune with my source within my heart, for I am a living spiritual being from a core that is alive.

See this is another instance of religious terms hindering your expression. The reference to prayers, while I understand it as a spiritual expression, I feel it obscures the very depth you are trying to convey.

About this Karma thing, I think I'll have a bit to say about it at the end of the post.

5) Is there a prescribed mode of reaching/ speaking with him akin to worship ?

I don’t believe so, but my advise to anybody would be to live life to the fullest and absorb every experience with a view towards building himself as a human being, in love with fellow beings and the living world.

As far as I know, that is the real and only way to worship God.

As far as I know, if there was a God, this will and should be the only way to worship him. It is a very beautiful answer and I dont think anyone can fault it.
I do have a problem with it though, but only because it "seemingly" contradicts your answer on prayer. Do you care to shine a little light on the seeming discrepancy ?

6) Is there an afterlife ?

YES.

You were quite emphatic about that. This is the answer that surprised me the most. I guess my follow up to that question is "what happens in the afterlife". Can you give a description of what obtains in the afterlife ? I guess I also have to ask you if you believe in reincarnation.

7) What happens to people who dont believe in your concept of God ?

Nothing. Nobody is required to believe any such, if they can see no reason with it., if it does not resonate within their minds. Even an absolute atheist may be in excellent stead so long as he lives life to the fullest and absorbs every experience with a view towards building himself as a human being, in love with fellow beings and the living world.

I still wish to refer to the afterlife question. What if the absolute atheist, is not such a person. Let us say, he is morally bankrupt and all the qualities many christians believe an atheist to be. Will there be any consequence for the atheist in the afterlife ? I know that from your concept, karma should take care of him in this life (did I get that right?) but I'm interested in the question of the afterlife from this perspective.

9) Where is the God now and how can we prove him ?

God is an intangible and transcendental element, and as such you cannot look for a location for God, because it is an intangible eternal element.

God is proven by the reasoning of causes and effects and the laws inherent within creation. God is proven by the indisputable design elements found in built-for-purpose living organisms with complex and purpose-fitted design elements and organs. Finally, God is proven by the phenomenon of consciousness, and more particularly, sentience.

The bolded part constitutes a big problem.
The second part is what makes you lean to the Deist philosophy and not to the agnostic or the atheist one.

10) If he cant be proven, why not and wherein lies your certainty (or are you just guessing/hoping) ?

Its simple really. There is abundant proof that God exists. It rests in every instant of existence and in the fibre of every thing that is observed in and around us. It’s frankly undeniable and even obvious.

But my personal and real certainty about this rests in my conscious experiencing of the quality of mind. That is the one thing that points to the existence of a core mind, like nothing else does.

This last point can be argued into pages and pages. All I'll say here is that what you take as evidence isnt necessarily so. We all see the same things too.

In anycase, I enjoyed reading your response thoroughly. Permit me though to make a few observations and feel free to correct me if there is a need.

You have referred to yourself as non religious and I think you would rather be regarded as spiritual. However, I see the seeds of religion in your philosophy (I dont mean this in a derogatory way). I do not think what you have explained is a religion in the sense of having many followers, I think it is rather unique to you. I might describe it as the philosphers religion or the thinking mans religion (for want of a better name).
You remember that somewhere in this thread, I had to step back for a while to ask you pertinent questions about your beliefs (resulting in this convo now).

Your (let me call it) spiritual philosphy, seems to admit one and all subject to the overriding condition that they "live life to the fullest and absorb every experience with a view towards building himself as a human being, in love with fellow beings and the living world". I think this is fair, but I also think it explains your tendency to take the side opposite to those who say there is no God, because as I have mentioned earlier, they arent the same thing. Whereas your God started the world and set laws in place for order to come about, their God created the world and intervenes through supernatural means. Their God admits only his followers. Their God can be reached through fasting and prayer, has some outdated laws, gave some barbaric commands and needs to be continually worshiped, praised, prayed to and given money. In fact, the only resemblance your God has with theirs is the promise of an after life. More on that soon.
If you agree with the above, you accept that everybody says God, but means different things.

Ok, heres the part where I try my hand at amateur psychology.
I get the impression that you have made a deep study of the major religions possibly some occultism as well. I think that the best parts of these religions have made an impression on you and these you have inculcated as well as many ideas original to you. I'm also pretty sure you have studied some atheist material as well. A fine blend of the best of the best, a dose of original thinking, soul searching and meditation and the man is born. We now call him Deep Sight.

The afterlife bit is the one I need a little clarification on.
What does the concept entail.
Also the karma thing (I'm assuming your concept of karma is the general one). I wonder how you can believe that there is such a thing like Karma. Maybe when you answer the questions on reincarnation and the afterlife we may address the karma issue.

I hope you take time out to respond as you did previously. It is an interesting  discussion.

Thank you.

PS, nothing posted here is meant to offend. It is all in the spirit of learning

MyJoe:

Great thread! This is worth every of its bandwidth in gold.

@Deep Sight
In the light of your write-ups in this thread and our recent exchange where I sought to maintain that while the existence of God is both intuitive and logical enough for some, including me, I am not convinced that what is logical for one person may be for another, what do you think of the findings of this research?

My dear friend, I don't think much of the research. My reason is simple. Belief in God is both an intuitive and logical conclusion, in my opinion. In my view therefore, persons who properly apply logic and commonsense should conclude that God exists - even if not as conceived by the Religious theist. I can respect the conclusions of those who deny that God exists based on the religious ontologies of God. But as I have often said, it is lazy for any serious thinker to restrict himself to religious ideas in this matter.

I entirely understand it when you say that that which seems logical to one person may not seem so to another. I can accept that in many matters, but I am sorry to say that I cannot accept it in certain matters. There are some truths so starkly basic that all men of reason must perforce accept them

All men of reason must accept that 1 + 1 = 2. All men of reason must accept that 0 + 0 = 0. Ergo, all men of reason must accept that we do not derive something, nay, a whole universe, complex life forms attendant, from nothingness.

jayriginal:

@Deep Sight, thank you very much for your response. It was wonderful insight into your way of thinking.
I'd like to discuss some of your responses further.

Thank you, and it is a great pleasure to chat with you.

Its not the same God.

Let us be careful to distinguish between different gods and an altogether different thing – namely – a universal idea of an originating creator, which is however viewed in different contexts.

For most people who believe in the existence of God – religious and non religious alike, agree that their reference to God is a reference to that element said to be the initiator of all existence. Thus there is in fact a common understanding of the core idea of what God is said to be – and for this reason it may not be necessarily true to argue that people – at least those who have a concept of a universal creator – are all referring to different entities. I think it is rather more plausible to argue that they refer to the same element – the creative and causative element – but they very naturally color their various perceptions with attributes arising from their peculiar cultures and histories.

To use a crude analogy, in much the same way, it is equally possible for both you and I to describe a mutual friend of ours in entirely different ways based on our perceptions, even if we are aware that we refer to the very same individual. 

In general, the gods of the major religions are all creators and supernatural beings who intercede and break natural laws on behalf of their worshipers. Those gods are easy to dismiss generally.

How can you categorically say what is natural and what is supernatural natural? Do you not agree that a person who lived 2000 years ago would regard an aircraft as a most supernatural thing?

And yet there is nothing supernatural about an aircraft. It works with strictly natural laws of physics.

In my view, there is nothing like the word “supernatural”. Everything that exists is natural or unnatural but not supernatural. Artificial creations could be unnatural, but not supernatural, because all things exist in tandem with natural laws of physics and natural laws of existence.

Deep Sight, I know you can be very clear when you want to as you have shown before.
The question is simple. Do you believe that the God which you recognize intervenes in human affairs by means of supernatural means ? I want a yes or no answer after which you may expantiate.

Well I hope I am being clear enough when I say it as simply as I possibly can. God itself, is the compound of all self-existent laws. Those laws act on human lives and deliver natural results through Karma. It’s as simple as that. That is the only conception I have of God “intervening” in human affairs – but it is wrong to call this an intervention as conceived by the religionist. This is because the activity of the laws inherent in existence is all that makes and sustains and dictates life – and so it is no “intervention” but simply the fabric of life and existence itself.

I detect a reference to karma but the question is simple enough.

That is well detected.

See this is another instance of religious terms hindering your expression. The reference to prayers, while I understand it as a spiritual expression, I feel it obscures the very depth you are trying to convey.

Did you see how I described what prayer is for me?

I had tried to discuss this sometime ago.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-652247.0.html

About this Karma thing, I think I'll have a bit to say about it at the end of the post.
As far as I know, if there was a God, this will and should be the only way to worship him. It is a very beautiful answer and I dont think anyone can fault it.
I do have a problem with it though, but only because it "seemingly" contradicts your answer on prayer. Do you care to shine a little light on the seeming discrepancy ?

I don’t think that inner communion with the source will serve to obviate self-existent laws such as that which delivers Karma. However if one communes with the source, one should develop a refined appreciation for the things of life, such that in one’s thoughts, words and deeds, one becomes a more refined spirit over time, thereby improving the threads of Karma surrounding one.

This is a continuing journey of increasing spiritual purity, and takes nothing away from Karma.

I have heard it elegantly expressed that prayer changes nothing, save, sometimes, the attitude to life of the person praying. This is because in communing with the source, he is also reaching inside himself and trying to understand and refine his spirit. If his attitude thereby changes, this will lead to improved natural results in his life deriving from the self-existent laws which are God.   

You were quite emphatic about that. This is the answer that surprised me the most. I guess my follow up to that question is "what happens in the afterlife". Can you give a description of what obtains in the afterlife ? I guess I also have to ask you if you believe in reincarnation.

Yes, I believe in reincarnation, and I am of the view that it holds sense especially when we understand that nothing in existence ever ceases to exist – things only change form. [/i]This is a reality that one can observe in physics, and as such it makes sense to me that the same holds true for spirituality and consciousness.

Aside from this, I have personal experiences which validate that belief for me, but those are experiences personal to me which convince only me, as the person having had the experiences. As such relating them may be of no use to other people.

But if I may say this before leaving the subject: [i]The conscious mind that starts a life from a point, and ends it at another point, must recognize that inherent in this simple fact is evidence of a transition – namely – that the mind came from somewhere, and is exiting somewhere else

I don’t know if that is too simple, but I hope it strikes a chord.

I still wish to refer to the afterlife question. What if the absolute atheist, is not such a person. Let us say, he is morally bankrupt and all the qualities many christians believe an atheist to be.

The self-existent laws which are the summation of reality will deliver to every person that which proceeds from him – be he atheist or theist. If love proceeds from him, in the cycle of creation it is love that will return to him. If evil proceeds from him, it is evil that will return to him. This takes no cognizance of theism or atheism.

Can I refer you to a post where the wisest man on Nairaland articulated this very elegantly? Please read here –

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-687376.0.html

@Deep Sight, thank you for your reply. I was also hoping you would say something about my attempt at psycho-analysis.
Notwithstanding, let us continue our discussion. First your reply to MyJoe

In my view therefore, persons who properly apply logic and commonsense should conclude that God exists - even if not as conceived by the Religious theist.

Of course, here you mean your concept of God, who sets the world up, and establishes the law of karma to regulate human affairs. A self contained system. The problem is in the bolded part. I think you should rid yourself of that assumption. It may seem so to you but not to others.
On the basis of the above, let me ask you a bold question. Do you claim that your perception of God, is infallible? If your answer is yes, I can understand why you take the bolded stance. If your answer is no, then you shouldnt say a thing like that. Whats your answer ?
Ok, back to our discussion.

Let us be careful to distinguish between different gods and an altogether different thing – namely – a universal idea of an originating creator, which is however viewed in different contexts.

Im with you here.

1) For most people who believe in the existence of God – religious and non religious alike, agree that their reference to God is a reference to that element said to be the initiator of all existence.
2) Thus there is in fact a common understanding of the core idea of what God is said to be – and for this reason it may not be necessarily true to argue that people – at least those who have a concept of a universal creator – are all referring to different entities. I think it is rather more plausible to argue that they refer to the same element – the creative and causative element – but they very naturally color their various perceptions with attributes arising from their peculiar cultures and histories.

1) Many religions refer to their God as the initiator of all things, I agree.
2) Even though 1 above is correct, you have to still demarcate. One God sets everything up ie the universe and laws of the universe and is best served by living in peace and harmony with those laws and with his fellow men. He shows no preference, all men are born equal and attribute their existence to him.  Another God (the religious type) is almost entirely opposite. The only thing in common is that all Gods created the world. Other than that, the chasm between your type of God and the others is formidable. If you accept that one of the functions of God is to explain what we dont know (and for now, the best intellects are yet to conclusively prove how the world began) then you see that there really is a difference. Saying one of God's functions is to explain the unknown may seem glib, but picture the common man, trying to explain the universe. Non of us were there, how can we know. In a way, it makes sense to say well God did it, but it brings us to the infinite regress problem, and so we have to give God certain qualities, that make natural laws not apply to him. Every religion that claims a creator does this in some form. That effectively puts a full stop to all thinking on the matter. God cannot be found or proved. You claim the hand of intelligence in the design of the universe, other religions agree and science says no. Other than explaining creation and calling it God, I dont think its right to say they are the same element. They are similar but different. I mean you said yourself you do not believe in the bible. You therefore reject the God of the bible but you dont reject the "God" concept. It exists for you, just not the way it is described in the bible. A characteristic of the biblical God is intervening in supernatural ways (you addressed that for me and I'll come to it soon). Through prayers and rituals and all sorts of stuff, you can access him and tell him what you want and if you have faith and it is his will, he will do what you want, including holding the sun still for 24 hours. Their God only admits his followers.
Your God is nothing like that. How then can they be the same?

To use a crude analogy, in much the same way, it is equally possible for both you and I to describe a mutual friend of ours in entirely different ways based on our perceptions, even if we are aware that we refer to the very same individual.

Well like you said its a crude analogy.

1) How can you categorically say what is natural and what is supernatural natural? Do you not agree that a person who lived 2000 years ago would regard an aircraft as a most supernatural thing?

And yet there is nothing supernatural about an aircraft. It works with strictly natural laws of physics.

2) In my view, there is nothing like the word “supernatural”. Everything that exists is natural or unnatural but not supernatural. Artificial creations could be unnatural, but not supernatural, because all things exist in tandem with natural laws of physics and natural laws of existence.

Brilliant submissions. I too do not think there is anything supernatural. Anything that cannot be explained simply falls under the category of "we do not know yet".
In this, I take it to mean that your God does not do the supernatural as understood by the major religions. The point is well taken.

1) God itself, is the compound of all self-existent laws.
2) Those laws act on human lives and deliver natural results through Karma. It’s as simple as that.
3)That is the only conception I have of God “intervening” in human affairs – but it is wrong to call this an intervention as conceived by the religionist. This is because the activity of the laws inherent in existence is all that makes and sustains and dictates life – and so it is no “intervention” but simply the fabric of life and existence itself.

1) If I may rephrase sounds to me like "God is the laws of the universe". Is this a correct rewording? The concept sounds pantheistic which doesnt surprise me because your spiritual philosophy is an amalgamation of many things. I believe it is the product of an intellectual mind searching for the best in all (ok enough psycho-analysis for now).
2) Having, brought up karma, I'm glad you answered my question on reincarnation. I guessed the answer right, we will discuss that soon enough.
3) In other words as you said in the other post, humans by their actions affect what happens to them. If we extend that a little further, you are saying that something may happen to me someday and its not as if it happened out of the blue. I brought it on myself (good or bad) by something I had done sometime in the past. If I do not understand the laws of the universe and karma, I may attribute that happening to an intervention, whereas it is the result of a past action.

^^^Is this correct ?^^^

Did you see how I described what prayer is for me?

I had tried to discuss this sometime ago.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-652247.0.html

I promise to check this out as soon as I finish posting. If I still have questions, I'll come back here and ask.

I don’t think that inner communion with the source will serve to obviate self-existent laws such as that which delivers Karma. However if one communes with the source, one should develop a refined appreciation for the things of life, such that in one’s thoughts, words and deeds, one becomes a more refined spirit over time, thereby improving the threads of Karma surrounding one.

This is a continuing journey of increasing spiritual purity, and takes nothing away from Karma.

I have heard it elegantly expressed that prayer changes nothing, save, sometimes, the attitude to life of the person praying. This is because in communing with the source, he is also reaching inside himself and trying to understand and refine his spirit. If his attitude thereby changes, this will lead to improved natural results in his life deriving from the self-existent laws which are God.   

Meaning prayer changes nothing but tempers the spirit, thus refining the vessel, which improves his karma ?
And by communing with the source (or praying), you mean a deep meditation and appreciation of nature, awe and wonder at the intricacy of the world and life as we know it. This will lead to a deep respect for nature and all that is in it.
In other words, nothing will change your bad karma (because the laws of the universe are not subject to anything but themselves) but through communing with the source, you attract good karma to yourself ?
^^Is my understanding correct here ?^^

1)Yes, I believe in reincarnation.
2) I am of the view that it holds sense especially when we understand that nothing in existence ever ceases to exist – things only change form. This is a reality that one can observe in physics, and as such it makes sense to me that the same holds true for spirituality and consciousness.

3) Aside from this, I have personal experiences which validate that belief for me, but those are experiences personal to me which convince only me, as the person having had the experiences. As such relating them may be of no use to other people.

4) But if I may say this before leaving the subject: The conscious mind that starts a life from a point, and ends it at another point, must recognize that inherent in this simple fact is evidence of a transition – namely – that the mind came from somewhere, and is exiting somewhere else

I don’t know if that is too simple, but I hope it strikes a chord.

1) Ok.
2) It might make sense to you but not to others. Some people will argue that physical matters and spiritual matters are worlds apart.
3) I think thats honest of you. Some people will want others to accept their position based on subjective personal experience, which can neither be verified nor demonstrated.
4) See my reply no 2 above. Other than that, the question might really be asked "what is the mind exactly". I think thats an important question.
Are our thoughts and feelings "the mind". I believe I cam across a thread recently where you debated certain people on this concept. I am inclined to take the side that says our brain is responsible for our experiencing reality. I think I saw where someone mentioned the subconscious and you used that as an argument against the person. Unfortunately, I didnt get to finish reading the thread. I think though that the subconscious is part of the brain, and there is nothing that we can experience without the brain.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this as well.

The self-existent laws which are the summation of reality will deliver to every person that which proceeds from him – be he atheist or theist. If love proceeds from him, in the cycle of creation it is love that will return to him. If evil proceeds from him, it is evil that will return to him. This takes no cognizance of theism or atheism.

Can I refer you to a post where the wisest man on Nairaland articulated this very elegantly? Please read here

Now unlike the other link, I was really curious so I glanced at it. It doesnt answer the question I asked you, though I want to read it because of all the positive reactions it generated.

I want to know about your concept of the afterlife. What happens when we die ?

Thank you for your time.




____
EDIT |
, |
I have seen your description of prayer. It is not prayer as the religious conceive it but deep reflections of wonder and awe at the world. Also, God is clearly non interventionist operating only through the laws of the universe as a self sufficient system for order.

As for the True Meaning of Love by m_nwankwo, I hold it to be a beautiful and poetic write up. It indeed expresses ideals far greater than the Judaism related religions can offer. He also makes reference to the after life.

I still need clarification on your concept of the afterlife. I understand why you feel there is one, but I want to know your concept of it.

Finally, on "The Dilemma of a Praying Deist", you ended one of your posts like this

For, what can we really know, my friend?

This is instructive to me and I'm sure I will make reference to it soon.