Scientific Evidence of God

[Damocles]

this argument presumes there has never been anything in the bushes.....

It does not presume any such thing. It presumes simply that we had no evidence of what we "knew" to be in the bushes, but as a defense mechanism we were hardwired to believe it was there anyway. Nothing in that sentence presumes the actual existence or non-existence of predators in bushes, it only presumes that we are hardwired to first presume that something is there.

This would often save our miserable short existences in the long-ago time of Grunt-speak and marriages involving clubs and hair dragging, as sometimes there really was something in the bush.

We are hardwired to presume the existence of things of which we have no evidence. It was a successful trait that, through natural selection, was perpetuated throughout the species. A portion of your brain is dedicated to this too.

 

[Damocles]

Damo... THERE'S your sign!!

Actually what I wrote was a very simplified version of studies in behavioral sciences. If you really think you are the first to ask "why" the human animal believes in gods if natural selection gets rid of worthless traits then you are sadly mistaken, and it is also easily explained and shown not to be a "worthless" trait, even without the existence of any gods.

This does not, of course, disprove God, it just simply makes your hypothesis more useless than a square peg in a room full of round holes.

 

[Onceler]

Nope sorry, that isn't part of evolution and has never been theorized by Darwin or anyone else for that matter. Attributes are acquired from some previous attribute, they don't present themselves, there is no logical explanation for how they would. A wing could evolve into an arm, but an arm couldn't just magically pop in from nowhere because a human needed it. I know you may need for evolution to work that way, in order to make your anti-god theory work, but that's just not the case. read Origin of the Species, it explains this fully.

Dixie, I'm not even ridiculing you here: you just don't understand evolution.

Everything around us today, including us, ultimately evolved from unicellular creatures. Virtually everything we or any other organism has "popped out of nowhere," at least gradually. You understand that, right?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Nothing in that sentence presumes the actual existence or non-existence of predators in bushes

actually, I wasn't referring to predators, I was referring to Moses and the burning bush....your argument presumes there isn't actually a deity who spoke from a bush.....

 

[Damocles]

actually, I wasn't referring to predators, I was referring to Moses and the burning bush....your argument presumes there isn't actually a deity who spoke from a bush.....

Again, it presumes nothing. It explains why this trait was perpetuated through the species and answers the question in that long-winded opening post. It has been studied often by behavioral scientists, is nothing new, and has been answered for a very long time. We have a need hardwired into us to believe in things for which we have no evidence it is a natural defense mechanism, it is simple as that.

This need is exaggerated into other areas of our lives because of our intelligence and imagination, but that minor inconvenience didn't change the effectiveness of the trait, nor did it make it something that natural selection would remove, as was presumed in the first post. It was quite useful, served to keep us alive, and perpetuated according to the theory set forth.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Again, it presumes nothing. It explains why this trait was perpetuated through the species and answers the question in that long-winded opening post. It has been studied often by behavioral scientists, is nothing new, and has been answered for a very long time. We have a need hardwired into us to believe in things for which we have no evidence it is a natural defense mechanism, it is simple as that.

This need is exaggerated into other areas of our lives because of our intelligence and imagination, but that minor inconvenience didn't change the effectiveness of the trait, nor did it make it something that natural selection would remove, as was presumed in the first post. It was quite useful, served to keep us alive, and perpetuated according to the theory set forth.

or, by a different theory, a deity talked to a human and the human listened.....

 

[Damocles]

or, by a different theory, a deity talked to a human and the human listened.....

The only people who would call that a "theory" would be those who do not know what a theory is in science.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Adam wasn't visited by a walking talking dude without a belly button, it just means that it isn't "science"...

The original hypothesis in the first post suggested that natural selection would reject such a useless trait, I have explained what they have found upon study of this particular trait, it wasn't useless, in fact it saved our scrawny behinds.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The only people who would call that a "theory" would be those who do not know what a theory is in science.

lately I've heard some interesting theories on what a theory is.....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

ADVANCED. CEREBRAL. CORTEX.

ADVANCED FROM WHAT AND WHERE?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, I'm not even ridiculing you here: you just don't understand evolution.

Everything around us today, including us, ultimately evolved from unicellular creatures. Virtually everything we or any other organism has "popped out of nowhere," at least gradually. You understand that, right?

No, I don't understand that, I would like to see the proof you have for this theory.

According to Darwin, attributes do not just "appear" from nowhere in the evolution process. I can't recall the exact quote from Origin of the Species, but he specifically says, if an attribute exists, which can't be defined as a refinement of a previous attribute, it fails the test of evolution. Things don't pop up from nowhere in evolution, it just doesn't happen.

 

[Onceler]

No, I don't understand that, I would like to see the proof you have for this theory.

According to Darwin, attributes do not just "appear" from nowhere in the evolution process. I can't recall the exact quote from Origin of the Species, but he specifically says, if an attribute exists, which can't be defined as a refinement of a previous attribute, it fails the test of evolution. Things don't pop up from nowhere in evolution, it just doesn't happen.

You don't get it.

Evolution happened over billions of years. It started with UNICELLULAR ORGANISMS. They evolved into multicellular organisms, which evolved into the first complex sea creatures, which evolved into fish, which eventually evolved some rudimentary legs & crawled on land, and so on, and so on. Things "appeared" out of nowhere all the time, gradually, through genetic mutation.

An advanced cerebral cortex evolved just like a cerebral cortex evolved, just like a brain evolved, just like a nervous system evolved. That's why it's called evolution.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The only people who would call that a "theory" would be those who do not know what a theory is in science.

Of course, that doesn't mean that Adam wasn't visited by a walking talking dude without a belly button, it just means that it isn't "science"...

The original hypothesis in the first post suggested that natural selection would reject such a useless trait, I have explained what they have found upon study of this particular trait, it wasn't useless, in fact it saved our scrawny behinds.

You have given an opinion Damo, you haven't "explained" a damn thing.

When I referred to spirituality as a "useless trait" I was alluding to the Atheist assertion it is such, I certainly DO realize what a beneficial trait spirituality is to man, and I believe it is responsible in large part, for what mankind has become. You seem to still be working on the presumption that mankind invented spiritual belief, and that has not been established, to the best of my knowledge.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You don't get it.

Evolution happened over billions of years. It started with UNICELLULAR ORGANISMS. They evolved into multicellular organisms, which evolved into the first complex sea creatures, which evolved into fish, which eventually evolved some rudimentary legs & crawled on land, and so on, and so on. Things "appeared" out of nowhere all the time, gradually, through genetic mutation.

An advanced cerebral cortex evolved just like a cerebral cortex evolved, just like a brain evolved, just like a nervous system evolved. That's why it's called evolution.

It can't evolve from nothing! Evolution has no intelligence! It can't possibly know and determine what a species needs or requires, then deliver it like the FTD florist! For an attribute or characteristic to be "passed on" it has to come from somewhere!

 

[Onceler]

It can't evolve from nothing! Evolution has no intelligence! It can't possibly know and determine what a species needs or requires, then deliver it like the FTD florist! For an attribute or characteristic to be "passed on" it has to come from somewhere!

I mean it; this is astounding. Why do you talk about evolution the board? You don't get it.

Attributes & characteristics come from genetic mutations. There are lots of those, and most are rejected. When one happens that benefits an organism's survival (like an advanced cerebral cortex might benefit an animal with no claws or sharp teeth to gain advantage in an environment that has other animals that do have those features), that organism survives and its offspring carry that advantageous trait, and keep passing it on through the generations.

Please do some reading.

 

[Damocles]

You have given an opinion Damo, you haven't "explained" a damn thing.

When I referred to spirituality as a "useless trait" I was alluding to the Atheist assertion it is such, I certainly DO realize what a beneficial trait spirituality is to man, and I believe it is responsible in large part, for what mankind has become. You seem to still be working on the presumption that mankind invented spiritual belief, and that has not been established, to the best of my knowledge.

I have explained the result of actual studies, that you present it as "opinion" is simply inaccurate.

And again, nothing I said presumes either the existence or non-existence of any deity, it simply is the result of what they have found while studying this particular trait.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have explained the result of actual studies, that you present it as "opinion" is simply inaccurate.

And again, nothing I said presumes either the existence or non-existence of any deity, it simply is the result of what they have found while studying this particular trait.

Studies? Like you mean they went back in time and interviewed cave men?

What you presented is elaborate speculation. An opinion on what MIGHT be the case, not something conclusive. I am not claiming it isn't the case, but you certainly haven't proven it, nor has any "study" of the trait.

 

[Damocles]

Studies? Like you mean they went back in time and interviewed cave men?

What you presented is elaborate speculation. An opinion on what MIGHT be the case, not something conclusive. I am not claiming it isn't the case, but you certainly haven't proven it, nor has any "study" of the trait.

No. This is an example of hyperbole based in ignorance.

Why don't you educate yourself so you can participate in the conversation not begun in the darkness of ignorance? You didn't even know that they have studied and asked this very question previously...

Here is a publication that is well-written and cites many of the studies done on the subject...

http://www.godpart.com/

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I mean it; this is astounding. Why do you talk about evolution the board? You don't get it.

Attributes & characteristics come from genetic mutations. There are lots of those, and most are rejected. When one happens that benefits an organism's survival (like an advanced cerebral cortex might benefit an animal with no claws or sharp teeth to gain advantage in an environment that has other animals that do have those features), that organism survives and its offspring carry that advantageous trait, and keep passing it on through the generations.

Please do some reading.

Sorry, but you are presuming that beneficial things just mysteriously happen... that, here's a creature who needs something to help it survive, and the magic evolution fairy puts an advanced cerebral cortex under his pillow! I get the "keep passing it on" part, but it has to originate first, in order to be passed on.

Snakes don't have arms! I know they would probably LOVE to have arms, and that would greatly benefit their species, but in all the billions of years of snake evolution, arms just haven't popped into existence on a snake... why is that? I mean, if the powers of evolution can determine what a species needs and produce it for them, why don't snakes have arms? Well, it's because arms have to evolve from something else, they don't just appear out of the blue. The same is true with a cerebral cortex.

 

[Onceler]

Sorry, but you are presuming that beneficial things just mysteriously happen... that, here's a creature who needs something to help it survive, and the magic evolution fairy puts an advanced cerebral cortex under his pillow! I get the "keep passing it on" part, but it has to originate first, in order to be passed on.

Snakes don't have arms! I know they would probably LOVE to have arms, and that would greatly benefit their species, but in all the billions of years of snake evolution, arms just haven't popped into existence on a snake... why is that? I mean, if the powers of evolution can determine what a species needs and produce it for them, why don't snakes have arms? Well, it's because arms have to evolve from something else, they don't just appear out of the blue. The same is true with a cerebral cortex.

Dixie...that is the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

My lord; the time I have spent on this w/ you. You do not understand evolution; trust me on this. How do you think a unicellular organism eventually evolved into a bird, or a fish, or man?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

No. This is an example of hyperbole based in ignorance.

Why don't you educate yourself so you can participate in the conversation not begun in the darkness of ignorance? You didn't even know that they have studied and asked this very question previously...

Here is a publication that is well-written and cites many of the studies done on the subject...

http://www.godpart.com/

Damo, the very COVER of the book says... A Scientific Interpretation of Human Spirituality and God. This is not a conclusive fact Damo, sorry!

If you wish to call me ignorant and uneducated, I suppose you have that right, but I am anything BUT ignorant on the subject, and yes I imagined that someone had probably done some kind of study on why man believes in God. These are all subjective opinions, including my opinion. No one has PROVEN a damn thing, Damo, not even YOU!

So take your self-righteous egotistical load of crap someplace else to dump it, I don't need anymore bullshit.