Prove that God exists

[Final-Fan]

padib said:

Scientists get "supporting evidence" for a theory whenever they do an experiment.  For instance, they might figure that if a particular theory is true, something will happen, and if it's not true, something else will happen.  Then they do the experiment and find out what happens.  By confirming and contradicting and refining theories all the time, science has an extremely good idea of how the world works, including how species change over time.  And "evolve" into noticeably different beings than their ancestors were many many years ago.  

Scientists do the same exact thing in theology (a science also), where they say things like "would this person write this or that, if he did what would that mean" and such and such and they contradict each other constantly at what is a historical game of detective. It's pretty fascinating once you actually get into it. As I said I'm reading the book the case for Christ you'll find examples of what I mean there. I've also taken a course in theology (in a secular university) where, for instance, the authorship of the Pauline letters were put into question and they do statistical analysis of lexical style and grammar and structure and what-have-you and they come up to certain very interesting conclusions.

Here's another example for instance. Remember your editing-in comment? Well, there is a jewish historian by the name of Josephus. In the link I provided to Runa, one of his passages mentions Jesus. However, it is almost certain that the text was later edited due to the nature of the writer and the nature of the content, in that both don't match (he was a jew, and clearly not Christian, so certain statements there are too Christian sounding). Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Josephus

(that's really just to give you an example of the detective  game being played)

You are completely, utterly wrong if you think that the science of evolution has no more supporting evidence than Christian doctrine.  The Bible is basically all the evidence you have.  Historians and archaeologists have been able to put together some sketchy support of SOME of the stuff in the Bible, but obviously nothing like Jesus walking on water etc.  We don't have a diary of a guy who watched him being crucified and saw him die and be buried and camped out at the grave and saw the stone crack or fall away from the hole or however the story goes.  There is only a lot of hearsay, usually decades later, about people talking about OTHER people talking about "that guy who they say rose from the dead".

I understand what you're saying, but historical deciphering doesn't require a journal per se. It could be what they call a hostile witness (someone who would have no stake in claiming the advancings of their enemies/nuisances). An example is found here (from the same wiki article): 

Celsus wrote, about 180, a book against the Christians, which is now only known through Origen's refutation of it. Celsus apparently accused Jesus of being a magician and a sorcerer^[130] and is quoted as saying that Jesus was a "mere man".^[131] F. F. Bruce noted that Celsus, in seeking to discredit Jesus, sought to explain his miracles rather than claim they never occurred.^[132]

In the post I provided to Runa, I took what I learnt from that link and filtered a few pieces of the bible that were historical, as shown from an extra-biblical source. Those were:

• that Jesus existed (Josephus AD 93, Mara bar Sarapion sometime btw 73 AD and the 3rd century, the Talmud 70–200 CE, Lucian 2nd Century AD, Celsus around 180 AD, Tacitus 116 AD, Pliny the younger c. 112, Suetonius c. 69–140)
• that he was a Jew (the Talmud 70–200 CE)
• that he was a Nazarene (from Galilee) (the Talmud 70–200 CE)
• that he was crucified (Tacitus 116AD,  the Talmud 70–200 CE says he was hung)
• that he rose from the dead (This I took from an oblique source I grant, plus subsequent logical deduction, I can provide both if interested)
• that he performed miracles. (the Talmud 70–200 CE, Celsus 180)
• A great darkness in the land - mentioned in the gospels  (Thallus 109 AD)
• That he was a King. (Mara bar Sarapion sometime btw 73 AD and the 3rd century)
• That he was wise. (Mara bar Sarapion sometime btw 73 AD and the 3rd century)

It's already quite alot. Now add to that everything the bible says. How is it reliable? Well again I encourage you to read the book the case for Christ. If you want, I can bring out some points from the book in my own words for you to read sans buying the book.

What do you mean, padib, when you say that "genetic evolution" has never been observed?  Did you know they watched bacteria that are famous for not eating citrate turn into bacteria that  love to eat it?  

I appreciate the question. The outcome of the experiment (behavioral change) is a fact, I concede. However the explanation varies from one observer to the next. The same change in behavior can be due to a loss in genetic information. For instance, if Bacteria_0 had the gene telling it not to eat citrate, upon losing said gene, Bacteria_1 would then love to eat it. I'll offer you a more human-scale example.

There are some dogs with short hair and some with long hair. Those with short hair have the gene to tell the hair to stop growing up to a certain point. Someone will say "Well, dog_0 is the less evolved dog, since it has less fur". But, little do they know, there is rather more information required to tell the hair to stop growing than to not. Those with longer hair may lack that gene for instance, or have a variation of that gene. By losing said gene or losing some complexity in said gene, the dog with longer hair may have actually devolved, though it may have greater chances of survival in colder climates.

As for "devolution", since you didn't explain it here, I might be wrong, but I think I know what you're referring to.  It is not taught because it is bullshit.  More precisely, it has not stood up to tests the way other science has that is taught to society's children, particularly evolution.  I do not even know if it is even capable of being so tested, or if it's total crap (from the perspective of scientific illumination of nature's workings) like intelligent design. 

Well, devolution is not part of intelligent design. It's just basically stating a known fact of genetic defects which are caused by the breeding of specimens of a same species that have a similar gene pool. That's a reason why humans don't inbreed, because it causes blindness, deformities and things like that. So devolution is not something that needs to be proven, it's a fact we see happen around us. That's why fruit flies mutate negatively in a closed environment. The gene pool is so similar that inbreeding causes massive defects (some flies lose wings, some have their eyes blind and things like that, and given their design is not condusive to survival. They will most likely get sifted by natural selections and the pressures of nature). What we see rather in nature is not evolution but devolution. Given the rate of devolution being much faster than that of evolution (genetically speaking), which one do you think will overtake on the long run?

You can call it bullshit, but I will attemp to find secular, scientific evidence to my claim. Possibly an expert in the field could help us, but sadly we're newbs.

Well, although historians can possibly confirm or disconfirm certain hypotheses, it's not the same.  You can't form an opinion about whether Shakespeare really wrote his plays and then go out and do an experiment to prove it wrong.  You can only hope that documents surface shedding more light on the subject, or examine various existing documents to let experts try to come to consensus on an educated guess.  That's all they're doing with the Pauline letters, even if they are fairly confident in their guess.  It's a respectable field, but it doesn't offer the same certainty science like physics does.  Studying the history of evolution is sometimes a little bit of the same detective game (archaeology), but one of the differences is that they have much much more evidence to play with. 

The hostile witness thing is a decent point, but it fails because it doesn't show anything but that people generally believed that the stuff happened almost two centuries later.  And keep in mind that people were more superstitious and credulous about the supernatural.  Notice also that your sources disagree.  The Talmud says he was hung.  If it is wrong there, how can you rely on it for the other information? 

What you describe about the bacteria eating citrate is not possible.  You don't have a gene telling you not to eat grass and dirt; it just doesn't sustain you.  Your body can't turn that into energy to keep you going.  (At all for dirt; efficiently enough for grass.) 

Devolution alleges that changes can only take place via loss of information, i.e. not adding or simply changing things.  This does not hold up to reality.  For instance, in the E. coli experiment there have been so many mutations that if devolution was how bacteria changed over time there would be nothing of them left by now! 

I'm not saying that loss of information isn't among the evolutionary processes; it is.  The fusion of two of our chromosomes into one, which is a difference between us and the other apes, could be considered loss of information IMO.  But it certainly isn't the only process. 

I say it's bullshit because after billions of years of devolution there would really be nothing left.  Also, things that mutate/evolve faster should have much much much less information in their DNA since they should be losing it faster; but that's not the case AFAIK. 

Devolution only works as long as it makes positive changes.  If devolution hurts the organism, the devolved individual is not as likely to succeed and make an impression on the future population.  Babies born with no heart die.  The rationale behind eugenics was to take this a step further and actively prevent subpar individuals from reproducing, thereby improving future populations because only the better ones were able to contribute.  We only don't do that because it's cruel, and too subjective.  Anyway, that's why devolution doesn't overwhelm evolution as a force of change, even if it has more of an effect on every generation (which I don't know).