"The proof of God is all around us in His creation" - Could someone please explain the logic of this?

Question

What I see around me would certainly be proof of a god, if a god was necessary for its existence... but how do we know that a god is necessary for its existence? Where's the justification for that presupposition? To me, it just seems like an unsupported assertion.

Yoda: Good point.

ray: Sure, they're sitting on your shoulder right now.

primoa: Thanks for reassuring me that there is no satisfactory answer to this question, as I suspected.

Andy: Indeed...

Maddi: You failed to answer the question. Think about it some more.

Thaddeus: It makes no sense to try to explain something remarkable (the existence of the universe) by postulating something infinitely more remarkable (a super-intelligent entity capable of designing and creating a universe) which does not itself require an explanation. That is illogical.

all_are_questioned: I agree

cashag: Evolution is an established fact - you only have to read about it.

aaronrreagle: No, the Bible does not answer this question, all it does is make unsupported assertions.

Bill: Yep!

jen: How is this an answer to my question?

dazza333333: No, it isn't, that's the point. Look deeper.

Christina A: Yup!

Joey: As long as I just believe, then I will believe... is that your argument?? :-)

hypno_toad1: Good point. If you refuse to examine your beliefs then maybe that's the safer (but lazy) option.

GodShew: I'm sorry but your answer was incomprehensible.

birdsflies: OK, good attempt, laws of nature etc... but the same question applies: How do we know that laws of nature require a creator?

majid saib mikhail: Not an answer.

dd: It's not right to just *choose* to believe something.

Answer 1

well i guess you cant see the proof of the invisible pink unicorns ether can you now

damn icarus i just seen them too now i actually believe in something thank you kind sir or ma'am

Answer 2

For a "NO" the logic is simple. A "NO" desires to accept the fact he did not bring himself into existence to start with. Thus he is confronted with options to consider for without options, any consideration is a futile effort.

In this system meaning "within and not out of this system" everything must have a beginning or starting point. If one is in or within, then it is an accepted fact in the English language that an out must exist. To verify this, check any English language dictionary on the definition of "in".

Wihin or in one sees thre things in no change, changes that seem to improve and changes that seem to bting forth destruction or elimination. The method of these changes are intelligent design or random selection and a third possibility that both are in place in some way.

Two concepts are noted in the "in" which are specific fixed rules or principles that are enforced and never biolated. Rules like cause and effect, recycling,, and desires granted.. If in fact the fixing of the principles and the enforcement of them was all controlled and established within, there would be no need for and other than "in" to exist and such should not be included in the English dictionary.. Likewise if it was pure random selection there would be no need for intelligent design and in fact there would be no intelligence at all unless of course it just showed up for a while and then was maybe eliminated by a change. However fixed principles and their enforcement requires intelligent design to be fixed and controlled.

One may say that an intelligent design just as random selection must have a beginning. if everything has a beginning. Such is a very logical conclusion if the area considered is only the "in" position in place. If that be the case there is nothing to prevent another intelligent dersigned or another process of random selection of replacing the current existing conditions based upon the changing principle. However do note that intelligent designed and random selection are only methods and not speaking of an entity or being.

THe term God, Big Bang, NO God may be seen as names for this controller and designer and each individual may pick and choose his desired name for his source of what he sees by his own desire. I personally can find nothing that says or even hints that "Big Bang" makes any promises or says anything about tomorrow. I can find nothing at all about "Mr. No God" except what the No God worshipers say about their No God. However I do find a book written about a God who does make some promises about not only tomorrow but also about today. Why is that? Is this the first witness that proof of God is all around us?

I look around at this existence and I see many systems all working together for a purpose. This purpose is to me a satisfyung of desires for all no matter what the desire is because there are many options and conclusions that can be seen and justified for those with a desire. Is this the second witness that says proof of a God is all around us?

I again look around and see what appears to be random selection inplace and yet in this random selection a purpose and a plan are being fulfilled just exactly as the Bible says it will be. Is this a third witness that maybe there is a God just as the Bible say.; a god who is not limited to the "in" as mankind and this God may also not be limited to the "in" rule of having a beginning. No one knows the principles of the out area or the other than "in" areas that may exist Is this another witness?

Just give this some thought and then think abiut your question and do arrive at you own desired conclusion as you have a good day. I do not really know your desires and I do wonder if you do.

Answer 3

I agree. Okay, here's a 'creation' - but what about it exactly shows that the 'creator' is as they define it? A deity? Okay, what are the qualities of this deity and what were the mechanisms by which it did the creating? And if a deity could have done it, why not a more subtle energy, like the Force?

It's not the assumption of a creator that bugs me, it's their assertion that the creator is their version of Whatever and no one else's. Begging pardon, but if there plain proof of that, everyone would believe the same thing.

Answer 4

It is a VERY weak argument and can only be classified as infantile at best.
If only religious folk would stop for a moment or more and contemplate what this planet and the life upon it would be like without a creator. No need to imagine very hard, as what you see is what developed naturally. No god, no divine plan. Nothing but chaos and natural progression.
How simple is that to understand? Much easier than accepting that there is an invisible wizard out there who professes to be perfect but, the evidence shows, cannot be. Too many errors.
No - god is imaginary and the remainder of all the religious claptrap is invented.

Answer 5

For people who assert such a thing, the foolishness which serves them as a substitute for knowledge and reason is a logical fallacy (a flaw in thinking) known as the "Argument From Incredulity"... which is a sub-category of the "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" (Argument From Ignorance). It is also known as the 'Divine Fallacy'. It goes something like this: "I can't conceive of (or imagine) how this might have come to be; therefore, God did it."

That does not point to a limitation of science, or of nature... rather, it illuminates a limitation of THEIR knowledge and/or intellect. Also, it is intellectually dishonest, since it does not (as scientists do) ACKNOWLEDGE the limitation of knowledge... it merely invokes the fanciful idea of a supernatural creator-entity to manifest the ILLUSION that their ideas correlate to 'facts'. Finally... it reveals that they presume, for themselves, a form of omniscience... thinking that goes like this: "If this were understandable, then I should be able to understand (or imagine) it. I do NOT (can not) understand (or imagine) it... therefore it is NOT understandable... and since it is NOT understandable (by me), it logically follows that it cannot be 'true'. Therefore... God did it." (See? Right back to the Argument from Incredulity.)

'Faith' (wishful, magical thinking) is a substitute for evidence.

'Belief' (the internalized 'certainty' that you are privy to the 'truth' pertaining to some fundamental aspect of existence and/or reality) is a substitute for knowledge... i.e., the ILLUSION of knowledge.

faith + belief --> self-delusion and willful ignorance

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance... it is the illusion of knowledge." ~ Daniel Boorstin

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig
.

Answer 6

It is only unsupported if you can't really see the handy work of God, But everything has to come from a creator, Right now where I live at in the USA, it is just about Fall, Yet we are having hot temputures, yet I see the trees starting to turn their leafs to orange, this happens every year about this time, many try to say that cool weather causes it, well it hasn't been cool here, so there is a law of nature when to have a tree to start changing colors, & that law of nature is what God put into that tree.

Answer 7

Well said.
It is, just as you say, an unsupported assertion. And I would venture that the evidence is to the contrary. Yes the world has many beautiful things, but there are many, MANY dangerous things too. Some that seem to have no other purpose than to bring pain and death to others including man. Hardly the design of a loving creator now is it?
It would be like a mother placing a rattlesnake in her child's crib.

Answer 8

Paradoxical isn't it ? Those who reject the commonly held scientific view of the universe because it has a couple of undefined pieces missing in the linear progression , readily accept the complete ambiguity of God.

Answer 9

That logic is nothing more than a cop-out told by religious/believers to support their claim about the existence of god

Answer 10

Creation requires a Creator. Design requires a Designer.
Unless you believe that order comes from chaos...to me, that just seems like an unsupported assertion.

Humanly speaking, we don't 'know' that a god exist, but in faith we know THE God exists because the creation shows His handiwork. Otherwise, life has no meaning.

Answer 11

I think for some of them, they prefer to think of the world as a mystery. Something wondrous, and in the hands of something bigger than themselves.
Getting into the details of even how a flower blooms is complex. Its easier (for some) just to stand back in awe of it.

I'd prefer to find out the details. But thats just me.