# evidence for god? some one said so. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 21, 2013, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896 "2013-01-21T08:55:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 37
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/721 "2013-03-01T21:27:52Z")
> [@Andiethewestie](#): > > So you think Pythagoras always wore his right guard? Like seriously… the fathers of rationale thought were the models of cleanliness while religious thinkers were dirty animals? Rational thought. Rationale is what you’re creating to buoy your beliefs. No, I’m just saying that your subcontracting your moral and intellectual life to men who pooped worms, like daily. You wouldn’t go to a first century inhabitant of the Middle East for advice on economics, medicine, architecture or city planning. But for some crazy reason, you think they figured out the perfect description of the creation of the world? They didn’t know what pi was, but they know the origin of the universe. Like I said, weird. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/722 "2013-03-01T21:29:20Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > Then why ask, you asked for my personal experience and I gave you my personal experience. Incidentally the word anecdote does not mean false, it means a personal story. In the future don’t ask. A dream or hallucination is a personal experience. So the more you explain the muddier your explainations get to me. I can’t vision a supreme being like you prefer to think of one. It just doesn’t add up, what you say of him seems to have to come out of your own desires and mind. I think that is your right,but is not what my idea of a Supreme bieng would be like. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/723 "2013-03-01T21:31:05Z")
> [@Andiethewestie](#): > > It’s actually sort of a hoot to see the “rational thinkers” say that Hitchens “didn’t say that” or that biblical writers were ignorant and stinking as opposed to the sweet smell of rationalism. You quoted his words but don’t understand them. And biblical writers were pretty ignorant for the first century. China had steel and prototype ninjas while the new testament writers were rolling around in sick and farting the alphabet. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/724 "2013-03-01T21:34:27Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > China had steel and prototype ninjas while the new testament writers were rolling around in sick and farting the alphabet. Steady on! You’re getting a bit carried away here, old boy. ---
**Author:** ![Critical1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@Critical1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Critical1)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/725 "2013-03-01T21:40:01Z")
> [@Andiethewestie](#): > > Even your grand pooh-bah Christopher Hitchens admitted that there was something about the creative process he couldn’t explain. In his own words: “the sense that there is something beyond the material, or if not beyond it, not entirely consistent with it, is, I think, a very important matter of what you could call the numinist, or the transcendent or at its best, I suppose, the ecstatic. > > So to try to “help” by measuring creativity solely by scientific data does nothing to explain the essence of what Hitchens was suggesting. “There is no god” The Bible See, quote mining is fun and easy for the whole family! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/726 "2013-03-01T21:44:53Z")
> [@ruben4ruben](#): > > This statement does not make sense. Besides making a claim YOU and those reading this today can not prove or try out, the one about recreating human society on an another planet, you slam your opinion without evidence. > > To the point: all kids ask the famous why this/why that and who this and that questions. Babies are born _tabula rasa_ that means clean slate, unprogrammed processors… So WHY do they always ask these logical questions all over the world? > > When both children and adults see a house, skyscraper, car or boat one of the basic questions we all ask is “who made it”? > > I have never met, seen or heard of any intelligent man, woman or child that i could make believe any object such as houses, cars, bikes, boats or shoes just “happened”. > > If we are just animals then why do we start asking all these questions as soon as we can talk? Animals don’t ask questions. They eat, copulate, sleep and urinate. If it’s all just coincidence and natural that we are alive and on this planet why do kids keep asking a million questions all over the world. > Atheism is a religion. Atheists believe there is nothing. You are sure there is nothing. > Have fun, and stop worrying or debating. As there is nothing you should not waste time on foolish believers but pump this one life you have for all the fun you can squeeze out of it. > > You better get from behind your computer. Go out and have fun, go get rich, get famous, win awards, set records, build things, advance science and do whatever you want before you die. > > Those that believe there is nothing, often hurry to experience everything. > I believe there is everything, so i worry about nothing. > > God gives inner peace, even in this troubled world. That is your belief, not a fact, so in truth you should state it is as your belief. I have heard believers accuse non- believers who are at peace, that they just lost their conscience. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/727 "2013-03-01T22:08:11Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Steady on! You’re getting a bit carried away here, old boy. I will admit that it is very difficult to fart in Greek or Aramaic. ---
**Author:** ![paul32](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc348/32.png) [@paul32](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/paul32)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/728 "2013-03-01T22:31:19Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > You’re mixing up the concept of the information carrying capacity of a communications channel, and the amount of information that is in a set of data. You had originally asked about the information contained in the DNA data set, but you’re objecting based on Shannon communications concepts, and those just don’t apply to this question. > > Imagine you have a set of data with X bits of information. If you want to communicate this information to somewhere else, you need a channel, and the channel will have a capacity of the number of bits per second that it can carry. If you add noise to the channel, it will have a lower capacity and will take longer to communicate the X bits of information, but that has nothing to do with the question here, which is the number of bits that are in X in the first place. > > You asked how mutations can increase the amount of information in a data set. Here’s how. Let’s say you start with some data file, such as a large text file. If you ask how much information is in that text file, it will be quite a bit smaller than the file space that it takes up, because text is usually very compressible. Let’s call the amount of information in this text file X bits. > > Now imagine modifying that text file - you take a section of its data and substitute randomness. Does this modified data file have _more_ information than the original, or less? The answer is that it almost certainly will have more information, because randomness is unpredictable and can’t be compressed, and will therefore take longer to communicate over any given channel. > > That’s how adding randomness can increase the information content in a set of data. You have a strange definition of information. Care to provide a reference? Using your text file example, if you encode it with a simple replacement code (F for A, R for B, etc), you will get a new file the same size, but when you compress it, the result is bigger than the original when compressed. So by your definition, it has more information, but clearly there is no more information. It is the same message in a different form. A couple normal definitions of information: From [Information - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information) “Information, in its most restricted technical sense, is a sequence of symbols that can be interpreted as a message.” And “knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance” the first definition from [INFORMATION Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/information). So the random data you provide does not provide information by these definitions. If you interpret the random bits as letters, they will look like garbage, not anything comprehensible. I could post a file that has gigabytes of random data, but it would contain no information. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/729 "2013-03-01T23:15:56Z")
> [@paul32](#): > > You have a strange definition of information. Care to provide a reference? Sure. You posted a link to the Wikipedia entry on Information, but if you had instead looked at the [Information Theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory) page you may have even found it yourself. Right near the top, it says “A key measure of information is known as entropy, which is usually expressed by the average number of bits needed to store or communicate one symbol in a message. Entropy quantifies the uncertainty involved in predicting the value of a random variable.” What this means is that a more complex set of data, one that has a lower probability of occuring, has more bits of information. > [@](#): > > Using your text file example, if you encode it with a simple replacement code (F for A, R for B, etc), you will get a new file the same size, but when you compress it, the result is bigger than the original when compressed. So by your definition, it has more information, but clearly there is no more information. It is the same message in a different form. If the result after compression is a larger file, that tells you there is more information in it. When you did a simple letter substitution, that didn’t add _much_ information, but it probably did add a little. It made the resulting text file less probable, harder to compress, more entropy. > [@](#): > > So the random data you provide does not provide information by these definitions. If you interpret the random bits as letters, they will look like garbage, not anything comprehensible. > > I could post a file that has gigabytes of random data, but it would contain no information. paul32, you’re out of your league here. You should probably sit back and read the thread before you put your foot in your mouth even more. A file that has gigabytes of random data has the most information. Here, I’ll get you started: which of the following two strings of data has more information? String 1: oaiwejknauioawekjncaiwuenoawienklanwienc String 2: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb They’re both 40 characters long. Now, as it relates to the amount of information in DNA, which of the following set of sequences has the most information, and which has the least? Sequence 1: agtac Sequence 2: agtac agtac agtac Sequence 3: agtac agtac agcac \<- notice the letter substitution ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/730 "2013-03-01T23:19:43Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It’s not nasty to call the writers of the bible ignorant and stinking. It’s accurate. They thought pi was 3 and lived in a desert with no air conditioning. Judaism required baths and the washing of hands. It was Christianity that thought this was a bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2013, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/731 "2013-03-01T23:31:46Z")
Just saying that **CurtC** is absolutely correct. A basic misunderstanding is confusing meaning with information. In a sense meaning reduced the amount of information. I do acrostics. One of the ways you solve them is to guess the words in the meaning based on several letters and context. They have meaning, but less information than if the “word” was a set of random letters, in which case you’d need to solve all the clues to get the word. As for substitution, if all letters were substituted, the amount of compression would be the same. (It might be different if only some were.) And if the resulting coded message had the same structure as English words, it can often be easily decrypted. (Another common puzzle.) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/732 "2013-03-02T01:54:11Z")
> [@Andiethewestie](#): > > And Rationalists used to think the world was flat. So did theologians, because the Bible says the world is flat. There are still Biblical literalists, today, who hold that the world is flat, because the Bible says so. (Check out the Biblical Astronomy web sites for other amusing Biblical versions of cosmology, such as the modern geocentrists and the proponents of the geostationary theory.) ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/733 "2013-03-02T02:02:56Z")
> [@paul32](#): > > You have a strange definition of information. Care to provide a reference? He’s quoting standard information theory. > [@](#): > > Using your text file example, if you encode it with a simple replacement code (F for A, R for B, etc), you will get a new file the same size, but when you compress it, the result is bigger than the original when compressed. So by your definition, it has more information, but clearly there is no more information. It is the same message in a different form. Not quite: the compression schema, itself, is “information” and if you don’t know it, you don’t have access to the compressed data. You have to add the information that describes the compression schema, and that brings us back to par. > [@](#): > > . . . So the random data you provide does not provide information by these definitions. If you interpret the random bits as letters, they will look like garbage, not anything comprehensible. > > I could post a file that has gigabytes of random data, but it would contain no information. And I could post a file that has gigabytes of “real” information – say, the Wikipedia – but which is encoded using a random key – and you would not be able to tell it apart from a “truly” random file. The appearance of randomness is no guarantee of “true” randomness. In fact, the worth of a file of data is in your inability to differentiate it from a truly random file! Here’s an example: there is a movie reviewer. Trouble is, he hates movies. He rates ALL movies “two thumbs down.” There is another, a really nice guy, and he rates ALL movies “two thumbs up.” Finally, there is one who judges movies on his best aesthetic sense, and, by and large, rates them about 25% two up, 25% two down, and 50% up/down. The first two guys are conveying no information to us! We don’t even need to read their reviews. We know, in advance, what they are gonna say! But the second guy, whose reviews are (externally) indistinguishable from random reviews, actually conveys the most information. He’s the one worth reading before you want to go see a movie. You need to do a little more reading on basic information theory; you’re working under a couple of misconceptions. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/734 "2013-03-02T04:29:18Z")
I’ve been thinking about this a bit - IF I were to want to posit some ‘evidence’ of design/creator/GOD - I would never posit ‘Creativity’ as said evidence - it’s far too subjective and is not ‘equal’ or ‘avialable’ to all equally - as has been noted so many times before. IF I were to posit some particular ‘item’ as evidence - I would go with mathmatics - Mathmatics is a) available to all equally - it is always the same, no matter what else you may/may not believe b) it is never changing - while we may make leaps and bounds in the precision to which we can calculate things - the basic principles _never_ change. c) it is fully objective - it is open to proof and testing and is never subject to the whims of ‘men’. d) It even has a system for talking about things that are in principle _impossible_ - even defined as _irrational_ - and even with those ‘impossible’ things, can be used to prove what is ‘possible’. e) it is fully logical. I think that would come about as close to ‘evidence’ for a ‘God’ as you can get - but it would never prove any of the ‘Gods’ that men choose to worship - as it is fully neutral in all respects. It is what it is - it is the alpha and the omega - the beginning and the end. What say you? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/735 "2013-03-02T05:44:57Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Judaism required baths and the washing of hands. It was Christianity that thought this was a bad idea. The pagan Romans and Greeks were also big on cleanliness. > [@simster](#): > > . . . IF I were to posit some particular ‘item’ as evidence - I would go with mathmatics . . . > > I think that would come about as close to ‘evidence’ for a ‘God’ as you can get - but it would never prove any of the ‘Gods’ that men choose to worship - as it is fully neutral in all respects. . . . It is also as close to the infinite as we can ever get. We can prove that there is no end to the prime numbers, for instance. Number theory is ineffable, and even kind of mysterious. Why are there primes and non-primes? It’s as if the properties of numbers were created in the instant of the cosmos’ creation itself. Is “2 + 2 = 4” true in all universes? Or could there be a cosmos where math is radically different? If pi were equal to 3, would “circles” look like hexagons? And yet, if you will forgive me, even the most mysterious, most Pythagorean treatment of the mystery of mathematics does not seem to lead in the direction of a knowing, caring, personal God. It leads, more, I think, to abstract deism, perhaps even toward an “idiot” creator, a mind so austere that it can grasp the highest properties of numbers, but cannot comprehend humanity. An Azathoth, not an Apollo. It also leads to more silly questions about God’s own limitations. Can he make one plus two not equal three? (There was a “Tom the Dancing Bug” cartoon where God-Man did just that. The universe promptly unravelled, but he didn’t care, and flew back home to watch “Four’s Company” on tv.) ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/736 "2013-03-02T13:30:28Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > If pi were equal to 3, would “circles” look like hexagons? A circle isn’t dependent on what pi is; pi is dependent on what a circle is. A circle would look like a circle regardless of what the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter ended up being. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2013, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/737 "2013-03-02T13:57:57Z")
> [@simster](#): > > I’ve been thinking about this a bit - > > IF I were to want to posit some ‘evidence’ of design/creator/GOD - I would never posit ‘Creativity’ as said evidence - it’s far too subjective and is not ‘equal’ or ‘avialable’ to all equally - as has been noted so many times before. > > IF I were to posit some particular ‘item’ as evidence - I would go with mathmatics - > > Mathmatics is > > a) available to all equally - it is always the same, no matter what else you may/may not believe > b) it is never changing - while we may make leaps and bounds in the precision to which we can calculate things - the basic principles _never_ change. > c) it is fully objective - it is open to proof and testing and is never subject to the whims of ‘men’. > d) It even has a system for talking about things that are in principle _impossible_ - even defined as _irrational_ - and even with those ‘impossible’ things, can be used to prove what is ‘possible’. > e) it is fully logical. > > I think that would come about as close to ‘evidence’ for a ‘God’ as you can get - but it would never prove any of the ‘Gods’ that men choose to worship - as it is fully neutral in all respects. > > It is what it is - it is the alpha and the omega - the beginning and the end. > > What say you? The physicist-mathematician Leon M. Lederman once quipped: “The physicists defer only to the mathematicians, and the mathematicians defer only to God (though you will be hard pressed to find a mathematician that modest).” Mathematics explains the universe and the natural laws for its existence. Its a rigorous language that explains theoretical and emperical concepts. But its principals were not handed down to man on stone tablets. It’s a language man developed over millenia. If we were not here to develop this language and appreciate its elegance, the universe would still exist and be no less elegant or less subject to natural laws. So mathematics may be the proverbial tree that falls in the forest. Furthermore, if the universe and everything was created by a mathematician-god, wouldn’t that imply that even he was subject to the laws of mathematics? Which in my mind begs the question, who established those? And also, because it’s funny to me, imagine a universe created by an interpretive-arts-god. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/738 "2013-03-03T00:12:04Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > A circle isn’t dependent on what pi is; pi is dependent on what a circle is. A circle would look like a circle regardless of what the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter ended up being. Well, it was a quip. But, more seriously, is it possible for a universe to exist, with such rules of geometry (perhaps a differently curved space?) that pi is 3.0? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/739 "2013-03-03T00:41:28Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > And biblical writers were pretty ignorant for the first century. China had steel and prototype ninjas Ha; that gives me an image of a bunch of ninja garbed guys in a swordfight being observed by a studious-looking Chinese guy with glasses and a clipboard, taking performance notes. “Hmmmmm; needs 15% more ninjutsu.” ---
**Author:** ![ruben4ruben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@ruben4ruben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruben4ruben)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2013, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896/740 "2013-03-03T13:02:00Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > So did theologians, because the Bible says the world is flat. There are still Biblical literalists, today, who hold that the world is flat, because the Bible says so. (Check out the Biblical Astronomy web sites for other amusing Biblical versions of cosmology, such as the modern geocentrists and the proponents of the geostationary theory.) Oh nice statement, but you “forget” to enlighten us as to **where in the bible** the book says the earth is flat. Let me help you. Isaiah 40:22 speaks of the earth being round. Pick up any bible and see that thousands of years ago the Hebrews(and later Christians) had no doubt about the earth being round. In Latin: or′bi ter′rae. Now as for the smart Europeans…they were afraid for centuries to sail too far West because they thought they’d fall off. And i agree many **other** religions would have us believe the earth sits on the back of elephants standing on a turtle. But not the bible. ``` **...and you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free.** *John 8:32* ``` [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evidence-for-god-some-one-said-so/647896.md?page=38)