What would count as proof of God

[Keith&Co.]

For me to reject theism I would have to see

No one cares. No one's asking you to give up your theism.
This thread asks for proof of god, either actual proof or a hypothetical place to go looking for such proof.
The universe exists, but it exists in those cosmologies that include a creator deity, that include non-creator deities, and include zero deities. It doesn't really advance your position that one of those is more likely than the others.

 

[Drew2008]

Atheism makes claims as well. They claim the universe we observe came into existence apart from a creator.

That's reaching. 'Atheism' only claim is that the person is 'without a belief in gods.' Even if gods are real, if a person does not believe in them, the label 'atheism' is accurately applied, so 'atheism' is true.
Theism is a belief in a deity. One or more. If there are no deities in the entire universe, but someone believes in one, theism is true.
If there are gods in the universe, but not the one the theist believes in, the label 'theism' is true.
If there are gods, and the theist believes in one that exists, such as Thor, Thor is not credited with the creation of the universe. But the theist believes he exists independent of the universe's start. And theist applies, thus is true.

No its not reaching at all. The core of atheism is the a before the theism which means without God(s), creator, transcendent personal agent. What without God? The creation of the universe and life. Atheists (as far as I know) don't deny the universe and humans exist, they do deny the necessity and the existence of a Creator to cause such circumstances. If we say the universe isn't the intended result of a transcendent agent we are saying that forces unintentionally caused the universe and life we observe to exist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No its not reaching at all. The core of atheism is the a before the theism which means without God(s), creator, transcendent personal agent. What without God? The creation of the universe and life. Atheists (as far as I know) don't deny the universe and humans exist, they do deny the necessity and the existence of a Creator to cause such circumstances.

And then theists deny the necessity of a Creator needing a Creator. Ain't that convenient.

Atheist: The universe exists and at no point in time has it not existed.
Theist: The universe still needs a Creator!
Atheist: Who created the Creator?
Theist: The Creator doesn't need to be created, the Creator has always existed.
Atheist: Umm...
Theist: IT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Atheism makes claims as well. They claim the universe we observe came into existence apart from a creator.

That's reaching. 'Atheism' only claim is that the person is 'without a belief in gods.' Even if gods are real, if a person does not believe in them, the label 'atheism' is accurately applied, so 'atheism' is true.
Theism is a belief in a deity. One or more. If there are no deities in the entire universe, but someone believes in one, theism is true.
If there are gods in the universe, but not the one the theist believes in, the label 'theism' is true.
If there are gods, and the theist believes in one that exists, such as Thor, Thor is not credited with the creation of the universe. But the theist believes he exists independent of the universe's start. And theist applies, thus is true.

No its not reaching at all. The core of atheism is the a before the theism which means without God(s), creator, transcendent personal agent. What without God? The creation of the universe and life. Atheists (as far as I know) don't deny the universe and humans exist, they do deny the necessity and the existence of a Creator to cause such circumstances. If we say the universe isn't the intended result of a transcendent agent we are saying that forces unintentionally caused the universe and life we observe to exist.

I'm just gonna bet twenty quatloos that you cannot provide your evidence for the theistic position on the universe's origin without the gaps.

 

[bilby]

Atheism makes claims as well. They claim the universe we observe came into existence apart from a creator. They claim the universe wasn't planned or designed it was natural mindless forces that some how came into existence and wound up unintentionally causing a universe to exist. That's your story and claim and your stuck with it.

Only one thing needs to be true for atheism to be true. No God, creator or designer of the universe exists. Nothing else needs to be true.

Do you not see how your first paragraph is contradicted by your second?

You don't seem to be very good at consistent reasoning at all. Your position has changed completely in the space of seven sentences, and you don't seem to have even noticed.

Atheism says nothing about the origin of the universe, nor even whether it has an origin.

I can assure you that I am an atheist who absolutely doesn't agree that "the universe we observe came into existence".

This is completely consistent with my agreement that "No God, creator or designer of the universe exists". Indeed, as you correctly point out, nothing else needs to be true in order for my atheism to be a correct understanding of reality.

 

[Elixir]

No its not reaching at all. The core of atheism is the a before the theism which means without God(s), creator, transcendent personal agent. What without God? The creation of the universe and life. Atheists (as far as I know) don't deny the universe and humans exist, they do deny the necessity and the existence of a Creator to cause such circumstances.

And then theists deny the necessity of a Creator needing a Creator.

Yabut God always was. I don't know, but that's what people are saying. Many people are saying that. Great people. Really fine people are saying that. I don't know why so many people would say that if it wasn't true.
(Never mind that "many people" are also saying the universe always was, too.)

What is lacking here, is the universe standing up and saying "YES, I WAS ALWAYS HERE!"
...as well as any gods standing up saying "YES I WAS ALWAYS HERE!"

We do have a plethora of PEOPLE standing up saying "(My) God says He was always here!"
They say that without evidence, which makes one wonder why gods can't speak for themselves.
Furthermore, they have hissy fits when people stand up and say the same thing about other gods. It's a god-damned mess.
At least most scientists advance the "the universe always was" as a provisional possibility.

 

[Drew2008]

I'm just gonna bet twenty quatloos that you cannot provide your evidence for the theistic position on the universe's origin without the gaps.

I'm not attempting to explain its origin...just its existence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

F1. The universe exists. Hopefully no one disputes this.

Technically, the universe has always existed. So F1 should be "The universe has always existed." At no point in time can we say there was no universe. There is no evidence that rules of casualty (or anything or everything) exist "outside" the universe.

Only if one claims God caused a universe to exist does a universe have to exist. If I claim a house was intentionally caused to exist the first line of evidence would be the existence of a house. If I claim houses were intentionally caused to exist but there are no houses everyone would reject the claim. If there are houses that alone doesn't prove anyone made them intentionally but it makes the contention more probable than if none existed. I'll repeat evidence are facts which make a claim more probable than minus stated fact.

You are using the words "evidence" and "facts" improperly as you aren't using either of those things. You are making subjective statements and playing word games in order to twist some sort of proof... which is meaningless.

If I claimed that scientists, engineers and programmers caused a virtual universe to exist the existence of a virtual universe would be evidence my claim is correct.

Only in the sense that there was something to talk about. It would not provide a shred of evidence who created it, which is the claim you are making.

Your "logic" (I'm being kind) via an analogy...

God made me a sandwich.
I have a sandwich, this is evidence that God made it.

And in this case, my analogy is actually a stronger case, because we understand the limits of a sandwich much better than the universe/multi-verse.

Or how about:

I had sex with Alison Hannigan.
I have a penis, that is evidence that I had sex with Alison Hannigan.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm just gonna bet twenty quatloos that you cannot provide your evidence for the theistic position on the universe's origin without the gaps.

I'm not attempting to explain its origin...just its existence.

Okay.
You're still unable to bring this about except in reaction to what you think of as faults in the atheist position.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I had sex with Alison Hannigan.
I have a penis, that is evidence that I had sex with Alison Hannigan.

And Alison Hannigan is not a virgin. More evidence that you had sex with her.

 

[Drew2008]

Atheism says nothing about the origin of the universe, nor even whether it has an origin.

Atheism says a great deal about the universe, it says whatever caused it or regardless of its origin we know one thing...God (a personal agent didn't do it). It wasn't caused intentionally it was the result of unguided forces and fortuitous happenstance. Naturedidit! And that is naturalism in the gaps.

The only part you get is the A in atheism. It means not or without God. Theism is the belief it was intentionally caused by a transcendent volitional agent. Atheism is the counter explanation that it happened without any volitional transcendent agent.

 

[Elixir]

For me to reject theism I would have to see some compelling evidence that convinces me the material world that I depend on for my existence was serendipitously caused by forces that didn't even intend there own existence to occur.

So what? Do you really think anyone here cares whether you reject theism? Is "what convinces" Drew some critical component of the world's understanding of serendipity? Or anything else?
Even if it is, is that somehow important? Why should teleology matter to anyone?
I think that if it comforts you to think that the forces leading to your brief existence all conspired under a co-ordinated effort meticulously designed to create Drew2008s, don't you think it should require some great overriding purpose to make people try to disabuse you of that notion? How would it benefit them?

Atheism says a great deal about the universe, it says whatever caused it or regardless of its origin we know one thing...God (a personal agent didn't do it).

No, your "atheism" boogeyman doesn't say that. It doesn't say anything.
ATHEISTS say things, and IME most of them, myself included (if I qualify as atheist as many theists have told me I do, despite holding it likely that transcendent intelligence may exist) do not contend that they KNOW gods don't exist. They merely look at the preponderance of evidence and say about theist assertions "Nope - no reason to believe that particular fable.". And they're right.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Atheism is the counter explanation that it happened without any volitional transcendent agent.

Except it's not. You're confusing things SOME atheists hold to be true with atheism. Possibly intentionally.

 

[Jarhyn]

And there's that sophistry that always gets you on ignore whenever I purge my ignore list.

It's logic, not sophistry.

No, it's sophistry.

"The one thing that I cannot doubt is that I sit here doubting". Nothing has come up to change this fact.

You can either doubt, and potentially be wrong about being wrong, or even right about being wrong; or you can abandon doubt and be wrong about being right but you will never be certain of being right about being right; therefore the only way to be confidently right about a thing is to accept that you are wrong

That is a non-sequitur, and clearly the conclusion is false. To accept that you are wrong is most certainly not a way of be confidently right!. If you come to believe that you are wrong...then you already believe something else, by the way. But in any case, what you said earlier has the problem I highlighted earlier.

When you trust but verify, this is the way of things.

That is a very different thing.

You and your sophistry. This is strike 2 BTW.

It is trivial that when someone believes the are wrong about something, they will at the very least be correct that they are wrong. It's the one thing we can be fairly well actually certain of, and something the certainty of which enables us to become less wrong.

 

[Drew2008]

Atheism is the counter explanation that it happened without any volitional transcendent agent.

Except it's not. You're confusing things SOME atheists hold to be true with atheism. Possibly intentionally.

Technically, the universe has always existed. So F1 should be "The universe has always existed." At no point in time can we say there was no universe. There is no evidence that rules of casualty (or anything or everything) exist "outside" the universe.

No it didn't always technically exist. The universe is space time, gravity strong force weak force, stars, planets and so forth. What is postulated is what we observe now sprung forth from something entirely different and where our laws of physics are irrelevant. We can hardly project the quality of time such as always having existed to something that existed before time. Did time always exist?

 

[bilby]

Atheism says nothing about the origin of the universe, nor even whether it has an origin.

Atheism says a great deal about the universe, it says whatever caused it or regardless of its origin we know one thing...God (a personal agent didn't do it). It wasn't caused intentionally it was the result of unguided forces and fortuitous happenstance. Naturedidit! And that is naturalism in the gaps.

The only part you get is the A in atheism. It means not or without God. Theism is the belief it was intentionally caused by a transcendent volitional agent. Atheism is the counter explanation that it happened without any volitional transcendent agent.

The problem is that "universe" means "everything that exists".

You can't explain its existence by reference to something that's not a part of the universe, because by definition that thing doesn't exist.

So you are left with either accepting its existence as a brute fact, or hiving off a special part of everything that exists, which you then call 'god', and credit with making the whole thing exist.

But either that leaves you with an equally difficult problem in explaining how 'god' exists, so you have solved nothing; Or it leaves you with the claim that a part (or all) of reality can exist without explanation, so you have eliminated the need to invoke a god to begin with.

Not only is 'god' not the answer; 'god' cannot even be a possible answer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Atheism is the counter explanation that it happened without any volitional transcendent agent.

Except it's not. You're confusing things SOME atheists hold to be true with atheism. Possibly intentionally.

Technically, the universe has always existed. So F1 should be "The universe has always existed." At no point in time can we say there was no universe. There is no evidence that rules of casualty (or anything or everything) exist "outside" the universe.

No it didn't always technically exist. The universe is space time, gravity strong force weak force, stars, planets and so forth. What is postulated is what we observe now sprung forth from something entirely different and where our laws of physics are irrelevant. We can hardly project the quality of time such as always having existed to something that existed before time. Did time always exist?

So you haven't actually refuted what I said. At no point in time can the universe be said to have never existed.

 

[steve_bank]

Atheism makes claims as well. They claim the universe we observe came into existence apart from a creator. They claim the universe wasn't planned or designed it was natural mindless forces that some how came into existence and wound up unintentionally causing a universe to exist. That's your story and claim and your stuck with it.

Only one thing needs to be true for atheism to be true. No God, creator or designer of the universe exists. Nothing else needs to be true. For theism to be true several things have to be true. Anything necessary for theism to be true is evidence (not proof) theism is true.

I'm not going to list premises but facts...

F1. The universe exists. Hopefully no one disputes this.

Theism is the belief God (or some Creator) caused the universe to exist. If the universe didn't exist theism would be totally falsified. The false slogan there is no evidence of theism would actually be true. In any version of theism to be true a universe has to exist. However for atheism to be true only the non-existence of God or a Creator needs to be true. No one would say because I believe no God or Creator exists therefore a universe that supports life should exist. Since the claim is that God caused a universe to exist the existence of the universe makes the claim God caused a universe more probable. There is no reason I know of a universe has to exist. Only if one claims God caused a universe to exist does a universe have to exist. If I claim a house was intentionally caused to exist the first line of evidence would be the existence of a house. If I claim houses were intentionally caused to exist but there are no houses everyone would reject the claim. If there are houses that alone doesn't prove anyone made them intentionally but it makes the contention more probable than if none existed. I'll repeat evidence are facts which make a claim more probable than minus stated fact. If I claimed that scientists, engineers and programmers caused a virtual universe to exist the existence of a virtual universe would be evidence my claim is correct.

One note, I'm not attempting to prove God exists. There isn't enough evidence to prove the existence of God. There is enough evidence that makes theism a resonable belief over the counter claim we owe the existence of the universe and sentient human life to forces that had no intention or plan to do so.

Before I submit F2 I'll wait for everyone to deny F1 is evidence in favor of theistic belief.

Negatory.

'Atheism' says nothing about cosmology. I know of no science that clams the unverse has a starting point. An infinie unverse has no need of a creator.

As to atheism, surveys show that 98.2 percent of all atheists prefer Coke over Pepsi.

 

[blastula]

Secondly this discussion is not a one way street I know some atheists believe atheism is a negative claim not in need of any evidence or have any burden of proof. The claim theism is an answer to a question how did the universe and humans come to exist? Theism isn't a religion its a philosophical belief that the universe was intentionally created to cause sentient life to exist in contrast to the belief no God(s), or Creator of any sort was needed.
That is one type of theism or one aspect of a theism, it is certainly not the only way to define theism. And most theisms define their gods with many more characteristics than solely a universe creator.

It is how theism is defined.

No, it's how a specific theism is defined, there are many theisms. The only requirement for theism is a belief in any deity.

Theism is the belief God (or some Creator) caused the universe to exist. If the universe didn't exist theism would be totally falsified.

Again, that is a theism, and in practice, most of those theisms have a myriad of other beliefs attached to their deity besides that it is a world creator. Most of them claim their god is currently acting in the universe, while there is no good evidence at all for that claim.

Nobody knows how or why the universe exists, yet you focus on that area as though it can support anything about God, when it is silent on the issue.* That is very telling, since you apparently ignore all the present day claims about God that can be evaluated much better, and where theism clearly fails.

*Except for theisms that make specific claims at odds with known facts, like young earth creationism.

 

[steve_bank]

Atheism is the counter explanation that it happened without any volitional transcendent agent.

Except it's not. You're confusing things SOME atheists hold to be true with atheism. Possibly intentionally.

Technically, the universe has always existed. So F1 should be "The universe has always existed." At no point in time can we say there was no universe. There is no evidence that rules of casualty (or anything or everything) exist "outside" the universe.

No it didn't always technically exist. The universe is space time, gravity strong force weak force, stars, planets and so forth. What is postulated is what we observe now sprung forth from something entirely different and where our laws of physics are irrelevant. We can hardly project the quality of time such as always having existed to something that existed before time. Did time always exist?

Again, there are limited possibilities.

Universe without beginning or end.
Universe sprang into existence form nothing.
A creator did it, without explaining how the creator came to be.

Based on Laws Of Thermodynamics and no observed exceptions to conservation, I go with the first option amd reject the second. Of course it is not experimentally provable.


The third option is the mystcal alternative. It is for those who can't do math and science.