What would count as proof of God

[Keith&Co.]

If Drew isn't proofing gods, maybe split his posts off into a 'keep repeating same errors ad infinitum' thread?

 

[pood]

Drew,

You are making a probability argument. Your are saying that given that the universe exists, it is more probable to assume the existence of a creator than the non-existence of a creator. That is a probability argument. It fails for reasons I explained. A posteriori the probability of the universe is unity. A priori is undefined without a probability distribution, of which there can be none. Therefore the argument fails QED.

The fine-tuning argument, another creationist trope, makes the identical mistakes. It starts with the premise that he constants of nature must be very close to what they are for life to exist at all. It then claims the probability of fine-tuning is very low in the absence of a creator. Therefore it is more likely that the universe if fine-tuned for life on the assumption of a creator than on the assumption of no creator.

The argument relies on the logical possibility that the universe could be essentially an infinite number of ways, all but a vanishingly small subset of them inimical to life. On that account, however, the probability of the universe being any particular way at all reduces to zero (although zero probability events can and do happen).

Unfortunately for this argument, the existence of the universe is not a matter of logical possibility. It is a matter of fact. Because the constants of nature are, in fact, constant, and have never been observed to be any other way, the fine-tuning argument fails because there can be no prior probability assigned to those constants occurring, only a posterior probability, which is 100 percent.

I’ve already explained why the “naturalism of the gaps” argument fails. I wish you’d attend to that explanation.

Your claim that theism requires as universe, whereas atheism does not, is unsupported. Neither require a universe to exist. It must be explained why God, an allegedly perfect and necessary being, had any need to create a universe in the first place. That suggests some imperfection on the part of the perfect God that required a creation event, thus contradicting the concept of God’s perfection.

Likely, as I explained, the universe has always existed and always will exist in some form. I believe Aquinas accepted this and held that while the universe is eternal, it is upheld, moment to moment, by God. There is no evidence for this claim, which is the main problem for Aquinas and for theism in general.

It is certainly true that a creator might exist. Atheism, properly understood, does not deny this possibility. It’s just that there is no evidence for said creator/upholder and you’ve provided none. The existence of the universe can’t be evidence of a creator/sustainer of the universe for reasons described.

Atheism is non-belief in God, not sure knowledge (gnosis) that God does not exist, as I explained.

The belief that the universe was the effect of a cause is a composition fallacy, as described.

No one in their right mind claims that the lack of God’s existence caused the universe, even assuming, without evidence, that the universe has any cause at all.

The evidence for naturalism producing life and intelligence is overwhelming. The origin of species is described by evolutionary biology. Abiogenesis is under study. God of the gaps won’t cut it. We already have plenty of plausible explanations for the naturalistic origin of life.

 

[pood]

I should add that a probative argument is a Bayesian argument. Bayesianism cannot be used, almost by definition, to establish a prior probability for the existence of the universe.

 

[abaddon]

The probability of a creationist learning anything is inversely proportional to how sure he is that problems with his logic are just atheists being poopyheads.

 

[steve_bank]

One problem for me is the duality itself. I have never heard of a god. Someone walks up to me and explains what god is and why he believes it exists.

I sday no I do not believe what you are saying. That immediately makes e an 'atheist' whether I like it or not. The man then launches into why I hate his god and so on.

If someone says he believes in unicorns and I do not, that immediately makes me an a-unicrnist. Then he puts upon me to justify why I do not believe.

As creationists go, drew is not very well developed. Theists in the past that used to come here came prepared with arguments, proofs, and logic. Refutations of evolution.

Drew j\has yet to make any arguments, he only testifies to his faith.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What evidence is there that natural forces we know of could or did cause the universe to exist that would subsequently produce life?

You keep repeating this even though it has been repeatedly answered.

 

[Drew2008]

You are making a probability argument.

No I'm not offering probabilities or odds. I'm offering facts which make a conclusion more probable than not. I've defined evidence and explained what it is. Sorry if you can't either comprehend it or wish to deny it.

The fine-tuning argument, another creationist trope, makes the identical mistakes. It starts with the premise that he constants of nature must be very close to what they are for life to exist at all. It then claims the probability of fine-tuning is very low in the absence of a creator. Therefore it is more likely that the universe if fine-tuned for life on the assumption of a creator than on the assumption of no creator.

The fine-tuning argument, another creationist trope, makes the identical mistakes.

No it starts with

F1 The Universe Exists
F2 Life Exists

Those facts have to be true for theism to be true. They don't need to be true for atheism to be true. Did either the universe or life have to exist?

It starts with the premise that he constants of nature must be very close to what they are for life to exist at all.

For life as we know it (which is the only life we know of) an innumerable number of conditions have to obtain for any life (as we know it) to exist. If you want to reach into your naturalism in the gaps bag of tricks you can imagine all sorts of life forms coming into existence. The properties and constants have to be close to what they are for just for stars and planets to exist. I can go from F2 to ZZ1 listing the properties and conditions unnecessary for atheism or naturalism to be true but critical to our existence and therefor theism to be true.

Therefore it is more likely that the universe if fine-tuned for life on the assumption of a creator than on the assumption of no creator.

Yes actually given the evidence most people will draw that conclusion or at least see facts that support the conclusion. They would also know for theism to be true several conditions have to be true and those conditions obtained. I know you and most atheists on this board will reject the evidence and reason I'm making. Fine I don't care. The point is I'm making a case from fact and reason why I believe we owe our existence to a Creator. I'm not promoting any religious belief, there is no salvation or church of theism. I think most atheists have God a phobia. Why do you believe its more likely mindless forces without any intention plan, physics degree for whatever reason some how came into existence and winded up creating a universe with conditions for life to exist. That's where you folks lose it with most people. The it just happened to happened in the greatest act of serendipity imaginable. We call it mother nature because she appears to have maternal instincts.

 

[Drew2008]

Your claim that theism requires as universe, whereas atheism does not, is unsupported. Neither require a universe to exist. It must be explained why God, an allegedly perfect and necessary being, had any need to create a universe in the first place. That suggests some imperfection on the part of the perfect God that required a creation event, thus contradicting the concept of God’s perfection.

I stated earlier if we owe the existence to cranky scientists in another universe theism is correct. If our existence is the result of technology light years above the virtual realities we are playing with theism is correct. In both cases our existence is the result of a transcendent agent causing what we observe to exist. If you want theological answers...try a theologian.

 

[bilby]

You are making a probability argument.

No I'm not offering probabilities or odds. I'm offering facts which make a conclusion more probable than not. I've defined evidence and explained what it is. Sorry if you can't either comprehend it or wish to deny it.

It's difficult to take seriously any "explaination" from somebody whose own arguments refute themselves.

Perhaps you could try to write an entire post where you don't refute your own words, before moving on to advanced debating techniques such as explaining things to others.

The fine-tuning argument, another creationist trope, makes the identical mistakes. It starts with the premise that he constants of nature must be very close to what they are for life to exist at all. It then claims the probability of fine-tuning is very low in the absence of a creator. Therefore it is more likely that the universe if fine-tuned for life on the assumption of a creator than on the assumption of no creator.

The fine-tuning argument, another creationist trope, makes the identical mistakes.

No it starts with

F1 The Universe Exists
F2 Life Exists

Those facts have to be true for theism to be true. They don't need to be true for atheism to be true. Did either the universe or life have to exist?

It starts with the premise that he constants of nature must be very close to what they are for life to exist at all.

For life as we know it (which is the only life we know of) an innumerable number of conditions have to obtain for any life (as we know it) to exist. If you want to reach into your naturalism in the gaps bag of tricks you can imagine all sorts of life forms coming into existence. The properties and constants have to be close to what they are for just for stars and planets to exist. I can go from F2 to ZZ1 listing the properties and conditions unnecessary for atheism or naturalism to be true but critical to our existence and therefor theism to be true.

Therefore it is more likely that the universe if fine-tuned for life on the assumption of a creator than on the assumption of no creator.

Yes actually given the evidence most people will draw that conclusion or at least see facts that support the conclusion. They would also know for theism to be true several conditions have to be true and those conditions obtained. I know you and most atheists on this board will reject the evidence and reason I'm making. Fine I don't care. The point is I'm making a case from fact and reason why I believe we owe our existence to a Creator. I'm not promoting any religious belief, there is no salvation or church of theism. I think most atheists have God a phobia. Why do you believe its more likely mindless forces without any intention plan, physics degree for whatever reason some how came into existence and winded up creating a universe with conditions for life to exist. That's where you folks lose it with most people. The it just happened to happened in the greatest act of serendipity imaginable. We call it mother nature because she appears to have maternal instincts.

Only someone utterly ignorant of nature could claim that nature is nice.

Nature is fucking horrible.

If nature were a mother, her children would be taken away by Child Protective Services.

 

[Drew2008]

The evidence for naturalism producing life and intelligence is overwhelming. The origin of species is described by evolutionary biology. Abiogenesis is under study. God of the gaps won’t cut it. We already have plenty of plausible explanations for the naturalistic origin of life.

I believe you the evidence shows life came from life, intelligence came from intelligence and as of to date that is the only way that has been observed. The naturalism in the gaps belief is that some rarefied event occurred that turned matter into living matter and its natural forces all the way down. You're still missing the point, I don't dispute life exists. For theism to be true life have to exist. No one thinks God doesn't exist therefore I'm not surprised mindless lifeless forces sprung into existence and caused life and mind to exist.... No matter how you explain its existence there is no reason for the conditions needed for life to exist. Nature doesn't need laws of physics...we do. Nature doesn't need gravity...we do. Atheism doesn't need humans to exist theism does.

 

[bilby]

The evidence for naturalism producing life and intelligence is overwhelming. The origin of species is described by evolutionary biology. Abiogenesis is under study. God of the gaps won’t cut it. We already have plenty of plausible explanations for the naturalistic origin of life.

I believe you the evidence shows life came from life, intelligence came from intelligence and as of to date that is the only way that has been observed.

No, it's not.

We observe that there was no life on Earth at its formation, but later on, there is life. Therefore life came from non-life.

Equally, intelligence is new; Its starting point depends on how you measure intelligence, but certainly early life was not intelligent. Intelligence came much later, from unintelligent precursors.

The naturalism in the gaps belief is that some rarefied event occurred that turned matter into living matter and its natural forces all the way down.

That's not just an argument, it's an observation. The geological record spells it out very clearly.

You're still missing the point, I don't dispute life exists. For theism to be true life have to exist. No one thinks God doesn't exist therefore I'm not surprised mindless lifeless forces sprung into existence and caused life and mind to exist.... No matter how you explain its existence there is no reason for the conditions needed for life to exist. Nature doesn't need laws of physics...we do. Nature doesn't need gravity...we do. Atheism doesn't need humans to exist theism does.

Without humans, there are no -isms of any kind. Your "argument" is abject nonsense.

 

[pood]

You are making a probability argument.

No I'm not offering probabilities or odds. I'm offering facts which make a conclusion more probable than not. I've defined evidence and explained what it is. Sorry if you can't either comprehend it or wish to deny it.

Now, Drew, first, I’ve been very polite to you. If you want to go the snarky route, believe me, I can.

But, first, as Bilby just pointed out, you contradicted yourself! You‘re not offering a probability argument, you say, only facts which make a conclusion more probable than not!

I mean, really.

Is that the best you can do? If so, save it for Sunday School sermons for knuckle draggers and nose pickers.

OK, I’m provisionally turning off the snark now. In the future, if you wish to engage with me, do so respectfully, and none of this “you lack reading comprehension” bullshit cop out. If you desire to go that route, then the mitts come off.

It’s very funny how theists who are so sure they are right suddenly break down into quivering blobs of passive-aggressive rage when their beliefs are challenged. Wonder why? Maybe they are not so confident in their BS after all?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Naturalism of the gaps is either a prolix or ignorant means of saying 'science.' The probabilities of either exist, whether we dfo the math or not.

And Drew apparently does not understand what an 'observstion' is.
Maybe a 'words Drew misunderstands' thread could be productive?
Probability.
Gaps.
Atheism.
Theism.
Dictionaries.

 

[pood]

Drew,

I already addressed, twice, this “naturalism of the gaps” argument of yours, to show why it doesn’t work. You have ignored my rebuttal and keep on repeating it. This does not speak well of your presumed good faith in having a discussion.

Let me give you an example. Flash back a couple thousand of years. The ancient Greeks believed in Gods. Not just one of them, but many of them. Gods of the sun and moon, of rain and water, the underground, the crops, on and on. How literally they took these Gods, I do not know. I suspect most people took them literally but the educated classes probably took them metaphorically.

Whatever. The ancients thought that on some level they had explained the universe by positing Gods. They had explained nothing, of course, but it seems a lot of them thought they did.

Then Thales came along and did away with Gods and posited natural explanations for the order of things. That his explanations were false is irrelevant. The fact that he did this, was an early incubator of what we today call science.

In Thales’ god-saturated day, positing a natural explanation for what we see around us might well have been called a “a naturalism of the gaps” argument — everyone was arguing for Gods, but he was saying, if we take a gap in our knowledge, let’s see if we can fill it naturally rather than just say “gods did it.”

Today there can be no “naturalism of the gaps argument” because everything we know so far has been explained naturally, not supernaturally. Thus we have firm inductive warrant to conclude that further gaps will be filled by not by a god or gods but by natural explanations. So today “naturalism of the gaps” arguments do not exist. You should stop using that phrase if you wish to be taken somewhat seriously here.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If I'm not mistaken Drew considers everything to be natural, gods included. "I'm a theist. No specific God belief in a Creator."

 

[steve_bank]

The evidence for naturalism producing life and intelligence is overwhelming. The origin of species is described by evolutionary biology. Abiogenesis is under study. God of the gaps won’t cut it. We already have plenty of plausible explanations for the naturalistic origin of life.

I believe you the evidence shows life came from life, intelligence came from intelligence and as of to date that is the only way that has been observed. The naturalism in the gaps belief is that some rarefied event occurred that turned matter into living matter and its natural forces all the way down. You're still missing the point, I don't dispute life exists. For theism to be true life have to exist. No one thinks God doesn't exist therefore I'm not surprised mindless lifeless forces sprung into existence and caused life and mind to exist.... No matter how you explain its existence there is no reason for the conditions needed for life to exist. Nature doesn't need laws of physics...we do. Nature doesn't need gravity...we do. Atheism doesn't need humans to exist theism does.

In n i finte universE wuth no beginning or end tere isno coming into being event. Thi gs are what they are.

Scince odels are just that, predictive nodels. Given an input yiu get an output tat matches reality. Laws do not govern the univse, although we might say thator infer it as a manner of speaking.

As to abiogenesis there is nothing that precludes it. Experiments using simulated lightning strikes in a simulated ocean can create amino acids.

It is about having the right chemcals and energy in the right okace at the right time.

Take a look at 'black smokers', deep sea volcanic vents. Life evolved there to exist on chemicals without photosynthesis. A mix toxic to surface life. There are videos and shows on it. Ecosystems completely isolated from the surface ecosystem. Plants and critters.

We can observe stars and solar systems in development.

To me the complexity argument disproves creationism.

No imagined single being of any kind could possibly have designed or created the universe.


The probability is in favor or pure natural processes.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If I'm not mistaken Drew considers everything to be natural, gods included. "I'm a theist. No specific God belief in a Creator."

Not true, though.
He believes in a creator god, eschewing those opportunistic mythos.
He only believes in one creator, vice committee.
He believes God cares about life in the universe, eschewing the evil or True Neutral gods, or those stoic bastards.
Lots of specifics, whatever he pretends.

 

[abaddon]

Did either the universe or life have to exist?

Did existence have to exist? Well, yeah, some variety of universe does really have to exist. The popular question 'why does Something exist rather than Nothing' seems to me a silly question. Can a "state" of absolute nothingness "be"?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

F1: The universe exists

The answer atheism (not or without God) isn't an explanation for why a universe exists. The counter belief God doesn't exist doesn't require a universe. Theism requires a universe to exist. Any fact required for a belief to be true is evidence its true.

F2: Life Exists

Again this is a fact necessary for theism to be true. Of course there would be no theists around if life didn't exist (or if a universe didn't exist). If life didn't exist theism would again be falsified. Theism is easy to falsify because so many conditions (none of which are necessary for atheism to be true) have to obtain for theism to be true. These conditions are called evidence. They are facts that are more favorable to the theistic explanation then the atheist non-explanation. The idea there is no reason for theists to believe we owe our existence to a Creator is just atheist sloganeering. Many people with no religious upbringing at all believe our existence was intentionally caused. Some of that is due not to belief in God but disbelief in the notion we owe the existence of the universe and life to forces that didn't give a rats ass if the universe or life existed.

What is life specifically? Clouds of organic molecules out in space, unicellular life, water bears, fungus, animals?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I don't think we're going to hear any discussion of "how" when it comes to claims about things having beginnings or see any discussion of the topic. It will be claim after repeated claim after repeated claim after repeated claim .... When something has a beginning that's more dogma. Theists don't openly discuss their dogmatic claims, as we've seen here many times. Must be bad luck or something.