What would count as proof of God

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It looks like "mindless forces" all the way down until, that is, we get to non-mindless forces. But don't ask how those non-mindless forces happened to get their minds. Just keep stating that mindless forces can't exist but that their existence is proof of non-mindless forces aka creators.

Why am I not convinced?

 

[Elixir]

Drew,

did you notice the especially part of your definition?

Since it is possible to imagine a god without him creating anything, your idea that theism entails a creation is demonstrated to be false.

I suspect that in fact most gods have historically ascended from humans, animals and elements. Hard to know without the ability to poll them.

 

[pood]

It’s true that standardly, theism implies the creation of the universe by a god. But Drew is running an argument that turns implication into entailment. You can’t logically get from ”implies” to “entails,” so, again this argument, like all his others so far, fails.

 

[bilby]

The observable history of the universe is one of increasing complexity, in the service of increasing entropy.

A highly uniform state immediately following inflation then collapsed under gravity to a higher entropy state of material 'clumps', which in turn collapsed into galaxies of stars.

This Hydrogen and Helium universe then starts to produce heavier elements, and via well understood physical processes those then formed a second generation of stars, now with planets made from heavier elements; And the chemistry that results tends to become more complex as it is exposed to radiation from nearby stars.

Complexity of chemistry eventually leads to molecules and mixtures that tend to generate copies of themselves, and inevitably these increase in complexity until they cross whatever arbitrary threshold we want to call 'life'.

This is all as intentional as water flowing downhill - it needs no guidance, just a handful of simple forces which we can describe using Quantum Field Theory with an astonishing degree of accuracy.

It requires only a handful of simple natural forces to explain how an arbitrarily simple starting point can steadily become more complex, until we reach the level of complexity we see today.

Theists put the cart before the horse. They declare that only a more powerful (and therefore more complex) intelligence can cause our lower level of intelligence, or even the lower complexity that is simple life, and the lower complexity still that is stars and planets.

The discussion here has two sides:

1) Those who think a very simple reality has always existed, or began to exist spontaneously, and then gradually became more complex via well understood processes for which we have vast amounts of really excellent evidence, all of which forms a coherent, interdependent, and logical structure (we call that structure 'science'); and

2) Those who think a very complex reality has always existed or spontaneously began to exist (this is called a 'god'), and that this god then deliberately and intelligently adjusted everything to cause the existence of a tiny number of not-quite-as-intelligent entities, living in a vast universe (most of which is instantly lethal to them), that was made for their benefit. This happened by unknown means, and the only evidence for it is the pre-industrial tales and allegorical fables of a bunch of guys who wrote a huge swathe of things now known to be nonsense, and whose 'evidence' is riddled with contradictions and demonstrable errors.

So, do we pick the simple starting point with well evidenced mechanisms for becoming more complex; Or should we bet on the complex starting point with neither evidence nor reason for the resulting less complex universe we observe today?

Any assertion that attempts to explain the existence of a god is at least as applicable, and probably more applicable, to explaining a godless universe.

You can lead a theist to logic, but you cannot make him think.

 

[atrib]

Some people believe that pan-dimensional pixies created the universe with intelligent life in it
This belief would be falsified if a universe with intelligent life in it did not exist
The universe exists, and there is intelligent life in it
Therefore, the existence of the universe with intelligent life in it is evidence for the existence of pan-dimensional pixies

Some people believe we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend their own existence, the existence of the universe or life and least of all intelligent humans. They don't believe it was intentionally caused to exist. Its just like mindless forces to pull a stunt like this some how come into existence and accidentally cause the conditions for theism to be true. No matter how much blathering and posturing is done in the final analysis nothing we observe has to be true for the belief God doesn't exist to be true. There doesn't have to be a universe, galaxies, stars, planets, water, oxygen, carbon, laws of physics, gravity.

I'm not attempting to convince anyone responding to my posts the truth of my belief. Its a belief, an opinion. I'm not stating it's a fact. I don't deny there is evidence which supports a natural view of the world. No one here knows how or why a life permitting universe exists. If we discover how life actually got started and how it could have occurred that would be big fact in favor of naturalism. If it turns out this is in fact one of an infinitude of universes with varying characteristics then time and chance would rule.

I knew I was going to run into a buzz saw because its pratically a hallowed concept of atheism that there is no evidence, no facts, no data, no information no reason in the world anyone should think our existence might have been intentionally caused. We should just accept (evidently on faith) that our existence is the result of chance caused by mindless forces that didn't intend our existence. You don't feel people should be skeptical of your claim.

At this point your posts have degenerated into an emotional rant against atheists. Many people find it hard to believe that their cherished beliefs might be wrong, and I expect that is what you are experiencing. There is no good reason to believe in gods, no matter what you might have been indoctrinated into believing, and I think you understand that now, even if you are unwilling to acknowledge it publicly.

You are new here, and I hope you stick around and continue to participate in these discussions. Perhaps you will bring yourself to reflect on these discussions when you have calmed down, and make an effort to understand the perspectives of the people who have tried to engage you.

My posts are an emotional rant? Have you looked at the responses I've gotten?

You want to replace the word God or Creator with Pixies. I can replace natural causes with mindless forces. My belief is due in part to the three facts I listed. No God of the gaps. Just facts.

F1 The universe exists

I believe it was intentionally caused to exist. You believe it was unintentionally caused by forces that didn't intend their own existence. You believe all the circumstances to cause intelligent human life exist occurred naturally with no plan or intent for it to happen. We owe our existence to a fortuitous stroke of luck. You have an alternate explanation? If a universe didn't exist theism would be falsified.

F2 Life exists

You know of any law or rule that says life of any sort has to exist? Did mindless forces have to cause a universe to exist? Does a universe and life have to exist for theism to be true? Yeah they do. If any condition has to be true for a claim to be true those conditions are evidence the claim is true.

F3 Intelligent life exists.

Theism is the belief the universe was caused for the purpose of creating intelligent life. Did intelligent life have to exist? Is there some law of physics that compels mindless forces to create a universe with the properties that can subsequently cause intelligent life to exist?

F4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research, the laws of logic deduction and induction and is explicable in mathematical terms.

These characteristics are necessary for the second and third facts to obtain which are necessary for theism to be true. This fourth fact is not only essential for theism to be true it directly contradicts the belief this universe was caused by unguided forces with no plan or intent to cause intelligent life to occur.

No one has disputed the facts I've listed are true. Not one of them needs to be true for atheism to be true. All four have to be true for theism to be true. Your explanation for the aforementioned facts is shit happens. It wasn't intentional just an accident. A happy fortuitous luck of the draw.

If I were you I'd point out the chaotic nature of the universe, how evolution appears to account for how organisms become more complicated. How the earth formed by natural causes as well as the natural universe. But we can't have that discussion because you can't bring yourself to admit there are factual reasons why people believe the universe was intentionally caused to exist. So instead you resort to the usual tactics. Those tactics only impress your fellow totally committed atheists.

How do these four facts logically lead to the conclusion that god-did-it? Please show your work.

What is a god? What are its characteristics? What is the mechanism by which a god creates universes?

Why is god a better explanation that an inflationary scalar field? Or Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad, or pan-dimensional pixies?

I know you can't answer these questions, and that you likely won't even try. Your posts suggest that you are functionally ignorant of even the most elementary concepts of science and philosophy, and that your cognitive dissonance will continue to prevent you from recognizing the absurdity of your claims.

 

[atrib]

Your beliefs are not in any way related to these facts, though.

They are directly related. If the universe, life or intelligent life didn't exist theism would be falsified. You are saying facts that have to be true for a claim to be true aren't related? That would be like saying a corpse has no relationship to the charge of murder. It is essential to claim of murder that someone is dead. If no one is dead the claim murder is falsified.

And these facts give the most tenuous possible support to your beliefs; That is, they are consistent with both your beliefs, AND the exact opposite of your beliefs.

F1 Some people have been murdered.
Therefore I believe that you are a murderer.

Some folks conflate evidence with proof or truth of a claim. No one line of evidence seals a case. To defend belief in a claim you list facts which support the claim. They don't prove it the claim is true but they are evidence the claim is true. Some facts presented in a case are known as foundational

F1. A dead body exists

This fact supports the claim a murder occurred. You agree a dead body is related to the charge of murder no? It also supports the claim it occurred naturally and since more deaths occur by natural means a corpse alone doesn't prove a murder occurred. Without any further details we might assume a natural death until there is more evidence.

I never made a therefore statement.

I suspect that you would demand a slightly more rigorous set of evidence for my belief that you are a murderer, before accepting that you should be sent to the electric chair.

Of course I'm up to F4 now. Four facts that have to be true for theism to be true. That's four to one because there is nothing that has to be true for atheism to be true except God doesn't exist.

Your entire 'argument' is a misapplication of logic and reason. It's structurally wrong on every level, so it's irrelevant that the premises are factual.

Says you...so what's new?

then you should also be able to comprehend why the existence of a universe with life, intelligence, and at least some comprehensible natural laws is NOT a reason to believe in any kinds of gods.

Its ample reason to believe it was intentionally caused. I should look for the best answer to the question why does a universe exist that not only supports human life but also caused human life and the universe itself to exist including the enumerable conditions required for such to occur. The answer it was a fortuitous act of serendipity isn't the best answer.

I know the slogan you folks say with complete conviction 'There is no evidence, fact or even reason to subscribe to theism is the sacred cow the holy grail of atheism. You cite evidence (facts) that support your case and I will cite facts (evidence) that supports my case and we can have a fair discussion.

Case for atheism

F1. The universe is vast old and chaotic

Several posters have explained to you (in some cases over and over) that atheism is a simple lack of belief in gods, based on the fact that they do not find the evidence for god(s) compelling. Why is it that you are unable to understand this?

Make an argument from that fact why it agrees with your conclusion.

F2. Evolution processes exist

Make an argument from that fact why it agrees with your conclusion.

Do you accept F1 and F2 as evidence that makes your proposition more probable than minus the two facts?

Or should I say...'Your entire 'argument' is a misapplication of logic and reason. It's structurally wrong on every level, so it's irrelevant that the premises are factual.'

Atheism makes no claims regarding the nature of the universe or natural processes like evolution. Please pay attention.

 

[atrib]

The question is asking how this quality you call "design" comes to be. Understand? Are you saying it just exists? It's a simple yes or no question.

I understand the question. You don't understand the answer. I've listed four facts in favor of the belief we owe our existence to a Creator who intentionally caused and designed the universe for life.

Not in any way that you can articulate.

I'm not attempting to answer the question how a Creator came to be or how a Creator caused the universe to exist. I have no idea and you have no better idea how mindless forces came to be. I'll ask you how did mindless forces come to be? Did they always exist? Did time always exist? Why are there laws of physics?

If you say it exists in the universe because it was placed there by your designer being, then the question simply becomes how it came to exist in your designer being. When you say no one knows and it doesn't matter you miss the point entirely. If it just exists then it just exists. Understand? And if it "just exists" there is no need for your designer because it is a quality that can just exist as it does - by your contention - in the universe.

No I've always stated the cause of the universe is transcendent to the universe. You're entitled to believe the universe just exists end of story. Little harder to persuade anyone else including scientists.

And of course this same line of reasoning goes for intelligence, life, complexity, beauty, creation, etc., any quality that you claim was placed in the universe but the ultimate genesis of which you have never accounted for.

I'm only accountable to defend belief in theism.

belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures"

I'm not attempting to explain how God came to be I'm defending my belief the universe and intelligent life was caused intentionally by a transcendent agent. If you want religious beliefs defended talk to a theologian.

Let me know what caused mindless forces to come into existence when you have time.

Not knowing how the universe came to be is not evidence that a god created the universe. Not knowing what happened to the last slice of pizza in my fridge is not evidence that it was taken by a pizza-gremlin. Simply believing that a god created the universe is not evidence that a god created the universe. Most six year olds have the cognitive ability to understand an idea this simple, but apparently not you.

 

[abaddon]

Not knowing how the universe came to be is not evidence that a god created the universe.

There's a different use of "agnosticism" among theists than how I think of it. Apparently "nobody knows" justifies "I believe" for some folk. That isn't grounds for even a tentative belief. Of course people will want to speculate but God isn't actual speculation. The theist in this thread doesn't want to discuss the qualities of his god or how the god does anything. But those necessary or there is no actual speculation happening.

There ARE grounds for "naturedidit". Even the theists acknowledge this. If not by a positive statement ("I know you have good reasons") then by a criticism of the naturalistic evidence ("you think 'mindless forces' did it"). Either way, by giving a nod or hissing some scorn, they show they know that the evidence is for "naturedidit".

 

[atrib]

You can lead a theist to logic, but you cannot make him think.

From Dunning-Kruger Effect on Wiki:

In 2011, Dunning wrote about his observations that people with substantial, measurable deficits in their knowledge or expertise lack the ability to recognize those deficits and, therefore, despite potentially making error after error, tend to think they are performing competently when they are not: "In short, those who are incompetent, for lack of a better term, should have little insight into their incompetence—an assertion that has come to be known as the Dunning–Kruger effect".[26] In 2014, Dunning and Helzer described how the Dunning–Kruger effect "suggests that poor performers are not in a position to recognize the shortcomings in their performance".[27]

 

[atrib]

You can lead a theist to logic, but you cannot make him think.

From Dunning-Kruger Effect on Wiki:

In 2011, Dunning wrote about his observations that people with substantial, measurable deficits in their knowledge or expertise lack the ability to recognize those deficits and, therefore, despite potentially making error after error, tend to think they are performing competently when they are not: "In short, those who are incompetent, for lack of a better term, should have little insight into their incompetence—an assertion that has come to be known as the Dunning–Kruger effect".[26] In 2014, Dunning and Helzer described how the Dunning–Kruger effect "suggests that poor performers are not in a position to recognize the shortcomings in their performance".[27]

Some more thoughts on this subject:
I am not sure that the Dunning-Kruger Effect is sufficient to fully explain the behavior of certain theists. The theist poster in this thread clearly started out with a vastly exaggerated sense of his own expertise in science and cosmology, and his ability to make meaningful claims about a subject as technically challenging as the origin of the universe. The poster also clearly did not understand how logical arguments work, how facts and reasoning are used to assess the credibility of truth claims, or what atheism is. Given that we have no information on the poster's level of education or his experience in debating this subject, it is not unreasonable to attribute these initial missteps to simple ignorance.

However, in the course of discussion over the past few days, the errors in the theist's factual claims and logical arguments have been pointed out over and over and over by other posters. The errors in the theist's arguments are obvious and glaring; they are not minor technicalities or subtle differences in interpretation that might reasonably exist between knowledgeable people engaged in such discussions. The theist is clearly literate and able to read, understand and respond to what other posters are saying. And just as clearly, the theist is unwilling to even consider the rebuttals to his claims, no matter how many times they are repeated, or how many different ways they are presented. While the Dunning-Kruger Effect may appear to be a reasonable explanation for the initial missteps (the theist's inability to recognize his own lack of expertise in the subject), I don't think it explains the subsequent behavior after the theist has been exposed to the rebuttals. Despite the theist's insistence that this is just an informal "coffee house debate", I think it runs deeper, and involves an emotional response that overrides the person's ability to recalibrate their view of the world when new, contradictory information is presented.

 

[Drew2008]

You are clearly stating that "mindless forces" - whatever you mean by that but I suspect you mean the universe - cannot just happen to exist. But you never explain how or why they cannot just happen to exist. You just keep stating that they cannot. But then it gets better. It is the very existence of these mindless forces that you then use as evidence for your creator. And you don't see any contradiction!

Mindless forces is all you have to work with to cause and account for all we observe. Other than intelligent humans all other forces operate without the benefit of intent, plan or design. The claim of atheism is not or without God. Secondly mindless forces can't initiate action. There is no volitional will to do something they react to the laws of physics. F1 The universe exists. We know from direct observation the universe is expanding in all directions. Its a deduction from that fact if we played the events backwards there would be nothing to prevent everything we see from becoming like a black hole. The belief the universe just happened to happen, just happen to have laws of physics crucial to our existence, just happen to have a force called gravity, just happened to have the innumerable properties to allow intelligent life to occur. That is your counter belief in a nutshell.

To reiterate for Drew a point I have made about fifteen dozen times:

Our best evidence shows the universe has always existed. This can be true in one of two ways:

Either it has infinite temporal extension in the past, which is perfectly possible; in that case, the big bang represents a phase transition form a prior state; OR,

Reiterate all you want.

F1. The Universe Exists

The best evidence shows if we reverse the expansion of the universe it turns into a singularity.


The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity — and that before this event, space and time did not exist (which means the Big Bang took place at no place and no time).

Either way you don't dispute the universe exists true?

Anyone going to respond to what I wrote a page back?

I know the slogan you folks say with complete conviction 'There is no evidence, fact or even reason to subscribe to theism is the sacred cow the holy grail of atheism. You cite evidence (facts) that support your case and I will cite facts (evidence) that supports my case and we can have a fair discussion.

Case for atheism

F1. The universe is vast old and chaotic
Make an argument from that fact why it agrees with your conclusion.

F2. Evolution processes exist

Make an argument from that fact why it agrees with your conclusion.

Do you accept F1 and F2 as evidence that makes your proposition more probable than minus the two facts?
Or should I say...'Your entire 'argument' is a misapplication of logic and reason. It's structurally wrong on every level, so it's irrelevant that the premises are factual.'

Do you accept F1 and F2 as evidence in favor of atheism?

 

[Drew2008]

So cranky scientists in another dimension are now gods?

Scientists today have created a virtual universe. Check it out its super cool.

Home | Skies & Universes

skiesanduniverses.org

The scientists, engineers and programmers who caused the virtual universe to exist is a working model of theism! Intelligent transcendent agents caused the virtual universe to exist and they are the gods of that universe. They control everything including time. Just imagine if computing power continues to grow exponentially at some point we could create virtual intelligent beings who have no idea they are a simulation.

Scientists (not rapid religious believers) are warming up to some exotic out of the box thinking.

Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50

Gauging whether or not we dwell inside someone else’s computer may come down to advanced AI research—or measurements at the frontiers of cosmology

www.scientificamerican.com

Just suggesting this shows scientists are warming up to the possibility we owe our existence to plan and intent.

Scary ain't it?

 

[pood]

You are clearly stating that "mindless forces" - whatever you mean by that but I suspect you mean the universe - cannot just happen to exist. But you never explain how or why they cannot just happen to exist. You just keep stating that they cannot. But then it gets better. It is the very existence of these mindless forces that you then use as evidence for your creator. And you don't see any contradiction!

Mindless forces is all you have to work with to cause and account for all we observe. Other than intelligent humans all other forces operate without the benefit of intent, plan or design. The claim of atheism is not or without God. Secondly mindless forces can't initiate action. There is no volitional will to do something they react to the laws of physics. F1 The universe exists. We know from direct observation the universe is expanding in all directions. Its a deduction from that fact if we played the events backwards there would be nothing to prevent everything we see from becoming like a black hole. The belief the universe just happened to happen, just happen to have laws of physics crucial to our existence, just happen to have a force called gravity, just happened to have the innumerable properties to allow intelligent life to occur. That is your counter belief in a nutshell.

To reiterate for Drew a point I have made about fifteen dozen times:

Our best evidence shows the universe has always existed. This can be true in one of two ways:

Either it has infinite temporal extension in the past, which is perfectly possible; in that case, the big bang represents a phase transition form a prior state; OR,

Reiterate all you want.

F1. The Universe Exists

The best evidence shows if we reverse the expansion of the universe it turns into a singularity.


The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity — and that before this event, space and time did not exist (which means the Big Bang took place at no place and no time).

Either way you don't dispute the universe exists true?

Anyone going to respond to what I wrote a page back?

I know the slogan you folks say with complete conviction 'There is no evidence, fact or even reason to subscribe to theism is the sacred cow the holy grail of atheism. You cite evidence (facts) that support your case and I will cite facts (evidence) that supports my case and we can have a fair discussion.

Case for atheism

F1. The universe is vast old and chaotic
Make an argument from that fact why it agrees with your conclusion.

F2. Evolution processes exist

Make an argument from that fact why it agrees with your conclusion.

Do you accept F1 and F2 as evidence that makes your proposition more probable than minus the two facts?
Or should I say...'Your entire 'argument' is a misapplication of logic and reason. It's structurally wrong on every level, so it's irrelevant that the premises are factual.'

Do you accept F1 and F2 as evidence in favor of atheism?

Your misunderstanding of the meaning of the singularity has already been explained to you again and again, and the line you are quoting, whoever it’s from, is simply scientifically illiterate, like you. It is obvious you cannot sustain an honest discussion but can only repeat distortions and lies to support your unevidenced claims.

 

[Drew2008]

You are clearly stating that "mindless forces" - whatever you mean by that but I suspect you mean the universe - cannot just happen to exist. But you never explain how or why they cannot just happen to exist. You just keep stating that they cannot. But then it gets better. It is the very existence of these mindless forces that you then use as evidence for your creator. And you don't see any contradiction!

Mindless forces is all you have to work with to cause and account for all we observe. Other than intelligent humans all other forces operate without the benefit of intent, plan or design. The claim of atheism is not or without God. Secondly mindless forces can't initiate action. There is no volitional will to do something they react to the laws of physics. F1 The universe exists. We know from direct observation the universe is expanding in all directions. Its a deduction from that fact if we played the events backwards there would be nothing to prevent everything we see from becoming like a black hole. The belief the universe just happened to happen, just happen to have laws of physics crucial to our existence, just happen to have a force called gravity, just happened to have the innumerable properties to allow intelligent life to occur. That is your counter belief in a nutshell.

To reiterate for Drew a point I have made about fifteen dozen times:

Our best evidence shows the universe has always existed. This can be true in one of two ways:

Either it has infinite temporal extension in the past, which is perfectly possible; in that case, the big bang represents a phase transition form a prior state; OR,

Reiterate all you want.

F1. The Universe Exists

The best evidence shows if we reverse the expansion of the universe it turns into a singularity.


The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity — and that before this event, space and time did not exist (which means the Big Bang took place at no place and no time).




Either way you don't dispute the universe exists true?

How do these four facts logically lead to the conclusion that god-did-it? Please show your work.

What is a god? What are its characteristics? What is the mechanism by which a god creates universes?

Why is god a better explanation that an inflationary scalar field? Or Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad, or pan-dimensional pixies?

I know you can't answer these questions, and that you likely won't even try. Your posts suggest that you are functionally ignorant of even the most elementary concepts of science and philosophy, and that your cognitive dissonance will continue to prevent you from recognizing the absurdity of your claims.

How do these four facts logically lead to the conclusion that god-did-it? Please show your work.

You're fouled up from the get go. I cited these four facts to dispute the claim of atheists there is no evidence, no facts, no data, information or reason to think theism (The belief the universe and intelligent humans were intentionally caused to exist) is true. It may not be true but there facts that have to be true for theism to be true. If a fact necessary for a belief to be true, is true that fact is evidence in favor of that belief. Its what qualifies as evidence when considering any other belief claim. In contrast there is only one fact that has to be true for atheism to be true.

F1 The universe exists
F2 Life exists
F3 Intelligent life exists.
F4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research, the laws of logic deduction and induction and is explicable in mathematical terms.

What is a god? What are its characteristics? What is the mechanism by which a god creates universes?

No idea. Theism isn't the claim theists know how God exists, where God comes from or how God creates a universe. Its an explanation for the four facts I've noted above. Those facts have to be true for theism to be true. They're not proof theism is true but it is evidence.

 

[abaddon]

What is a god? What are its characteristics? What is the mechanism by which a god creates universes?

No idea. Theism isn't the claim theists know how God exists, where God comes from or how God creates a universe. Its an explanation for the four facts I've noted above. Those facts have to be true for theism to be true. They're not proof theism is true but it is evidence.

Theism is the claim "I believe in god(s)". Agnosticism of the god, the state of not-knowing about the god, is the reason to not believe it. If all you want to do is assert your "four facts", that's nothing but emoting about how perplexed you feel if existence wasn't intended.

There can be a number of possibilities to explain why existence turned out like it did. Maybe, just maybe, there's a god of some sort in there somewhere. But if there is, there's only one way to justify that its existence has any degree of likelihood -- and that's to know some better details about the hypothesized god (other than your emotional state of feeling perplexed if there isn't one). You keep saying you don't know any details of the god... but that's the reason to NOT believe. If you were using logic to reason this through instead of emotions, you'd realize this not-knowing is the basis for disbelief in the god.

 

[pood]

No idea. Theism isn't the claim theists know how God exists, where God comes from or how God creates a universe. Its an explanation for the four facts I've noted above. Those facts have to be true for theism to be true. They're not proof theism is true but it is evidence.

There you are, lying again. As I’ve explained, the existence of god does not entail that god create anything, yet you keep repeating this falsehood as if it were some established fact that everyone agrees with.

 

[Coleman Smith]

You are clearly stating that "mindless forces" - whatever you mean by that but I suspect you mean the universe - cannot just happen to exist. But you never explain how or why they cannot just happen to exist. You just keep stating that they cannot. But then it gets better. It is the very existence of these mindless forces that you then use as evidence for your creator. And you don't see any contradiction!

Mindless forces is all you have to work with to cause and account for all we observe. Other than intelligent humans all other forces operate without the benefit of intent, plan or design. The claim of atheism is not or without God. Secondly mindless forces can't initiate action. There is no volitional will to do something they react to the laws of physics. F1 The universe exists. We know from direct observation the universe is expanding in all directions. Its a deduction from that fact if we played the events backwards there would be nothing to prevent everything we see from becoming like a black hole. The belief the universe just happened to happen, just happen to have laws of physics crucial to our existence, just happen to have a force called gravity, just happened to have the innumerable properties to allow intelligent life to occur. That is your counter belief in a nutshell.

To reiterate for Drew a point I have made about fifteen dozen times:

Our best evidence shows the universe has always existed. This can be true in one of two ways:

Either it has infinite temporal extension in the past, which is perfectly possible; in that case, the big bang represents a phase transition form a prior state; OR,

Reiterate all you want.

F1. The Universe Exists

The best evidence shows if we reverse the expansion of the universe it turns into a singularity.


The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity — and that before this event, space and time did not exist (which means the Big Bang took place at no place and no time).




Either way you don't dispute the universe exists true?

How do these four facts logically lead to the conclusion that god-did-it? Please show your work.

What is a god? What are its characteristics? What is the mechanism by which a god creates universes?

Why is god a better explanation that an inflationary scalar field? Or Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad, or pan-dimensional pixies?

I know you can't answer these questions, and that you likely won't even try. Your posts suggest that you are functionally ignorant of even the most elementary concepts of science and philosophy, and that your cognitive dissonance will continue to prevent you from recognizing the absurdity of your claims.

How do these four facts logically lead to the conclusion that god-did-it? Please show your work.

You're fouled up from the get go. I cited these four facts to dispute the claim of atheists there is no evidence, no facts, no data, information or reason to think theism (The belief the universe and intelligent humans were intentionally caused to exist) is true. It may not be true but there facts that have to be true for theism to be true. If a fact necessary for a belief to be true, is true that fact is evidence in favor of that belief. Its what qualifies as evidence when considering any other belief claim. In contrast there is only one fact that has to be true for atheism to be true.

F1 The universe exists
F2 Life exists
F3 Intelligent life exists.
F4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research, the laws of logic deduction and induction and is explicable in mathematical terms.

What is a god? What are its characteristics? What is the mechanism by which a god creates universes?

No idea. Theism isn't the claim theists know how God exists, where God comes from or how God creates a universe. Its an explanation for the four facts I've noted above. Those facts have to be true for theism to be true. They're not proof theism is true but it is evidence.

Have you considered publishing your proof of a deity in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

 

[steve_bank]

F1 The universe exists
F2 Life exists
F3 Intelligent life exists.
F4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research, the laws of logic deduction and induction and is explicable in mathematical terms.

P1 Yes by observation,
P2 Yes by observation.
P3 Organized matter and chemical reactions prove nothing as to a creator. If we are 'intelligent life' then any creator would have done a lousy job. Us humans are incredibly self destructive creatures.
P4 So called 'laws of nature' are constructs of the human brain created to analyze and create models of reality. The universe does
not 'obey laws'. It just is. Scientific 'laws' are models of reality not reality itself.

Conclusion of a creator does not follow from the premises.

'Mindless Forces' as used by theists is a pejorative but true. Te unverse needs no 'intelligence'. An infinite universe has no coming into existence, it just is.

 

[Rhea]

Lets review again...I'm a theist you're an atheist. As a theist I'm defending theism.

Theism is the belief a Creator caused the universe we live into exist. Theism isn't true if no universe exists or if no intelligent beings exist.

PRATT.

]pratt
A neologism based on the abbreviation p.r.a.t.t. for "previously refuted a thousand times", referring to any claim that has been previously debunked, shown to be false, publicly challenged and defeated, or otherwise shown many, many times to be demonstrably and verifiably wrong... and yet continues as a claim by believers in pratt.

The dustbin of history is filled with pratt.
What, you still think aliens make crop circles? The dudes who invented crop circles went on TV and showed how they did it! It's like some kind of folk art form. That crop circle alien stuff is all just pratt, man. Move on.

 

[atrib]

How do these four facts logically lead to the conclusion that god-did-it? Please show your work.

What is a god? What are its characteristics? What is the mechanism by which a god creates universes?

Why is god a better explanation that an inflationary scalar field? Or Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad, or pan-dimensional pixies?

I know you can't answer these questions, and that you likely won't even try. Your posts suggest that you are functionally ignorant of even the most elementary concepts of science and philosophy, and that your cognitive dissonance will continue to prevent you from recognizing the absurdity of your claims.

How do these four facts logically lead to the conclusion that god-did-it? Please show your work.

You're fouled up from the get go. I cited these four facts to dispute the claim of atheists there is no evidence, no facts, no data, information or reason to think theism (The belief the universe and intelligent humans were intentionally caused to exist) is true. It may not be true but there facts that have to be true for theism to be true. If a fact necessary for a belief to be true, is true that fact is evidence in favor of that belief. Its what qualifies as evidence when considering any other belief claim. In contrast there is only one fact that has to be true for atheism to be true.

F1 The universe exists
F2 Life exists
F3 Intelligent life exists.
F4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research, the laws of logic deduction and induction and is explicable in mathematical terms.

As predicted, you did not answer my questions, and continued jabbering on about what theists and atheists believe. What people believe is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is what can be demonstrated with facts and evidence. You keep ignoring this point over and over, which makes your behavior dishonest. Again, I am asking you to demonstrate your claim that a god created the universe through the following questions:

How do these four facts logically lead to the conclusion that god-did-it? Explain the logic that would lead us to conclude god-did-it from the four facts.

What is a god? What are its characteristics? What is the mechanism by which a god creates universes?

Why is god a better explanation that an inflationary scalar field? Or Bantu, the Supreme Cosmic Toad, or pan-dimensional pixies?

atrib: What is a god? What are its characteristics? What is the mechanism by which a god creates universes?

Drew2008: No idea. Theism isn't the claim theists know how God exists, where God comes from or how God creates a universe. Its an explanation for the four facts I've noted above. Those facts have to be true for theism to be true. They're not proof theism is true but it is evidence.

If you have no idea what a god is, or how it creates universes, your explanation is useless. You might as well claim that the universe was created by a pink ArgleBargle-Fairy, or a Bantu, or a pan-dimensional pixie. Please try to bring those two brain cells into action and understand this simple concept.