What would count as proof of God

[Elixir]

If you have no idea what a god is, or how it creates universes, your explanation is useless.

ZACKLY!
Drew is very fond of characterizing his responses as “explanations”, which they are not.
They are replies, and hold exactly zero explanatory power. The fact that Drew, like virtually all creationists, is easily satisfied by utterances to the effect of “goddidit”, does not create any explanatory value.
I can declare that the existence of swords supports the existence of Odin, and while that may be so, it does precisely nothing to explain anything. It’s just a vacuous assertion that takes up space on a page.

 

[Gospel]

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 try to understand this simple concept.

I suppose we can call God a "pink ArgleBargle-Fairy, or a Bantu, or a pan-dimensional pixie", and anything else, the real question is whether or not that space these names serve to fill is there to be served.

It seems Drew's argument is that existence (as we know it, or don't know it) is evidence theists use to extrapolate that God exists. The error (IMO) is not recognizing that Atheists use the same as evidence to extrapolate that God doesn't exist.

What differs between the two is how Theists and Atheists utilize said evidence. Theists look at the evidence and say, It all has a purpose & source both of which we don't fully understand, while Atheists would be going about their damn business if Theists weren't making so much noise about it.

 

[pood]

Its [sic] an explanation for the four facts I've noted above.

It’s NOT an EXPLANATION. How hard is this to get?

NEED FOR EXPLANATION: Why does lightning happen?

Scientific explanation:

Lightning is an electric current. To make this electric current, first you need a cloud.

When the ground is hot, it heats the air above it. This warm air rises. As the air rises, water vapour cools and forms a cloud. When air continues to rise, the cloud gets bigger and bigger. In the tops of the clouds, temperature is below freezing and the water vapour turns into ice.

Now, the cloud becomes a thundercloud. Lots of small bits of ice bump into each other as they move around. All these collisions cause a build up of electrical charge.

Eventually, the whole cloud fills up with electrical charges. Lighter, positively charged particles form at the top of the cloud. Heavier, negatively charged particles sink to the bottom of the cloud.

When the positive and negative charges grow large enough, a giant spark - lightning - occurs between the two charges within the cloud. This is like a static electricity sparks you see, but much bigger.

Theist “explanation”:

Thor did it!

Drew, do you see the difference?

Probably not.

 

[Drew2008]

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.

Do you know or can you explain how mindless forces came into existence in the first place? Can you explain why forces that had no intention or plan to cause a universe created one that caused intelligent life to exist? Do you even know how life came into existence? How can you say no intelligent creator or designer is necessary without knowing how mindless forces accomplished such or how such forces came to be? Neither you or I know how the universe came to be. That is why the first line of evidence is F1. The Universe Exists. That we agree on how it was caused no one knows.

Lastly the distinction between our to respective views is whether the universe and intelligent life was the result of intent and planning or whether forces without plan or intent caused all we observe.

 

[atrib]

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.

Do you know or can you explain how mindless forces came into existence in the first place? Can you explain why forces that had no intention or plan to cause a universe created one that caused intelligent life to exist? Do you even know how life came into existence? How can you say no intelligent creator or designer is necessary without knowing how mindless forces accomplished such or how such forces came to be?

This is a classic example of argument from ignorance. Such arguments usually take the following form:

"You don't know how such-and-such happened. Therefore, my answer is probably true"

Arguments from ignorance are fallacious, and are unreliable for assessing truth claims. You don't have to take my word for it, simply do your own research and you will figure out why.

The fact that humans don't currently understand how the universe came to exist, or even if it came to exist, is not evidence for an intelligent creator god. Especially since you have no fucking clue what a god is. The sooner you understand this, the sooner you stop making a fool of yourself in public.

Neither you or I know how the universe came to be. That is why the first line of evidence is F1. The Universe Exists. That we agree on how it was caused no one knows.

Exactly. But we-don't-know doesn't imply that god-did-it is a reasonable answer, especially when you have no fucking clue as to what a god is.

Lastly the distinction between our to respective views is whether the universe and intelligent life was the result of intent and planning or whether forces without plan or intent caused all we observe.

There is no evidence to suggest that the universe was designed to serve a purpose. At least none that you can articulate.

Meanwhile, the evidence continues to accumulate that you are not acting in good faith, that you are not willing to listen and fix the flaws in your knowledge and understanding. Set your ego aside for a bit and listen to what people have been trying to tell you in this discussion. You might actually learn something. Many people in this forum used to believe some of the same things you believe, and made the same bad arguments to support their beliefs, until they stopped to think and examine their beliefs critically. All I'm doing is asking you to think.

 

[Drew2008]

I suppose we can call God a "pink ArgleBargle-Fairy, or a Bantu, or a pan-dimensional pixie", and anything else, the real question is whether or not that space these names serve to fill is there to be served.

It seems Drew's argument is that existence (as we know it, or don't know it) is evidence theists use to extrapolate that God exists. The error (IMO) is not recognizing that Atheists use the same as evidence to extrapolate that God doesn't exist.

What differs between the two is how Theists and Atheists utilize said evidence. Theists look at the evidence and say, It all has a purpose & source both of which we don't fully understand, while

I'd be more than happy to list any and all known relevant facts. My objective in this post isn't to persuade atheists theism is true. One of the bedrock foundational claims of atheists is that there is no evidence, no fact, no data or information no rational reason anyone should suspect the universe and our existence was intentionally caused. To be polite that is bullshit.

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.

The belief no Creator of the universe exists doesn't require a universe exist. Theism does. No universe equals theism is false.

Atheism doesn't require life or intelligent life to exist. Theism is the belief that life and intelligent life was intentionally caused to exist and does require its existence.

Atheism doesn't require a universe that has laws of physics, is knowable and explicable in mathematical terms.

There are facts they could list such as.

F1 The universe is old and unimaginably large. Stars and planets developed randomly without any apparent divine plan.
F2. The fact of evolution

The problem is if they use this as evidence in favor of their belief they can't deny the facts I cite is evidence in favor of theism. That crushes one of the foundational claims of atheism...that there is no evidence, no fact, no data or information no rational reason anyone should suspect the universe and our existence was intentionally caused.

 

[Drew2008]

"You don't know how such-and-such happened. Therefore, my answer is probably true"

Arguments from ignorance are fallacious, and are unreliable for assessing truth claims. You don't have to take my word for it, simply do your own research and you will figure out why.

I'm not arguing from ignorance. I'm listing known indisputable facts to support my case. One can only wish you would do the same.

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.

Is this the best you can do is make arguments I didn't make and shoot them down?

 

[atrib]

"You don't know how such-and-such happened. Therefore, my answer is probably true"

Arguments from ignorance are fallacious, and are unreliable for assessing truth claims. You don't have to take my word for it, simply do your own research and you will figure out why.

I'm not arguing from ignorance. I'm listing known indisputable facts to support my case. One can only wish you would do the same.

That is exactly how you argued your case:

Do you know or can you explain how mindless forces came into existence in the first place? Can you explain why forces that had no intention or plan to cause a universe created one that caused intelligent life to exist? Do you even know how life came into existence? How can you say no intelligent creator or designer is necessary without knowing how mindless forces accomplished such or how such forces came to be?

Why did you delete this part of your post I had quoted in my response? It is dishonest to knowingly misrepresent what other people say. And its also stupid when there is a written record.

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.

Is this the best you can do is make arguments I didn't make and shoot them down?

How do these facts support your claim that an intelligent god created the universe?
I am asking you to show your work. How many times do I have to repeat this question?

 

[pood]

Drew Pratting again. And he wonders why he gets no respect.

 

[Gospel]

The belief no Creator of the universe exists doesn't require a universe exist. Theism does. No universe equals theism is false.

What Theist set that requirment? To my knowledge, Theism claims god comes before any creation, as such a universe existing is not required for a God to exist.

Atheism doesn't require life or intelligent life to exist. Theism is the belief that life and intelligent life was intentionally caused to exist and does require its existence.

Atheism cannot exist without life or intelligent life. To my knowledge, humans are a lifeform (I question the intelligent part) and Atheism having come from them requires that Humans exist. As far Atheism's argument against god they (similar to Science) use observation. And what else is there to observe than existence and all things in it that they can observe. Another thing that Atheism requires is Theism.

Atheism doesn't require a universe that has laws of physics, is knowable and explicable in mathematical terms.

Again they use observation.

F1 The universe is old and unimaginably large. Stars and planets developed randomly without any apparent divine plan.
F2. The fact of evolution

The problem is if they use this as evidence in favor of their belief they can't deny the facts I cite is evidence in favor of theism. That crushes one of the foundational claims of atheism...that there is no evidence, no fact, no data or information no rational reason anyone should suspect the universe and our existence was intentionally caused.

What facts? These below?

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.

Atheism agrees the universe exists and also requires the Universe to exists
Atheism agrees that life exists and also requires life to exists
Atheism agrees that intelligent life exists and requires Intelligent life exists

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 does nothing to prove Atheism nor Theism is correct as they both agree that all those things exist as well as both require they exist.

IMO what separates an Athiest from a Theist is what makes them similar to me. Both make claims neither can prove all while Theists go out of their way to spread the gospel (in faith) as Atheists just say no (like it's a drug).

 

[atrib]

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 does nothing to prove Atheism nor Theism is correct as they both agree that all those things exist as well as both require they exist.

IMO what separates an Athiest from a Theist is what makes them similar to me. Both make claims neither can prove all while Theists go out of their way to spread the gospel (in faith) as Atheists just say no (like it's a drug).

I have no reason to believe that gods exist, because I have seen no evidence that would convince me. My position is reasonable, and I don't need to "prove" anything, since I am not making any positive claims.

I am also not making the claim that I know how the universe came to exist. Again, there is nothing for me to "prove". All I am doing is expressing my skepticism of the theist's unsupported claim, and pointing out the flaws in their arguments. Not the same thing at all.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

Or just treat god as another mindless force, philosophically of course. How is it not? That's a question I'd like to hear answered. It can't be overly bright, however as it never seems to get around to asking of itself "Whence cometh I?" Toddlers don't either.

hey, maybe the Drew is on board with this?

Do you know or can you explain how mindless forces came into existence in the first place?

Sure sounds like god to me.

 

[atrib]

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.

Or just treat god as another mindless force. How is it not? That's a question I'd like to hear answered.

Exactly. And for everything we know about how our universe behaves, the answer has never been "an intelligent entity must have designed it to act this way". God-did-it has a historic record of providing zero answers to anything, which makes it an extremely weak candidate as an answer to the question of how our universe originated.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

Do you know or can you explain how mindless forces came into existence in the first place? Can you explain why forces that had no intention or plan to cause a universe created one that caused intelligent life to exist? Do you even know how life came into existence? How can you say no intelligent creator or designer is necessary without knowing how mindless forces accomplished such or how such forces came to be? Neither you or I know how the universe came to be. That is why the first line of evidence is F1. The Universe Exists. That we agree on how it was caused no one knows.

Lastly the distinction between our to respective views is whether the universe and intelligent life was the result of intent and planning or whether forces without plan or intent caused all we observe.

In a universe with no beginning or end forces at play never had to 'come into existence'.

If you can postulate a creator with power to create the universe you can surely imagine an infinite universe.

 

[Elixir]

Its [sic] an explanation for the four facts I've noted above.

It’s NOT an EXPLANATION. How hard is this to get?

NEED FOR EXPLANATION: Why does lightning happen?

Scientific explanation:

Lightning is an electric current. To make this electric current, first you need a cloud.

When the ground is hot, it heats the air above it. This warm air rises. As the air rises, water vapour cools and forms a cloud. When air continues to rise, the cloud gets bigger and bigger. In the tops of the clouds, temperature is below freezing and the water vapour turns into ice.

Now, the cloud becomes a thundercloud. Lots of small bits of ice bump into each other as they move around. All these collisions cause a build up of electrical charge.

Eventually, the whole cloud fills up with electrical charges. Lighter, positively charged particles form at the top of the cloud. Heavier, negatively charged particles sink to the bottom of the cloud.

When the positive and negative charges grow large enough, a giant spark - lightning - occurs between the two charges within the cloud. This is like a static electricity sparks you see, but much bigger.

Theist “explanation”:

Thor did it!

Drew, do you see the difference?

Probably not.

More likely..
“As shown in this three hour video, a transcendent power is required to create the precise conditions for lightning in the first place. So …( insert electrical jargon) and Blah blah”

 

[bilby]

Do you know or can you explain how mindless forces came into existence in the first place?

No.

Can you explain why forces that had no intention or plan to cause a universe created one that caused intelligent life to exist?

Yes.

Do you even know how life came into existence?

Yes.

How can you say no intelligent creator or designer is necessary without knowing how mindless forces accomplished such or how such forces came to be?

Through the application of the scientific method to evidence.

Neither you or I know how the universe came to be.

And yet, here you are claiming that it must be due to an intelligence, that you have no evidence whatsoever for.

That's pretty bloody stupid.

Particularly coming from someone whose grasp on cosmology and biochemistry is so weak that he not only doesn't know how mindless forces can lead to intelligent life; He genuinely believes that nobody else knows either.

"I don't know..." doesn't imply "Nobody knows...", you know.

 

[Gospel]

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 does nothing to prove Atheism nor Theism is correct as they both agree that all those things exist as well as both require they exist.

IMO what separates an Athiest from a Theist is what makes them similar to me. Both make claims neither can prove all while Theists go out of their way to spread the gospel (in faith) as Atheists just say no (like it's a drug).

I have no reason to believe that gods exist, because I have seen no evidence that would convince me. My position is reasonable, and I don't need to "prove" anything, since I am not making any positive claims.

I am also not making the claim that I know how the universe came to exist. Again, there is nothing for me to "prove". All I am doing is expressing my skepticism of the theist's unsupported claim, and pointing out the flaws in their arguments. Not the same thing at all.

I can be wrong but don't Athiest make the claim that there is no God, more specifically no intelligent design? If so, making a claim of any sort requires evidence. To my knowledge Athiest use certain aspects of existence as evidence there is no intelligent design (aka God). I take the position of (paraphrasing here) God? That sounds like a nice idea, I wasn't there when all this started so I can't prove for or against God. Now that is not making any claims.

 

[steve_bank]

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 does nothing to prove Atheism nor Theism is correct as they both agree that all those things exist as well as both require they exist.

IMO what separates an Athiest from a Theist is what makes them similar to me. Both make claims neither can prove all while Theists go out of their way to spread the gospel (in faith) as Atheists just say no (like it's a drug).

I have no reason to believe that gods exist, because I have seen no evidence that would convince me. My position is reasonable, and I don't need to "prove" anything, since I am not making any positive claims.

I am also not making the claim that I know how the universe came to exist. Again, there is nothing for me to "prove". All I am doing is expressing my skepticism of the theist's unsupported claim, and pointing out the flaws in their arguments. Not the same thing at all.

I can be wrong but don't Athiest make the claim that there is no God, more specifically no intelligent design? If so, making a claim of any sort requires evidence. To my knowledge Athiest use certain aspects of existence as evidence there is no intelligent design (aka God). I take the position of (paraphrasing here) God? That sounds like a nice idea, I wasn't there when all this started so I can't prove for or against God. Now that is not making any claims.

Generally atheists reject the evidence proffered as proof of god.

There is no objective evidence based proof of god, and there is also no objective evidence based disproof of god.

I can't prove Bigfoot does not exist, but I reject the amateurish 'evidence' for Bigfoot. As with god, there is a legion of Bigfoot believers.


Aspects are o reality are mot used as a disproof per se, tey are used to conter a claim by belivers.


My favorite, if reality was designed by a superbeing, spirit, god or entity of some kind he, she. pr it did a lousy job. Killer asteroids, plagues, earthquakes and so on. Theists couner with something like 'Everything happems for a reason dictated by god beyond our understnding', and the debate ensues.

Some atheists agressively claim god does not exist. I reject what is offered as evidence. Aheists are diverse and not monolithic.

 

[Elixir]

My favorite, if reality was designed by a superbeing, spirit, god or entity of some kind he, she. pr it did a lousy job. Killer asteroids, plagues, earthquakes and so on. Theists counter with something like 'Everything happems for a reason dictated by god beyond our understnding', and the debate ensues.

The funny thing about that counter, is that it still assumes the primacy of humans within the universe. Why not a god who is interested in other things? After all, there are SO MANY other things evident in the universe. Maybe humans just aren't that important to a tri-omni being, so asteroids, plagues earthquakes and other things that annoy us, aren't anything worth attending to.

 

[Gospel]

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 does nothing to prove Atheism nor Theism is correct as they both agree that all those things exist as well as both require they exist.

IMO what separates an Athiest from a Theist is what makes them similar to me. Both make claims neither can prove all while Theists go out of their way to spread the gospel (in faith) as Atheists just say no (like it's a drug).

I have no reason to believe that gods exist, because I have seen no evidence that would convince me. My position is reasonable, and I don't need to "prove" anything, since I am not making any positive claims.

I am also not making the claim that I know how the universe came to exist. Again, there is nothing for me to "prove". All I am doing is expressing my skepticism of the theist's unsupported claim, and pointing out the flaws in their arguments. Not the same thing at all.

I can be wrong but don't Athiest make the claim that there is no God, more specifically no intelligent design? If so, making a claim of any sort requires evidence. To my knowledge Athiest use certain aspects of existence as evidence there is no intelligent design (aka God). I take the position of (paraphrasing here) God? That sounds like a nice idea, I wasn't there when all this started so I can't prove for or against God. Now that is not making any claims.

Generally atheists reject the evidence proffered as proof of god.

There is no objective evidence based proof of god, and there is also no objective evidence based disproof of god.

I can't prove Bigfoot does not exist, but I reject the amateurish 'evidence' for Bigfoot. As with god, there is a legion of Bigfoot believers.


Aspects are o reality are mot used as a disproof per se, tey are used to conter a claim by belivers.


My favorite, if reality was designed by a superbeing, spirit, god or entity of some kind he, she. pr it did a lousy job. Killer asteroids, plagues, earthquakes and so on. Theists couner with something like 'Everything happems for a reason dictated by god beyond our understnding', and the debate ensues.

Some atheists agressively claim god does not exist. I reject what is offered as evidence. Aheists are diverse and not monolithic.

If someone approached me and said my shoes are untied, I'd look and if I find that they are tied I'd reject their claim using my observation of tied shoes as the evidence. God would be the state of untied shoes and my rejection based on observation would be my claim that my shoes in an untied state (God) doesn't exist. To say that I'm not disproving a negative would be silly.