What would count as proof of God

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Just three facts no leprechauns, pixies, fairy dust or loch ness monsters.

Right. Just like gods those things wouldn't exist on other planets either. So four facts.

 

[Drew2008]

Drew's new claim: Video games exist - therefore god-did-it.

No I would say a video-game designer did it. What would you say... mindless forces did it accidentally? You should quit while you're only a mile behind.

 

[bilby]

Any reply to my case for life on exoplanets?


Let me offer evidence of another belief and see if you accept the facts of evidence I offer is valid or if I'm just being illogical.

What would count as proof evidence life exists on planets outside our solar system?

F1. The universe exists

No universe no planets, stars, solar systems exist. For there to be life outside of our solar system a universe has to exist. The existence of the universe is evidence life exists on exoplanets.

F2. Planets and solar systems exist.

The fact planets exist in our solar system was for the longest time the only evidence we had from which we could infer other solar systems existed around other stars.

F3. The fact life exists on a planet revolving around a star

Of course. Why should we think it exists only on our planet. The fact it exists exponentially raises the possibility it exists on other planets.

All these things are true but it doesn't guarantee life exists elsewhere. All these facts are necessary for the claim to be true and they qualify as evidence in favor of the belief claim there is life on other planets. Is it irrational to believe life might exist on other planets?

Just three facts no leprechauns, pixies, fairy dust or loch ness monsters.

No, you don't get to repeat your idiotic questions until you tell me whether you agree that there's an elephant in my fridge, and if not, why not.

If you expect others to dance to your tune while you do nothing when they play the music, you are going to live a life of sad and lonely disappointment.

Your idiotic non-evidence has been discussed at length. Now you need to explain why it's better than, or even just substantively different from, mine.

 

[pood]

None of the things you listed are EVIDENCE for life on other planets. The existence of the universe is a necessary CONDITION of life on other planets, but it is not a SUFFICIENT condition. Evidence, on the other hand, would be a radio signal from a distant civilization, or a biosignature in the atmosphere of another planet. We have no such evidence. None. Zilch. Nada.

The reason we think there is likely to be life on other planets is because there is life HERE. And there is nothing special about the earth. So far as we can tell, physics operates the same everywhere in the universe, and all chemistry and biology is derived from physics. So if life exists here, it would be extraordinary if it existed nowhere else, but it may indeed be very rare.

So: we know a universe exists but that is not evidence of life off earth. We know life exists but that is not evidence of life off earth. But we think it plausible that life exists elsewhere because a universe exists and life exists here.

This is completely different from your god stuff. We know life exists, here, but we don’t know a god exists ANYWHERE. There is no evidence for a god. The existence of the universe is not evidence for a god, any more than the existence of the universe is evidence for life off of the earth.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

No I would say a video-game designer did it. What would you say... mindless forces did it accidentally? You should quit while you're only a mile behind.

Drew's new claim: Video games exist - therefore god-did-it.

No I would say a video-game designer did it. What would you say... mindless forces did it accidentally? You should quit while you're only a mile behind.

Some people are claiming that mindless forces are proof of designers. I'm still trying to get my head around that contradiction. Maybe quit when you're still only light years behind?

 

[Gospel]

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.

The definition of theism.

theism
[ˈTHēˌizəm]

NOUN

1. 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.
   
   

That doesn't answer the question. That only supports my statement that a God came before the universe. How does a God create something without coming (in better words existing) before what it created?

One of your arguments is that Theism requires a universe and it doesn't accord to its (Theism's) own definition.

 

[Rhea]

God appears visually only in the last days.

According to your Bible, God showed his backside to the prophet Moses, and later God resided for over 30 years in western Asia before flying off into the sky.

Moreover, none of us cared whether the god is “visible,” we are asking for your specific claim of it interacting in any way; parting seas, healed releatives, punished people, turned storms, answered prayers of any kind.

I can see why you would try to narrow the entire description of your god to a single event that hasn’t happened yet, so that you can claim, “see? You can’t see it because it hasn’t happened yet!” But don’t gaslight yourself into think we don’t know the full claims of your gods and see them all vacant.

 

[Gospel]

Theism requires a god, not a universe bruh.

 

[Rhea]

Let me offer evidence of another belief and see if you accept the facts of evidence I offer is valid or if I'm just being illogical.

You are being illogical. In exactly the same way that we’ve already explained that you were illogical before.
Your argument is not sound.

I can see that you think it is very very compelling, and it has convinced you completely while you are unable to see the gaping holes.

Interestingly, instead of understandng the holes, you just keep repeating the claim, as if that makes it any better than the first time. It’s the same claim as the first time, and it is illogical, as noted. In detail.

 

[Gospel]

Any reply to my case for life on exoplanets?


Let me offer evidence of another belief and see if you accept the facts of evidence I offer is valid or if I'm just being illogical.

What would count as proof evidence life exists on planets outside our solar system?

F1. The universe exists

No universe no planets, stars, solar systems exist. For there to be life outside of our solar system a universe has to exist. The existence of the universe is evidence life exists on exoplanets.

F2. Planets and solar systems exist.

The fact planets exist in our solar system was for the longest time the only evidence we had from which we could infer other solar systems existed around other stars.

F3. The fact life exists on a planet revolving around a star

Of course. Why should we think it exists only on our planet. The fact it exists exponentially raises the possibility it exists on other planets.

All these things are true but it doesn't guarantee life exists elsewhere. All these facts are necessary for the claim to be true and they qualify as evidence in favor of the belief claim there is life on other planets. Is it irrational to believe life might exist on other planets?

Just three facts no leprechauns, pixies, fairy dust or loch ness monsters.

Inferred does not = fact. That's the difference between Atheism and Theism. One states a faith-based belief as fact and the other doesn't (Edit: well not exactly in the same way ).

 

[abaddon]

Inferred does not = fact. That's the difference between Atheism and Theism. One states a faith-based belief as fact and the other doesn't

The difference is the concern about epistemology among atheists, and the lack of it among theists.

Atheists: What's your justification for believing that?
Theists: What won't serve as justification if I want it to?

Theists start with belief and then work backwards for some evidence. Then complain "you atheists are dogmatic assholes for not accepting that I have evidence for my belief".

They put on a display of fake agnosticism "Nobody knows so my belief should work as well or better than any other". It's a show of being "openminded" though everyone knows the belief's installed already.

They can't comprehend analogies. Mention something like the Invisible Pink Unicorn and they'll ALWAYS respond with an irrelevant protest: "My god is nothing like an invisible pink unicorn!" The atheists are asking "why believe either IPU or God if they're both not detectable?" But theists always mistake it for a declaration "your god is silly like unicorns are". The actual point ("why believe?") isn't a concern when the believing is already a done-deal for them. When that's the case it becomes a matter of comparing beliefs instead of wondering at the reasons to believe.

Atheists are those who didn't dream up a reason to believe, and didn't accept anyone else's lame reasons. So we puzzle at the people who did.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The guys i'm playing cards with have revealed their hands, and Joe's is a Straight Flush: A Jack-high straight, all of the cards in Hearts. To win this deal, i need to have a Royal Flush, preferably in Spades. (There is no actual precedence in suits, but the accepted wisdom is that Spades outrank Hearts (which outrank Diamonds which outrank Clubs), so it's just easier).
Fact one: Spades exist in the deck we're using.
Fact two: None of the hands revealed wo far display any of the cards I need for my Royal Flush.
Fact three: Tom dealt this hand and Tom hates John. Not saying Tom cheats, but Tom would not intentionally give John the winning hand if he could avoid it.
Fact four: There is about $600 in the pot. I need about $600 to fix something on my car.

With these facts in mind, i would say it is very likely that i have a Royal Flush. My having a Royal Flush is far more likely than my having no better than a pair of twos.

 

[Elixir]

The guys i'm playing cards with have revealed their hands, and Joe's is a Straight Flush: A Jack-high straight, all of the cards in Hearts. To win this deal, i need to have a Royal Flush, preferably in Spades. (There is no actual precedence in suits, but the accepted wisdom is that Spades outrank Hearts (which outrank Diamonds which outrank Clubs), so it's just easier).
Fact one: Spades exist in the deck we're using.
Fact two: None of the hands revealed wo far display any of the cards I need for my Royal Flush.
Fact three: Tom dealt this hand and Tom hates John. Not saying Tom cheats, but Tom would not intentionally give John the winning hand if he could avoid it.
Fact four: There is about $600 in the pot. I need about $600 to fix something on my car.

With these facts in mind, i would say it is very likely that i have a Royal Flush. My having a Royal Flush is far more likely than my having no better than a pair of twos.

As long as nobody turns over their cards, you’re all good.

 

[Rhea]

As long as nobody turns over their cards, you’re all good.

And that’s the trick, innit. Never turn over your cards, and you can say you’re a god.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The guys i'm playing cards with have revealed their hands, and Joe's is a Straight Flush: A Jack-high straight, all of the cards in Hearts. To win this deal, i need to have a Royal Flush, preferably in Spades. (There is no actual precedence in suits, but the accepted wisdom is that Spades outrank Hearts (which outrank Diamonds which outrank Clubs), so it's just easier).
Fact one: Spades exist in the deck we're using.
Fact two: None of the hands revealed wo far display any of the cards I need for my Royal Flush.
Fact three: Tom dealt this hand and Tom hates John. Not saying Tom cheats, but Tom would not intentionally give John the winning hand if he could avoid it.
Fact four: There is about $600 in the pot. I need about $600 to fix something on my car.

With these facts in mind, i would say it is very likely that i have a Royal Flush. My having a Royal Flush is far more likely than my having no better than a pair of twos.

As long as nobody turns over their cards, you’re all good.

Thry already did. My opening line.
But never mind that.
It's always about results with you guys. I'm not showng that i HAVE a RoyF'sh. I just want to show that it's not unreasonable for me to believe i have a RF at this time.
Showing my cards only convinces these fools, who lack the logical skills to apprehend the true state of affairs, while i remain confident even without turning them over.

 

[steve_bank]

God is a talking point.

A story from India I read. A guru lectures his students that god isin them, the rocks, animals, everything. Filled with bliss a student walks away down a path. He sees an elephant runnng at him and thinks if god is in me and god is in the elephant I have nothingto fear.

The elephant grabs him with its trnk and tosses him aside.

Bewildered he asks the guru what happened.

The guru said ' The god in the elephant was telling the god in you to get out of the way, and you were not listening'.

 

[Jarhyn]

God is a talking point.

A story from India I read. A guru lectures his students that god isin them, the rocks, animals, everything. Filled with bliss a student walks away down a path. He sees an elephant runnng at him and thinks if god is in me and god is in the elephant I have nothingto fear.

The elephant grabs him with its trnk and tosses him aside.

Bewildered he asks the guru what happened.

The guru said ' The god in the elephant was telling the god in you to get out of the way, and you were not listening'.

There are some tie-ins on this to the "determinism" threads.

 

[Learner]

I'll cease it here, before it becomes a toing and froing - you have a point of view, fair enough..

I am from a working class backgound. I was one of those kids, that loved school dinners lol, speaking od dinners I smell burning.

There is no shame in not knowing stuff. It is impossible for a single human to know everything about everything that humans as a group know. But if you want to challenge skeptics, you have to educate yourself on what they say. You can't just make up stuff.

Indeed there's no shame when it is indeed the case. And (I'm sorry I need to say here) when it comes to pride or ego (or having some personal grudge) by falsely ascribing "making things up" to someone, who isn't - would just make you look a little foolish, especially by the person, who has to educate himself.

So...

Did I ever make any claim that Egnor said anything about souls in his talk? You were so eager, to make the false statement, you bypassed that bit of logic, which should have told you: "There's is no evidence for me saying it, therefore I can't quote it directly." Common Sense?
Or did you try and bluff it?

 

[atrib]

I'll cease it here, before it becomes a toing and froing - you have a point of view, fair enough..

I am from a working class backgound. I was one of those kids, that loved school dinners lol, speaking od dinners I smell burning.

There is no shame in not knowing stuff. It is impossible for a single human to know everything about everything that humans as a group know. But if you want to challenge skeptics, you have to educate yourself on what they say. You can't just make up stuff.

Indeed there's no shame when it is indeed the case. And (I'm sorry I need to say here) when it comes to pride or ego (or having some personal grudge) by falsely ascribing "making things up" to someone, who isn't - would just make you look a little foolish, especially by the person, who has to educate himself.

So...

Did I ever make any claim that Egnor said anything about souls in his talk? You were so eager, to make the false statement, you bypassed that bit of logic, which should have told you: "There's is no evidence for me saying it, therefore I can't quote it directly." Common Sense?
Or did you try and bluff it?

You didn't say anything in your post. You just posted a link to a video that we had discussed previously, and I pointed out that the video did not support the claim you were making at that (earlier) time.

Why don't you explain what your point was, and how the video supports whatever claim you want to make, so we can discuss it. Post the timestamp for the part of the video we should be looking at, because I am not going to spend another half hour viewing a video I have already watched once. I can't read your mind - I need to know what your specific position is, and how the video supports this position. This is not an unreasonable request. Several people have asked you to do this, but so far you have declined to clarify.

 

[Rhea]

For the record: it is a violation of the forum rules to post links without discussion.

Clarification of Rule 9:
9. Not derail threads or detract from board discussions;

Posts which consist of little else besides a link to another document or video are not 'discussion', and are considered disruptive. Links provided in support of one's position are fine, but one is obliged to summarize or paraphrase the relevant point in their own words and in-thread. The posts should contain an argument or refutation, or at least a description with personal commentary, and not be mere links with some cut-n-paste quotation(s). In other words, post your thoughts and not just other people's thoughts.