If You Are Certain God Exists Why Prove It?

[Keith&Co.]

Not neccessarily. Like people finding they know there's something fishy going on at moogly's but they just don't know what it is.

'Fishy' still requires a comparison to 'normal.' How would you compare the directed universe you believe we are in to an undirected universe? ACTUAL universes, not just a bare assumption 'without god nothing would be here.' Show how two universes compare.

If the universe just happened, then it could not have happened 'wrong,' so there's no actual point to being impressed that it turned out 'right.'

It just turned out. Full stop. No + or -.

Valid point.. to the suggestion... you're not making that claim (in bold).

That is the claim.
The observed interactions between matter and energy appear to be sufficient to explain the universe we observe eithout needing an appeal to a general operations director.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ok then... how about "what are the odds?"

But Learner, the question is meaningless in this context.
If mankind's development was directed, then whether it took a billion years or six days, the odds are 1:1.

If mankind is the undirected result of evolutionary processes, with no external goal, then there is no ratio.


Maybe more simply. I roll two dice. I get a 13. What are the odds?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Yes they do, but this rule only applies to things that are not magical. You'd think that magical things like gods and souls and spirits must be awfully complex, more complex that our little world anyway. But our little world needs magic to make it work because it's too complex to work without magic.

I hope that clears up any confusion you may have had.

I'd say to the question... things are too complex to be continously "lucky." Creationsists don't rule out evolution (small g, small-scale ) entirely.

But what about gods and angels and ghosts and these type claims? Are these things lucky too? I mean, according to believers, they are here, so if they are here then they must be lucky too, using the reasoning you proposed. If they are not just as lucky then how did they come to be? Is it because magical beings don't need luck? Is it that complexity becomes moot when something is composed entirely of luck/magic? That's the only conclusion that makes sense.

 

[abaddon]

Yes they do, but this rule only applies to things that are not magical. You'd think that magical things like gods and souls and spirits must be awfully complex, more complex that our little world anyway. But our little world needs magic to make it work because it's too complex to work without magic.

I hope that clears up any confusion you may have had.

I'd say to the question... things are too complex to be continously "lucky." Creationsists don't rule out evolution (small g, small-scale ) entirely.

But what about gods and angels and ghosts and these type claims? Are these things lucky too? I mean, according to believers, they are here, so if they are here then they must be lucky too, using the reasoning you proposed. If they are not just as lucky then how did they come to be? Is it because magical beings don't need luck? Is it that complexity becomes moot when something is composed entirely of luck/magic? That's the only conclusion that makes sense.

I wonder how much thought goes into mind/spirit/soul? They're told these spiritual entities last forever for not being material. But is there no mechanism there to describe (in their conception of souls)?

It would be interesting if they chose to look more closely at that. Some folk did, in eastern cultures, and by close observation they noticed that "self" and "mind" are as subject to change as everything. So some of them chucked the idea of everlasting souls.

Christianity doesn't share the same introspective questioning that'd help them notice that selves ("souls") change. And so the notion that souls are not subject to time for lacking a material mechanism remains unquestioned. They really should think it through. If spiritual beings have thoughts/will/intention, then how come that complexity doesn't strike them as unlikely (or "lucky" as Learner puts it)? What's the theory of origins of spirits? What's the explanation for how they got so complex?

If no explanation then how is that not an appeal to magic? And how does that not trigger an incredulous response?

 

[LoAmmo]

They really should think it through.

[Car Mechanic voice] "Well there's your problem, right there."

 

[Rhea]

Ok then... how about "what are the odds?" Of course there's no precised number reference to scale the enormity but in context to a phrase often expressed like " How lucky we are to be here" etc. I thought you'd sort of agree here at least.

What you don’t understand about evolution is that this question, “what are the odds” is like imagining a ball at a top of a hill and wondering, “what are the odds” that it ends up at the bottom. Well, pretty high.

What you clearly do not understand about evolution is that the odds favor the most robust example. In a population, a mutation that increases survival rate to reproductive age by a mere 5% will take over a population in something like 20 generations. Becoming the new normal.

Creationists are not able to understand this. They think it’s random. Chance. “Lucky.” And it totally isn’t.

The more brightly colored a poisonous thing is, the better it influences the gene pool. The faster a thing can react, the better it influences the gene pool. Split a population in half, and isolate them from inerbreeding, and a mutation may happen in one population, but not in the other. Leading to speciation.

Just do math. It is not random.

This makes no sense at all. If there is evolution then there is evolution, so over extremely long time scales an extreme diversity of life that nicely fits its environmental niches will be the result.

Saying it with umost faith and not actually seeing it (without ANY fossilsed transitional-inbetweens at all, for example)

I’m sorry you have such a hard time understanding evidence. That must be very frustrating.
But real critical thinkers can see how this got to that.

Hey, tell you what. Go look at the thread in the Media and Culture forum called “the Follow On Word Game”. It starts with a two word phrase. Someone takes the second word and in their head they use it as the first word in a new two-word phrase. Then they take that phrase, use the second word, make a subsequent two-word phrase and post that. They DO NOT post the intermediate variation. With the utmost FAITH and not actually seeing it you can infer what the intermediate phrase is, and it can be funny.

Some people aren’t able to mke the inference and so it appears utterly random. But it’s not.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What you don’t understand about evolution is that this question, “what are the odds” is like imagining a ball at a top of a hill and wondering, “what are the odds” that it ends up at the bottom. Well, pretty high.

What you clearly do not understand about evolution is that the odds favor the most robust example. In a population, a mutation that increases survival rate to reproductive age by a mere 5% will take over a population in something like 20 generations. Becoming the new normal.

Creationists are not able to understand this. They think it’s random. Chance. “Lucky.” And it totally isn’t.

The more brightly colored a poisonous thing is, the better it influences the gene pool. The faster a thing can react, the better it influences the gene pool. Split a population in half, and isolate them from inerbreeding, and a mutation may happen in one population, but not in the other. Leading to speciation.

Just do math. It is not random.

Saying it with umost faith and not actually seeing it (without ANY fossilsed transitional-inbetweens at all, for example)

I’m sorry you have such a hard time understanding evidence. That must be very frustrating.
But real critical thinkers can see how this got to that.

Hey, tell you what. Go look at the thread in the Media and Culture forum called “the Follow On Word Game”. It starts with a two word phrase. Someone takes the second word and in their head they use it as the first word in a new two-word phrase. Then they take that phrase, use the second word, make a subsequent two-word phrase and post that. They DO NOT post the intermediate variation. With the utmost FAITH and not actually seeing it you can infer what the intermediate phrase is, and it can be funny.

Some people aren’t able to mke the inference and so it appears utterly random. But it’s not.

Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Every organism is a transitional organism. Sameness is a myth. Organisms are only similar to one another in the traits they share. Lots of vestigial structures in organisms to demonstrate speciation and change over time, if one needs to see transitional characteristics. I challenge anyone to find any two identical organisms, or even identical parts of two organisms.

The problem is that creationists are not scientifically educated and do not look for evidence. They are very poor observers who only seek confirmation bias, much of that is hardwired. If they do find something that contradicts their bias they spin some form of woo to explain it away, which only accentuates their bias and ignorance.

 

[Jarhyn]

I like the ball on a hill analogy, but also, balance it at the top, and wait. Where will it fall? Who knows. It will fall down and end up somewhere in the down. He marvel's "how could we ever end up in this down, of all that other down? Clearly we didn't come down, and were placed!" And we say "it was going to end up in a down. We tracked the path it took. This is how down works."

 

[Learner]

'Fishy' still requires a comparison to 'normal.' How would you compare the directed universe you believe we are in to an undirected universe? ACTUAL universes, not just a bare assumption 'without god nothing would be here.' Show how two universes compare.

I've heard this expressed even by scientists (the odds). Context as you're putting it.. normal, i.e., meaning comparing ourselves & life forms that DO exist like those on this earth to anything else. Because of the NO EVIDENCE of.. and the NO comparisons to..there being others life forms out there!! Observedly in the whole vast universe, we are quite lonesome!

Valid point.. to the suggestion... you're not making that claim (in bold).

That is the claim.
The observed interactions between matter and energy appear to be sufficient to explain the universe we observe eithout needing an appeal to a general operations director.

You (and our fellow atheists on this thread ) mean by the claim that you (plural) don't know or unsure HOW ALL the observed interactions between energy and matter etc.. INITIALLY came about. What we can observe as you're saying, Theist would likely say the same things about processes.

(Sorry for late reply, the forum connected to an old e-mail I can't access. I'm seem to be more busy during lockdowns )

 

[Learner]

Yes they do, but this rule only applies to things that are not magical. You'd think that magical things like gods and souls and spirits must be awfully complex, more complex that our little world anyway. But our little world needs magic to make it work because it's too complex to work without magic.

I hope that clears up any confusion you may have had.

I'd say to the question... things are too complex to be continously "lucky." Creationsists don't rule out evolution (small g, small-scale ) entirely.

But what about gods and angels and ghosts and these type claims? Are these things lucky too? I mean, according to believers, they are here, so if they are here then they must be lucky too, using the reasoning you proposed. If they are not just as lucky then how did they come to be? Is it because magical beings don't need luck? Is it that complexity becomes moot when something is composed entirely of luck/magic? That's the only conclusion that makes sense.

Lets suppose then, a creator was lucky, to come into being. HOW does a creators initial origin have any lesser affect, in authority, status or meaning, when this creator who created you the earth etc. would STILL be your GOD?!!

I'll say for now, like your post. The very old "Then who created God...?" argument becomes moot imo when you ARE the creation in context.

 

[Atheos]

Lets suppose then, a creator was lucky, to come into being. HOW does a creators initial origin have any lesser affect, in authority, status or meaning, when this creator who created you the earth etc. would STILL be your GOD?!!

I'll say for now, like your post. The very old "Then who created God...?" argument becomes moot imo when you ARE the creation in context.

This entire line of reasoning is faulty. Assuming for sake of argument that this god you keep claiming exists does in fact exist (which has yet to be demonstrated) the origin of said god is of paramount importance. For example it could be that this god was created by Ubergod as a test for humanity to separate those who are willing to think rationally from those who are willing to let anonymous mystics do their thinking for them. Perhaps Ubergod intends to destroy the souls of those who are such sycophants as to be willing to kiss the ass of a god who orders mass genocide and requires blood sacrifice (even human blood sacrifice) and periodic ritual cannibalism to be appeased.

It is also faulty because it demonstrates a key problem with many religions: They often attempt to prohibit investigation into anything that might call their sacred beliefs into question.

And then of course there's the original problem with this premise. "God" answers no question that isn't much more eloquently answered through cosmology, geology, chemistry and evolutionary theory. A "lucky" god brings us right back to turtles all the way down.

 

[Jarhyn]

But what about gods and angels and ghosts and these type claims? Are these things lucky too? I mean, according to believers, they are here, so if they are here then they must be lucky too, using the reasoning you proposed. If they are not just as lucky then how did they come to be? Is it because magical beings don't need luck? Is it that complexity becomes moot when something is composed entirely of luck/magic? That's the only conclusion that makes sense.

Lets suppose then, a creator was lucky, to come into being. HOW does a creators initial origin have any lesser affect, in authority, status or meaning, when this creator who created you the earth etc. would STILL be your GOD?!!

I'll say for now, like your post. The very old "Then who created God...?" argument becomes moot imo when you ARE the creation in context.

Let me ask a much more important question: how does a creator's creative act in any way accord them ethical authority?

I pose that it does not. Might does not make right, and the origins of a situation say nothing of the ethical dynamics of its extant state.

I am a software engineer. I have made many simulations, many universes in which many lives have lived, some well and truly thinking, though not to any special extent unachieved by others.

The ethical rules of the things that exist in a simuation are a function of the rules of the simuation in which they exist. While I, as the designer of the simulation, can have more or less influence on what those rules are, but this is different than me being able to say authoritatively what things in the simulation, after it's creation, ought do; I have no authority over a running simulation, as the simulation merely exists at that point outside of me. In fact, from the inside of the system, generally I do not exist as an entity, it merely is a mathematically determined dance independent of the trivia of it's creation. Our universe has nothing to indicate it is any different in this regard.

Whether or not there is a god, the universe--the situation we exist in--has a shape, relationships, patterns through time. It has rules and it is THOSE rules, the ones that actually exist as physical law, that ultimately will determine what the ethical drivers are within the system. What could be said is that these rules would constitute the word of God, directly written into the fabric of existence.

As a result, whether or not god exists is immaterial to our obligations to each other, and the rules which we can derive that we ought live by from it, for the good of ourselves and everyone.

I have no doubt that John glimpsed this, That this is the "Word that was God". And this IS eternal, and infinite, as much as anything is, a recipe for doing the right thing: love thy neighbor as thyself. But it isn't mysterious as in "you can't figure it out" so much as mysterious as in "it's going to take you a buttload of work and existential crisis to figure it out".

This idea itself can be defined as a "God", though it did not create the universe. Rather, it exists as a part of the universe and always has, just waiting to be seen for what it is.

Better question: why should I care about what your imaginary friend wants? I have a universe, the only verifiable, directly spoken word of any creator that could possibly exist. I know it's not imaginary, and it's got some very clear implications towards ethics

 

[Rhea]

Lets suppose then, a creator was lucky, to come into being.

Thereby “supposing” that the “lucky” abiogenisis that atheists propose for earth is 100% possible. Is that what you meant?

‘Cause we can then stop the argument right there. Thanks for acknowledging the possibility.

 

[James Brown]

So the argument that God exists is, "Let's just assume that God exists and see where that takes us"?

 

[Learner]

Lets suppose then, a creator was lucky, to come into being.

Thereby “supposing” that the “lucky” abiogenisis that atheists propose for earth is 100% possible. Is that what you meant?

‘Cause we can then stop the argument right there. Thanks for acknowledging the possibility.

If you can bear with me, lets not (I've still to repspond to your previous post).

 

[Lion IRC]

 

[Keith&Co.]

I've heard this expressed even by scientists (the odds).

Heard it, sure. But did you understand what they meant by it?

Again, i ask: i roll two dice, i get thirteen. What were the odds, either for or against that number?

 

[Jarhyn]

Lets suppose then, a creator was lucky, to come into being.

Thereby “supposing” that the “lucky” abiogenisis that atheists propose for earth is 100% possible. Is that what you meant?

‘Cause we can then stop the argument right there. Thanks for acknowledging the possibility.

If you can bear with me, lets not (I've still to repspond to your previous post).

I'm with Rhea: how about we not? We already have you acknowledging the possibility. Not that the existence of gods speaks in the first place to Euthyphro

 

[Keith&Co.]

Lets suppose then, a creator was lucky, to come into being.

Thereby “supposing” that the “lucky” abiogenisis that atheists propose for earth is 100% possible. Is that what you meant?

‘Cause we can then stop the argument right there. Thanks for acknowledging the possibility.

If you can bear with me, lets not (I've still to repspond to your previous post).

Learner, you're open to the possibility of a very complex thing just coming into existence. How will that help your argument that the universe is obviously too complex to have just come into existence?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But what about gods and angels and ghosts and these type claims? Are these things lucky too? I mean, according to believers, they are here, so if they are here then they must be lucky too, using the reasoning you proposed. If they are not just as lucky then how did they come to be? Is it because magical beings don't need luck? Is it that complexity becomes moot when something is composed entirely of luck/magic? That's the only conclusion that makes sense.

Lets suppose then, a creator was lucky, to come into being. HOW does a creators initial origin have any lesser affect, in authority, status or meaning, when this creator who created you the earth etc. would STILL be your GOD?!!

I'll say for now, like your post. The very old "Then who created God...?" argument becomes moot imo when you ARE the creation in context.

If a creator or anything is in existence due to luck then the important component isn't the creator or whatever else luck brought about, but rather the luck itself.

What do you think luck is?