What would count as proof of God

[Drew2008]

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

Yes only mindless forces with neither plan, intent or engineering degree must have done it without trying or wanting to. When all else fails Naturedidit.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

Yes only mindless forces with neither plan, intent or engineering degree must have done it without trying or wanting to. When all else fails Naturedidit.

You know that argument some people offer? Or, 'fact' some people list? Something like:

Every house we've ever seen built has a creator. Therefore every house we see, we can assume it had a creator.

Or sandwich, or highway, or car. Some people think this observation is significant, with implications beyond the house, sandwich, car....

But then we make the same argument (or observation), that EVERY SINGLE EXPLANATION that's ever been explained has turned out to be naturalistic. No magic, no spirits, no gods required. Thus if we see something that still needs an explanation, chance are very good that it won't require magic, gods, telepathy, time travel, space alien pyramid builders, sasquatch, zombies, vampires, trickle-down economics, or pixies.
And some people call this wishful thinking....

 

[atrib]

Atheism makes claims as well. They claim the universe we observe came into existence apart from a creator. They claim the universe wasn't planned or designed it was natural mindless forces that some how came into existence and wound up unintentionally causing a universe to exist. That's your story and claim and your stuck with it.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Atheism makes no claims as to the origins of the universe, or anything else unrelated to the existence of gods. As you are here trying to debate atheists, it would make sense for you to understand what atheism actually is, otherwise you come across as ignorant.

Only one thing needs to be true for atheism to be true. No God, creator or designer of the universe exists. Nothing else needs to be true. For theism to be true several things have to be true. Anything necessary for theism to be true is evidence (not proof) theism is true.

I'm not going to list premises but facts...

F1. The universe exists. Hopefully no one disputes this.

As far as we can tell, the universe exists. It is hypothetically possible that we are all minds in a vat, but I tend to go with the simplest explanation - that the universe exists. But that doesn't tell us anything about how universes can come to exist.

Theism is the belief God (or some Creator) caused the universe to exist.

Not necessarily. While many theists believe in a creator god, you can be a theist without believing that the universe was created by a god. Theism is a statement regarding the existence of gods, with universe-creator gods being a subset of this bigger group.

If the universe didn't exist theism would be totally falsified.

Not necessarily. See above.

The false slogan there is no evidence of theism would actually be true. In any version of theism to be true a universe has to exist.

Again, not necessarily. Gods could hypothetically exist without the existence of the our local presentation of the universe..

However for atheism to be true only the non-existence of God or a Creator needs to be true.

Atheism does not make positive claims. Atheism is a lack of belief of belief in gods because sufficient evidence to support the theistic claim does not exist. Until sufficient evidence is provided to convince atheists that gods exist, the atheist's position is reasonable, irrespective of whether gods actually exist.

No one would say because I believe no God or Creator exists therefore a universe that supports life should exist.

The existence of life has nothing to do with the existence of gods. Life exists because on the early Earth there was an abundant supply of the chemicals that build life, along with an abundant supply of energy gradients like thermal vents powered by geothermal energy. The thing that the universe does relentlessly is increase entropy, and the existence of life increases the rate at which this increase in entropy happens. Life is a chemical process that accelerates the process. As such, life is an expected consequence of the prime directive of the universe. This is analogous to water flowing downhill - if water gets trapped near the tops of mountains, it will eventually wear out the rock and create caves to allow the water to flow downhill. This happens spontaneously, because our universe works to relentlessly equalize energy gradients - no intelligent being is needed to explain how. Life is just one particularly efficient way the universe increases entropy.

Since the claim is that God caused a universe to exist the existence of the universe makes the claim God caused a universe more probable.

This is circular reasoning, and completely nonsensical. This is your argument:

Premises:
God caused a universe to exist.
The universe exists.
Conclusion:
Therefore god exists.

You are presupposing the conclusion in your first premise, which makes the argument circular.

There is no reason I know of a universe has to exist.

This is an argument from ignorance, which is also fallacious and unreliable. Why the fuck do so many theists not understand how logical arguments work?

Only if one claims God caused a universe to exist does a universe have to exist.If I claim a house was intentionally caused to exist the first line of evidence would be the existence of a house. If I claim houses were intentionally caused to exist but there are no houses everyone would reject the claim. If there are houses that alone doesn't prove anyone made them intentionally but it makes the contention more probable than if none existed.

I can point you to millions of documented cases of people building houses. Can you point me to a single documented instance of gods creating universes? Do you not understand why your analogy is flawed?

I'll repeat evidence are facts which make a claim more probable than minus stated fact. If I claimed that scientists, engineers and programmers caused a virtual universe to exist the existence of a virtual universe would be evidence my claim is correct.

No. In order for god-did-it to be considered a good answer, you would have to (1) demonstrate that gods exists, and (2) demonstrate how gods create universes. Merely asserting god-did-it is not evidence of anything.

One note, I'm not attempting to prove God exists. There isn't enough evidence to prove the existence of God.

Finally something I agree with.

There is enough evidence that makes theism a resonable belief over the counter claim we owe the existence of the universe and sentient human life to forces that had no intention or plan to do so.

Feel free to provide the evidence that would demonstrate god-did-it to be a reasonable answer. You are not even able to articulate an argument to support your claim, much less provide evidence.

Before I submit F2 I'll wait for everyone to deny F1 is evidence in favor of theistic belief.

No evidence to support your claim has been provided.

 

[atrib]

Secondly this discussion is not a one way street I know some atheists believe atheism is a negative claim not in need of any evidence or have any burden of proof. The claim theism is an answer to a question how did the universe and humans come to exist? Theism isn't a religion its a philosophical belief that the universe was intentionally created to cause sentient life to exist in contrast to the belief no God(s), or Creator of any sort was needed.
That is one type of theism or one aspect of a theism, it is certainly not the only way to define theism. And most theisms define their gods with many more characteristics than solely a universe creator.

It is how theism is defined. Many religious beliefs are theistic in that they subscribe to the theistic belief that a Creator caused the universe and subsequently life to exist.

Simply believing something doesn't make it true.

Secondly attacking specific religious beliefs doesn't provide reason or evidence to believe the universe was caused by forces that somehow came into existence and caused the universe we now live in unintentionally.

We don't know how the universe came to be. And we have no evidence that gods were involved.

Moreover, for everything that we do know about our universe, the the answer has NEVER been god-did-it. Not once. God-did-it has a dismal record of explaining anything about our reality. We have no reason to believe that god-did-it answers the origin question.

For me to reject theism I would have to see some compelling evidence that convinces me the material world that I depend on for my existence was serendipitously caused by forces that didn't even intend there own existence to occur.

Things happen spontaneously all the fucking time. Water evaporates from lakes to form clouds, which releases it in the form of rain and snow. Small variations in atmospheric temperature and pressure gives rise to super tornadoes that kill dozens of people and level small towns. No intelligent mind needed.

You are going about this backwards. In order to believe something, you should first need evidence that supports that belief. Starting with a conclusion and then working backwards to shoehorn the data into the conclusion is a terrible way to evaluate truth claims. Instead of trying to disprove gods, you should be looking for evidence that demonstrates the existence of gods.

I know creating and causing a universe to exist if it was caused by a personal agent would have to be a transcendent super intellect. A dumb ass wouldn't have much success. Yet in atheism the belief is mindless forces without plan or intent caused the conditions necessary for us to have this conversation.

And you would be wrong again. There is no evidence to suggest that an intelligent entity is a prerequisite to universes coming into being.

 

[atrib]

Atheism makes claims as well. They claim the universe we observe came into existence apart from a creator.

That's reaching. 'Atheism' only claim is that the person is 'without a belief in gods.' Even if gods are real, if a person does not believe in them, the label 'atheism' is accurately applied, so 'atheism' is true.
Theism is a belief in a deity. One or more. If there are no deities in the entire universe, but someone believes in one, theism is true.
If there are gods in the universe, but not the one the theist believes in, the label 'theism' is true.
If there are gods, and the theist believes in one that exists, such as Thor, Thor is not credited with the creation of the universe. But the theist believes he exists independent of the universe's start. And theist applies, thus is true.

No its not reaching at all. The core of atheism is the a before the theism which means without God(s), creator, transcendent personal agent. What without God? The creation of the universe and life. Atheists (as far as I know) don't deny the universe and humans exist, they do deny the necessity and the existence of a Creator to cause such circumstances.

Because there is no evidence. It is unreasonable to believe shit that are not supported by facts and reason.

If we say the universe isn't the intended result of a transcendent agent we are saying that forces unintentionally caused the universe and life we observe to exist.

Correct. Why is this assumption wrong, or unreasonable? Why are intelligent agents needed to create universes?

 

[atrib]

Atheism says nothing about the origin of the universe, nor even whether it has an origin.

Atheism says a great deal about the universe, it says whatever caused it or regardless of its origin we know one thing...God (a personal agent didn't do it). It wasn't caused intentionally it was the result of unguided forces and fortuitous happenstance. Naturedidit! And that is naturalism in the gaps.

The only part you get is the A in atheism. It means not or without God. Theism is the belief it was intentionally caused by a transcendent volitional agent. Atheism is the counter explanation that it happened without any volitional transcendent agent.

Atheism is not an explanation for anything. It is a simple lack of belief in gods. Why the fuck do so many theists get this wrong?

 

[pood]

I’m having a hard time figuring out how the quote function works. It’s extremely non-intuitive to extract one or two quotes from a mass of a quotes. So I’ll just improvise for now.

Drew said:

Only if one claims God caused a universe to exist does a universe have to exist.If I claim a house was intentionally caused to exist the first line of evidence would be the existence of a house. If I claim houses were intentionally caused to exist but there are no houses everyone would reject the claim. If there are houses that alone doesn't prove anyone made them intentionally but it makes the contention more probable than if none existed.

Atrib replied:

I can point you to millions of documented cases of people building houses. Can you point me to a single documented instance of gods creating universes? Do you not understand why your analogy is flawed?

Wow, how eerily apropos. Could it be that creationist arguments never change, no matter how many times they are demolished?

Of course the great David Hume anticipated this precise argument hundreds of years ago, and demolished it. Here is just a brief excerpt of his demolition job:

David Hume:

“If we see a house, CLEANTHES, we conclude, with the greatest certainty, that it had an architect or builder; because this is precisely that species of effect which we have experienced to proceed from that species of cause. But surely you will not affirm, that the universe bears such a resemblance to a house, that we can with the same certainty infer a similar cause, or that the analogy is here entire and perfect.”

 

[atrib]

Atheism is the counter explanation that it happened without any volitional transcendent agent.

Except it's not. You're confusing things SOME atheists hold to be true with atheism. Possibly intentionally.

Technically, the universe has always existed. So F1 should be "The universe has always existed." At no point in time can we say there was no universe. There is no evidence that rules of casualty (or anything or everything) exist "outside" the universe.

No it didn't always technically exist. The universe is space time, gravity strong force weak force, stars, planets and so forth. What is postulated is what we observe now sprung forth from something entirely different and where our laws of physics are irrelevant. We can hardly project the quality of time such as always having existed to something that existed before time. Did time always exist?

We don't know if the universe has existed forever because we don't understand the physics of the very early universe. That doesn't mean god-did-it is the right answer, or even a reasonable hypothesis. Every claim has to be evaluated on its own merits, and right now we have zero evidence to support the god-did-it claim. We could be wrong about everything we know about the universe, and it still wouldn't follow that god-did-it. Do you understand that?

 

[atrib]

Dew, what is a belief in a god but no particular god mean?

It means I'm a theist. I believe the universe and our existence was intentional as opposed to a-theists who claim its not the result of intent or plan or design.

I don't give a fuck what you believe. What you believe is immaterial. What you can demonstrate with facts and reason is all that matters. What you are doing here is preaching.

 

[atrib]

Same with the house. Even if it appeared weirdly to have just "come into existence", you surmise a HOW it can have been built and look for the traces to confirm it. Those traces are evidence. The house itself is not.

Its exactly what evidence is, evidence is a fact that makes a claim more likely. I went through what evidence is before I even listed one fact.

Indeed. You did all that. The one thing you did not do is provide the evidence that would convince a reasonable person that gods exist. That's because you have no evidence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Um, wait.
So, Drew keeps saying that theism REQUIRES a universe for theis to be 'true.'
But if God created the universe, there is assumed to have been a situation where God existed but the universe did not. So by that definition of theism, theism would not have been 'true' when the ONLY THING THAT EXISTED was the god that theism is usually centered on.

A hundred quatloos that Drew ignores this problem with his definition.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

Yes only mindless forces with neither plan, intent or engineering degree must have done it without trying or wanting to. When all else fails Naturedidit.

So you've abandoned actually trying to make a case for your position.

 

[Elixir]

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

Yes only mindless forces with neither plan, intent or engineering degree must have done it ...

Oh I'm sure The Designer had an engineering degree. And from a good school too. In fact, one of his professors may well have PREDICTED that he would design something wonderful like a universe. Of course the design was based on a plan - some might say it was stolen from the professor who described it in Universe Design 102. But the professor never carried out the plan, so the student gets all the glory... ain't that the way it always goes?

 

[steve_bank]

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

Yes only mindless forces with neither plan, intent or engineering degree must have done it without trying or wanting to. When all else fails Naturedidit.

Like I said, the past creationists on the forum were much more developed and organized.

Still no factual evidence or a consistent argument for a creator from you. Ersatz theology.

What you call your mind and thinking is what? The reslt of mullions of mindless ongoing chemical reactions in your brain at the atomic scale. Disruptions of brain chemistry affects your thoughts.

You are a bag of mindless water. You came from the mindless combination of sperm and egg.

Etc.etc,etc....

 

[blastula]

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

Yes only mindless forces with neither plan, intent or engineering degree must have done it without trying or wanting to. When all else fails Naturedidit.

Explain my sciatica then. Where did God get their engineering degree at? Clown college?

 

[Drew2008]

I can point you to millions of documented cases of people building houses. Can you point me to a single documented instance of gods creating universes? Do you not understand why your analogy is flawed?

No as I said the existence of a house makes the claim the house was intentionally built more probable than if houses didn't exist. If no houses existed the claim houses we're intentionally caused would be falsified. The same would be true if only one house existed and we have no idea how it got there.

A better analogy is like detectives who come across a corpse. They put up tape all around the entire crime scene. One of the detectives believes its foul play the other believes it natural causes. Without any other information they both have at least one fact that supports either claim. A corpse supports the claim the death occurred to natural causes but it also supports the claim it was intentionally caused. Because either claim requires a dead body. The claim the universe was caused intentionally is supported by the existence of a universe. However the claim without God or a Creator doesn't exist doesn't require a universe to exist, or stars, or planets, or gravity or oxygen.

Some here suggest the universe always existed but that's pure naturalism in the gaps. There is a lot of evidence it began to exist. If the universe always existed then time always existed and that would extremely problematic.

 

[blastula]

No as I said the existence of a house makes the claim the house was intentionally built more probable than if houses didn't exist. If no houses existed the claim houses we're intentionally caused would be falsified.

This is sophistry since it's equally true for every single claim for why the universe exists. It gets you nowhere in demonstrating theism.

 

[steve_bank]

I can point you to millions of documented cases of people building houses. Can you point me to a single documented instance of gods creating universes? Do you not understand why your analogy is flawed?

No as I said the existence of a house makes the claim the house was intentionally built more probable than if houses didn't exist. If no houses existed the claim houses we're intentionally caused would be falsified. The same would be true if only one house existed and we have no idea how it got there.

A better analogy is like detectives who come across a corpse. They put up tape all around the entire crime scene. One of the detectives believes its foul play the other believes it natural causes. Without any other information they both have at least one fact that supports either claim. A corpse supports the claim the death occurred to natural causes but it also supports the claim it was intentionally caused. Because either claim requires a dead body. The claim the universe was caused intentionally is supported by the existence of a universe. However the claim without God or a Creator doesn't exist doesn't require a universe to exist, or stars, or planets, or gravity or oxygen.

Some here suggest the universe always existed but that's pure naturalism in the gaps. There is a lot of evidence it began to exist. If the universe always existed then time always existed and that would extremely problematic.

You are making the Watchmaker Argument? An oldie but a goodie.

People make houses therefore somebody made the universe?

At least with a house you can sue the builder if it falls down or leaks. Who do we complainn to for killer asteroids?

Naturalism sayswhatver exists is by definition natural. That precludes a supernatural-natural dichotomy. Assertions have to be based in objective observation and evidence.

You have yet to provide your evidence.

The Watchmaker Argument is an assertion with no evidence or proof.

 

[atrib]

You ignored everything else I said in my post that you quoted from, because it clearly exposed the problems with your claims. Fucking dishonest theist!

I can point you to millions of documented cases of people building houses. Can you point me to a single documented instance of gods creating universes? Do you not understand why your analogy is flawed?

No as I said the existence of a house makes the claim the house was intentionally built more probable than if houses didn't exist. If no houses existed the claim houses we're intentionally caused would be falsified.

If no houses existed, then the concept of a "house" would not exist. There would be literally nothing to talk about.

The same would be true if only one house existed and we have no idea how it got there.

If we didn't know how the house got there, it would be foolish to claim that an entity from outside the local universe built it. We would need to investigate and study the house to see if a house was consistent with things created by humans.

A better analogy is like detectives who come across a corpse. They put up tape all around the entire crime scene. One of the detectives believes its foul play the other believes it natural causes. Without any other information they both have at least one fact that supports either claim. A corpse supports the claim the death occurred to natural causes but it also supports the claim it was intentionally caused. Because either claim requires a dead body.

Until an autopsy is conducted to determine the cause of death, it would be foolish to believe any scenario with any degree of confidence - homicide versus natural causes.

You are making an explicit claim that the universe requires creation by an intelligent mind without having conducted an "autopsy". Which makes your claim foolishly premature at best. Worse, you have ruled out all other potential explanations, known and unknown, and are fixated on this one explanation, which makes you blind to everything else.

Moreover, for everything we know about the reality we find ourselves in, god-did-it has never been demonstrated to be a good answer. Not one fucking time. God-did-it has an abysmal track record when it comes to explaining anything. Naturalism, on the other hand, has answered many questions, and has demonstrated its utility as an epistemological process that we rely on for pretty much everything in our modern lives. Based on this past history, I would choose scientific naturalism over god-did-it as my preferred methodology every fucking time.

And finally, enough with the fucking analogies. Present the evidence, or at a minimum, articulate an argument based on facts and reason that supports your claim. "The universe could not have come to exist without the intervention of a supernatural, intelligent creator because ______________________________". Stop wasting our time with your preaching and fill in the fucking blanks.

The claim the universe was caused intentionally is supported by the existence of a universe. However the claim without God or a Creator doesn't exist doesn't require a universe to exist, or stars, or planets, or gravity or oxygen.

Some here suggest the universe always existed but that's pure naturalism in the gaps. There is a lot of evidence it began to exist. If the universe always existed then time always existed and that would extremely problematic.

I have explained this several times before in other posts directed at you - perhaps you missed those posts. We don't know anything about the early universe (prior to about 10^(-32) seconds following the Big Bang event), and there isn't sufficient evidence to confidently declare that the universe "began to exist". We simply don't know. And, our current understanding does not rule out either option - an eternal universe, or a universe that appeared ex nihilo.

If the universe always existed then time always existed and that would extremely problematic.

Just not in any way that you can articulate.

 

[Elixir]

Every house we've ever seen built has a creator. Therefore every house we see, we can assume it had a creator.

People's first houses were caves.
So every cave has a creator?
Or were Creators created only with the advent of dimensional lumber?
Of course every 2"x6" piece of wood has a creator... unless one occurs "naturally". In which case...

MORE REGRESSION, PLEASE!

... theists are a hoot!