What would count as proof of God

[Learner]

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.

Hey Drew2008, I wonder if they would also suggest, that "evolution (and life forms) has always existed" too. No signs so far, even after eons and eons. Unless we are the first? I know... I know,.. so much time gone by, it doen't make sense.

 

[atrib]

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.

Yeah. He seems to be a noobie who has recently discovered a treasure trove of creationist arguments on the web. And now he's finding out that these arguments are crap.

 

[Elixir]

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

Now I'm REALLY curious. Is Drew claiming that time hasn't existed since the beginning of time because "that would extremely problematic"?
Or is it that "always" doesn't mean "since the beginning of time"?
Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[pood]

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.

So, naturalism in the gaps again. You haven’t read a single thing I wrote about this, have you? Or if you have, you deliberately ignore it, proving you have no interest good-faith discussion.

As noted earlier, the Big Bang is not evidence that the universe began to exist. We do not know, as others have noted, what happened at the big bang because we have no meta-theory to make quantum mechanics and general relativity compatible. As I noted earlier, the bang could represent a phase transition from an earlier state.

But it doesn’t matter if the universe began to exist or not. Whether it did or not, there was no time that the universe did not exist, and no time at which it will not exist. I already explained why earlier. I refer you back to the posts that you choose to ignore.

As to your house argument, see Hume. Or did you ignore that too?

 

[Drew2008]

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.

I only avoid your questions when they are stupid.

Its true a Creator could exist sans a universe. Intrinsic to theism is the belief the Creator caused the universe to exist intentionally. For God to exist to be true only God needs to exist. Theism requires many things to be true and they have obtained. That is why many non-religious people believe the universe and our existence wasn't just happy happenstance.

Atheism isn't just a disbelief in a claim, its also the claim that the universe came about (somehow) unintentionally and in a gratuitous act of serendipity caused the circumstances that allow our existence. That the universe, life and mind came about from forces that didn't intend their own existence never mind ours. Life came from non-life, mind came from mindless forces even though we've only observed life coming from life and mind coming from mind.

The irony is in attempting to eliminate the existence of an intelligent designer you require a greater miracle to occur. What would be a greater miracle? If mindless forces without plan or intent caused a virtual universe to exist or scientists, engineers and IT people caused a virtual universe to exist? It wasn't a miracle a virtual universe came into existence it was planning, design and intent to create one.

 

[pood]

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.

I only avoid your questions when they are stupid.

No, you avoid questions when they are inconvenient for your dogma.

 

[Elixir]

I wonder if they would also suggest, that "evolution (and life forms) has always existed" too.

Not sure I'm one of "them" so my answer, factual though it may be, may not qualify as a valid response to a theist.
But... anyway ...

We have no examples of populations of imperfectly self-replicating entities in dynamic fitness landscapes that do not evolve. It's what happens. Every time. Period. Evolution ALWAYS happens to such entities under those circumstances. ALWAYS.

Feel free to present a counter-example if you can.
(You can't. So this is about nothing more significant than a theist's definition of the common word "always")

 

[Drew2008]

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

Now I'm REALLY curious. Is Drew claiming that time hasn't existed since the beginning of time because "that would extremely problematic"?
Or is it that "always" doesn't mean "since the beginning of time"?
Inquiring minds want to know!

Time always existing would be problematic. We would have to cross an infinitude of time to arrive at the point in time the universe came into existence. Secondly scientists (not theologians) believe time began to exist at T-0.

 

[atrib]

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.

Hey Drew2008, I wonder if they would also suggest, that "evolution (and life forms) has always existed" too.

Nobody has made the claim that I am aware of. Why are you making up shit? Do you even understand what evolution is?

Go do your homework - read up on logical fallacies and let the grown-ups talk.

 

[Elixir]

Time always existing would be problematic.

For you, perhaps. But that's the fault of your dogma.
ITRW, at any point along the set of what might be contained in "always", there has been time.
There having been any point within always" when there was not time, isn't just problematic, it's nonsensical (like most theistic assertions).

 

[pood]

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

Now I'm REALLY curious. Is Drew claiming that time hasn't existed since the beginning of time because "that would extremely problematic"?
Or is it that "always" doesn't mean "since the beginning of time"?
Inquiring minds want to know!

Time always existing would be problematic. We would have to cross an infinitude of time to arrive at the point in time the universe came into existence. Secondly scientists (not theologians) believe time began to exist at T-0.

Oh yes, William Lane Craig‘s argument against an infinitude of time in the past. It’s wrong.

Scientists believe that T-0 at the bang is true IF the bang is a temporal boundary, as I have explained to you. If it is, it still remains the case that there is no time at which the universe did not exist, because there was no time before T-0.

 

[Learner]

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.

Hey Drew2008, I wonder if they would also suggest, that "evolution (and life forms) has always existed" too.

Nobody has made the claim that I am aware of. Why are you making up shit? Do you even understand what evolution is?

Go do your homework - read up on logical fallacies and let the grown-ups talk.

Take it easy Atrib, It was a pondering question, and not a claim that somewone else made that claim. (Fallacy?)

 

[Elixir]

Take it easy Atrib, It was a pondering question, and not a claim that somewone else made that claim.

...and a typically disingenuous question at that. I gave you the answer (post#507) and you ignored it for non-conformance with theist dogma.

 

[abaddon]

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.

I see "universe exists" as a bare fact. The evidence for ANY claims about this bare fact must be evidence that support those specific claims.

IOW, if the claim is "universe is made" then the evidence must be specifically about the act of making. The bare fact that "universe exists" makes a million claims possible so it's necessary to get more specific.

A corpse might have died from a heart attack or been murdered. "It's dead" isn't evidence for one or the other. The evidence will be whatever makes one more likely than the other.

If a detective wants to start with "it can have been murdered cuz... well there it lies!" he'll get eyes rolled at him because that's such a trite point it's stupid.

Evidence that a nostril has been picked isn't that the nostril exists. Maybe it's likely it's been picked but you need something more than "it's a nostril".

If you make the claim, any evidence you can provide must support that particular, specific claim. It can't be a bare fact for which a million claims might be made.

So I'm interested to see if there's anything that comes after "maybe there's a creator". Like for example, presentation of evidence for the creator that makes it more likely than the other claims that could be made about the universe (and that would also then need evidence).

Your incredulity about naturalism doesn't support creationism's case.

 

[Learner]

Take it easy Atrib, It was a pondering question, and not a claim that somewone else made that claim.

...and a typically disingenuous question at that. I gave you the answer (post#507) and you ignored it for non-conformance with theist dogma.

Ah cheers, but how long has your post been there, for you to determine I had ignored your post? Practically just a few minutes. A tad jumping the gun, don't you think? Or typically disengenuous.

 

[atrib]

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.

Hey Drew2008, I wonder if they would also suggest, that "evolution (and life forms) has always existed" too.

Nobody has made the claim that I am aware of. Why are you making up shit? Do you even understand what evolution is?

Go do your homework - read up on logical fallacies and let the grown-ups talk.

Take it easy Atrib, It was a pondering question, and not a claim that somewone else made that claim. (Fallacy?)

You were not pondering a question - you were trying to be sarcastic. But sarcasm only works when you understand the subject matter being discussed, and leads to embarressment if you don't.

Nobody has suggested that evolution (and life forms) have always existed. That is clearly an absurd postion, and nobody with even the slightest knowledge of cosmology and the history of our universe would suggest something so asinine. Clearly you don't know any of this, and you don't understand the implications of your "pondering".

If you don't understand what people are talking about, ask, and someone will explain or point you to a reference where you can learn. There is no shame in not knowing things, and ignorance can be cured if you make the effort.

 

[Learner]

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.

Hey Drew2008, I wonder if they would also suggest, that "evolution (and life forms) has always existed" too.

Nobody has made the claim that I am aware of. Why are you making up shit? Do you even understand what evolution is?

Go do your homework - read up on logical fallacies and let the grown-ups talk.

Take it easy Atrib, It was a pondering question, and not a claim that somewone else made that claim. (Fallacy?)

You were not pondering a question - you were trying to be sarcastic. But sarcasm only works when you understand the subject matter being discussed, and leads to embarressment if you don't.

Nobody has suggested that evolution (and life forms) have always existed. That is clearly an absurd postion, and nobody with even the slightest knowledge of cosmology and the history of our universe would suggest something like that. Clearly you don't know any of this, and you don't understand the implications of your "pondering".

If you don't understand what people are talking about, ask, and someone will explain or point you to a reference where you can learn. There is no shame in not knowing things, and ignorance can be cured if you make the effort.

Yes you are right... it was sarcasm ... at the same time. No argument or defense against that. I have seriously pondered on it too, in the past. Basically, IF it were the case that the universe has always existed, I would then think, perhaps life forms would have existed long before there was life on earth, considering the vast amounts of time that has passed.

 

[atrib]

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.

Hey Drew2008, I wonder if they would also suggest, that "evolution (and life forms) has always existed" too.

Nobody has made the claim that I am aware of. Why are you making up shit? Do you even understand what evolution is?

Go do your homework - read up on logical fallacies and let the grown-ups talk.

Take it easy Atrib, It was a pondering question, and not a claim that somewone else made that claim. (Fallacy?)

You were not pondering a question - you were trying to be sarcastic. But sarcasm only works when you understand the subject matter being discussed, and leads to embarressment if you don't.

Nobody has suggested that evolution (and life forms) have always existed. That is clearly an absurd postion, and nobody with even the slightest knowledge of cosmology and the history of our universe would suggest something like that. Clearly you don't know any of this, and you don't understand the implications of your "pondering".

If you don't understand what people are talking about, ask, and someone will explain or point you to a reference where you can learn. There is no shame in not knowing things, and ignorance can be cured if you make the effort.

Yes you are right... it was sarcasm ... at the same time. No argument or defense against that. I have seriously pondered on it too, in the past.

If you genuinely want to learn about evolution and the history of life on this planet, I can point you to some good resources. And I will be happy to answer any questions you might have along the way. All you have to do is ask, and follow through with sincerity.

 

[Elixir]

Ah cheers, but how long has your post been there, for you to determine I had ignored your post? Practically just a few minutes. A tad jumping the gun, don't you think? Or typically disengenuous.

Are we now pretending you're going to have a response to or acknowledgment of the salient fact that answers your "question"? Forgive me if I don't remain on the edge of my seat - it wouldn't be the first time that the fact of evolution is ignored in favor of arguing against what you think other people might believe about it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

I only avoid your questions when they are stupid.

Its true a Creator could exist sans a universe. Intrinsic to theism is the belief the Creator caused the universe to exist intentionally. For God to exist to be true only God needs to exist. Theism requires many things to be true and they have obtained. That is why many non-religious people believe the universe and our existence wasn't just happy happenstance.

Atheism isn't just a disbelief in a claim, its also the claim that the universe came about (somehow) unintentionally and in a gratuitous act of serendipity caused the circumstances that allow our existence. That the universe, life and mind came about from forces that didn't intend their own existence never mind ours. Life came from non-life, mind came from mindless forces even though we've only observed life coming from life and mind coming from mind.

To be fair, we have a pretty clear evolutionary ladder that is observable today, that falls in line with the idea life can come from non-life, when given enough time. Forget about the fossil record!

The irony is in attempting to eliminate the existence of an intelligent designer you require a greater miracle to occur.

So God can have serendipity, but not the universe. A God can exist without creation, but not the universe. The universe existing is a greater miracle, than an all powerful god existing without creation. Your argument is simply pushing the buck back one step.