What would count as proof of God

[Learner]

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.

Sorry about that....

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.

Evolution process - regarding life, I know, accept & understand the convention. My thought then from your answer, which is counter to the begininng of the universe or BB. You accept life forms may have always existed long before the existence of life on earth, in theory at least. Curiously, I would have pondered on the thought, asking myself: Would/could there be evolving intelligent life among those life forms previously existing before the earth? That would have developed, Just as we have developed, in what I would inagine in our case, on a time scale, within a 'blnk of an eye' in comparison to an eternity. Enough countless time, to have passed by for life to have developed and be seen out there in all directions.

 

[pood]

Drew,

Now you are comparing the universe to a corpse. Earlier it was a house. And on and on.

To recap: we know exactly where houses come from. They are designed. We know where corpses come from. They occur from natural causes such as old age, or accidents, or homicide.

There are many houses and many corpses.

There is one universe.

Because there is one universe, you cannot offer a probability estimate between, God created the universe, and, the universe is self-explanatory. You cannot make probability estimates on the basis of one data point. This has been explained to you.

We have seen people build houses and make corpses. We have never seen anyone create a universe, and of course there is only one universe.

To say that God created the universe is to try to solve a problem that requires no solution. But worse, it’s not even a solution. You’ve just pushed the problem back one step. If the universe requires an explanation, and the explanation is God, then God requires an explanation. Who created God, and who created God’s creator?

If you say God does not need an explanation, you have contradicted yourself. If God does not require an explanation, why does the universe? You can’t have it both ways.

But talking to you is a waste of time, I know. You’re not interested in the merit or logic of your arguments. You’re interested in preaching.

So why are you here? Do you really think you are going to convince others with the poor arguments that you offer? Or are you trying to convince yourself?

 

[Drew2008]

You are making a probability argument.

No I'm not offering probabilities or odds. I'm offering facts which make a conclusion more probable than not. I've defined evidence and explained what it is. Sorry if you can't either comprehend it or wish to deny it.

Now, Drew, first, I’ve been very polite to you. If you want to go the snarky route, believe me, I can.

But, first, as Bilby just pointed out, you contradicted yourself! You‘re not offering a probability argument, you say, only facts which make a conclusion more probable than not!

I mean, really.

Is that the best you can do? If so, save it for Sunday School sermons for knuckle draggers and nose pickers.

OK, I’m provisionally turning off the snark now. In the future, if you wish to engage with me, do so respectfully, and none of this “you lack reading comprehension” bullshit cop out. If you desire to go that route, then the mitts come off.

It’s very funny how theists who are so sure they are right suddenly break down into quivering blobs of passive-aggressive rage when their beliefs are challenged. Wonder why? Maybe they are not so confident in their BS after all?

More polite than most. We disagree. You're using probabilities in a mathematical or scientific sense which assigns odds to a probability. I'm using the legal sense where a fact that has probable value is considered evidence in favor of a conclusion. You can insist other wise but I believe I get to lay out my argument as I see fit. As to the theist, atheist debate I don't care if folks decline to believe we owe our existence to a Creator. There are facts (evidence) that support atheism (naturalism) by the definition I used I don't deny it. I do deny the atheist credo there is no evidence to support theism, not one single fact. Some claim theism is a completely and totally an unfounded faith claim and nothing more. That theists have no valid reason to have the opinion we owe our existence to a Creator.

I'm not sure theism is right...it's a belief and and opinion. I am sure there is reason and fact to support that belief.

 

[Drew2008]

Because there is one universe, you cannot offer a probability estimate between, God created the universe, and, the universe is self-explanatory. You cannot make probability estimates on the basis of one data point. This has been explained to you.

And I've explained why your counter argument is wrong. Yes I can. If I was in a civil court of law and asked to prove that houses are intentionally caused and designed exhibit one would be a house. If I was tasked to prove a murder occurred it would behoove me to have a dead body as the first line of evidence in favor of my case. Have you ever seen a murder case where they didn't prove someone was killed?

By the way you do know it nearly accepted orthodoxy among scientists is the belief in multiverse. I agree its naturalism in the gaps but many scientists seem to accept it as true.

 

[Drew2008]

Because there is one universe, you cannot offer a probability estimate between, God created the universe, and, the universe is self-explanatory. You cannot make probability estimates on the basis of one data point. This has been explained to you.

I'll shoot you a probability its 100% certain that if a universe doesn't exist then it was not intentionally caused to exist by a Creator and theism is false. True statement? Do you agree with those odds?

Now if a universe does exist is it still 100% certain that it wasn't caused intentionally? Do the odds of my claim being true change at all? Its a rhetorical question of course it makes it more probable than if not. Lets not forget theism requires a universe to exist atheism doesn't. The odds of atheism being true go down with the existence of a universe. We can disagree on this point but not negotiate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because there is one universe, you cannot offer a probability estimate between, God created the universe, and, the universe is self-explanatory. You cannot make probability estimates on the basis of one data point. This has been explained to you.

I'll shoot you a probability its 100% certain that if a universe doesn't exist then it was not intentionally caused to exist by a Creator and theism is false. True statement? Do you agree with those odds?

Now if a universe does exist is it still 100% certain that it wasn't caused intentionally? Do the odds of my claim being true change at all? Its a rhetorical question of course it makes it more probable than if not. Lets not forget theism requires a universe to exist atheism doesn't. The odds of atheism being true go down with the existence of a universe. We can disagree on this point but not negotiate.

So if there is no universe, what are the odds of a god existing?

If there is a universe, do the odds of a god existing change?

 

[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.

I only avoid your questions when they are stupid.

'Kay. Stupid by your count, though, still leaves a lot of room for a positive self-image.

Its true a Creator could exist sans a universe.

But that's not what you said up above. "For theism to be true" (in your weird use of the word)...etc.
But, your use of 'theism' is pretty idiomatic, so it's just an observation, not an argument.

Intrinsic to theism is the belief the Creator caused the universe to exist intentionally.

Only those examples of theism you're willing to acknowledge.

For God to exist to be true only God needs to exist. Theism requires many things to be true and they have obtained.

Just not in a way you can distinguish from any other possibility.

That is why many non-religious people believe the universe and our existence wasn't just happy happenstance.

I really doubt this is true, not in the way you're implying. Cite?

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.

Sez you. That's not what the word means, though, just your strawman.

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.

Not true.

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

This is your bias, not an actual fact.

What would be a greater miracle?

Your argument from incredulity is added to the other logical violations you persist in perpetrating.

 

[Drew2008]

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 don't have time to disabuse every notion.

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

If a universe and a host of other conditions didn't obtain the theism-atheism debate wouldn't exist. You're proving my point things have to be true for anyone to think theism is true and those things are true. Such as F1 The Universe exists and F2 Life exists.

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.

In the case of houses yes. In the case of the universe (which is what we're actually talking about) no. Scientists point to a cause outside of the universe to explain the existence of the universe. They just think the cause was mindless forces.

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.

There is a 100% confidence it was intentional or natural causes because either of those conclusions require a dead body. Do you know of any case where it was neither natural causes or intentional death? Or any case where both conclusions occur? The odds of one of those possibilities is true skyrockets at the advent of discovering a corpse.

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.

Keep your shorts on. I'm only on F2. I haven't ruled out anything. If you want to make a case please do so. That would be refreshing.

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.

Its a good answer for why the natural universe we exist in exists. Natural answers are good answers to phenomenon that occurs in the universe. I don't claim God caused a supernatural universe to exist just the natural one we now observe. The premise is that natural laws of physics successfully explain natural things we observe there for its natural explanations all the way down no intelligence or personal agent required. That's naturalism in the gaps and assumes its natural forces all the way down.

 

[Drew2008]

So why are you here? Do you really think you are going to convince others with the poor arguments that you offer? Or are you trying to convince yourself?

To disabuse atheists of their # 1 slogan. There is no evidence, no facts, no data no reason whatsoever to think we might owe our existence to a Creator. That is BS. And I'm doing a wonderful job stating one indisputable fact after another and demonstrating why those facts make my claim more likely.

 

[pood]

Because there is one universe, you cannot offer a probability estimate between, God created the universe, and, the universe is self-explanatory. You cannot make probability estimates on the basis of one data point. This has been explained to you.

And I've explained why your counter argument is wrong. Yes I can. If I was in a civil court of law and asked to prove that houses are intentionally caused and designed exhibit one would be a house. If I was tasked to prove a murder occurred it would behoove me to have a dead body as the first line of evidence in favor of my case. Have you ever seen a murder case where they didn't prove someone was killed?

By the way you do know it nearly accepted orthodoxy among scientists is the belief in multiverse. I agree its naturalism in the gaps but many scientists seem to accept it as true.

Well, this is certainly getting tiresome.

No, it’s not correct that it is orthodoxy among scientists that a multiverse exists. And even it were, what does this have to do with anything under discussion?

You agree “its [sic] naturalism in the gaps”? Agree with whom? With me? Did you even read what I wrote about your “naturalism in the gaps” argument? Yes? No? There is no such thing as a naturalism of the gaps argument.

Your probability arguments about corpses and houses and all the rest are probablistic arguments that don’t apply to the universe as a whole as I have already explained.

Scientists DO NOT point to a “cause outside of the universe to explain the universe,” as you wrote in a different post. You are either misinformed or lying.

There’s a lot of other babble here proving you won’t respond in good faith to what others write. There is very little reason eo engage you unless you respond specifically to all that I have written, and not just either ignore or cherry pick my posts.

 

[pood]

So why are you here? Do you really think you are going to convince others with the poor arguments that you offer? Or are you trying to convince yourself?

To disabuse atheists of their # 1 slogan. There is no evidence, no facts, no data no reason whatsoever to think we might owe our existence to a Creator. That is BS. And I'm doing a wonderful job stating one indisputable fact after another and demonstrating why those facts make my claim more likely.

LOL, you’re doing a lousy job. But I’m sure it makes you feel good to think you are doing a ”wonderful” job. That is the only reason you are here, to pat yourself on the back.

 

[pood]

Here, for those interested — probably not Drew — is the physicist Sabine Hossenfelder demolishing BOTH the fine-tuning argument AND the multiverse claim. So much for Drew’s claim about scientific orthodoxy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So why are you here? Do you really think you are going to convince others with the poor arguments that you offer? Or are you trying to convince yourself?

To disabuse atheists of their # 1 slogan. There is no evidence, no facts, no data no reason whatsoever to think we might owe our existence to a Creator. That is BS. And I'm doing a wonderful job stating one indisputable fact after another and demonstrating why those facts make my claim more likely.

Nooooo.
You haven't shifted the needle in the slightest. WE have no evidence for a creator. You being more credulous does not advance your "That is BS" argument by poopies.
For one, the only slogan all atheists have is "I don't believe in gods."
For another, you can't back shit up to save your deity.

 

[bilby]

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.

While there is no doubt whatsoever that a universe is a prerequisite for intelligent entities to come onto being. It's inherent in the definitions of 'universe'. Things that are not part of a universe are, by definition, imaginary and/or fictional.

 

[steve_bank]

The sky is blue, therefore the universe was painted by the Great Painter.

The universe is a chaotic mess with no meaning, therefore it was created by The Great Expressionist. He sent us his only begotten son, Jackson Pollock.

 

[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.

I only avoid your questions when they are stupid.

I dinnae say ye'd avoid the question.
And you owe me a hundred quatloos.

 

[bilby]

Atheism isn't just a disbelief in a claim, its also the claim that the universe came about (somehow)

No, it's really not.

You have been repeatedly informed by atheists that they do not all agree that the universe had a beginning. Why do you persist in saying that atheists make a claim that many of them are telling you unequivocally that they do NOT make?

Could it be that your arguments are in fact incapable of addressing actual atheism, and so you instead have invented a pretend atheism that is easier to argue against, in the hope that nobody will notice that you haven't even addressed the actual atheism that exists in the real world?

Because that's literally insane.

It would be exactly like me saying "Theism isn't just the claim that a god or gods exist; It's also the claim that ice cream never melts".

I can easily prove that latter claim to be abject nonsense; But sadly, as no theist actually makes that latter claim, doing so would just make me look like an ignorant wanker with no comprehension of logic or epistemology, and would not make the slightest dent in theism.

If you want to successfully challenge atheism, you need to start by challenging atheism as it actually is, not atheism as it might be in an ideal world where challenging it were easy.

 

[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.

Sorry about that....

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.

Evolution process - regarding life, I know, accept & understand the convention. My thought then from your answer, which is counter to the begininng of the universe or BB. You accept life forms may have always existed long before the existence of life on earth, in theory at least. Curiously, I would have pondered on the thought, asking myself: Would/could there be evolving intelligent life among those life forms previously existing before the earth? That would have developed, Just as we have developed, in what I would inagine in our case, on a time scale, within a 'blnk of an eye' in comparison to an eternity. Enough countless time, to have passed by for life to have developed and be seen out there in all directions.

In fact “life” isn’t the only thing that can comprise a population and undergo evolution. IMHO, if there is a Creator resembling the gods of any religion, its greatest, most elegant, most powerful Creation would be evolution.

 

[pood]

This, I think, is something well worth reading. Will Drew read it?

Does the Universe Need God?

It’s by the prominent physicist Sean Carroll.

The only cavil I have — if I, a non-physicist, may be permitted to quibble with someone of Carroll’s stature — is his analysis of fine tuning. He offers four possibilities to “explain” fine tuning, but omits a fifth possibility, as discussed by Sabine Hossenfelder, linked above, who is also a prominent physicist: that there is nothing to explain.

It may be worthwhile pointing out that most scientists agree that the universe is fine tuneED. It not follow that any of them believe in a fine tuneER.

Anyhow, let’s see if Drew reads it and responds to it. Most likely he won’t or will cherry pick it.

 

[Rhea]

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.

Why are you repeating this claim? You already made this claim. It’s already been refuted.

Seriously WHY are you making the same claim as if you have not already been refuted?
I am very curious.
Do you have memory problems?
Are you doing drugs?
Do you just have this one script and you keep repeating it because you don’t have any other vocabulary?

Seriously, what do you think about your “debate” when you do that? You said this already. It was answered already. It was shown to you already why it is not a successful analogy. It was shown, indeed, that it is a terrible analogy, that it does not make your case.

And then you come back and just repeat it like a glitch in a program.
Do you really not remember posting this before?

Genuine question. What are you thinking when you do this?