What would count as proof of God

[pood]

And then you come back and just repeat it like a glitch in a program.

It‘s a feature, not a bug.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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?

Design from the un designed designer. Good stuff.

Intent from the unintended intender. More good stuff.

 

[Rhea]

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?

It often looks like that is exactly what they are doing.

 

[Rhea]

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.

And yet, the one and only piece of “evidence” that you have been able to offer is that if a universe exists, that is evidence for a creator. That’s it. That’s the only “evidence” that you have offered.

If Leprechauns create universes, then a universe with four leaf clovers would exist. Since a universe with four leaf cloers exist, then leprechauns are MORE LIKELY than your god, which does not require four leaf clovers.

Your one and only piece of “evidence” is evidence of everything and therefore i is not evidence at all.

But you keep repeating it.
Fascinating.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I

Your one and only piece of “evidence” is evidence of everything and therefore i is not evidence at all.

But you keep repeating it.
Fascinating.

Piers Anthony wrote The Incarnations of Immortality. People in the series rise to take the place as the personification of Death, Fate, Time, etc.
In one scene, War enters a dojo and demonstrates every single move in a particular kata. Fighters square off and he takes them out, one at a time, in the listed order.
One guy gets brushed off, though. His turn corresponds to a move that is a response to a particular attack. So War cannot demonstrate it unless he's attacked properly.
The guy realizes this, finally cooperates and makes the proper attack, gets taken out by the next kata move. But only when he makes the right move to lose.

Maybe there's some particularly devastating blow Drew has, like a comic's practiced riposte to a heckler? And we just cannot get any further until someone delivers the right straightline?

 

[Rhea]

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.

This is not true at all. I have no idea what math you took that makes you think this is true, but it is absolutely not true, as you have been shown. And yet here you are saying it again.

…

Here’s something to think about: if you are certain that there is absolutley nothing we can say that will change your mind or cause yoou to think about the rubuttals you are hearing, then “evidence” and “logic” and “reason” are not part of your plan. Is that who you think you are? Or do you have a different picture of yourself? Are you open to being pursuaded? Are you?

The atheists here have all asked you for your evidence. Your mechanistic explanation. They’ve offered mechanistic explanations to you, they’ve shown exactly how your analogies break down, they’ve shown exactly how your probabilities are flawed. And you respond by just repeating the exact same argument again.


I mean, I guess you did say you thought you were doing a wonderful job, so maybe you like this view of yourself. One who makes a claim and does not respond to the discussion of that claim with anything but a repeat of the claim. Maybe that feels wonderful to you.

Me, I’d feel very unsure of my claim if I couldn’t really think about the counter claims and understand exactly what they meant and refute what the other person is actually saying. But for you, maybe not.

 

[Drew2008]

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

Nor does incredulity about theism but I always see it in ample supply. All that has to happen for atheism to be true is for no God or Creator of the universe exists. Theism has a far greater challenge because more things have to be true for there to be anyone around to agree with it. If no universe exists theism is false. Does atheism require a universe to exist? No. Theism requires life to exist.

F1. The universe exists
F2. Life exists.
F3. Intelligent life exists.

belief in the existence of a god or gods specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

I'm not making any claim about the probability of life occurring or how life came about. I point out it exists and theism requires it to exist for theism to be true. For there to be any theists or atheists to exist there has to be intelligent life. For atheism to be true none of these conditions has to obtain. The failure of anyone of them would falsify the claim of theism.

For these three facts to be true a myriad of conditions have to obtain. None of which is required for either atheism or naturalism to be true. There is good reason why secular non-religious people believe there is something behind it all. The counter explanation all this just happened to happen and that's that. You're not a skeptic if you don't subscribe to that edict...your incredulous. That's true lots of people are incredulous about that claim. What are you doing about it?

 

[Keith&Co.]

For these three facts to be true a myriad of conditions have to obtain. None of which is required for either atheism or naturalism to be true.

But nothing there is inconsistent with atheism.
Thus atheism is no more UNlikely than theism.
So, you've established bupkes.
A prolix path to sweet Fanny Adams, indeed

And scepticism is not defined by what one believes, but how one approaches knowledge.

You're just fractally wrong, ain't you?

 

[Drew2008]

Here’s something to think about: if you are certain that there is absolutley nothing we can say that will change your mind or cause yoou to think about the rubuttals you are hearing, then “evidence” and “logic” and “reason” are not part of your plan. Is that who you think you are? Or do you have a different picture of yourself? Are you open to being pursuaded? Are you?

If the new Webster telescope reveals this is one of many (or an infinitude of universes) I will concede that provides a viable explanation for the myriad of conditions necessary for intelligent human life. As it stands with no verifiable evidence its the ultimate time and chance, naturalism in the gaps argument.

Second I stated the available evidence as is often the case doesn't go in just one direction. For instance I concede evolution is a point in your favor as a naturalistic method in which more complicated life evolved. If it becomes known how to get life to start that would be a feather in atheists cap. That is if it can be shown it could have occurred without any intentional interference.

People would see atheists in a different light if rather than denying there is any actual fact that supports belief in theism they conceded there are reasons to think such might be true but here's why we disagree.

 

[Drew2008]

Here’s something to think about: if you are certain that there is absolutley nothing we can say that will change your mind or cause yoou to think about the rubuttals you are hearing, then “evidence” and “logic” and “reason” are not part of your plan. Is that who you think you are? Or do you have a different picture of yourself? Are you open to being pursuaded? Are you?

If the new Webster telescope reveals this is one of many (or an infinitude of universes) I will concede that provides a viable explanation for the myriad of conditions necessary for intelligent human life. As it stands with no verifiable evidence its the ultimate time and chance, naturalism in the gaps argument.

Second I stated the available evidence as is often the case doesn't go in just one direction. For instance I concede evolution is a point in your favor as a naturalistic method in which more complicated life evolved. If it becomes known how to get life to start that would be a feather in atheists cap. That is if it can be shown it could have occurred without any intentional interference.

People would see atheists in a different light if rather than denying there is any actual fact that supports belief in theism they conceded there are reasons to think such might be true but here's why we disagree.

Don't get me wrong religious folks can be as easily as obnoxious and insufferable.

 

[Keith&Co.]

People would see atheists in a different light if rather than denying there is any actual fact that supports belief in theism they conceded there are reasons to think such might be true but here's why we disagree.

Ah. Then you don't want any 'evidence for god' fora, you want more of a "why would we compromise our integrity to garner a better reception among people who accept piss poor arguments, self-serving and faulty definitions, and haughty projdction' forum.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If you wish to prove something is real you must define what you are looking for. That's impossible with gods. Then you'd have to set up an experiment that would reveal it. Again, impossible with gods. As stated elsewhere that's because gods are just labels without any content.

I was reading an article where someone claimed that their being alive after the tornadoes was a miracle. Okay then, we have a way to prove miracles. Dozens of people die a horrible death but not everyone. That's a miracle, an event. But if someone wishes to define a miracle as including woo that's not the same thing. We'd have to demonstrate the woo too.

Maybe we should look at the god thing similarly, defining it in terms that can be demonstrated. Of course that's what the people would have to do that say they have a god. Then we could check if they really do.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

Nor does incredulity about theism but I always see it in ample supply. All that has to happen for atheism to be true is for no God or Creator of the universe exists. Theism has a far greater challenge because more things have to be true for there to be anyone around to agree with it. If no universe exists theism is false. Does atheism require a universe to exist? No. Theism requires life to exist.

F1. The universe exists
F2. Life exists.
F3. Intelligent life exists.

belief in the existence of a god or gods specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

I'm not making any claim about the probability of life occurring or how life came about.

I'd go one step further and say you aren't actually claiming anything. And you are positing relative probability in your argument. Probabilities that are entirely made up / meaningless.

Look, when I roll this die, it'll be a six.

F1. This die exists. If the die didn't exist, the chances of rolling a six is impossible.
F2. I possess this die. Having the die means I can and will roll the die which increases the chances of getting a six to a non-zero value.
F3. I roll the die. The chances of it being a six are greater than if I didn't roll the die and is 1 in 6 odds.

 

[steve_bank]

An older term is deist for a believer in a creator but no organized religion. In colonial times Thomas Jefferson was labeled a deist as were other figures.

belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.

Jefferson published a bible purged of many of the supernatural claims.


Drew appears to ciam to be a desist, yet has all the substrates of evangelical Christians, hostility directed at non believing atheists along wit an inability ot objectively back any claims. Proof is the belief itself.

 

[Drew2008]

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.

Yes they do, they point to a phenomenon known as a singularity. A phenomenon that exists where the laws of nature, physics and time don't exist.

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.

I don't have time to respond to every post I pick the most salient and articulate. This isn't a paid profession.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Yes they do, they point to a phenomenon known as a singularity. A phenomenon that exists where the laws of nature, physics and time don't exist.

That's not the cause, though. That's the condition the universe appears to have gone through.
This is like saying that the revolving door in the lobby is the cause of someone entering the lobby.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

Yes they do, they point to a phenomenon known as a singularity. A phenomenon that exists where the laws of nature, physics and time don't exist.

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.

I don't have time to respond to every post I pick the most salient and articulate. This isn't a paid profession.

What can be more important than defending the Creator?

Actually you have not really responded to any post, other than attacking evil naturalist atheists, without reallyundertanding science, naturalism, and atheists.

 

[Drew2008]

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.

Modern proponents of one or more of the multiverse hypotheses include Don Page,[16] Brian Greene,[17][18] Max Tegmark,[19] Alan Guth,[20] Andrei Linde,[21] Michio Kaku,[22] David Deutsch,[23] Leonard Susskind,[24] Alexander Vilenkin,[25] Yasunori Nomura,[26] Raj Pathria,[27] Laura Mersini-Houghton,[28][29][30] Neil deGrasse Tyson,[31] Sean Carroll[32] and Stephen Hawking.[33]

Scientists who are generally skeptical of the multiverse hypothesis include: David Gross,[34] Paul Steinhardt,[35][36] Anna Ijjas,[36] Abraham Loeb,[36] David Spergel,[37] Neil Turok,[38] Viatcheslav Mukhanov,[39] Michael S. Turner,[40] Roger Penrose,[41] George Ellis,[42][43] Joe Silk,[44] Carlo Rovelli,[45] Adam Frank,[46] Marcelo Gleiser,[46] Jim Baggott[47] and Paul Davies.[48]


What’s wrong with the argument? What’s wrong is the claim that the values of the constants of nature that we observe are unlikely. There is no way to ever quantify this probability because we will never measure a constant of nature that has a value other than the one it does have. If you want to quantify a probability you have to collect a sample of data. You could do that, for example, if you were throwing dice.Throw them often enough, and you get an empirically supported probability distribution.

But we do not have an empirically supported probability distribution for the constants of nature. And why is that. It’s because… they are constant. Saying that the only value we have ever observed is “unlikely” is a scientifically meaningless statement. We have no data, and will never have data, which allow us to quantify the probability of something we cannot observe. There’s nothing quantifiably unlikely, therefore, there’s nothing in need of explanation.

I'm not making a probability argument. She doesn't disagree that certain constants have to obtain for galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets to exist (and life). She disagrees we can quantify the probability.

Martin Rees 'Just Six Numbers'

This book describes six numbers that now seem especially significant. Two of them relate to
the basic forces; two fix the size and overall>texture= of our universe and determine whether it will
continue for ever; and two more fix the properties of space itself:

The cosmos is so vast because there is one crucially important huge numberN in nature, equal to
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. This number measures the strength of the
electrical forces that hold atoms together, divided by the force of gravity between them. If N had a
few less zeros, only a short-lived miniature universe could exist: no creatures could grow larger than
insects, and there would be no time for biological evolution.

Another number, o, whose value is 0.007, defines how firmly atomic nuclei bind together and
how all the atoms on Earth were made. Its valu e controls the power from the Sun and, more
sensitively, how stars transmute hydrogen into all the atoms of the periodic table. Carbon and
oxygen are common, whereas gold and uranium are rare,because of what happensin the stars. Ifo
were 0.006 or 0.008, we could not exist.

The cosmic number Ω (omega) measures the amount of material in our universe B galaxies,
diffuse gas, and >dark matter=. Ω tells us the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in
the universe. If this ratio were too high relative to a particular >critical= value, the universe would
have collapsed long ago; had it been too low, no galaxies of stars would have formed. The initial
expansion speed seems to have been finely tuned.

Measuring the fourth number, λ (lambda), was the biggest scientific news of 1998. An
unsuspected new forceB a cosmic >antigravity= B controls the expansion of our universe, even though
it has no discernible effect on scales less than a billi on light-years. It is destined to become ever
more dominant over gravity and other forces as our universe becomes ever darker and emptier.
Fortunately for us (and very surprisingly to theorists), λ is very small. Otherwise its effect would
have stopped galaxies and stars from forming, and cosmic evolution would have been stifled before
it could even begin.

The seeds for all cosmic structuresB stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxiesB were all imprinted
in the Big Bang. The fabric ofour universe dependson one number,Q, which represents the ratio of
two fundamental energies and is about 1/100,000 in value. If Q were even smaller, the universe
would be inert and structureless; ifQ were much larger, it would be a violent place, in which no stars
or solar systems could survive, dominated by vast black holes.

By the way Sir Martin Rees is an atheist. He believes in multiverse in part because he thinks obtaining with these exacting conditions by chance with one shot is nil. Therefore he believes this is one of an infinitude of universes with varying constants and properties.

Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse

Experts in probability have spotted a logical flaw in theorists’ reasoning

www.scientificamerican.com

We exist, and we are living creatures. It follows that the universe we live in must be compatible with the existence of life. However, as scientists have studied the fundamental principles that govern our universe, they have discovered that the odds of a universe like ours being compatible with life are astronomically low. We can model what the universe would have looked like if its constants—the strength of gravity, the mass of an electron, the cosmological constant—had been slightly different. What has become clear is that, across a huge range of these constants, they had to have pretty much exactly the values they had in order for life to be possible. The physicist Lee Smolin has calculated that the odds of life-compatible numbers coming up by chance is 1 in 10^229.

Physicists refer to this discovery as the “fine-tuning” of physics for life. What should we make of it? Some take this to be evidence of nothing other than our good fortune. But many prominent scientists—Martin Rees, Alan Guth, Max Tegmark—have taken it to be evidence that we live in a multiverse: that our universe is just one of a huge, perhaps infinite, ensemble of worlds. The hope is that this allows us to give a “monkeys on typewriters” explanation of the fine-tuning. If you have enough monkeys randomly jabbing away on typewriters, it becomes not so improbable that one will happen to write a bit of English. By analogy, if there are enough universes, with enough variation in the numbers in their physics, then it becomes statistically likely that one will happen to have the right numbers for life.

This explanation makes intuitive sense. However, experts in the mathematics of probability have identified the inference from the fine-tuning to the multiverse as an instance of fallacious reasoning. Specifically, multiverse theorists commit the inverse gambler’s fallacy, which is a slight twist on the regular gambler’s fallacy. In the regular gambler’s fallacy, the gambler has been at the casino all night and has had a terrible run of bad luck. She thinks to herself, “My next roll of the dice is bound to be a good one, as it’s unlikely I’d roll badly all night!” This is a fallacy, because for any particular roll, the odds of, say, getting a double six are the same: 1/36. How many times the gambler has rolled that night has no bearing on whether the next roll will be a double six.

Other theorists later realized that the charge applies quite generally to every attempt to derive a multiverse from fine-tuning. Consider the following analogy. You wake up with amnesia, with no clue as to how you got where you are. In front of you is a monkey bashing away on a typewriter, writing perfect English. This clearly requires explanation. You might think: “Maybe I’m dreaming … maybe this is a trained monkey … maybe it’s a robot.” What you would not think is “There must be lots of other monkeys around here, mostly writing nonsense.” You wouldn’t think this because what needs explaining is why this monkey—the only one you’ve actually observed—is writing English, and postulating other monkeys doesn’t explain what this monkey is doing.

 

[Drew2008]

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.

Are you saying atheists now believe the universe was intentionally caused and designed?

 

[Drew2008]

Look, when I roll this die, it'll be a six.

F1. This die exists. If the die didn't exist, the chances of rolling a six is impossible.
F2. I possess this die. Having the die means I can and will roll the die which increases the chances of getting a six to a non-zero value.
F3. I roll the die. The chances of it being a six are greater than if I didn't roll the die and is 1 in 6 odds.

I'm looking for the flaw in your reasoning but it appears sound. If dice didn't exist the chance of rolling a 6 with non-existent die is zero. The chance of rolling a six is as you point out 1 in 6. If you attempt to prove die can come up with the number 6 you would establish the existence of die first.