What would count as proof of God

[Drew2008]

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.

That true because they believe something caused the singularity to become a universe.

 

[Drew2008]

But nothing there is inconsistent with atheism.
Thus atheism is no more UNlikely than theism.

Its funny you think its a good thing that nothing is inconsistent with atheism. That just means unlike theism its not falsifiable.

 

[Elixir]

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.

That true because they believe something caused the singularity to become a universe.

..or it always was “the universe”, or it morphed into the universe, or …
As others believe, a few ignorant sheep herders got the REAL skinny from the very old man in the sky with the long gray beard thousands of years ago, when he claimed that HE invented and created it. A very likely story indeed.

 

[pood]

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.

Don’t flatter yourself that anyone except maybe the Discovery Institute would pay you to spout trash.

 

[pood]

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 is not correct. It is not even known if there was a singularity. There is no way to know what happened before Planck time for the reason I gave, and which you predictably ignore: we have no theory of quantum gravity.

It is not the case that at the singularity, “the laws of nature, physics and time don’t exist“ — rather, we don’t know how to define them without a theory of quantum gravity.

This does NOT mean that scientists think a “cause outside of the universe“ caused the universe to exist. Did you read the Carroll article that I linked, which specifically addresses this point? No, of course not.

 

[pood]

Sean Carroll:

There is no reason, within anything we currently understand about the ultimate structure of reality, to think of the existence and persistence and regularity of the universe as things that require external explanation. Indeed, for most scientists, adding on another layer of metaphysical structure in order to purportedly explain these nomological facts is an unnecessary complication.

That is the standard scientific position on this. Stop making shit up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Yeah... that is the problem you seem to be suffering from. The argument (such as yours) is constructed to artificially make it appear that the chances of something happening increase, when in fact, they were always the same (1 in 6, non-existent). Tto be clear, there is a viable statistical value for rolling a six, where as there is no viable statistical relationship between the existence of life and a deity.

 

[atrib]

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.

It is impolite to preach, to continue to repeat claims that have been debunked without so much as acknowledging them. Such behavior is evidence that you are acting in bad faith, that you are not interested in an honest discussion. Challenging your unsupported, and often fallacious claims is not impolite, it is the appropriate response to counter misinformation.

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.

What facts would lead us to conclude that a creator god designed our universe? Please list these facts, and explain how the conclusion logically follows from said facts.

You can insist other wise but I believe I get to lay out my argument as I see fit.

Sure. But you haven't made any valid arguments so far. Lets summarize your arguments:

1. Circular argument
Gods create universes
The universe exists
Therefore, god created our universe

2. Argument from ignorance
Atheists can't explain how the universe originated
Therefore, god-did-it is a good answer

3. Argument from fine tuning (also flawed)
We know houses are built by intelligent entities.
Therefore, god created our universe

Did I miss any? All of these arguments are flawed, for the reasons explained in previous posts. And if you continue to repeat them, after you have been shown why the arguments are flawed, you are arguing in bad faith.

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.

For the 7th fucking time, atheism is a lack of belief in gods, because atheists do not find the evidence/argument for gods persuasive. Please pay attention, because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is, and people are tired of trying to correct your mistakes.

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.

So show us the facts and reason to support theistic belief. What is stopping you from doing that?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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?

Creationists believe in an unintended creator. I don't see how this is any different than accepting an unintended universe. What gave the creator its design, intelligence, life, existence, etc.? How is it that creationists don't see such an obvious flaw in their argument? Why don't creationists apply the same reasoning to their creator that they apply to the universe?

 

[pood]

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.

Yes, she disagrees we can quantify the probability. Yet you ARE making a probability argument, without addressing the point that we can‘t quantify the probability! You are just being disingenuous, especially when you then go on to invoke Rees to claim that the probability of a universe with life-enabling properties is nil!

Wait! What happened to the ”we can’t quantify the probability” point?

Unless you can show we can quantify the probabilities, the fine-tuning argument is useless.

 

[pood]

Drew, you cannot logically say you aren’t employing a probability argument, and then two sentences later employ a probability argument. Surely you must notice this inconsistency?

 

[bilby]

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?

Thanks, but I wasn't asking you for another example, just recommending that you stop doing it because it's stupid and pointless.

 

[bilby]

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 true because they believe something caused the singularity to become a universe.

I have already explained this. A singularly is not a phenomenon, and nobody thinks a singularity became the universe, caused the universe, or was the beginning of the universe. That's just your misunderstanding of what the word 'singularity' means.

This was pointed out to you back on December 5th

 

[steve_bank]

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.

That true because they believe something caused the singularity to become a universe.

If you are talking about the BB yes. The theory extrapolates back in time from observation today. The observations say objects in the observed universe are all sall moving away from each other, indicating a central event of some kind.

What led up to the BB is not known.

Ideas that are tossed around

The BB is one of many BBs. In an infinte universe they coud be common.
Depending on parameters of relativity we couLd be in a b;ack kole of sorts, we can't see anything beyond a boundary.

Keep in mind our observational limits are based in how low a level of electromagnetic radiation we can detec.

The Hubble Deep Feild Picture is an example. The Hubble was pointed a what appeared to be a dark region in space on successive passess essentially summing the photons on each pass. The result, many visible objects.

The Hubble Deep Fields

esahubble.org

The point being th BB Theory is based on objective observation and demonstrable science in the here and now.

Ancient Zog wtatched the moon, stars, and sun concluding Earth was the center of the universe.

Along came telescopes and we discover that is not true.

Ancient Zog being ignorant of any science concludes there must have been a creator. There must be spirits that make things happen. And here we are debating Zog's ancient conclusions with those who still do not comprehend science..

 

[steve_bank]

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?

As has been said a numbero f times, atheism is a very broad label.

There are people who if you ask will say they are atheist but believe in a conscious universe or a creative spirit or even a creator. On the flip side there are theists that would consider you atheist and your beiefs bogus.

In general usage at least in the USA atheist most generaly means rejection of the Abrahamic-Christian god,

I would say those you are debating here are hard atheists, absolute rejection of all and any gods, super beings, and creators.

 

[atrib]

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.

Yes, she disagrees we can quantify the probability. Yet you ARE making a probability argument, without addressing the point that we can‘t quantify the probability! You are just being disingenuous, especially when you then go on to invoke Rees to claim that the probability of a universe with life-enabling properties is nil!

Wait! What happened to the ”we can’t quantify the probability” point?

Unless you can show we can quantify the probabilities, the fine-tuning argument is useless.

There are many problems with the fine tuning argument.

The fine tuning argument presupposes that the universe was created to support life, without actually providing any facts or reasoning to support this premise. In fact, this premise is left unstated in creationist arguments, for obvious reasons. The argument then concludes that the universe was fine tuned to support life, which is entirely circular, because it presupposes the conclusion.

Improbable does not mean impossible. Improbable things happen all the time - people winning the lottery jackpot, people being struck by lightning, people being born with the exact sequence of 3 billion bases in their dna that they happened to be born with.

There is no data to establish the probabilities associated with the existence of universes that allow life to exist. We have only the local presentation of our visible universe to look at, and a sample size of one is not meaningful at assessing such probabilities.

 

[atrib]

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?

If the universe did not exist, we would not be around to discuss this question. Your point, if there is one, appears to be completely irrelevant to the present discussion.

Now if a universe does exist is it still 100% certain that it wasn't caused intentionally?

No. Because we don't know how the universe came to exist, or even whether it has always existed. This has been explained to you already.

For any argument to be accepted as being reasonable, or probable, the argument would have to be supported by sufficient evidence. Every argument has to be judged on its own merits - simply stating that atheists don't have an answer is not sufficient to accept the god-did-it hypothesis as being reasonable. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

Do the odds of my claim being true change at all?

You haven't provided any odds regarding your claim. And we have no idea how such odds could be estimated, given that
1. we don't know how the universe came to exist, or even if it has existed forever, and
2. you have provided no data or valid argument to support your assertion that creator gods exist, or how probable such a scenario might be, even hypothetically

Its a rhetorical question of course it makes it more probable than if not.

Its begging the question, is what it is. Its dishonest.

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.

Not in any way that you can articulate, much less support with facts and reason.
Atheism is a reasonable position to hold until valid arguments supported by factual evidence are provided to remove our skepticism to theistic claims.

We can disagree on this point but not negotiate.

And you would still be wrong.

 

[steve_bank]

Objective probabilites are based on enumeration of possible outcomes. Tossing a coim or a die.

The probability f the universe we see is 1 or 100%.

There is no objective probability for a creator. It is a subjective assessment of possibility based on subjective interpretation of observation.

 

[atrib]

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 true because they believe something caused the singularity to become a universe.

I have already explained this. A singularly is not a phenomenon, and nobody thinks a singularity became the universe, caused the universe, or was the beginning of the universe. That's just your misunderstanding of what the word 'singularity' means.

This was pointed out to you back on December 5th

He doesn't understand that the word singularity is used as a placeholder, to designate a state for which we have no data or knowledge. It doesn't mean what he thinks it means - that the universe did not exist, or that it had zero volume, or that the universe was a "singularity", whatever that means. I have also pointed this out to him in an earlier post, but instead of doing the research to understand what people are telling him, he continues to repeat the assertion like a mantra.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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 true because they believe something caused the singularity to become a universe.

I have already explained this. A singularly is not a phenomenon, and nobody thinks a singularity became the universe, caused the universe, or was the beginning of the universe. That's just your misunderstanding of what the word 'singularity' means.

This was pointed out to you back on December 5th

He doesn't understand that the word singularity is used as a placeholder, to designate a state for which we have no data or knowledge. It doesn't mean what he thinks it means - that the universe did not exist, or that it had zero volume, or that the universe was a "singularity", whatever that means. I have also pointed this out to him in an earlier post, but instead of doing the research to understand what people are telling him, he continues to repeat the assertion like a mantra.

I've always understood singularity to be a mathematic description, not a place where reality doesn't exist anymore. He doesn't discuss this and other points because doing so runs counter to his claims, so he just keeps repeating the party line. 'All those buried fossils are proof of Noah's global flood' kind of thing.

Is the best proof of god literally lies, ignorance and deception? That seems to be the case.