What would count as proof of God

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I've heard a lot of arguments for a god but never the argument from pizza gremlins. Excellent!

 

[Rhea]

… Therefore, Newton's model of gravitation cannot be used to predict the attraction between particles for very small values of r tending to zero, and it incorrectly predicts an infinitely large force when the particles merge at the limit. This is what scientists refer to as a singularity. r can never be zero in nature, nor can the gravitational attraction be infinite, no matter what Newton's law states. The law does not apply under these conditions.

…
Lets move on to cosmological models, since we are talking about the origins of the universe. Einstein published the theory of general relativity (GR) in the early 20th century, and since that time, GR has been the tool of choice to model the behavior of the universe at macroscopic scales.

… The word singularity does not imply an infinitely dense object, it is an artifact of our limited knowledge. This is what scientists call a singularity. The word singularity is used as a placeholder, an unknown quantity, just like we use the alphabet x in algebra. Do you understand now?

One would hope, that after Atrib’s accessibly written, easily understood explanation of why Drew’s use of the term “singularity” does not mean what he thinks it means, Drew would pause, have a “wow!” moment, and never again post the nonsense about science having a consensus about singularities that prove a god because he now understands that science does not agree with his interpretation at all.


I predict, alas! based on previous behavior, that Drew will have a catastrophic episode of cognitive dissonance, forcing him to forget completely that he ever read that interesting and useful description. And that he will post again exactly the same claim, that he read in some apologist’s website, as if no one else reading this can see what has happened.

HIs very own self-induced space-time fold; creating a sort of “oxbow universe” that no longer exists - the one in which he read this explanation.

 

[Drew2008]

The fine tuning argument presupposes that the universe was created to support life, without actually providing any facts or reasoning to support this premise.

It doesn't presuppose life existing...it observes life exists and seeks an explanations for how that state of affairs came about. I get fine-tuning of the universe for life means nothing to you or the majority of atheists. No atheist is going to say you know that is really a convincing argument but goddammit I'm going to remain an atheist anyway. You can dismiss the fine-tuning argument as you will any facts that support theism. Its essentially your job to do so. But scientists can't dismiss it neither do ordinary folks who see the facts about what goes into our being alive and having this discussion.

Circular arguments contain two assertions (as opposed to facts) both of which back each other up.

F2 Life exists is a fact I'm arguing from. If life didn't exist theism would be false. The fact it is true makes the claim theism more likely to be true minus said fact which would rule out theism. The existence of life isn't necessary for atheism or naturalism to be true.

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.

Neither theism or atheism is impossible. The odds of an individual winning the lotto is daunting low. If the odds are a million to one and a million people play the odds of someone winning are excellent. I get it atheists believe no Creator, designer was necessary for the universe, life and intelligent life to exist. Whats left but serendipity and luck on a infinite scale? That's your story and you're stuck with it. The irony here is some atheists (maybe not you) say that it would be too difficult for an intelligence to cause a universe and intelligent life to exist. However nothing is too daunting for mindless forces to stumble on it. Do you subscribe to multiverse theory?

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.

This isn't a scientific endeavor and I'm not establishing probabilities as you put it. The word isn't probability but probable. Its a legal term which I have explained and given examples of. Refresher a fact has probable value of the fact comports, agrees with supports a contention.

Second scientists are putting guesstimates out. Simple search

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.

Simple search Odds of a life permitting universe. Are you going to say its all a conspiracy made up by creationists?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hilarious.
'The Logical Fallacy Theory presupposes X.'
'No, it doesn't presuppose Z! So, there!'

 

[Drew2008]

Some people believe elves live in trees
The existence of tree-dwelling elves would be falsified if trees didn't exist
Trees exist
Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that tree-dwelling elves exist

You still haven't learned what probable evidence is. I'll keep teaching you. If you claimed tree dwelling Elves caused trees to exist and pointed to the trees existing as evidence I would agree the existence of trees makes your claim more probable then if trees didn't exist. This is obvious, plain and as simple as I can make it. If trees didn't exist your claim Elves made them would be falsified. By the way another reminder I never said the universe exists therefore God exists. Since theism is defined as the universe being intentionally created by God the universe is evidence the claim maybe true. Evidence are merely facts that make a proposition more likely. The point is a lot of atheists claim there is no fact, no data no evidence to support belief in theism. There is evidence and reason and that's why even non-religious people believe in God or a Creator. You'd be better off dealing with it and explaining it rather than deny it and claim no evidence.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Some people believe elves live in trees
The existence of tree-dwelling elves would be falsified if trees didn't exist
Trees exist
Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that tree-dwelling elves exist

You still haven't learned what probable evidence is. I'll keep teaching you. If you claimed tree dwelling Elves caused trees to exist and pointed to the trees existing as evidence I would agree the existence of trees makes your claim more probable then if trees didn't exist. This is obvious, plain and as simple as I can make it. If trees didn't exist your claim Elves made them would be falsified. By the way another reminder I never said the universe exists therefore God exists. Since theism is defined as the universe being intentionally created by God the universe is evidence the claim maybe true. Evidence are merely facts that make a proposition more likely. The point is a lot of atheists claim there is no fact, no data no evidence to support belief in theism. There is evidence and reason and that's why even non-religious people believe in God or a Creator. You'd be better off dealing with it and explaining it rather than deny it and claim no evidence.

What is your evidence?

 

[pood]

Drew,

As I pointed out some time ago, and which you did not address, you are mistaken in claiming that theism, if true, entails a universe. It is logically possible to imagine God exists without a universe at all. Since God is supposed to be omnipotent, he can choose to create a universe, or not to create a universe. If that is not so — if God MUST create as universe — then God is not omnipotent, as in at least this one circumstance his hand would be forced. Moreover, as I also pointed out, God is supposed to be perfect in every respect. If that is the case, what need has he to create a universe? If God felt the need to create a universe, this suggests that he was not perfect in every respect, because the lack of a universe would indicate that something was missing in God.

Moreover, even if it were true that God’s existence entails that he create a universe, which you have not demonstrated, it does not follow that the lack of a universe would falsify God’s existence. In order for a falsification check to work, there must be someone around to notice the falsification. If there is no universe, then there is no one around to notice the falsification.

Finally, falsification, if it is a valid criterion at all, applies only to scientific claims. God is not a scientific claim. In any case, falsification is contentious in science. Many scientists reject Popper outright.

Probative arguments are probability claims. As explained, you have not shown that fine tuning, or the very existence of the universe, can be quantified in a probabilistic way. Absent you demonstrating this, probative claims fail when it comes to fine tuning or to the existence of the universe.

I suggest that you do not flatter yourself that you are teaching anyone anything.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Drew,

As I pointed out some time ago, and which you did not address, you are mistaken in claiming that theism, if true, entails a universe. It is logically possible to imagine God exists without a universe at all. Since God is supposed to be omnipotent, he can choose to create a universe, or not to create a universe. If that is not so — if God MUST create as universe — then God is not omnipotent, as in at least this one circumstance his hand would be forced. Moreover, as I also pointed out, God is supposed to be perfect in every respect. If that is the case, what need has he to create a universe? If God felt the need to create a universe, this suggests that he was not perfect in every respect, because the lack of a universe would indicate that something was missing in God.

Moreover, even if it were true that God’s existence entails that he create a universe, which you have not demonstrated, it does not follow that the lack of a universe would falsify God’s existence. In order for a falsification check to work, there must be someone around to notice the falsification. If there is no universe, then there is no one around to notice the falsification.

Finally, falsification, if it is a valid criterion at all, applies only to scientific claims. God is not a scientific claim. In any case, falsification is contentious in science. Many scientists reject Popper outright.

Probative arguments are probability claims. As explained, you have not shown that fine tuning, or the very existence of the universe, can be quantified in a probabilistic way. Absent you demonstrating this, probative claims fail when it comes to fine tuning or to the existence of the universe.

I suggest that you do not flatter yourself that you are teaching anyone anything.

I'm optimistically holding out that after 35 years of being a skeptic that someone will finally give me some evidence of God! I'm standing by with braded breath...

 

[Rhea]

If you claimed tree dwelling Elves caused trees to exist and pointed to the trees existing as evidence I would agree the existence of trees makes your claim more probable then if trees didn't exist. This is obvious, plain and as simple as I can make it. […] Since theism is defined as the universe being intentionally created by God the universe is evidence the claim maybe true. Evidence are merely facts that make a proposition more likely.

Let the record show that Drew has just logically proved that the existence of his god is EXACTLY AS LIKELY as the existence of tree elves.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If you claimed tree dwelling Elves caused trees to exist and pointed to the trees existing as evidence I would agree the existence of trees makes your claim more probable then if trees didn't exist. This is obvious, plain and as simple as I can make it. […] Since theism is defined as the universe being intentionally created by God the universe is evidence the claim maybe true. Evidence are merely facts that make a proposition more likely.

Let the record show that Drew has just logically proved that the existence of his god is EXACTLY AS LIKELY as the existence of tree elves.

Don't forget pizza gremlins. It's another three in one.

 

[steve_bank]

Which came first, the tree elve or the tree?

 

[atrib]

Some people believe elves live in trees
The existence of tree-dwelling elves would be falsified if trees didn't exist
Trees exist
Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that tree-dwelling elves exist

You still haven't learned what probable evidence is. I'll keep teaching you.

Please do that. I have learned so much from you already - gravitational singularities, circular arguments, how to use logical fallacies and so much more. I am humbled by your knowledge and keen insight, and your willingness to educate those who are not as intelligent and educated as you are. I look forward to your upcoming lecture on "probable evidence".

Meanwhile, here is some "probable evidence" that the universe was created by pan-dimensional pixies, and I learned it all from you:

Some people believe that pan-dimensional pixies created the universe with intelligent life in it
This belief would be falsified if a universe with intelligent life in it did not exist
The universe exists, and there is intelligent life in it
Therefore, the existence of the universe with intelligent life in it is evidence for the existence of pan-dimensional pixies

All I have done is substitute "pan-dimensional pixies" for "god" in your argument. I have no fucking clue what a pan-dimensional pixie is, and I have no evidence that they exist. Just as you have no fucking clue what a god is, and no evidence to suggest that a god exists. I can use the form and logic of your argument to prove pretty much anything, which should tell you that your argument is flawed, but your ego will not let you understand that.

If you claimed tree dwelling Elves caused trees to exist and pointed to the trees existing as evidence I would agree the existence of trees makes your claim more probable then if trees didn't exist. This is obvious, plain and as simple as I can make it. If trees didn't exist your claim Elves made them would be falsified.

See above.

By the way another reminder I never said the universe exists therefore God exists.

See revised argument for pan-dimensional pixies above.

Since theism is defined as the universe being intentionally created by God the universe is evidence the claim maybe true. Evidence are merely facts that make a proposition more likely. The point is a lot of atheists claim there is no fact, no data no evidence to support belief in theism.

Because there isn't. People who have evidence to support their arguments, argue the evidence. People who don't, just argue. You fall into the latter category.

There is evidence and reason and that's why even non-religious people believe in God or a Creator. You'd be better off dealing with it and explaining it rather than deny it and claim no evidence.

You haven't presented any evidence. You have presented flawed arguments riddled with fallacies and unsupported premises. And terrible analogies which make my head hurt with the stupid.

Drew2008: You still haven't learned what probable evidence is. I'll keep teaching you.

The term you are looking for is Bayesian Probability:

Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation[1] representing a state of knowledge[2] or as quantification of a personal belief.[3]

Feel free to present a formal Bayesian analysis for the proposition you are championing: that the universe was probably created by a god. Please don't forget to show us your work.
Hint: it is not going to work out the way you think it should work out.
Hint #2: You might want to read Richard Carrier's book entitled Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for Historical Jesus. While the book focuses primarily on the historicity of the Jesus claims, the procedures used by Carrier are universal, and apply just as well to the claim you are making.

Smart people learn from their mistakes and grow from their experiences of being corrected. You have a choice here - you can continue to make a fool out of yourself, and sacrifice your intellectual integrity along the way, or you can learn and become a better champion for your beliefs. Don't let your ego get in the way - you are better than that.

 

[Rhea]

Meanwhile, here is some "probable evidence" that the universe was created by pan-dimensional pixies, and I learned it all from you:

Some people believe that pan-dimensional pixies created the universe with intelligent life in it
This belief would be falsified if a universe with intelligent life in it did not exist
The universe exists, and there is intelligent life in it
Therefore, the existence of the universe with intelligent life in it is evidence for the existence of pan-dimensional pixies

I’m going to do you one better, Atrib. My case will be even more probable than yours or Drew’s.


Meanwhile, here is some "probable evidence" that the universe was created by magic tardigrades, and I learned it all from you:

Some people believe that Magical Tardigrades created the universe with intelligent life in it
This belief would be falsified if a universe with intelligent life in it did not exist
The universe exists, and there is intelligent life in it
Moreover, Tardigrades are known to exist.
Therefore, the existence of the universe with intelligent life in it combined with the existence of Tardigrades is even more probable evidence for the existence of Magical Tardigrades capable of creating a universe.

 

[atrib]

The fine tuning argument presupposes that the universe was created to support life, without actually providing any facts or reasoning to support this premise.

It doesn't presuppose life existing...

Note the highlighted parts. Not the same thing at all.

it observes life exists and seeks an explanations for how that state of affairs came about.

Why does life exist in the universe? Because the universe was created by an intelligent designer.
How do we know an intelligent designer exists? Because life exists in the universe.

Not circular at all!

Circular arguments contain two assertions (as opposed to facts) both of which back each other up.

The word is premise. Arguments are based on one or more premise, whose validity has to be established as part of the argument. And the premises have to lead to the conclusion. You don't even know how logical arguments are structured.

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.

Neither theism or atheism is impossible. The odds of an individual winning the lotto is daunting low. If the odds are a million to one and a million people play the odds of someone winning are excellent. I get it atheists believe no Creator, designer was necessary for the universe, life and intelligent life to exist. Whats left but serendipity and luck on a infinite scale? That's your story and you're stuck with it. The irony here is some atheists (maybe not you) say that it would be too difficult for an intelligence to cause a universe and intelligent life to exist. However nothing is too daunting for mindless forces to stumble on it. Do you subscribe to multiverse theory?

Which multiverse theory? There are several. Did you not know that?
I am not sufficiently educated in the subject matter to have a firm opinion. I tend to lean towards some version of the eternal inflation model, but will be happy to change my mind when/if a better model is proposed.
A link to Hawking's 2018 paper.

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.

This isn't a scientific endeavor and I'm not establishing probabilities as you put it.

Exactly. You are using intuition to decide how the universe originated. A subject you have no expertise in, and could not possibly have any intuition regarding. I am educated enough and smart enough to understand my intellectual limitations, unlike you.

The word isn't probability but probable. Its a legal term which I have explained and given examples of. Refresher a fact has probable value of the fact comports, agrees with supports a contention.

The term is Bayesian probability. I have talked about it in another post. Most people use some form of Bayesian analysis in their everyday lives to assess truth claims, even those who have never heard of the term Bayesian analysis.

Second scientists are putting guesstimates out. Simple search

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.

Simple search Odds of a life permitting universe. Are you going to say its all a conspiracy made up by creationists?

Does Smolin believe that the universe was created by a god? No he doesn't. He personally seems to like the Cosmological Natural Selection model. Talk about quote mining.

By the way, if you are going to quote someone directly, you should provide a citation for your source that others can look up.

 

[Elixir]

The fine tuning argument presupposes that the universe was created to support life, without actually providing any facts or reasoning to support this premise.

It doesn't presuppose life existing...it observes life exists and seeks an explanations for how that state of affairs came about.

Quit flattering yourself.
Your apologetics seek to persuade people to accept flimsy answers in lieu of actual explanations.
This is like... the umpteenth time you have represented your vacuous answers as explanations.
If you're having this much trouble with simple English, why should anyone think of your ramblings as anything but feeble attempts to persuade yourself to accept the irrational?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is like... the umpteenth time you have represented your vacuous answers as explanations.
If you're having this much trouble with simple English, why should anyone think of your ramblings as anything but feeble attempts to persuade yourself to accept the irrational?

Scientific illiteracy coupled with a love of religious fantasy isn't exactly uncommon. Why suppose such persons are being deceitful and/or trolling. Some people honestly believe that Noah had a tyrannosaurus on his magic boat and they don't have the ability to know any better. Unfortunately we've all met lots of people like this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some people believe elves live in trees
The existence of tree-dwelling elves would be falsified if trees didn't exist
Trees exist
Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that tree-dwelling elves exist

You still haven't learned what probable evidence is. I'll keep teaching you. If you claimed tree dwelling Elves caused trees to exist and pointed to the trees existing as evidence I would agree the existence of trees makes your claim more probable then if trees didn't exist. This is obvious, plain and as simple as I can make it. If trees didn't exist your claim Elves made them would be falsified. By the way another reminder I never said the universe exists therefore God exists. Since theism is defined as the universe being intentionally created by God the universe is evidence the claim maybe true. Evidence are merely facts that make a proposition more likely.

The trouble is, you are submitting sentences as evidence, not actual evidence.

 

[atrib]

Some people believe elves live in trees
The existence of tree-dwelling elves would be falsified if trees didn't exist
Trees exist
Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that tree-dwelling elves exist

You still haven't learned what probable evidence is. I'll keep teaching you. If you claimed tree dwelling Elves caused trees to exist and pointed to the trees existing as evidence I would agree the existence of trees makes your claim more probable then if trees didn't exist. This is obvious, plain and as simple as I can make it. If trees didn't exist your claim Elves made them would be falsified. By the way another reminder I never said the universe exists therefore God exists. Since theism is defined as the universe being intentionally created by God the universe is evidence the claim maybe true. Evidence are merely facts that make a proposition more likely.

The trouble is, you are submitting sentences as evidence, not actual evidence.

Exactly. He keeps asserting there is evidence, but he won't tell us what the evidence is.

This is what he has told us so far:

Theists believe a god created the universe. Therefore, the existence of the universe is evidence for the theistic claim.

We know houses are built by humans. Therefore, the universe was created by an intelligent designer.

When we see a dead body, we know the person died either from natural causes, or from homicide/accident. Therefore, the universe was created by an intelligent designer.

There is "probable evidence" that the universe was designed, but I am not actually estimating this probability, because of how legal trials are conducted.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some people believe elves live in trees
The existence of tree-dwelling elves would be falsified if trees didn't exist
Trees exist
Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that tree-dwelling elves exist

You still haven't learned what probable evidence is. I'll keep teaching you. If you claimed tree dwelling Elves caused trees to exist and pointed to the trees existing as evidence I would agree the existence of trees makes your claim more probable then if trees didn't exist. This is obvious, plain and as simple as I can make it. If trees didn't exist your claim Elves made them would be falsified. By the way another reminder I never said the universe exists therefore God exists. Since theism is defined as the universe being intentionally created by God the universe is evidence the claim maybe true. Evidence are merely facts that make a proposition more likely.

The trouble is, you are submitting sentences as evidence, not actual evidence.

Exactly. He keeps asserting there is evidence, but he won't tell us what the evidence is.

His "evidence" is that the sentence he stated does not conflict with his conclusion, therefore it is evidence of his conclusion. Which is silly. Runs like a poor man's philosophical argument.

This is what he has told us so far:

Theists believe a god created the universe. Therefore, the existence of the universe is evidence for the theistic claim.

We know houses are built by humans. Therefore, the universe was created by an intelligent designer.

When we see a dead body, we know the person died either from natural causes, or from homicide/accident. Therefore, the universe was created by an intelligent designer.

There is "probable evidence" that the universe was designed, but I am not actually estimating this probability, because of how legal trials are conducted.

"Probable evidence" sounds like something Metacrock would come up with, "arbitrary necessity". Make up a term, prove that made up term is legit, BOOM! Goddidit.

 

[atrib]

Meanwhile, here is some "probable evidence" that the universe was created by pan-dimensional pixies, and I learned it all from you:

Some people believe that pan-dimensional pixies created the universe with intelligent life in it
This belief would be falsified if a universe with intelligent life in it did not exist
The universe exists, and there is intelligent life in it
Therefore, the existence of the universe with intelligent life in it is evidence for the existence of pan-dimensional pixies

I’m going to do you one better, Atrib. My case will be even more probable than yours or Drew’s.


Meanwhile, here is some "probable evidence" that the universe was created by magic tardigrades, and I learned it all from you:

Some people believe that Magical Tardigrades created the universe with intelligent life in it
This belief would be falsified if a universe with intelligent life in it did not exist
The universe exists, and there is intelligent life in it
Moreover, Tardigrades are known to exist.
Therefore, the existence of the universe with intelligent life in it combined with the existence of Tardigrades is even more probable evidence for the existence of Magical Tardigrades capable of creating a universe.

Dear Rhea,

Thank you for your submission. The Americans against Science and Secularism (ASS) technical committee has reviewed your argument, and we provide the following comments:

1. You have used real evidence (tardigrades are real) in your argument. ASS requires that only "probable evidence" be used to support your case.
2. You have made no reference to houses being designed by people, or to dead people who may have died from natural causes, or from accidents and homicides, and you have not compared such things to the probable origins of the universe using striking analogies. This is a significant omission, as ASS considers such evidence to be the most compelling.
3. We also believe that Magical Tardigrades are not particularly smart, and lack the ability to create universes that support intelligent life.

We suggest you revise your argument and resubmit for our review. We also recommend a minimum of 20 hours of prayer based research, so that the Lord can show you the truth.

Sincerely,
Deputy Commissioner for Creationist Studies and Chair of the Flat Earth Committee, ASS