What would count as proof of God

[atrib]

Our knowledge of this, if we can obtain it, will be a posteriori. And we have obtained that knowledge. It turns out that animals and snowflakes are not designed. They arise through purely natural, undirected processes.

Demonstrate this, and your argument will hold water.

Demonstrate what? That animals and snowflakes are not designed?

Evolution

How snowflakes form

Not going to read a vague link, describe the empirical evidence that no designer was involved in the creation of the natural processes you refer to.

The process of evolution, and the process of snowflake creation appear to products of the undirected interaction of matter/energy following certain patterns which we call the laws of nature. There is no evidence to suggest that the laws of nature were put in place by a sentient creator. We don't know why the laws of nature are what they are, but given the conspicuous absence of evidence for sentient creators, it would be premature to hypothesize that sentient creators are needed to explain anything. It theists could provide evidence to support their claims, a discussion might be had, but theists don't deal with evidence. Or logic.

 

[Politesse]

Not going to read “vague” links that explain precisely how animals and showflakes arise?

I already said that it is metaphysically possible that Jesus, or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Rama-Rama-Ding Dong, designed a universe that contains processes that thereafter naturally unfold and produce life, and snowflakes, ands everything else.

If that's the case, then the matter is unresolved and unresolvable by empirical means.

The only claim I have made is that this is not a question we can produce an answer to. I stand by this, but admit I have no empirical evidence to support that assertion, since the problem is that no such evidence can really exist.

 

[atrib]

So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

The existence of an apparently designed universe like ours.

Why do you believe the universe appears to be designed? What criteria did you use to discriminate between a universe that has been designed and one that hasn't? How many universes have you studied, and can you please share your data with us? Thanks.

And welcome to the forum. Pull up a chair and hope you stay a while.

 

[abaddon]

Not going to read “vague” links that explain precisely how animals and showflakes arise?

I already said that it is metaphysically possible that Jesus, or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Rama-Rama-Ding Dong, designed a universe that contains processes that thereafter naturally unfold and produce life, and snowflakes, ands everything else.

If that's the case, then the matter is unresolved and unresolvable by empirical means.

The only claim I have made is that this is not a question we can produce an answer to. I stand by this, but admit I have no empirical evidence to support that assertion, since the problem is that no such evidence can really exist.

A door's off balance and that's why it "opens itself". It's fully demonstrable. Yet imagine someone comes along and keeps insisting "Ah, but you don't KNOW that it wasn't a ghost. It's not a question we can produce an answer to. Don't be closed to the possibility of a thing I can't demonstrate!"

That's a non-point. It's a waste of time to go on about that.

The answer is, without compelling evidence of a designer there's not only no good reason to believe it, there's also no good reason to keep entertaining the idea.

 

[atrib]

Evolution naturally, without intent or design, occurs when two conditions are fulfilled: reproduction with variation in diverse and ever-changing environments. Both those conditions are fulfilled, therefore evolution happens.

But there's no reason to presume evolution isn't designed. You keep missing that point. In fact, it looks designed. Therefore, one should presume it is designed until there's a defeater for this appearance.

Why does the process of evolution look designed? How does one distinguish between a designed process and an undesigned one? The processes which drive the evolution of living things are well understood and completely natural. No supernatural intervention is required to explain any aspect of the processes.

 

[atrib]

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?

Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?

Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.

 

[pood]

Not going to read “vague” links that explain precisely how animals and showflakes arise?

I already said that it is metaphysically possible that Jesus, or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Rama-Rama-Ding Dong, designed a universe that contains processes that thereafter naturally unfold and produce life, and snowflakes, ands everything else.

If that's the case, then the matter is unresolved and unresolvable by empirical means.

The only claim I have made is that this is not a question we can produce an answer to. I stand by this, but admit I have no empirical evidence to support that assertion, since the problem is that no such evidence can really exist.

You only quoted part of what I wrote.

How do you know no such evidence can exist? Remember, it’s your burden to provide it. How about if Rama-Rama-Ding-Dong rearranged all the stars in the sky to spell out, “Universe Made by Rama-Rama-Ding-Dong”? That would be pretty compelling.

If, OTOH, it really were true that no evidence at all can be adduced for this hidden creator, it would mean that said creator has no interactions at all with the universe and hence is superfluous.

 

[Politesse]

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?

Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?

Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.

Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

 

[Politesse]

has no interactions at all with the universe and hence is superfluous.

How would the creation of the universe not count as an interaction with it?

 

[pood]

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?

Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?

Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.

Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?

 

[pood]

has no interactions at all with the universe and hence is superfluous.

How would the creation of the universe not count as an interaction with it?

We are talking about EVIDENCE for said creator. You just got through saying that there can be no evidence such a creator. Hence by your own words you concede the existence of the universe is not evidence for a creator. And it isn’t, of course, as has been discussed at length in this thread.,

 

[Politesse]

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?

Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?

Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.

Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?

Because I exist in a universe where entropy is a driving force. For the same reasons that you say you expect anthropocentric designs (you are surrounded by people and their works), I tend to expect chaos (as I am surrounded by change and decay). Expectation is not an objective phenomenon.

 

[Politesse]

has no interactions at all with the universe and hence is superfluous.

How would the creation of the universe not count as an interaction with it?

We are talking about EVIDENCE for said creator. You just got through saying that there can be no evidence such a creator. Hence by your own words you concede the existence of the universe is not evidence for a creator. And it isn’t, of course, as has been discussed at length in this thread.,

The universe neither is nor is not itself evidence for the means of its own existence.

 

[Jarhyn]

has no interactions at all with the universe and hence is superfluous.

How would the creation of the universe not count as an interaction with it?

We are talking about EVIDENCE for said creator. You just got through saying that there can be no evidence such a creator. Hence by your own words you concede the existence of the universe is not evidence for a creator. And it isn’t, of course, as has been discussed at length in this thread.,

The universe neither is nor is not itself evidence for the means of its own existence.

Let's even take this a step further, to the proof of this true statement:

Let's say I run a DF game on powerPC.

Then I run that same DF game on a Mac.

Then I run that same DF game on an x86.

Each of these will create a universe, from the same seed, containing and obeying the same laws of physics and making pseudorandom decisions on the same RNG seed.

None of them will have visibility over the fact that their platform is different because what they can see from the inside is the logical description of the behavior of the system, not it's physical function. It's physical dance in the host universe is immaterial to existence within the context of the constrained logical system dancing on the semiconductors..

As long as it is the same seed and the same rules and the same I/O, even if on different platforms, it is the same universe.

 

[pood]

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?

Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?

Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.

Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?

Because I exist in a universe where entropy is a driving force. For the same reasons that you say you expect anthropocentric designs (you are surrounded by people and their works), I tend to expect chaos (as I am surrounded by change and decay). Expectation is not an objective phenomenon.

Expect you have no reason to expect chaos because entropy does not mean chaos. Entropy means that in a closed system disorder will tend to increase. The earth is not a closed system, hence it is full of order. The universe itself is a closed system and, sure enough, entropy is always rising universally. Local negative entropy, such as occurs on earth, is compensated for by an even greater increase in entropy in the universe at large. This is all well understood and perfectly natural. There is no mystery here.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I have no empirical evidence to support that assertion, since the problem is that no such evidence can really exist.

So "the problem" is that there can never be evidence. How convenient, don't you think? That kind of nonsense can be applied to any claim and any bit of evidence offered in support of any claim.

Your creator should be obvious and evidenced like the doorstop behind me. If it isn't, if it isn't subject to empirical validation as you claim then it isn't real. It's just an argument.

 

[steve_bank]

Entropyis not philosophical, it is a numerical variable that is calculated.

Order and disorder is often misunderstood and misquoted.

Chaos also has definition. In systems theory chaotic is the top level category, detrmistic and probabistic are special cased of chaotic.

Chaotic systems, like climate, can be modeled over the short term but over time prediction diveges from rerality. Samll chnages in iniyial conditions cause long term deviations.

Here in Seattle weather forecasts run out about a week with good accuracy, and less so out longer.

If the universe is infinite as I think it is or bounded, entropy does not apply, there is no thermodynamic boundary.

 

[atrib]

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?

Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?

Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.

Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

I am saying you cannot have a reasonable expectation in this matter because you are limited to a sample size of one. Again, expectations are based on prior experiences, and you are not in a position to observe any universes other than the one you inhabit.

We also know that order is fleeting, and that the overall entropy of the universe is increasing continuously and relentlessly. Life is simply one mechanism by which this happens.

 

[atrib]

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?

Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?

Why? The word anticipate implies prior experience with whatever phenomena you might be talking about, and we have no experience with the formation of universes, or how they turn out. Perhaps universes can only be one way, or perhaps they are able to take on an infinite number of forms, each with their own characteristics. We have no way to tell at present.

Perhaps they might. But I certainly wouldn't expect order. Why would I?

Why wouldn’t you?

Because I exist in a universe where entropy is a driving force. For the same reasons that you say you expect anthropocentric designs (you are surrounded by people and their works), I tend to expect chaos (as I am surrounded by change and decay). Expectation is not an objective phenomenon.

You are ignoring the initial conditions of the universe, which was a state of low entropy, and the conditions within the universe in the Stelliferous Era which we live in, which evolved using naturalistic processes from those initial conditions. Life is a process which accelerates the rate at which the universe becomes more disordered, and exists within a tiny window of time when the conditions permit. Those conditions which allow ordered structures like living things to exist is very, very brief and will pass soon.

 

[Politesse]

I am saying you cannot have a reasonable expectation in this matter because you are limited to a sample size of one. Again, expectations are based on prior experiences, and you are not in a position to observe any universes other than the one you inhabit.

Agreed. I am therefore cautious about what I'm willing to assert about it.