What would count as proof of God

[Keith&Co.]

I love the watchmaker argument.
We find that the watch is NOTHING LIKE nature. So the watch was made.
Then without even turning around in the field, we find that the watch IS EXACTLY LIKE nature. So nature was made, like the watch.
So, God.
I mean, it's the PERFECT argument for anyone's made-up bullshit, you know? The one observation leads to two completely opposite and mutually exclusive interpretations, lending credence to the author's opinion.

 

[Jarhyn]

I love the watchmaker argument.
We find that the watch is NOTHING LIKE nature. So the watch was made.
Then without even turning around in the field, we find that the watch IS EXACTLY LIKE nature. So nature was made, like the watch.
So, God.
I mean, it's the PERFECT argument for anyone's made-up bullshit, you know? The one observation leads to two completely opposite and mutually exclusive interpretations, lending credence to the author's opinion.

Blind unthinking processes do make watches... When those blind and unthinking processes give rise to the accidental, and then continued not-so-accidentally process that is neither blind nor unthinking.

We are how a reality of rigidly constrained operational potentials that is "unthinking", when mashed against a results generator that is probabilistic insofar as we are concerned at this time, creates a "watch".

Or in other words, unthinking processes create things like nothing found elsewhere in nature by merely containing chaos within a platform where thinking processes may be hosted.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To me, theism starts exactly when someone abandons doubt.

My understanding (possibly incorrect) was deism was vague belief in some level of a creator. Theism was believing the creator had a name along with a plan and/or rules.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

And there's that sophistry that always gets you on ignore whenever I purge my ignore list.

It's logic, not sophistry.

"The one thing that I cannot doubt is that I sit here doubting". Nothing has come up to change this fact.

You can either doubt, and potentially be wrong about being wrong, or even right about being wrong; or you can abandon doubt and be wrong about being right but you will never be certain of being right about being right; therefore the only way to be confidently right about a thing is to accept that you are wrong

That is a non-sequitur, and clearly the conclusion is false. To accept that you are wrong is most certainly not a way of be confidently right!. If you come to believe that you are wrong...then you already believe something else, by the way. But in any case, what you said earlier has the problem I highlighted earlier.

When you trust but verify, this is the way of things.

That is a very different thing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

To accept that you are wrong is most certainly not a way of be confidently right!

I am not omniscient. There's no way, on any subject, that i can be completely informed and correct to the nth decimal point.

Everything i believe or understand is limited, and based on limited knowledge/understanding.
Even the certainty that 2+2 = 4. That doesn't apply in all situations, in all conditions, at all scales. 90% of the speed of light plus 90% of light speed does not equal 180% of light speed.


So i take it as granted that anything i declare to be true and correct will only partially apply, and only in limited ways. Outside of those, I'm wrong. Or at best, not completely correct.



Thus, "i am wrong" is the ONLY thing i can think of to say which even Bilby won't meaningfully contradict.

 

[blastula]

We'll have to agree on what evidence is.

evidence​

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

In short evidence are facts that make a proposition more likely to be true or less likely to be true. For instance if I accuse someone of shooting a gun the fact they own a gun makes my claim they shot a gun more probable. Not a certainty for sure. That fact alone wouldn't win the day as in any circumstantial case it is a preponderance of facts that make a case. It can work the other way if the person I accused of shooting a gun doesn't own one, that fact would be evidence in disfavor of the contention they shot a gun.

I accept that definition, but it doesn't help theism.

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.

If so existence of the universe was caused unintentionally and human existence was just an unintended coincidence.

Or the universe was uncaused. In either case, it does appear life is unintended.

Those facts that have to be true for theism to be true are evidence theism is true. Proof no, evidence yes.

The issue isn't whether there is any evidence at all for theism, it's whether there is sufficient evidence. And there is not.

 

[bilby]

To accept that you are wrong is most certainly not a way of be confidently right!

I am not omniscient. There's no way, on any subject, that i can be completely informed and correct to the nth decimal point.

Everything i believe or understand is limited, and based on limited knowledge/understanding.
Even the certainty that 2+2 = 4. That doesn't apply in all situations, in all conditions, at all scales. 90% of the speed of light plus 90% of light speed does not equal 180% of light speed.


So i take it as granted that anything i declare to be true and correct will only partially apply, and only in limited ways. Outside of those, I'm wrong. Or at best, not completely correct.



Thus, "i am wrong" is the ONLY thing i can think of to say which even Bilby won't meaningfully contradict.

You are right about that.

Which makes it another thing you could think of to say that I won't meaningfully contradict.

Which means you are not right about that. Which means you are right about that. Which means...

My head hurts.

 

[Drew2008]

Atheism makes claims as well. They claim the universe we observe came into existence apart from a creator. They claim the universe wasn't planned or designed it was natural mindless forces that some how came into existence and wound up unintentionally causing a universe to exist. That's your story and claim and your stuck with it.

Only one thing needs to be true for atheism to be true. No God, creator or designer of the universe exists. Nothing else needs to be true. For theism to be true several things have to be true. Anything necessary for theism to be true is evidence (not proof) theism is true.

I'm not going to list premises but facts...

F1. The universe exists. Hopefully no one disputes this.

Theism is the belief God (or some Creator) caused the universe to exist. If the universe didn't exist theism would be totally falsified. The false slogan there is no evidence of theism would actually be true. In any version of theism to be true a universe has to exist. However for atheism to be true only the non-existence of God or a Creator needs to be true. No one would say because I believe no God or Creator exists therefore a universe that supports life should exist. Since the claim is that God caused a universe to exist the existence of the universe makes the claim God caused a universe more probable. There is no reason I know of a universe has to exist. Only if one claims God caused a universe to exist does a universe have to exist. If I claim a house was intentionally caused to exist the first line of evidence would be the existence of a house. If I claim houses were intentionally caused to exist but there are no houses everyone would reject the claim. If there are houses that alone doesn't prove anyone made them intentionally but it makes the contention more probable than if none existed. I'll repeat evidence are facts which make a claim more probable than minus stated fact. If I claimed that scientists, engineers and programmers caused a virtual universe to exist the existence of a virtual universe would be evidence my claim is correct.

One note, I'm not attempting to prove God exists. There isn't enough evidence to prove the existence of God. There is enough evidence that makes theism a resonable belief over the counter claim we owe the existence of the universe and sentient human life to forces that had no intention or plan to do so.

Before I submit F2 I'll wait for everyone to deny F1 is evidence in favor of theistic belief.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Atheism makes claims as well. They claim the universe we observe came into existence apart from a creator.

That's reaching. 'Atheism' only claim is that the person is 'without a belief in gods.' Even if gods are real, if a person does not believe in them, the label 'atheism' is accurately applied, so 'atheism' is true.
Theism is a belief in a deity. One or more. If there are no deities in the entire universe, but someone believes in one, theism is true.
If there are gods in the universe, but not the one the theist believes in, the label 'theism' is true.
If there are gods, and the theist believes in one that exists, such as Thor, Thor is not credited with the creation of the universe. But the theist believes he exists independent of the universe's start. And theist applies, thus is true.

 

[Drew2008]

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. 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.

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. 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.

: 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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

For me to reject theism I would have to see

No one cares. No one's asking you to give up your theism.
This thread asks for proof of god, either actual proof or a hypothetical place to go looking for such proof.
The universe exists, but it exists in those cosmologies that include a creator deity, that include non-creator deities, and include zero deities. It doesn't really advance your position that one of those is more likely than the others.

 

[Drew2008]

Atheism makes claims as well. They claim the universe we observe came into existence apart from a creator.

That's reaching. 'Atheism' only claim is that the person is 'without a belief in gods.' Even if gods are real, if a person does not believe in them, the label 'atheism' is accurately applied, so 'atheism' is true.
Theism is a belief in a deity. One or more. If there are no deities in the entire universe, but someone believes in one, theism is true.
If there are gods in the universe, but not the one the theist believes in, the label 'theism' is true.
If there are gods, and the theist believes in one that exists, such as Thor, Thor is not credited with the creation of the universe. But the theist believes he exists independent of the universe's start. And theist applies, thus is true.

No its not reaching at all. The core of atheism is the a before the theism which means without God(s), creator, transcendent personal agent. What without God? The creation of the universe and life. Atheists (as far as I know) don't deny the universe and humans exist, they do deny the necessity and the existence of a Creator to cause such circumstances. If we say the universe isn't the intended result of a transcendent agent we are saying that forces unintentionally caused the universe and life we observe to exist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No its not reaching at all. The core of atheism is the a before the theism which means without God(s), creator, transcendent personal agent. What without God? The creation of the universe and life. Atheists (as far as I know) don't deny the universe and humans exist, they do deny the necessity and the existence of a Creator to cause such circumstances.

And then theists deny the necessity of a Creator needing a Creator. Ain't that convenient.

Atheist: The universe exists and at no point in time has it not existed.
Theist: The universe still needs a Creator!
Atheist: Who created the Creator?
Theist: The Creator doesn't need to be created, the Creator has always existed.
Atheist: Umm...
Theist: IT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Atheism makes claims as well. They claim the universe we observe came into existence apart from a creator.

That's reaching. 'Atheism' only claim is that the person is 'without a belief in gods.' Even if gods are real, if a person does not believe in them, the label 'atheism' is accurately applied, so 'atheism' is true.
Theism is a belief in a deity. One or more. If there are no deities in the entire universe, but someone believes in one, theism is true.
If there are gods in the universe, but not the one the theist believes in, the label 'theism' is true.
If there are gods, and the theist believes in one that exists, such as Thor, Thor is not credited with the creation of the universe. But the theist believes he exists independent of the universe's start. And theist applies, thus is true.

No its not reaching at all. The core of atheism is the a before the theism which means without God(s), creator, transcendent personal agent. What without God? The creation of the universe and life. Atheists (as far as I know) don't deny the universe and humans exist, they do deny the necessity and the existence of a Creator to cause such circumstances. If we say the universe isn't the intended result of a transcendent agent we are saying that forces unintentionally caused the universe and life we observe to exist.

I'm just gonna bet twenty quatloos that you cannot provide your evidence for the theistic position on the universe's origin without the gaps.

 

[bilby]

Atheism makes claims as well. They claim the universe we observe came into existence apart from a creator. They claim the universe wasn't planned or designed it was natural mindless forces that some how came into existence and wound up unintentionally causing a universe to exist. That's your story and claim and your stuck with it.

Only one thing needs to be true for atheism to be true. No God, creator or designer of the universe exists. Nothing else needs to be true.

Do you not see how your first paragraph is contradicted by your second?

You don't seem to be very good at consistent reasoning at all. Your position has changed completely in the space of seven sentences, and you don't seem to have even noticed.

Atheism says nothing about the origin of the universe, nor even whether it has an origin.

I can assure you that I am an atheist who absolutely doesn't agree that "the universe we observe came into existence".

This is completely consistent with my agreement that "No God, creator or designer of the universe exists". Indeed, as you correctly point out, nothing else needs to be true in order for my atheism to be a correct understanding of reality.

 

[Elixir]

No its not reaching at all. The core of atheism is the a before the theism which means without God(s), creator, transcendent personal agent. What without God? The creation of the universe and life. Atheists (as far as I know) don't deny the universe and humans exist, they do deny the necessity and the existence of a Creator to cause such circumstances.

And then theists deny the necessity of a Creator needing a Creator.

Yabut God always was. I don't know, but that's what people are saying. Many people are saying that. Great people. Really fine people are saying that. I don't know why so many people would say that if it wasn't true.
(Never mind that "many people" are also saying the universe always was, too.)

What is lacking here, is the universe standing up and saying "YES, I WAS ALWAYS HERE!"
...as well as any gods standing up saying "YES I WAS ALWAYS HERE!"

We do have a plethora of PEOPLE standing up saying "(My) God says He was always here!"
They say that without evidence, which makes one wonder why gods can't speak for themselves.
Furthermore, they have hissy fits when people stand up and say the same thing about other gods. It's a god-damned mess.
At least most scientists advance the "the universe always was" as a provisional possibility.

 

[Drew2008]

I'm just gonna bet twenty quatloos that you cannot provide your evidence for the theistic position on the universe's origin without the gaps.

I'm not attempting to explain its origin...just its existence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

F1. The universe exists. Hopefully no one disputes this.

Technically, the universe has always existed. So F1 should be "The universe has always existed." At no point in time can we say there was no universe. There is no evidence that rules of casualty (or anything or everything) exist "outside" the universe.

Only if one claims God caused a universe to exist does a universe have to exist. If I claim a house was intentionally caused to exist the first line of evidence would be the existence of a house. If I claim houses were intentionally caused to exist but there are no houses everyone would reject the claim. If there are houses that alone doesn't prove anyone made them intentionally but it makes the contention more probable than if none existed. I'll repeat evidence are facts which make a claim more probable than minus stated fact.

You are using the words "evidence" and "facts" improperly as you aren't using either of those things. You are making subjective statements and playing word games in order to twist some sort of proof... which is meaningless.

If I claimed that scientists, engineers and programmers caused a virtual universe to exist the existence of a virtual universe would be evidence my claim is correct.

Only in the sense that there was something to talk about. It would not provide a shred of evidence who created it, which is the claim you are making.

Your "logic" (I'm being kind) via an analogy...

God made me a sandwich.
I have a sandwich, this is evidence that God made it.

And in this case, my analogy is actually a stronger case, because we understand the limits of a sandwich much better than the universe/multi-verse.

Or how about:

I had sex with Alison Hannigan.
I have a penis, that is evidence that I had sex with Alison Hannigan.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm just gonna bet twenty quatloos that you cannot provide your evidence for the theistic position on the universe's origin without the gaps.

I'm not attempting to explain its origin...just its existence.

Okay.
You're still unable to bring this about except in reaction to what you think of as faults in the atheist position.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I had sex with Alison Hannigan.
I have a penis, that is evidence that I had sex with Alison Hannigan.

And Alison Hannigan is not a virgin. More evidence that you had sex with her.

 

[Drew2008]

Atheism says nothing about the origin of the universe, nor even whether it has an origin.

Atheism says a great deal about the universe, it says whatever caused it or regardless of its origin we know one thing...God (a personal agent didn't do it). It wasn't caused intentionally it was the result of unguided forces and fortuitous happenstance. Naturedidit! And that is naturalism in the gaps.

The only part you get is the A in atheism. It means not or without God. Theism is the belief it was intentionally caused by a transcendent volitional agent. Atheism is the counter explanation that it happened without any volitional transcendent agent.

 

[Elixir]

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.

So what? Do you really think anyone here cares whether you reject theism? Is "what convinces" Drew some critical component of the world's understanding of serendipity? Or anything else?
Even if it is, is that somehow important? Why should teleology matter to anyone?
I think that if it comforts you to think that the forces leading to your brief existence all conspired under a co-ordinated effort meticulously designed to create Drew2008s, don't you think it should require some great overriding purpose to make people try to disabuse you of that notion? How would it benefit them?

Atheism says a great deal about the universe, it says whatever caused it or regardless of its origin we know one thing...God (a personal agent didn't do it).

No, your "atheism" boogeyman doesn't say that. It doesn't say anything.
ATHEISTS say things, and IME most of them, myself included (if I qualify as atheist as many theists have told me I do, despite holding it likely that transcendent intelligence may exist) do not contend that they KNOW gods don't exist. They merely look at the preponderance of evidence and say about theist assertions "Nope - no reason to believe that particular fable.". And they're right.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Atheism is the counter explanation that it happened without any volitional transcendent agent.

Except it's not. You're confusing things SOME atheists hold to be true with atheism. Possibly intentionally.

 

[Jarhyn]

And there's that sophistry that always gets you on ignore whenever I purge my ignore list.

It's logic, not sophistry.

No, it's sophistry.

"The one thing that I cannot doubt is that I sit here doubting". Nothing has come up to change this fact.

You can either doubt, and potentially be wrong about being wrong, or even right about being wrong; or you can abandon doubt and be wrong about being right but you will never be certain of being right about being right; therefore the only way to be confidently right about a thing is to accept that you are wrong

That is a non-sequitur, and clearly the conclusion is false. To accept that you are wrong is most certainly not a way of be confidently right!. If you come to believe that you are wrong...then you already believe something else, by the way. But in any case, what you said earlier has the problem I highlighted earlier.

When you trust but verify, this is the way of things.

That is a very different thing.

You and your sophistry. This is strike 2 BTW.

It is trivial that when someone believes the are wrong about something, they will at the very least be correct that they are wrong. It's the one thing we can be fairly well actually certain of, and something the certainty of which enables us to become less wrong.

 

[Drew2008]

Atheism is the counter explanation that it happened without any volitional transcendent agent.

Except it's not. You're confusing things SOME atheists hold to be true with atheism. Possibly intentionally.

Technically, the universe has always existed. So F1 should be "The universe has always existed." At no point in time can we say there was no universe. There is no evidence that rules of casualty (or anything or everything) exist "outside" the universe.

No it didn't always technically exist. The universe is space time, gravity strong force weak force, stars, planets and so forth. What is postulated is what we observe now sprung forth from something entirely different and where our laws of physics are irrelevant. We can hardly project the quality of time such as always having existed to something that existed before time. Did time always exist?

 

[bilby]

Atheism says nothing about the origin of the universe, nor even whether it has an origin.

Atheism says a great deal about the universe, it says whatever caused it or regardless of its origin we know one thing...God (a personal agent didn't do it). It wasn't caused intentionally it was the result of unguided forces and fortuitous happenstance. Naturedidit! And that is naturalism in the gaps.

The only part you get is the A in atheism. It means not or without God. Theism is the belief it was intentionally caused by a transcendent volitional agent. Atheism is the counter explanation that it happened without any volitional transcendent agent.

The problem is that "universe" means "everything that exists".

You can't explain its existence by reference to something that's not a part of the universe, because by definition that thing doesn't exist.

So you are left with either accepting its existence as a brute fact, or hiving off a special part of everything that exists, which you then call 'god', and credit with making the whole thing exist.

But either that leaves you with an equally difficult problem in explaining how 'god' exists, so you have solved nothing; Or it leaves you with the claim that a part (or all) of reality can exist without explanation, so you have eliminated the need to invoke a god to begin with.

Not only is 'god' not the answer; 'god' cannot even be a possible answer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Atheism is the counter explanation that it happened without any volitional transcendent agent.

Except it's not. You're confusing things SOME atheists hold to be true with atheism. Possibly intentionally.

Technically, the universe has always existed. So F1 should be "The universe has always existed." At no point in time can we say there was no universe. There is no evidence that rules of casualty (or anything or everything) exist "outside" the universe.

No it didn't always technically exist. The universe is space time, gravity strong force weak force, stars, planets and so forth. What is postulated is what we observe now sprung forth from something entirely different and where our laws of physics are irrelevant. We can hardly project the quality of time such as always having existed to something that existed before time. Did time always exist?

So you haven't actually refuted what I said. At no point in time can the universe be said to have never existed.

 

[steve_bank]

Atheism makes claims as well. They claim the universe we observe came into existence apart from a creator. They claim the universe wasn't planned or designed it was natural mindless forces that some how came into existence and wound up unintentionally causing a universe to exist. That's your story and claim and your stuck with it.

Only one thing needs to be true for atheism to be true. No God, creator or designer of the universe exists. Nothing else needs to be true. For theism to be true several things have to be true. Anything necessary for theism to be true is evidence (not proof) theism is true.

I'm not going to list premises but facts...

F1. The universe exists. Hopefully no one disputes this.

Theism is the belief God (or some Creator) caused the universe to exist. If the universe didn't exist theism would be totally falsified. The false slogan there is no evidence of theism would actually be true. In any version of theism to be true a universe has to exist. However for atheism to be true only the non-existence of God or a Creator needs to be true. No one would say because I believe no God or Creator exists therefore a universe that supports life should exist. Since the claim is that God caused a universe to exist the existence of the universe makes the claim God caused a universe more probable. There is no reason I know of a universe has to exist. Only if one claims God caused a universe to exist does a universe have to exist. If I claim a house was intentionally caused to exist the first line of evidence would be the existence of a house. If I claim houses were intentionally caused to exist but there are no houses everyone would reject the claim. If there are houses that alone doesn't prove anyone made them intentionally but it makes the contention more probable than if none existed. I'll repeat evidence are facts which make a claim more probable than minus stated fact. If I claimed that scientists, engineers and programmers caused a virtual universe to exist the existence of a virtual universe would be evidence my claim is correct.

One note, I'm not attempting to prove God exists. There isn't enough evidence to prove the existence of God. There is enough evidence that makes theism a resonable belief over the counter claim we owe the existence of the universe and sentient human life to forces that had no intention or plan to do so.

Before I submit F2 I'll wait for everyone to deny F1 is evidence in favor of theistic belief.

Negatory.

'Atheism' says nothing about cosmology. I know of no science that clams the unverse has a starting point. An infinie unverse has no need of a creator.

As to atheism, surveys show that 98.2 percent of all atheists prefer Coke over Pepsi.

 

[blastula]

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.

No, it's how a specific theism is defined, there are many theisms. The only requirement for theism is a belief in any deity.

Theism is the belief God (or some Creator) caused the universe to exist. If the universe didn't exist theism would be totally falsified.

Again, that is a theism, and in practice, most of those theisms have a myriad of other beliefs attached to their deity besides that it is a world creator. Most of them claim their god is currently acting in the universe, while there is no good evidence at all for that claim.

Nobody knows how or why the universe exists, yet you focus on that area as though it can support anything about God, when it is silent on the issue.* That is very telling, since you apparently ignore all the present day claims about God that can be evaluated much better, and where theism clearly fails.

*Except for theisms that make specific claims at odds with known facts, like young earth creationism.

 

[steve_bank]

Atheism is the counter explanation that it happened without any volitional transcendent agent.

Except it's not. You're confusing things SOME atheists hold to be true with atheism. Possibly intentionally.

Technically, the universe has always existed. So F1 should be "The universe has always existed." At no point in time can we say there was no universe. There is no evidence that rules of casualty (or anything or everything) exist "outside" the universe.

No it didn't always technically exist. The universe is space time, gravity strong force weak force, stars, planets and so forth. What is postulated is what we observe now sprung forth from something entirely different and where our laws of physics are irrelevant. We can hardly project the quality of time such as always having existed to something that existed before time. Did time always exist?

Again, there are limited possibilities.

Universe without beginning or end.
Universe sprang into existence form nothing.
A creator did it, without explaining how the creator came to be.

Based on Laws Of Thermodynamics and no observed exceptions to conservation, I go with the first option amd reject the second. Of course it is not experimentally provable.


The third option is the mystcal alternative. It is for those who can't do math and science.

 

[steve_bank]

Dew sounds like Christian and conservative media...'atheist-secular' science that hates god or wants to disprove god and destroy religion..

Dew, what is a belief in a god but no particular god mean?

Are there many gods? Was creating the universe a team effort? I read that the Greeks had a temple to the unknown god, in case they missed one.

How woud you rate the quality of design of the universe by your creator? Killer asteroids, earthquakes, hurricanes. Birth defects.

 

[TomC]

'Atheism' says nothing about cosmology.

A big part of the problem here is that while atheism doesn't say anything about cosmology, atheists often do. They don't always qualify their assertions with "It seems to me..." or anything like that.

"There is not and cannot be a God" is a big, unsupported, assertion. Most non-theists don't say that, but some do. I find many hard atheists quite as irrational and limited as hard theists. There aren't many, but enough to be aggravating.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

'Atheism' says nothing about cosmology.

A big part of the problem here is that while atheism doesn't say anything about cosmology, atheists often do. They don't always qualify their assertions with "It seems to me..." or anything like that.

"There is not and cannot be a God" is a big, unsupported, assertion. Most non-theists don't say that, but some do. I find many hard atheists quite as irrational and limited as hard theists. There aren't many, but enough to be aggravating.
Tom

Yes, as I often say craziness is not limited to theists. I also say the word atheist really has bno meaning.

When I go to bed I sometimes listen to Coast To Coast AM with George Nory on the radio. Did yiu knw if you put mushrooms in sunlight they will absorb vitamin D from sunlight?

One can be atheist and believe in magic crystals and casting spells.

Used by theist media and preachers atheist is a convenient bogey man. Dew is isllustring this.

Some Christians are rational on science. I worked with hard core creationists who were very good engineers.


A survey in England asked about beliefs. One conclusion was that asking self defined atheists about beifs was pointless, the term is ill fefined as used by people. I reject gods but I believe in something greater than humans, a higher power.

For myself I draw on naturalism and freethought which is more definitive than just atheist. Science is the best tool to underhand reality, theists call that scientism as being opposed to theism.

My response is always philosophically, scientifically, and philosophically creation can not be proven. The pop science shows like NOVA portray the BB as fact, which I reject. I callit a good theory based on the avilbale evidence, but not fact.

I go with Popper, fr someting to be objective scince it must be testable. He used the word experimentalist, which means all that we really know objectvely is an experiment. As denate and thought sreads from experiment it becomes progesively subjective. Interpretaion. Philosohy.

The BB is mathematical philosophical speculation, not objective science.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How woud you rate the quality of design of the universe by your creator? Killer asteroids, earthquakes, hurricanes. Birth defects.

Yeah, I'm hoping we get into that. Drew really focuses on 'uncaring forces' in what he poses as The Atheist Model. He seems really, deeply concerned about the universe not intentionally making life.
I look at the death estimate from the latest eruptions, and Harlequin babies, and telemarketers, and wonder just what qualities he's noticed the universe has that reflects 'caring' in its design.
Surely that's the distinction between, say, a deist universe and an atheist one.

 

[Drew2008]

'Atheism' says nothing about cosmology. I know of no science that clams the unverse has a starting point. An infinie unverse has no need of a creator.

The problem is that "universe" means "everything that exists".

Anywhere you look for the word universe and its definition you'll get something like this...

The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the universe. According to this theory, space and time emerged together 13.799±0.021 billion years ago,[2] and the universe has been expanding ever since.

They are even confident when the universe came into existence.

 

[Drew2008]

Again, there are limited possibilities.

Universe without beginning or end.
Universe sprang into existence form nothing.
A creator did it, without explaining how the creator came to be.

Yes there are unlimited naturalism in the gaps explanations...

Just for the record I don't claim to know how a Creator came into existence. If the Creator did require a Creator that would still make theism true. So what's the point of that argument?

 

[Drew2008]

Dew, what is a belief in a god but no particular god mean?

It means I'm a theist. I believe the universe and our existence was intentional as opposed to a-theists who claim its not the result of intent or plan or design.

 

[TomC]

They are even confident when the universe came into existence.

I'm not sure who you mean by "they" in this sentence.

Competent scientists have traced the known universe back to a point in time(give or take a few billion years). Beyond that, they don't make claims. Even if confidently asserting opinions seems like it.

It's theists who make precise claims. YEC Christians have, I know. Down to the year and time of day (9am).
Tom

 

[Drew2008]

Nobody knows how or why the universe exists, yet you focus on that area as though it can support anything about God, when it is silent on the issue.* That is very telling, since you apparently ignore all the present day claims about God that can be evaluated much better, and where theism clearly fails.

I never said anything about how and I agree nobody knows. We do agree regardless of how it came about that it does exist. If it didn't exist the claim God created the universe would be falsified. The fact it does exist makes the claim it was intentionally caused by a creator more probable than if no universe existed. If I claimed the existence of a virtual universe was the result of scientists, engineers and IT people the fact a virtual universe exists is evidence of my claim.

 

[Keith&Co.]

.

Again, there are limited possibilities.

Universe without beginning or end.
Universe sprang into existence form nothing.
A creator did it, without explaining how the creator came to be.

Yes there are unlimited naturalism in the gaps explanations...

No, there are not.

Just for the record I don't claim to know how a Creator came into existence. If the Creator did require a Creator that would still make theism true. So what's the point of that argument?

It means your solution to the existence of the universe requires a solution.

 

[abaddon]

I never said anything about how and I agree nobody knows. We do agree regardless of how it came about that it does exist. If it didn't exist the claim God created the universe would be falsified. The fact it does exist makes the claim it was intentionally caused by a creator more probable than if no universe existed. If I claimed the existence of a virtual universe was the result of scientists, engineers and IT people the fact a virtual universe exists is evidence of my claim.

This is your 'a corpse can be evidence of murder' thing again.

The evidence of murder would be a bullet hole or other wound, or poison, or a letter saying "I killed him!". The body itself isn't evidence of murder.

You damn well do have to say something about the HOW.

We could find a virtual universe was made by surmising the HOW. If the engineers aren't directly known to exist, what you do is look at the virtual universe for evidence of how it was engineered.

Same with the house. Even if it appeared weirdly to have just "come into existence", you surmise a HOW it can have been built and look for the traces to confirm it. Those traces are evidence. The house itself is not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

.

Again, there are limited possibilities.

Universe without beginning or end.
Universe sprang into existence form nothing.
A creator did it, without explaining how the creator came to be.

Yes there are unlimited naturalism in the gaps explanations...

No, there are not.

Just for the record I don't claim to know how a Creator came into existence. If the Creator did require a Creator that would still make theism true. So what's the point of that argument?

It means your solution to the existence of the universe requires a solution.

Nothing like making up your own problem to posit your magical solution.

It is an infomercial!

Host: Tired of the cascading of creation to the beginning of time?

Crowd: Yeah!

Host: Are you exhausted of trying to figure out the origin of the universe?

Crowd: Yeah!

Host: Do you wish there was a solution to the first cause?

Crowd: Yeah!

Host: Well you are in luck. Sure all things need to be created to exist but what we have here is an innovation of ginormic proportions. Something that magically fixes everything.

Guy in Crowd: How about logically?

Host: *motions to security*. Something that magically fixes everything!

Crowd: *applause*

Host: We call it god! It is all powerful, all knowing, everywhere, and best of all it doesn’t need to be created to exist completely and utterly removing the need to speak of its own origin.

Crowd: *awe*

 

[Jarhyn]

So, the one thing I can think of that would prove the existence of a super-dimensional entity whose relationship is roughly orthogonal to the relationship I have with a universe I poof into existence within it (an observed architectural possibility), and the seed is calculable from what we currently perceive as noise, and then some thing at some point observationally diverges from the behavior dictated by seed at some point, then this would be a "finger in the pie".

It appears that our universe is HIGHLY resistant to showing such marks on account of the apparent randomness, and if it happened before we started looking, we would never be able to derive the seed without knowing the imprint.

Imagine a game.

This game has a random number generator, or other program controlling it. What is important to note is that the sequence of it is determined somehow from a value and the game always plays out the same way.

Now imagine there is a controller in your hands as you watch this video of gameplay, rendered through this ridiculous process.

As soon as you pick up the controller, though, things will change.

We prove or disproves god by, as processes in this crazy game, deriving the seed or system that calls the dance of our determinant "virtual" sequence and determining whether what we see has been altered by some measurable delta.

 

[bilby]

'Atheism' says nothing about cosmology.

A big part of the problem here is that while atheism doesn't say anything about cosmology, atheists often do. They don't always qualify their assertions with "It seems to me..." or anything like that.

"There is not and cannot be a God" is a big, unsupported, assertion. Most non-theists don't say that, but some do. I find many hard atheists quite as irrational and limited as hard theists. There aren't many, but enough to be aggravating.
Tom

It's not a particularly big assertion, any more than "there is and cannot be a dragon in my garage" is a big assertion.

And it's not unsupported; For all but the most esoteric and unpopular ideas about what 'god' might be, the fact that they do not and cannot exist is supported by their being contradictory to quantum field theory.

For any of the mainstream gods to exist, QFT would need to be very badly wrong.

It's not.

We checked.

 

[Drew2008]

Your "logic" (I'm being kind) via an analogy...

God made me a sandwich.
I have a sandwich, this is evidence that God made it.

Analogies are often self-serving...this one no different. Your analogy here to be kind is to compare a sandwich something we've all made and seen to the existence of the universe which no one really knows how it came about. The irony is in your analogy we do know that sandwiches are intentionally put together by intelligent design (or personal taste). I haven't seen any that come together by unguided mechanistic forces...have you?

Or how about:

I had sex with Alison Hannigan.
I have a penis, that is evidence that I had sex with Alison Hannigan.

Why is this one better? You're penis would have no probative value its not required to have sex with someone.

 

[bilby]

'Atheism' says nothing about cosmology. I know of no science that clams the unverse has a starting point. An infinie unverse has no need of a creator.

The problem is that "universe" means "everything that exists".

Anywhere you look for the word universe and its definition you'll get something like this...

The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the universe. According to this theory, space and time emerged together 13.799±0.021 billion years ago,[2] and the universe has been expanding ever since.

They are even confident when the universe came into existence.

The problem with this argumentum ad dictionarium is that it doesn't change anything.

If the word 'universe' doesn't mean to you what it means to me, then simply replace it in my argument with any word or phrase that does mean 'everything that exists', and you will see that my argument still stands.

Semantic weaseling doesn't get you anywhere.

You can't explain the existence of everything that exists by reference to something that's not a part of everything that exists, because by definition that thing doesn't exist.

So you are left with either accepting its existence as a brute fact, or hiving off a special part of everything that exists, which you then call 'god', and credit with making the whole thing exist.

But either that leaves you with an equally difficult problem in explaining how 'god' exists, so you have solved nothing; Or it leaves you with the claim that a part (or all) of reality can exist without explanation, so you have eliminated the need to invoke a god to begin with.

Not only is 'god' not the answer; 'god' cannot even be a possible answer.

See? The word 'universe' doesn't appear anywhere in this revised argument, yet it gets us to the exact same conclusion.

Nobody cares what the dictionary or wikipedia says about the word 'universe'. It has zero effect on the actual argument being made. Invoking it is just a quibbling distraction with zero actual content.

 

[bilby]

Again, there are limited possibilities.

Universe without beginning or end.
Universe sprang into existence form nothing.
A creator did it, without explaining how the creator came to be.

Yes there are unlimited naturalism in the gaps explanations...

Just for the record I don't claim to know how a Creator came into existence. If the Creator did require a Creator that would still make theism true. So what's the point of that argument?

The point is that the creator cannot be an answer to the question 'why do things exist', if the creator is itself a thing that requires a creator in order to exist.

So now you are invoking an entity for which there is no evidence, in an attempt to NOT explain the thing that you invoked it for in the first place.

You are saying that an infinite regression of creator creators is somehow a more reasonable idea than the mere eternal (or spontaneous) existence of all the stuff for which we do have evidence. How does this help? How is this more reasonable, or more plausible?

 

[bilby]

Dew, what is a belief in a god but no particular god mean?

It means I'm a theist. I believe the universe and our existence was intentional as opposed to a-theists who claim its not the result of intent or plan or design.

What is the universe intended for? Why would you think that it might have been intentionally created?

If it's intended for life, then why is there almost no life anywhere in it, and why is there so much of it? What was the point of having trillions of galaxies, rather than just one?

For that matter, what was the point of having more than one star?

 

[Drew2008]

Same with the house. Even if it appeared weirdly to have just "come into existence", you surmise a HOW it can have been built and look for the traces to confirm it. Those traces are evidence. The house itself is not.

Its exactly what evidence is, evidence is a fact that makes a claim more likely. I went through what evidence is before I even listed one fact.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Same with the house. Even if it appeared weirdly to have just "come into existence", you surmise a HOW it can have been built and look for the traces to confirm it. Those traces are evidence. The house itself is not.

Its exactly what evidence is, evidence is a fact that makes a claim more likely. I went through what evidence is before I even listed one fact.

Just like me having sex with Alison Hannigan.