# What would count as proof of God

#### Drew2008

##### Member
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.

No that's not true. The explanation I exist because my mother and father birthed me is valid even though they have parents and there parents have parents and so forth. I don't claim to know how a Creator came into existence or how such a transcendent creator would cause the universe. Its preposterous that I a mere mortal existing inside the universe would how transcendent beings operate. I do know a universe exists and its necessary for theism to be true but unnecessary for atheism to be true. Did the lack of God's existence cause a universe to exist?

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
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.
But the fact you listed isn't evidence.
The universe existing is accepted by all attempts to explain the universe existing. It makes no theory more likely than the rest of them.

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
Did the lack of God's existence cause a universe to exist?
There is evidence that nature abhors nothing, and seeks to fill it by creating thing. The more complete the nothingness, the more thingness created.
So, yes, it is possible to say the lack of gods (and everything else) caused the universe to exist.

#### Jimmy Higgins

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

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

Analogies are often self-serving...this one no different.
Analogies are oftn self-serving. Mine isn't because it is presented in the exact same angle you are trying to argue from. Something exist -> God. Therefore God made my sandwich. And my sandwich existing is "evidence" of that.
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.
Good point. The evidence is that Alison Hannigan exists.

#### Keith&Co.

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

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

Analogies are often self-serving...this one no different.
Analogies are oftn self-serving. Mine isn't because it is presented in the exact same angle you are trying to argue from. Something exist -> God. Therefore God made my sandwich. And my sandwich existing is "evidence" of that.
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.
Good point. The evidence is that Alison Hannigan exists.
But penis-in-vagina IS the classic understanding of 'i had sex with.'
Though the biologist definition is "exchanged genetic material with," so two amoeba can have biologist sex, while if you wore a condom when you had classic sex with Alison Hannigan, you did not have sex as a biologist would term it.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Well looks like you all have a fine slap fight going. Have fun.

##### Veteran Member
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.
Evidence to support any claim about the house has to be other facts than the house. "The house exists" doesn't support "the house was made" - the first (house exists) is not evidence that make the second (house was made) a claim that's more likely. You're just assuming the conclusion.

To support a claim about the house, you need something else than the house. The facts to support the claim "the house is intentionally made" will have to be facts from within the house if it's impossible to find any facts outside the house. So predict what facts you'll find inside the house, and then see if they are there.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
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.

No that's not true. The explanation I exist because my mother and father birthed me is valid even though they have parents and there parents have parents and so forth. I don't claim to know how a Creator came into existence or how such a transcendent creator would cause the universe. Its preposterous that I a mere mortal existing inside the universe would how transcendent beings operate. I do know a universe exists and its necessary for theism to be true but unnecessary for atheism to be true. Did the lack of God's existence cause a universe to exist?
Your parents explain why YOU exist. But they don't explain why humans exist, why life exists, or why the world or the universe exist.

When you're seeking to explain the existence of everything, explaining the existence of recent and ephemeral things doesn't get you anywhere.

#### Angra Mainyu

##### Veteran Member
Jarhyn said:
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.

That's not what Jarhyn was saying. But that's not true, either. For example, I know that there is a keyboard in front of me. And I'm actually typing on that keyboard. I am not wrong about that. There are plenty of other things I do not know. But not knowing is not the same as being wrong, that is having a false belief. For example, I do not know where there is life in Europa, but I am not wrong about whether there is life in Europa. In fact, since I do not have a belief one way or another, in particular I do not have a false belief.

#### Angra Mainyu

##### Veteran Member
Drew2008 said:
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.
Who are "they"? "Atheists"?
I am an atheist, but I do not make those claims. I make no claim that the universe came into existence. It is not even clear to me what you mean by "universe" there. I do make the claim that there is no omnimax (omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) agent. But other than that, no claim.

Drew2008 said:
Only one thing needs to be true for atheism to be true. No God, creator or designer of the universe exists.
Going by any of the main philosophical understandings of 'God', it is enough that there is no omnimax agent - where 'agent' is used as broadly as possible, so persons, n-person substance, being, entity, etc. with a mind or that is a mind, etc., will count.

There are other definitions of 'atheism' and 'God', so I would suggest greater precision.

#### Angra Mainyu

##### Veteran Member
Jarhyn said:
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.
That, of course, is not at all what you claimed before. I challenged your previous claim, not this one.

#### T.G.G. Moogly

How does one define when something began other than simply claiming that it began? It's really juvenile to say that something began at a certain point without explaining your reasoning.

#### Drew2008

##### Member
Evidence to support any claim about the house has to be other facts than the house. "The house exists" doesn't support "the house was made" - the first (house exists) is not evidence that make the second (house was made) a claim that's more likely. You're just assuming the conclusion.

To support a claim about the house, you need something else than the house. The facts to support the claim "the house is intentionally made" will have to be facts from within the house if it's impossible to find any facts outside the house. So predict what facts you'll find inside the house, and then see if they are there.

We'll have to disagree. Of course it supports the contention houses are intentionally built. There are other facts to support that belief but the fact upon which the claim rests is the existence of at least one house. Minus that fact the claim is falsified. If I went to court to prove houses were intentionally made by design the existence of houses would be exhibit A. Just as in most murder cases exhibit A is a dead body. Because you can't have murder without a death and you can't have houses intentionally created if no houses exist.

You can relax though the existence of the universe doesn't prove God exists. Its just one line of evidence that favors the belief.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
Jarhyn said:
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.
That, of course, is not at all what you claimed before. I challenged your previous claim, not this one.
That you cannot see how they are the same is the reason this is strike three. Maybe next year.

##### Veteran Member
We'll have to disagree. Of course it supports the contention houses are intentionally built.
Oh, somehow I thought the house was supposed to be analogous to the universe.

I went back to try to comprehend your F1 post better... now I see the posts about a penis existing is evidence the penis fucked someone are apt responses.

Why's it a problem for you if some atheists have said "no evidence for God"? Probably it's the shorthand version of either "no scientific evidence" or "no evidence that'd convince person who aren't already inclined to believe anyway". Is there scientific evidence, or evidence that might convince persons who aren't looking to believe anyway?

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor

You can relax though the existence of the universe doesn't prove God exists.
Pretty sure no one is anxious that you'll make them reject their stance.
But maybe the mods should split this off from the thread?

You're just trying to wedge a gap in the science to justifybyour belief, not prove a god.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard

You can relax though the existence of the universe doesn't prove God exists.
Pretty sure no one is anxious that you'll make them reject their stance.
But maybe the mods should split this off from the thread?

You're just trying to wedge a gap in the science to justifybyour belief, not prove a god.
Yeah like I explained exactly what real burden is required for Christians to prove a god within the "creator" classes exists, and whether there are signs of "metaversal imprinting"

None of them are doing that. To do that you have to go to the very edge of physics and rather than having an idea on what such entities or numbers or truths "ought" be, as if that was coherent or healthy, look for what MAY and MAY NOT be and what evidence would actually qualify an idea for either bin.

And then be prepared to never get answers because they may not be attainable!

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor

You can relax though the existence of the universe doesn't prove God exists.
Pretty sure no one is anxious that you'll make them reject their stance.
But maybe the mods should split this off from the thread?

You're just trying to wedge a gap in the science to justifybyour belief, not prove a god.
Yeah like I explained exactly what real burden is required for Christians to prove a god within the "creator" classes exists, and whether there are signs of "metaversal imprinting"
I suspect Drew's not interested in actual proof because that would be subject to critique and disproof. Rather, yet another believer who'll claim satisfaction for vague reasons with frangible boundaries and anyone who objects is a poopy head.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard

You can relax though the existence of the universe doesn't prove God exists.
Pretty sure no one is anxious that you'll make them reject their stance.
But maybe the mods should split this off from the thread?

You're just trying to wedge a gap in the science to justifybyour belief, not prove a god.
Yeah like I explained exactly what real burden is required for Christians to prove a god within the "creator" classes exists, and whether there are signs of "metaversal imprinting"
I suspect Drew's not interested in actual proof because that would be subject to critique and disproof. Rather, yet another believer who'll claim satisfaction for vague reasons with frangible boundaries and anyone who objects is a poopy head.
So, just another of the long revolving door of "fresh [apologistic] meat"

I wish there were some way to inoculate people from this sophistry BEFORE they got this far, but alas...

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Evidence to support any claim about the house has to be other facts than the house. "The house exists" doesn't support "the house was made" - the first (house exists) is not evidence that make the second (house was made) a claim that's more likely. You're just assuming the conclusion.

To support a claim about the house, you need something else than the house. The facts to support the claim "the house is intentionally made" will have to be facts from within the house if it's impossible to find any facts outside the house. So predict what facts you'll find inside the house, and then see if they are there.

We'll have to disagree. Of course it supports the contention houses are intentionally built. There are other facts to support that belief but the fact upon which the claim rests is the existence of at least one house. Minus that fact the claim is falsified. If I went to court to prove houses were intentionally made by design the existence of houses would be exhibit A. Just as in most murder cases exhibit A is a dead body. Because you can't have murder without a death and you can't have houses intentionally created if no houses exist.

You can relax though the existence of the universe doesn't prove God exists. Its just one line of evidence that favors the belief.
More like a "logic" trap, where the "significance" of existing will be manipulated. We're sorry your mouse trap sprung up before a mouse took the cheese. Honestly, there are only so many ways your (and so many other people) argument can be phrased or parsed.

After all:

God Exists, therefore God was created, am I right?

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor

You can relax though the existence of the universe doesn't prove God exists.
Pretty sure no one is anxious that you'll make them reject their stance.
But maybe the mods should split this off from the thread?

You're just trying to wedge a gap in the science to justifybyour belief, not prove a god.
Yeah like I explained exactly what real burden is required for Christians to prove a god within the "creator" classes exists, and whether there are signs of "metaversal imprinting"
I suspect Drew's not interested in actual proof because that would be subject to critique and disproof. Rather, yet another believer who'll claim satisfaction for vague reasons with frangible boundaries and anyone who objects is a poopy head.
More likely Drew was trying to snare the atheist when they say F1 is perfectly fine. A HA!

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
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?
I'll take massive copouts for $1600 Alex. Person A: What came first, the chicken or the egg. Drew: The Chicken. Person A: Where did the chicken come from? Drew: I'm not saying I know the Chicken didn't come from an egg. Person A: Then what are you saying? #### Jarhyn ##### Wizard 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? I'll take massive copouts for$1600 Alex.

Person A: What came first, the chicken or the egg.
Drew: The Chicken.
Person A: Where did the chicken come from?
Drew: I'm not saying I know the Chicken didn't come from an egg.
Person A: Then what are you saying?
So I'm percolating a thread about Last Thursdayism, and the nature of "simulation time" that might actually be a lot more fun than a slap fight about theism. Would you be down?

### What would count as proof of God​

Probably right only some universally held other wise inexplicable manifestation would act as proof.

There are degrees of proof. The highest degree of proof is scientific proof such as when scientists establish the truth of a claim through observation and independent experimentation. Very rare are scientifically verified facts upended. Unfortunately not everything lends itself to scientific verification.

So there are legal degrees of truth such as proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases. A simple preponderance of evidence (meaning more for than against) in civil cases.

The real question is what would atheists accept as evidence we owe our existence to a transcendent Creator? In my experience atheists deny there is any such evidence no matter what is submitted. Because one of the key arguments against theism is the claim there is no evidence. They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

If you make the claim that a god exists, it is your burden to provide the facts and reasoning that would convince others. Feel free to provide the evidence when you see fit.

We'll have to agree on what evidence is.

### evidence​

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
I agree. When are you going to provide the evidence for creator god(s)?

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.
I don't believe gods exist because I haven't seen any evidence that would convince me that gods exist. Until compelling evidence is presented, I will continue to withhold belief in gods. Why is my position unreasonable?

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. If so existence of the universe was caused unintentionally and human existence was just an unintended coincidence.
A creator god is NOT an answer until there is sufficient evidence to (1) demonstrate that a god exists, and (2) a description of the mechanism by which this god could have created this universe is provided.

There are certain facts that have to be true for some claims to be true. For instance in a murder case it has to be true that someone is dead. Usually its easy you merely present a corpse. In some cases its harder nonetheless a foundational claim to murder is a dead human. It may sound trivial but anyone proving someone murdered someone has to prove a death occurred. They have to prove a whole lot more to prove murder. For theism to even possibly be true certain facts must be true or there is no case for theism. Those facts that have to be true for theism to be true are evidence theism is true. Proof no, evidence yes.
I understand what evidence is, and how Bayesian analysis is used to evaluate truth claims. Feel free to present the evidence for a creator god at this time.

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
I'll take massive copouts for \$1600 Alex.
No, no, no. Drew just wants to make sure he decides what the argument is, what his evidence is, what the other side's opionion is, what their proof isn't, what their logic is and where it fails, and the definitions of all terms used by all parties in the entire discussion.
Otherwise there's no telling where the thread might derail to.

#### Elixir

Sophistry, semantics and surmise...
Ain't it fun to have an energetic little theist to play "show me your god" with?

Seriously though...
If you think that putting together just the right sequence of keyboard characters will cause a theist to abandon their entire raison d'être, please raise your hand.

#### T.G.G. Moogly

You can relax though the existence of the universe doesn't prove God exists. Its just one line of evidence that favors the belief.
So the fact that anything is real is evidence that there is a super powerful alien called god that intends things into reality?

I wouldn't call that evidence, I'd call that an overactive limbic system, an underactive prefontal cortex, and a lot of resulting poor decision making.

But maybe it is evidence, though not for magic aliens. It's evidence for those conditions just mentioned concerning the human brain and perception.

#### Elixir

You can relax though the existence of the universe doesn't prove God exists. Its just one line of evidence that favors the belief.
So the fact that anything is real is evidence that there is a super powerful alien called god that intends things into reality?

BINGO!
"Tell him what he's won, Don Pardo!"

I wouldn't call that evidence, I'd call that an overactive limbic system, an underactive prefontal cortex, and a lot of resulting poor decision making.

Well yeah. Overactive limbic systems, underactive prefontal cortices and poor decision making are ALL powerful evidence for God. Not just any garden variety god, either. We're talking "God of The Bible", the white one with the white beard.

#### T.G.G. Moogly

Ain't it fun to have an energetic little theist to play "show me your god" with?

Seriously though...
If you think that putting together just the right sequence of keyboard characters will cause a theist to abandon their entire raison d'être, please raise your hand.
Presuppositionalism makes the claim that "existence exists." Think about that for a second. According to its proponents there is this separate object for everything called "existence." I can think of a lot of dumb things but nothing dumber. It's like you can have this object called "speed" separate from an object that is in motion.

Armed with such language fallacies they then move on to make the fallacies bedrock in such things as a KCA. They've literally taken the words that are human language and given them an objective reality all their own. That isn't surprising because that's exactly where "god" comes from.

This is also the reason they cannot tell you how anything "begins" in any detail or are even willing to discuss the subject beyond repeating unevidenced claims. Hence all the word salad. I suppose it's just part of the group identity.

#### Elixir

Presuppositionalism makes the claim that "existence exists." Think about that for a second. According to its proponents there is this separate object for everything called "existence." I can think of a lot of dumb things but nothing dumber. It's like you can have this object called "speed" separate from an object that is in motion.

Armed with such language fallacies they then move on to make the fallacies bedrock in such things as a KCA. They've literally taken the words that are human language and given them an objective reality all their own. That isn't surprising because that's exactly where "god" comes from.

This is also the reason they cannot tell you how anything "begins" in any detail or are even willing to discuss the subject beyond repeating unevidenced claims. Hence all the word salad. I suppose it's just part of the group identity.

^^^ THAT
Excellent summation. Sophistry, semantics and surmise are sufficient to quell whatever remains of human curiosity after The God of The Bible gets done eviscerating it.

#### TomC

##### Celestial Highness
Staff member
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.
Those two assertions are hugely different.

Perhaps the difference is so big you don't see it.
"garage" and "dragon" are both small concepts. They're both reasonably well understood and clearly defined. It's not difficult to assess the plausibility of your assertion.
"God" and "universe" are totally different. Nobody can explain what god(s) mean, outside of "category of character commonly found in fiction".
We know lots more about the universe than ancient people did. But we're still limited humans doing the best we can to understand with what we've got to work with. Ancient people believed that the universe is a huge, solid, lumpy plain. It has a blue dome over it. The sun is a relatively small object that scoots along under the dome daily.

It's not that ancient people were stupid. They and their technology were primitive. They lived in an illusion created by their limited abilities.
We do too.
Primitive people didn't have the tools, methods, or skills to escape the illusion of a flat earth. We don't have the tools, methods, or skills to escape the illusion of a material universe. Doesn't mean we never will.
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.

Maybe if you didn't limit yourself to the fictional characters humans have created in their own image.

I'm pretty sure you grew up in a world similar to the one I grew up in. Either you believed in the bumbling sky king with superpowers described by Abrahamic religionists or you're an atheist. It took me a long time to get past that limited world view. But eventually I realized that Moses, the Popes, and Muhammad don't know as much about God as I do, which is next to nothing. The only reason I know any more is because I have more sophisticated sources to draw upon.

Even the word "know" is messy, since it's mostly "I don't have any particularly strong evidence. I prefer to believe some things, but I don't expect anyone else to believe what I do just because I believe it."
Tom

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor

Ain't it fun to have an energetic little theist to play "show me your god" with?

Seriously though...
If you think that putting together just the right sequence of keyboard characters will cause a theist to abandon their entire raison d'être, please raise your hand.
Presuppositionalism makes the claim that "existence exists." Think about that for a second. According to its proponents there is this separate object for everything called "existence." I can think of a lot of dumb things but nothing dumber. It's like you can have this object called "speed" separate from an object that is in motion.

Armed with such language fallacies they then move on to make the fallacies bedrock in such things as a KCA. They've literally taken the words that are human language and given them an objective reality all their own. That isn't surprising because that's exactly where "god" comes from.

This is also the reason they cannot tell you how anything "begins" in any detail or are even willing to discuss the subject beyond repeating unevidenced claims. Hence all the word salad. I suppose it's just part of the group identity.
Often in these cases, the first unspoken assumption (or "fact") is "The English Language has a viable power over nature". That if you can write a sentence or order a specific series of sentences or phrases in just the right way, nature must submit to it.

Which is why evidence for God (big "g") is crucial when trying to prove God's existence. Yes, even as an atheist, I have to accept that ultimately there can be something that made with whatever the heck the universe (and if there is anything "beyond" it) is. But I'll be darned if there is any shred of evidence other than the "evidence" that we exist or watches found on the beach to justify the claim of a creator, forget a very specific creator who cares about what beverages we drink, but not care enough when we kill each other in huge quantities.

#### T.G.G. Moogly

If it isn't true, even if it's just a mistake, it's a lie. It's a lie simply because it is not a factually accurate statement, regardless of intent. As such, the history of both science and religion are full of lies. Religious lies can only be maintained, however, by inventing more lies. Lies in science are always discarded. Sometimes they are discarded because there's a better lie that supports the evidence and is therefore more accurate, but it is still a lie to some degree.

I used to think religious lies were lies of intent but I realize today that they are lies born of the same ignorance that generates all lies whether scientific or religious. A person who clings to religious lies, however, is simply incapable of processing information and observations with the same proficiency as a person who discards those same religious lies. It's a self awareness issue ultimately, not really a decision the individual makes.

The interesting dynamic in all this is that ultimately scientific curiosity, literally the "war on lies," gets assimilated into religious lies as something true and a new religious lie has to be invented to excuse the use of science. The KCA is such an example. Another good example we see everyday is "She got killed in an automobile accident. God called her home." See how it works? First the verifiable scientific fact followed quickly by the religious lie. It's a schtick that's been working for a long time.

#### bilby

##### Fair dinkum thinkum
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.
Those two assertions are hugely different.

Perhaps the difference is so big you don't see it.
"garage" and "dragon" are both small concepts. They're both reasonably well understood and clearly defined. It's not difficult to assess the plausibility of your assertion.
"God" and "universe" are totally different. Nobody can explain what god(s) mean, outside of "category of character commonly found in fiction".
That's because god(s) don't have any other meaning. That they do is just more fiction.
We know lots more about the universe than ancient people did. But we're still limited humans doing the best we can to understand with what we've got to work with. Ancient people believed that the universe is a huge, solid, lumpy plain. It has a blue dome over it. The sun is a relatively small object that scoots along under the dome daily.

It's not that ancient people were stupid. They and their technology were primitive. They lived in an illusion created by their limited abilities.
Sure, ancient people were no different from us in levels of intelligence; Just in levels of knowledge. I never suggested otherwise.
We do too.
Primitive people didn't have the tools, methods, or skills to escape the illusion of a flat earth. We don't have the tools, methods, or skills to escape the illusion of a material universe. Doesn't mean we never will.
We have the tools, methods and skills to demonstrate that a material universe is all there is. We know, with certainty, that there are no unknown particles or forces that can influence objects of human scale without annihilating them; This rules out almost all of the fictions that constitute god(s), and that's true whether specific individuals understand it or not.
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.

Maybe if you didn't limit yourself to the fictional characters humans have created in their own image.
What else is there in the supernatural field? How could you sensibly assert the existence of a supernatural entity that neither can be imagined, nor can influence reality?
I'm pretty sure you grew up in a world similar to the one I grew up in. Either you believed in the bumbling sky king with superpowers described by Abrahamic religionists or you're an atheist. It took me a long time to get past that limited world view. But eventually I realized that Moses, the Popes, and Muhammad don't know as much about God as I do, which is next to nothing. The only reason I know any more is because I have more sophisticated sources to draw upon.
I have never in my entire life believed in any gods. I was quite shocked when I found out that there were grown adults who didn't know that it was all just pretend. That was some time in primary school.
Even the word "know" is messy, since it's mostly "I don't have any particularly strong evidence. I prefer to believe some things, but I don't expect anyone else to believe what I do just because I believe it."
Tom
That's not what "know" means.

And it's certainly not what I mean by it.

Last edited:

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard

First, whole I don't think people had well understood the idea, that does not mean that the ideas which involved concepts of "god" were or are useless.

Clearly, those concepts have seen actual application and instantiation with regards to the relationships we have between ourselves and realities we create: game metaverses.

The reality of thenfact that we ARE (some of us, anyway...) this character, Non-fictionally, implies such entities may exist Non-fictionally.

It just means that if they do, what we called "the universe" yesterday is "a metaverses within a much bigger and still very opaque universe."

God is not fictional as much as it is purely hypothetical and in many ways inconsequential to our relationships with each other. It does not impact any specific qualities any more than spinning up a DF world would necessitate that I not smash a bunch of dwarf babies out of existence under a lowering drawbridge.

It in fact implies that we should probably be distrustful at best and more likely openly hostile, by default, to any such identified entity (to the extent that hostility is even functional against their interference).

#### Elixir

Often in these cases, the first unspoken assumption (or "fact") is "The English Language has a viable power over nature". That if you can write a sentence or order a specific series of sentences or phrases in just the right way, nature must submit to it.

Which is why evidence for God (big "g") is crucial when trying to prove God's existence. Yes, even as an atheist, I have to accept that ultimately there can be something that made with whatever the heck the universe (and if there is anything "beyond" it) is. But I'll be darned if there is any shred of evidence other than the "evidence" that we exist or watches found on the beach to justify the claim of a creator, forget a very specific creator who cares about what beverages we drink, but not care enough when we kill each other in huge quantities.

Eggs-L-ent!
I was going to write that post or one very much like it. You saved me the trouble.
The illusion of language’s power over nature is what keeps gods “alive”.

#### atrib

##### Veteran Member
Evidence to support any claim about the house has to be other facts than the house. "The house exists" doesn't support "the house was made" - the first (house exists) is not evidence that make the second (house was made) a claim that's more likely. You're just assuming the conclusion.

To support a claim about the house, you need something else than the house. The facts to support the claim "the house is intentionally made" will have to be facts from within the house if it's impossible to find any facts outside the house. So predict what facts you'll find inside the house, and then see if they are there.

We'll have to disagree. Of course it supports the contention houses are intentionally built. There are other facts to support that belief but the fact upon which the claim rests is the existence of at least one house. Minus that fact the claim is falsified. If I went to court to prove houses were intentionally made by design the existence of houses would be exhibit A. Just as in most murder cases exhibit A is a dead body. Because you can't have murder without a death and you can't have houses intentionally created if no houses exist.

You can relax though the existence of the universe doesn't prove God exists. Its just one line of evidence that favors the belief.
Just not in any way that you can demonstrate, or even articulate.

#### T.G.G. Moogly

Often in these cases, the first unspoken assumption (or "fact") is "The English Language has a viable power over nature". That if you can write a sentence or order a specific series of sentences or phrases in just the right way, nature must submit to it.

Which is why evidence for God (big "g") is crucial when trying to prove God's existence. Yes, even as an atheist, I have to accept that ultimately there can be something that made with whatever the heck the universe (and if there is anything "beyond" it) is. But I'll be darned if there is any shred of evidence other than the "evidence" that we exist or watches found on the beach to justify the claim of a creator, forget a very specific creator who cares about what beverages we drink, but not care enough when we kill each other in huge quantities.

Eggs-L-ent!
I was going to write that post or one very much like it. You saved me the trouble.
The illusion of language’s power over nature is what keeps gods “alive”.
I'll take a double helping.

Maybe this is why some people like to talk so much, like religious conservatives.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
'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. Words are always subject to personal interpretaion.

The math is what counts.

Science writers can use words any way they like in any context, there is no pope of science.

A cosmology book I had used Universe for the totality of all that exists, and universe for that which we humans can detect and see.

Another theist tactic, the battle of internet dictionary definitions.

Scientifically reality is described mathematically in units of System International based on the meter, kilogram, and second. Philosphy and religion-myth serve to give meaning and context to science , in part.

The saying that was coined is that 'sceince always works', neaning what and how you think about science does not chnage how a thepry works. You may think science is one thing or another, but a jet will always fly unless it breaks. Step off a building and you will go down.

What wrds you use and what myths you use do not alter reality.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
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.
Subjective vs objective evidence.

Officer, the car was going exacatly 75mph when it crashed, I just happened to have a laser speed gauge and a video camera, objective.

Officer, the guy was going very fast when it crashed.

How fast?

Oh somewhere between 50 and 80mph, subjective.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
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?
You are stating what you believe not why, in Christtian terms you are testifying. Amen brother Drew. Tell it brother tell t!

Again negatory.

Naturalism points to science as the best means to understand reality. Logic and rationality.
Any new theory anyone proposes must conform or be based on existing science, or it must have a way of being demonstred.
Evolution is based on solid demonstrated science.

Many theories come and go. In the early 20th century htere was competition to develop a theory to explain electric current. The one that was supported by experiment won out. Millikan.

Why do you belive in a creator? A feeling?

Naturalism does not give leave to speculate or invent theory out of nothing, that is relgion and mythology. Pseudo science and naturalism are mutualy exclusive.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
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.
Good point.

#### Elixir

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.
Good point.

It’s a shame we won’t be around to tell them we told you so when God puts the wack on humanity.

#### pood

##### Senior Member
Drew,

You claim that the probability of the universe existing on the assumption of a creator is greater than on the assumption of no creator. This is wrong. The a posteriori probability of the universe existing is 1. The a priori probability is unknown and unknowable, because the concept is undefinable. If the universe is a one-time-only coming-into-existence event, no probability can be ascribed to that. If the universe has always existed in some form or another, which is likely the case, then again it is meaningless to ascribe an a priori probability to this fact because there is no prior state of the universe. Either way your probability argument fails.

Your naturalism of the gaps argument fails. The reason we deploy the god of the gaps argument is because naturalism always supplies a necessary and sufficient explanation for what we see. When there is as gap in our knowledge, we are therefore inductively justified in believing that the gap will be filled not by god but by a natural explanation, because all such gaps have been so filled in the past. For the naturalism of the gaps argument to succeed, it would have to be the case that we had determined that everything we see had been created by a god, and therefore a naturalist explanation for a gap in our knowledge is not warranted. Needless to say this is not the case, and so there is no such thing as a naturalism of the gaps argument.

Your cosmological argument fails. If the universe needs a creator, then who created God? If God indeed needs a creator, then is it creators (turtles) all the way down? Summoning Occam’s Razor.

In Kalam variant of the CA, everything that begins to exist must have a cause. The universe began to exist, on this argument, so it must have a cause. The cause is held to be a transcendent creator who did not begin to exist because the creator is a necessary being.

The argument fails on two counts. Virtual particles come into existence without a cause, so the claim that everything begins to exist has a cause is false. Second, even if the claim were true, there is no evidence that the universe as a whole began to exist. The big bang is not evidence that the universe began to exist. It is evidence at best of a phase transition from a prior state, which will not be understood unless and until we reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. The conservations laws, which state that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, powerfully point to a universe with an infinite past and future extension.

Moreover, as others have pointed out, even if the big bang were a temporal past boundary to the existence of the universe, it still follows that there was no time that the universe did not exist and there will be no time that it does not exist. This is because space and time only exist within the universe and there is no prior time to the big bang (if the bang really is a temporal boundary) in the same way that there is no direction north of the North Pole.

You stated that atheists claim to know that there is no creator of the universe. This is false. Atheism is a belief, or lack of belief, claim. Knowledge has nothing to do with it, only evidence and argument. Gnosis = knowledge; a/gnosis, or agnostic, means no knowledge claim. I am an agnostic atheist on that account.

Finally, even if it were true that everything inside the universe that began to exist has a cause, which is not true on the evidence of virtual particles, the argument is a standard composition fallacy. It does not follow that even if everything that begins to exist within the universe has a cause, then the universe itself must have a cause.

All your arguments fail. Do you have anything else?

#### Rhea

##### Cyborg with a Tiara
Staff member
I don't claim to know how a Creator came into existence or how such a transcendent creator would cause the universe. Its preposterous that I a mere mortal existing inside the universe would how transcendent beings operate.
It is preposterous that you, a mere mortal existing inside the universe, would know that transcendent beings exist.
Or that they are transcendent.
Or that they are creators.
Or that they are capable of causing.

Simply preposterous.

I do know a universe exists and its necessary for theism to be true but unnecessary for atheism to be true. Did the lack of God's existence cause a universe to exist?
You keep saying this as if the existence of the universe has anything at all whatsoever to do with your fairy tale abut which you ust above declared it was preposterous that you would know anything.

But the existence of an ever-existing universe completely disproves your goddidit, doesn’t it?

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Sounds like drew should just go ahead and oick up a bble.

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
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.
Good point.

It’s a shame we won’t be around to tell them we told you so when God puts the wack on humanity.
Well, god says hw would not drown the world again. He didn't say he would not change the climate.

#### Elixir

It’s a shame we won’t be around to tell them we told you so when God puts the wack on humanity.
Well, god says hw would not drown the world again. He didn't say he would not change the climate.

… or redirect that killer asteroid, or uncork the Yellowstone super volcano, or unleash a REAL pandemic, or …

#### steve_bank

##### Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
It’s a shame we won’t be around to tell them we told you so when God puts the wack on humanity.
Well, god says hw would not drown the world again. He didn't say he would not change the climate.

… or redirect that killer asteroid, or uncork the Yellowstone super volcano, or unleash a REAL pandemic, or …
Anything is possible if we are just chartacers in god's cartoon animation.