What would count as proof of God

[Copernicus]

Everyone knows universes can only come from somebody poofing them into reality. We've all seen it a million times.

No, we've all seen it exactly once.

I haven't seen somebody "poofing" a universe even once. It's unlikely anyone has.

Well, you have access to one universe, without a clear explanation as to its presence.

That's true, but how does that get us to a poofing god? Or is it "pooping"? That's another conceivable method of creating universes for a god, I suppose.

 

[blastula]

Well, you have access to one universe, without a clear explanation as to its presence.

You just said we've all seen the poofing. Which is it?

 

[Politesse]

Well, you have access to one universe, without a clear explanation as to its presence.

You just said we've all seen the poofing. Which is it?

Sorry, the universe was the "it" I was referring to. I'm not sure "poofing" is the most helpful descriptor of... anything. However, I'm interested in the basis of anyone's claim to know how the universe came into being. A sample set of one doesn't give you a lot to work with.

 

[blastula]

Poofing is as good any theist's descriptor of the alleged act. And yes, a sample of one is a problem for the theist who argues that it's obvious that intentional poofing by some person is the only possible cause.

 

[Elixir]

If every knee was to bend and every voice was to rise in praise, I might consider god(s)’ existence.
By even in that supremely unlikely event, why bother?

 

[Politesse]

Poofing is as good any theist's descriptor of the alleged act. And yes, a sample of one is a problem for the theist who argues that it's obvious that intentional poofing by some person is the only possible cause.

Well, I didn't do that. But since no one has any rational means to describe the origin of the universe, it seems a bit silly for one group to go after another group's story.

 

[Copernicus]

Poofing is as good any theist's descriptor of the alleged act. And yes, a sample of one is a problem for the theist who argues that it's obvious that intentional poofing by some person is the only possible cause.

Well, I didn't do that. But since no one has any rational means to describe the origin of the universe, it seems a bit silly for one group to go after another group's story.

It strikes me as perfectly reasonable, since a failure to come up with a valid description does not require one to provide an alternative. For starters, you have to specify what you mean by "universe". The observable universe that is said to have begun with the Big Bang may not be the actual physical universe, which is sometimes referred to as the "metaverse" (Praise be to Supreme Prophet Zuckerberg, who has foretold of its existence in the web!)

 

[blastula]

Well, I didn't do that. But since no one has any rational means to describe the origin of the universe, it seems a bit silly for one group to go after another group's story.

The other group in this case does not a claim a comparable "we know what happened!" story.

 

[bilby]

Well, you have access to one universe, without a clear explanation as to its presence.

You just said we've all seen the poofing. Which is it?

Sorry, the universe was the "it" I was referring to. I'm not sure "poofing" is the most helpful descriptor of... anything. However, I'm interested in the basis of anyone's claim to know how the universe came into being. A sample set of one doesn't give you a lot to work with.

The universe (meaning "everything that exists") either spontaneously began from nothing, or was always there.

"It was made by a God" is incoherent; The closest you can get to a coherent claim from that position is "It was once just a God, and that God made everything else". But then you have to ask where God came from; And if your claim is that God always existed, or that God began to exist from nothing, you need to explain why you feel the need for the extra step, in the complete absence of any evidence that it is necessary - and also explain why you don't feel the need for more than one un-evidenced and utterly pointless extra step.

God is a concept that adds exactly zero to our understanding of origins, while requiring assumptions for which there is zero basis.

 

[Politesse]

Well, you have access to one universe, without a clear explanation as to its presence.

You just said we've all seen the poofing. Which is it?

Sorry, the universe was the "it" I was referring to. I'm not sure "poofing" is the most helpful descriptor of... anything. However, I'm interested in the basis of anyone's claim to know how the universe came into being. A sample set of one doesn't give you a lot to work with.

The universe (meaning "everything that exists") either spontaneously began from nothing, or was always there.

"It was made by a God" is incoherent; The closest you can get to a coherent claim from that position is "It was once just a God, and that God made everything else". But then you have to ask where God came from; And if your claim is that God always existed, or that God began to exist from nothing, you need to explain why you feel the need for the extra step, in the complete absence of any evidence that it is necessary - and also explain why you don't feel the need for more than one un-evidenced and utterly pointless extra step.

God is a concept that adds exactly zero to our understanding of origins, while requiring assumptions for which there is zero basis

Well, okay. But nothing adds to our understanding of origins. I don't actually see creation myths as being primarily about, or useful for, scientific inquiry into cosmology. But that also isn't the real reason we tell stories about the beginnings of things.

 

[abaddon]

Religious tradition, for being around so long and believed by so many, makes "God made the universe" seem like a reasonable claim to consider. But it's silly to consider "hm, maybe that's possible" until after there's something better than him being the automatic "go to" all these centuries whenever mystery strikes.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Well, you have access to one universe, without a clear explanation as to its presence.

What do you mean? Isn't it there? It is isn't it? We are it too. What is the scientific reason that it can't just be there? Are you saying that magic god things can be there but not anything else? Please explain why you cannot accept that it is there.

 

[Copernicus]

...
God is a concept that adds exactly zero to our understanding of origins, while requiring assumptions for which there is zero basis

Well, okay. But nothing adds to our understanding of origins. I don't actually see creation myths as being primarily about, or useful for, scientific inquiry into cosmology. But that also isn't the real reason we tell stories about the beginnings of things.

All you are saying is that people tell stories for various reasons, not always to propose a serious theory of cosmology. However, many of the stories are based on a cosmology that used to exist and was taken very seriously by the people who concocted the creation stories. And there are a lot of people out there who try to take some very primitive origin stories seriously. In the US, they even build theme parks dedicated to those stories. I don't see the sense in denying that creation myths are taken seriously, since it is easy to prove that they are even in modern times when people should know better. It is one thing to treat people who have a different understanding of reality respectfully, but that does not require one to take their origin myths seriously or as valid alternatives to theories based on what science has taught us about the universe.

 

[DBT]

No explanation, therefore God?

 

[atrib]

Poofing is as good any theist's descriptor of the alleged act. And yes, a sample of one is a problem for the theist who argues that it's obvious that intentional poofing by some person is the only possible cause.

Well, I didn't do that. But since no one has any rational means to describe the origin of the universe, it seems a bit silly for one group to go after another group's story.

So if you didn't know who ate the last cookie, it would be reasonable for you to accept the claim that the invisible green goblin ate it? You would have no problem with such a claim?

If we don't know how the universe came to exist, then we can't say anything meaningful about how the universe came to exist. It is not reasonable to accept a claim that some supernatural entity outside the universe deliberately made it happen, when such a claim is not backed by sufficient evidence.

 

[steve_bank]

Poofing is as good any theist's descriptor of the alleged act. And yes, a sample of one is a problem for the theist who argues that it's obvious that intentional poofing by some person is the only possible cause.

Well, I didn't do that. But since no one has any rational means to describe the origin of the universe, it seems a bit silly for one group to go after another group's story.

So if you didn't know who ate the last cookie, it would be reasonable for you to accept the claim that the invisible green goblin ate it? You would have no problem with such a claim?

If we don't know how the universe came to exist, then we can't say anything meaningful about how the universe came to exist. It is not reasonable to accept a claim that some supernatural entity outside the universe deliberately made it happen, when such a claim is not backed by sufficient evidence.

Nicely put.

 

[Politesse]

So if you didn't know who ate the last cookie, it would be reasonable for you to accept the claim that the invisible green goblin ate it? You would have no problem with such a claim?

If, as in this case, it was the only cookie that I or anyone else had ever encountered or interacted with? I think it would be hard to make reasonable conclusions about The Cookie, especially as it no longer exists and I have nothing at all to rationally compare it to.

 

[fromderinside]

Everyone knows universes can only come from somebody poofing them into reality. We've all seen it a million times.

No, we've all seen it exactly once.

I haven't seen somebody "poofing" a universe even once. It's unlikely anyone has.

Well, you have access to one universe, without a clear explanation as to its presence.

Poof goes your argument

 

[atrib]

Poofing is as good any theist's descriptor of the alleged act. And yes, a sample of one is a problem for the theist who argues that it's obvious that intentional poofing by some person is the only possible cause.

Well, I didn't do that. But since no one has any rational means to describe the origin of the universe, it seems a bit silly for one group to go after another group's story.

So if you didn't know who ate the last cookie, it would be reasonable for you to accept the claim that the invisible green goblin ate it? You would have no problem with such a claim?

If we don't know how the universe came to exist, then we can't say anything meaningful about how the universe came to exist. It is not reasonable to accept a claim that some supernatural entity outside the universe deliberately made it happen, when such a claim is not backed by sufficient evidence.

So if you didn't know who ate the last cookie, it would be reasonable for you to accept the claim that the invisible green goblin ate it? You would have no problem with such a claim?

If, as in this case, it was the only cookie that I or anyone else had ever encountered or interacted with? I think it would be hard to make reasonable conclusions about The Cookie, especially as it no longer exists and I have nothing at all to rationally compare it to.

Is there anything in my post to suggest that the cookie was somehow special? For the sake of the discussion lets assume that this was just a regular cookie bought off the shelf at my preferred grocery store and placed in the cookie jar on the kitchen table. There is nothing special about it, except for the fact that we don't know what became of it. Which brings me back to my point: would it be reasonable to accept the claim made by a young member of my household that the cookie had been taken by an invisible green goblin that nobody has ever seen? Would it be reasonable to question the veracity of the claim, knowing what we know about the world we inhabit and have knowledge of.

This is a big part of the reason theists don't get any respect. You can clearly read and understand the point I was making, but chose to hold up a distraction designed to lead us away from the discussion.

 

[Politesse]

Is there anything in my post to suggest that the cookie was somehow special? For the sake of the discussion lets assume that this was just a regular cookie bought off the shelf at my preferred grocery store and placed in the cookie jar on the kitchen table. There is nothing special about it, except for the fact that we don't know what became of it.

In that case, the cookie is a really, really bad analogy for the universe.

I note that if the cookie is analogously the universe, an atheist can't claim that a child ate the cookie, any more than a green goblin; your position is more akin to "there's no reason to assume that the cookie didn't just disappear". It's interesting that you assume instinctively that some kind of agency was involved in trying to explain the disappearing cookie, but insist that it is implausible and irrational to assume agency in the creation of universes.