What would count as proof of God

[DBT]

So if I believed the cookie was a made thing, I would think a child ate it?

If the universe is really like a cookie - epistemologically, not ontologically - then you should be entirely comfortable with the idea of cookies appearing without need for someone to make them, and disappearing without need for someone to have taken them. There is either a failure of a metaphor here, or a failure of a priori reasoning. Which do you prefer to admit to? I would choose the metaphor, if I were you.

The universe and the cookie are the same thing. I've never seen a cookie appear or disappear and I've never seen any part of the universe appear or disappear. The cookie is just like every other part of the universe, it's always been here, just like every part of you and me.

Maybe you have a greater point. Or maybe you want to explain what you mean when you say "came to exist."

The cookie has eternal life now? This is getting weird.

Does matter vanish from the Universe when the cookie is consumed?

 

[Politesse]

I guess you mean that the matter which makes up the cookie has always existed. But that seems like an extremely speculative claim to me. How could you possibly know?

Only because it agrees with every observation we've ever made?

You can say that all you like. Not quite the same thing as presenting your evidence.

 

[Politesse]

So if I believed the cookie was a made thing, I would think a child ate it?

If the universe is really like a cookie - epistemologically, not ontologically - then you should be entirely comfortable with the idea of cookies appearing without need for someone to make them, and disappearing without need for someone to have taken them. There is either a failure of a metaphor here, or a failure of a priori reasoning. Which do you prefer to admit to? I would choose the metaphor, if I were you.

The universe and the cookie are the same thing. I've never seen a cookie appear or disappear and I've never seen any part of the universe appear or disappear. The cookie is just like every other part of the universe, it's always been here, just like every part of you and me.

Maybe you have a greater point. Or maybe you want to explain what you mean when you say "came to exist."

The cookie has eternal life now? This is getting weird.

Does matter vanish from the Universe when the cookie is consumed?

Well, no. But is that a reasonable description of what atrib most likely meant when they described the cookie as being "gone"?

 

[Politesse]

Politesse,

If someone claims that an invisible being might reasonably plausibly have [done anything at all], then how would people proceed at detecting it?

What anyone believes (or doesn't believe) about how the universe came to be (or whether or not it did) doesn't matter.

How does anyone, theist or atheist, go about detecting invisible beings?

Try radar? Infrared?

This is getting dumb again.

 

[DBT]

Isn't radar, infrared, etc, a part of the EMR spectrum, which we can detect?

 

[Politesse]

Isn't radar, infrared, etc, a part of the EMR spectrum, which we can detect?

So is visible light. Who cares whether invisible things exist or not? As far as I know, there aren't any religions that believe the universe was created by wholly invisible beings anyway. Certainly not Christianity, a tradition in which the incarnation of God is a pretty central theological concept.

 

[abaddon]

hmm... what about massive stars that die?

Sorry about the word-choice - I should have said "undetectable" instead of "invisible". Also stars aren't beings or agents.

The issue I wanted to figure out was, in the absence of answers to a question, does an undetectable "agency" become reasonable as a possible answer to the question?

Especially if (like is the case with God) the "agency" keeps being proposed time and again but is never found anywhere, I have to wonder if it's reasonable to say it's one of contenders as an answer to "how'd the universe come to be?"
 Nobody's given me a reason to change my mind from "no, god as a 'possible answer' is not reasonable".

 

[none]

Politesse,

If someone claims that an invisible being might reasonably plausibly have [done anything at all], then how would people proceed at detecting it?

What anyone believes (or doesn't believe) about how the universe came to be (or whether or not it did) doesn't matter.

How does anyone, theist or atheist, go about detecting invisible beings?

hmm... what about massive stars that die?

Sorry about the word-choice - I should have said "undetectable" instead of "invisible". Also stars aren't beings or agents.

The issue I wanted to figure out was, in the absence of answers to a question, does undetectable "agency" become reasonable as a possible answer to the question?

Even if (like is the case with God) the "agency" just keeps getting proposed time and again but is never found anywhere, across centuries even, is it reasonable to say it's one of contenders as an answer to "how'd the universe come to be?"

Nobody's given me a reason to change my mind from "no, god as a 'possible answer' is not reasonable".

pops, clicks, and whistles, yet a sharp stick always gets a person's attention.
LoL
err.. yeah do stars have agency? I dunno... hormonal sentience is a thing.
stellar agency, yep that is a level iii civilization.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You can say that all you like. Not quite the same thing as presenting your evidence.

Hint: It doesn't change when you close your eyes.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Does matter vanish from the Universe when the cookie is consumed?

Well, no. But is that a reasonable description of what atrib most likely meant when they described the cookie as being "gone"?

So you agree the cookie isn't gone. Excellent!

 

[atrib]

It's the position of those who express that the universe is unlikely to exist unless a transcendent being or entity (a "god") intentionally made it. And, no, that's not my position.

Then you feel it is atrib's position?

It's not my analogy, but I find it interesting that neither of you have been able to exercise consistency with it. It's supposed to be explaining why it should be obvious why the universe simply exists without any need to explain how or why, but both of you instinctively applied agency to the question of the appearing and disappearing cookie, seemingly without even meaning to or thinking about what you were doing.

That is not true. Not once did I compare the two or refer to them as being analogous, or ascribe any special qualities to the cookie itself or its origin - that was you trying to put words in my mouth in an attempt to avoid the point I was making. In the second paragraph of my first post I went on to explain my position further, and this you completely ignored. For the third fucking time, this is I said:

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.

You made an argument from ignorance and got called out on it by multiple posters. You asserted that we should not question theistic claims because we don't know how the universe originated. This is an argument from ignorance. Now you are trying to misrepresent my position and argue irrelevant nonsense to divert our attention from this fact.

I said nothing of the sort.

You're very quick to invent positions for me, for someone so supposedly offended by my many misinterpretations of your clever metaphor that you cannot explain or defend.

I would, if coming upon a cookie, absolutely assume that someone made it. And if I then found the cookie missing, I would absolutely assume that someone had taken it. So what does that imply for a universe, which is the analogue to the cookie in this situation?

As I have explained already, the cookie is not an analogue of anything. The hypothetical scenario I made up is meant to illustrate how arguments from ignorance work. It is not intended to be a metaphor for the universe or its origin.

We don't know how the universe came to exist, then we can't say anything meaningful about how the universe came to exist.

This, I wholeheartedly agree with. Indeed, I've said the exact same thing multiple times in the thread! I do not claim to know anything about how the universe came into being. But, I do think that it did. And so do you.

You continue to miss the point. This is the part of your post I disagreed with (in bold):

Politesse:
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.

I disagree that theistic claims regarding the origins of the universe should not be questioned, as you seem to imply in the part I quoted and highlighted. And your reasoning behind why such claims should not be questioned is based on "But since no one has any rational means to describe the origin of the universe". It appears to be an argument from ignorance, as several posters have pointed out. Do you understand now?

 

[Politesse]

It's the position of those who express that the universe is unlikely to exist unless a transcendent being or entity (a "god") intentionally made it. And, no, that's not my position.

Then you feel it is atrib's position?

It's not my analogy, but I find it interesting that neither of you have been able to exercise consistency with it. It's supposed to be explaining why it should be obvious why the universe simply exists without any need to explain how or why, but both of you instinctively applied agency to the question of the appearing and disappearing cookie, seemingly without even meaning to or thinking about what you were doing.

That is not true. Not once did I compare the two or refer to them as being analogous, or ascribe any special qualities to the cookie itself or its origin - that was you trying to put words in my mouth in an attempt to avoid the point I was making. In the second paragraph of my first post I went on to explain my position further, and this you completely ignored. For the third fucking time, this is I said:

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.

You made an argument from ignorance and got called out on it by multiple posters. You asserted that we should not question theistic claims because we don't know how the universe originated. This is an argument from ignorance. Now you are trying to misrepresent my position and argue irrelevant nonsense to divert our attention from this fact.

I said nothing of the sort.

You're very quick to invent positions for me, for someone so supposedly offended by my many misinterpretations of your clever metaphor that you cannot explain or defend.

I would, if coming upon a cookie, absolutely assume that someone made it. And if I then found the cookie missing, I would absolutely assume that someone had taken it. So what does that imply for a universe, which is the analogue to the cookie in this situation?

As I have explained already, the cookie is not an analogue of anything. The hypothetical scenario I made up is meant to illustrate how arguments from ignorance work. It is not intended to be a metaphor for the universe or its origin.

We don't know how the universe came to exist, then we can't say anything meaningful about how the universe came to exist.

This, I wholeheartedly agree with. Indeed, I've said the exact same thing multiple times in the thread! I do not claim to know anything about how the universe came into being. But, I do think that it did. And so do you.

You continue to miss the point. This is the part of your post I disagreed with (in bold):

Politesse:
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.

I disagree that theistic claims regarding the origins of the universe should not be questioned, as you seem to imply in the part I quoted and highlighted. And your reasoning behind why such claims should not be questioned is based on "But since no one has any rational means to describe the origin of the universe". It appears to be an argument from ignorance, as several posters have pointed out. Do you understand now?

When have I ever so much as suggested that there is anything which cannot be questioned?

 

[atrib]

It's the position of those who express that the universe is unlikely to exist unless a transcendent being or entity (a "god") intentionally made it. And, no, that's not my position.

Then you feel it is atrib's position?

It's not my analogy, but I find it interesting that neither of you have been able to exercise consistency with it. It's supposed to be explaining why it should be obvious why the universe simply exists without any need to explain how or why, but both of you instinctively applied agency to the question of the appearing and disappearing cookie, seemingly without even meaning to or thinking about what you were doing.

That is not true. Not once did I compare the two or refer to them as being analogous, or ascribe any special qualities to the cookie itself or its origin - that was you trying to put words in my mouth in an attempt to avoid the point I was making. In the second paragraph of my first post I went on to explain my position further, and this you completely ignored. For the third fucking time, this is I said:

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.

You made an argument from ignorance and got called out on it by multiple posters. You asserted that we should not question theistic claims because we don't know how the universe originated. This is an argument from ignorance. Now you are trying to misrepresent my position and argue irrelevant nonsense to divert our attention from this fact.

I said nothing of the sort.

You're very quick to invent positions for me, for someone so supposedly offended by my many misinterpretations of your clever metaphor that you cannot explain or defend.

I would, if coming upon a cookie, absolutely assume that someone made it. And if I then found the cookie missing, I would absolutely assume that someone had taken it. So what does that imply for a universe, which is the analogue to the cookie in this situation?

As I have explained already, the cookie is not an analogue of anything. The hypothetical scenario I made up is meant to illustrate how arguments from ignorance work. It is not intended to be a metaphor for the universe or its origin.

We don't know how the universe came to exist, then we can't say anything meaningful about how the universe came to exist.

This, I wholeheartedly agree with. Indeed, I've said the exact same thing multiple times in the thread! I do not claim to know anything about how the universe came into being. But, I do think that it did. And so do you.

You continue to miss the point. This is the part of your post I disagreed with (in bold):

Politesse:
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.

I disagree that theistic claims regarding the origins of the universe should not be questioned, as you seem to imply in the part I quoted and highlighted. And your reasoning behind why such claims should not be questioned is based on "But since no one has any rational means to describe the origin of the universe". It appears to be an argument from ignorance, as several posters have pointed out. Do you understand now?

When have I ever so much as suggested that there is anything which cannot be questioned?

In the part I highlighted:

Politesse:
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.

What did you mean by "go after"? I take it to mean "challenge" or "question". You seem to be saying that people should not challenge or question theistic claims. Feel free to clarify if that is not what you meant.

 

[Politesse]

What did you mean by "go after"? I take it to mean "challenge" or "question". You seem to be saying that people should not challenge or question theistic claims. Feel free to clarify if that is not what you meant.

Thinking it's silly to attack the pot for being as black as the pan isn't the same thing as thinking its wrong or shouldn't be allowed. I do think people end up revealing more about themselves than they realize when they try to take proselytization on the offensive.

 

[atrib]

What did you mean by "go after"? I take it to mean "challenge" or "question". You seem to be saying that people should not challenge or question theistic claims. Feel free to clarify if that is not what you meant.

Thinking it's silly to attack the pot for being as black as the pan isn't the same thing as thinking its wrong or shouldn't be allowed.

Why is it silly to challenge theistic claims?

 

[blastula]

Pot and pan is a false comparison. The claims aren't in the same category.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

What did you mean by "go after"? I take it to mean "challenge" or "question". You seem to be saying that people should not challenge or question theistic claims. Feel free to clarify if that is not what you meant.

Thinking it's silly to attack the pot for being as black as the pan isn't the same thing as thinking its wrong or shouldn't be allowed. I do think people end up revealing more about themselves than they realize when they try to take proselytization on the offensive.

Do you think all proselytizers are aware of their behavior?

When is it okay to start telling children that magic isn't real?

Why is it silly to challenge theistic claims?

It obviously isn't silly to challenge such behavior. Doing so is the only way a person may become aware of their contradictory behavior, praying to a cosmic magician on one hand and using medical science on the other. But I don't think someone inclined to believe in magic is going to give up their standard. To do so is to give up their group identity and likely financial security.

Maybe it isn't wise to inform a five-year-old brain that Santa is just a story that feels good to pretend is real like any other story-book story. Know your audience.

 

[Politesse]

What did you mean by "go after"? I take it to mean "challenge" or "question". You seem to be saying that people should not challenge or question theistic claims. Feel free to clarify if that is not what you meant.

Thinking it's silly to attack the pot for being as black as the pan isn't the same thing as thinking its wrong or shouldn't be allowed. I do think people end up revealing more about themselves than they realize when they try to take proselytization on the offensive.

Do you think all proselytizers are aware of their behavior?

Obviously not. Only other groups proselytize, amirite?

 

[Learner]

The complaining about the cookie/goblin analogy is what theists also do with analogies. Time and again I see them turn an analogy that's about epistemology into a matter of ontology; I think because they're ok saying WHAT the beliefs are but don't want to get into WHY the beliefs should seem plausible to anyone.

'Did you get the nature of my items of belief exactly right? Oops, no, nothing in nature is like what I believe so you didn't! How rude!'

Is the imagery in atrib's analogy rudely dismissive of time-honored "personal" beliefs? Let's think on it instead of emoting about it:

The universe is like a cookie if it's a made thing.
And God's like an invisible goblin if he's not visible and is a character found in fantastical stories

Deriving questions from the above in bold, can be misleading and misrepresenting the view of Christianity,... despite often hearing atheists telling us how much they've "read" the whole bible.

By following as according to atheist-apologistic-logic; by having them dictate HOW they "think" theists believe & understand their scriptures, and the cosmic universe in relation to their faith. Naturally these questions may seem difficult to answer (deriving from the above phrasing highlighted in bold).

The obvious point I'm making for this post is: at least meet the theists halfway, so to speak - by getting the story narrative right! Basically as I understand it - no one has seen the Father but the son.. and Jesus was not invisible to humans! Context derived from some examples of the verses below:

Luke 10:21-24
27. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

John1: 18
18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.


John 6:45-46
45. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

 

[Rhea]

You say, “not invisible to humans” as if to imply that the character, Jesus, *is* visible to humans, and is not, to all of us in this discussion, a character in a book of unverified veracity penned by unknown humans thousands of years ago.


You admonish us for failing to “get the story right” when the story is unverified and completely subject to interpretation.

Other Christians can and do admonish YOU for “failing to get the story right,” and here you are trying to imply that this “Jesus” (who, if you get the story right, is “Yeshua,” anyway,) is somehow visible to humans.


It’s rather a stretch, on your part.

In other words, for every human who is alive and has been alive for all of history, the gods have been invisible, and the only exception even you can come up with is in a story book written by you don’t know who, after the death of the alleged visible god, without a verified chain of custody.

That’s your story?