What would count as proof of God

[Politesse]

Prove it no longer exists!

No need, I just need to prove that everything which specifically claims to be a cookie, isn't one. Since "absence of cookies" is the default assumption, the burden of proof is always on the baker. And since as we all know, everyone who claims to have seen the cookie is suffering from mental delusions, and moreover disagree even with each other as to what cookies look like, this should be.... a cakewalk.

 

[Politesse]

Sorry, but I'm a little confused. I think that you are saying that you believe that the bible is correct because the bible emphasizes witnessing and testimony? Correct? If the Koran also emphasizes witnessing and testimony (I'll do some research on this); would you not also consider it to be true? If so, which book should we believe in?

Why are you confused? Well firstly... the bible was written well before the Koran. Witnesses (plural) are many in the bible. Witness singular, by Mohammed in the Koran has less weight. The old argument against the bible: that there were many writers etc.. strangely enough is actually better than one single witness, so to speak, just like lonesome Joseph Smith.

So are you agreeing with Harry’s effort to reflect your position?
That you believe whatever book is the oldest one with witnesses?

And I have a follow-up question; does this mean that you do not believve the parts of the bible that are written by people who are not witnesses? Like Paul’s stuff, and Revelations? And Genesis?

In another place, Learner has claimed that only the parts of the Bible that are direct quotations of what Jesus said should be considered true. Everything else is questionable.

Ah, the red-letter Bible! My grandmother used to have one of those.

 

[atrib]

Prove it no longer exists!

No need, I just need to prove that everything which specifically claims to be a cookie, isn't one. Since "absence of cookies" is the default assumption, the burden of proof is always on the baker. And since as we all know, everyone who claims to have seen the cookie is suffering from mental delusions, and moreover disagree even with each other as to what cookies look like, this should be.... a cakewalk.

A cookie is not analogous to a god in any meaningful way. Many of us have seen cookies, or biscuits, as the rest of the world calls them. Cookies are easily available from multiple retail stores, and can also be created from ingredients in our own homes. We can see, feel, taste and smell cookies. We can create standards to define what a cookie is, and test anything that claims to be a cookie against these standards. None of those things are possible with gods. And that is where your analogy breaks down.

 

[Politesse]

Prove it no longer exists!

No need, I just need to prove that everything which specifically claims to be a cookie, isn't one. Since "absence of cookies" is the default assumption, the burden of proof is always on the baker. And since as we all know, everyone who claims to have seen the cookie is suffering from mental delusions, and moreover disagree even with each other as to what cookies look like, this should be.... a cakewalk.

A cookie is not analogous to a god in any meaningful way. Many of us have seen cookies, or biscuits, as the rest of the world calls them. Cookies are easily available from multiple retail stores, and can also be created from ingredients in our own homes. We can see, feel, taste and smell cookies. We can create standards to define what a cookie is, and test anything that claims to be a cookie against these standards. None of those things are possible with gods. And that is where your analogy breaks down.

It's not my analogy. I think it's moronic and infantile that we're trying to compare cookies to universes.

You're unintentionally making my point, actually, the one everyone is theoretically objecting to; that since we have only one universe to observe, there's no real possibility of scientifically studying how universes originate, or talk reasonably at all about what might or might not be required for one to come into being.

 

[atrib]

Sorry, but I'm a little confused. I think that you are saying that you believe that the bible is correct because the bible emphasizes witnessing and testimony? Correct? If the Koran also emphasizes witnessing and testimony (I'll do some research on this); would you not also consider it to be true? If so, which book should we believe in?

Why are you confused? Well firstly... the bible was written well before the Koran. Witnesses (plural) are many in the bible. Witness singular, by Mohammed in the Koran has less weight. The old argument against the bible: that there were many writers etc.. strangely enough is actually better than one single witness, so to speak, just like lonesome Joseph Smith.

There are multiple witnesses who have testified to Joseph Smith seemingly translating the word of God using magical tools. We know that Joseph Smith was a real person who gave rise to a large sect of believers who still exist and thrive today. Why should we believe the anonymous authors of the Bible who never met Jesus or were even his contemporaries, but not Joseph Smith?

Similarly, there are multiple witnesses to the life of the Prophet Mohammed, and in its initial stages, the stories of the Quran was passed on through oral tradition (recitation from memory) before they were written down and collected into books - just like the Bible. Why do you say the Quran is less credible than the Bible?

If I wrote a story about someone performing supernatural acts, and the story stated that there were thousands of witnesses who saw these miracles happen in front of their eyes, would that mean the story is true? Isn't that exactly what you are asserting?

 

[atrib]

Prove it no longer exists!

No need, I just need to prove that everything which specifically claims to be a cookie, isn't one. Since "absence of cookies" is the default assumption, the burden of proof is always on the baker. And since as we all know, everyone who claims to have seen the cookie is suffering from mental delusions, and moreover disagree even with each other as to what cookies look like, this should be.... a cakewalk.

A cookie is not analogous to a god in any meaningful way. Many of us have seen cookies, or biscuits, as the rest of the world calls them. Cookies are easily available from multiple retail stores, and can also be created from ingredients in our own homes. We can see, feel, taste and smell cookies. We can create standards to define what a cookie is, and test anything that claims to be a cookie against these standards. None of those things are possible with gods. And that is where your analogy breaks down.

It's not my analogy. I think it's moronic and infantile that we're trying to compare cookies to universes.

I did not compare the universe to a cookie. The universe is not a thing - it is a collection of things, everything that we can see or hypothesize as existing. You can't compare the universe directly to anything within it. As an example, the set of all 40-year old bachelors living in NYC at the present time is not comparable or analogous to any individual male that happens to belong in that set.

You're unintentionally making my point, actually, the one everyone is theoretically objecting to; that since we have only one universe to observe, there's no real possibility of scientifically studying how universes originate, or talk reasonably at all about what might or might not be required for one to come into being.

We have the ability to reasonably talk about the origins of the universe already. Cosmological models allow us to do that. One model hypothesizes an inflating scalar field that spawns local areas of spacetime where the field value drops below a certain threshold, which then follows "regular" cosmic expansion and cools down to form a universe filled with matter/energy. We don't have the ability to test every aspect of such models at the present time, but that doesn't mean this limitation will always exist. And just because we cannot authoritatively state how our universe originated doesn't mean that we should accept stories from old books as being likely true. That is the point.

 

[blastula]

Can you cite the book and quote the passage that you reference here please? I have read a few of Erhman's books, and I don't remember him saying that pretty much all historians believe that Jesus was a flesh and blood person.

From page 173 of Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?

Jesus certainly existed. My goal in this book, however, is not simply to show the evidence for Jesus’s existence that has proved compelling to almost every scholar who has ever thought about it, but also to show why those few authors who have thought otherwise are therefore wrong.

 

[Politesse]

Prove it no longer exists!

No need, I just need to prove that everything which specifically claims to be a cookie, isn't one. Since "absence of cookies" is the default assumption, the burden of proof is always on the baker. And since as we all know, everyone who claims to have seen the cookie is suffering from mental delusions, and moreover disagree even with each other as to what cookies look like, this should be.... a cakewalk.

A cookie is not analogous to a god in any meaningful way. Many of us have seen cookies, or biscuits, as the rest of the world calls them. Cookies are easily available from multiple retail stores, and can also be created from ingredients in our own homes. We can see, feel, taste and smell cookies. We can create standards to define what a cookie is, and test anything that claims to be a cookie against these standards. None of those things are possible with gods. And that is where your analogy breaks down.

It's not my analogy. I think it's moronic and infantile that we're trying to compare cookies to universes.

I did not compare the universe to a cookie. The universe is not a thing - it is a collection of things, everything that we can see or hypothesize as existing. You can't compare the universe directly to anything within it. As an example, the set of all 40-year old bachelors living in NYC at the present time is not comparable or analogous to any individual male that happens to belong in that set.

You're unintentionally making my point, actually, the one everyone is theoretically objecting to; that since we have only one universe to observe, there's no real possibility of scientifically studying how universes originate, or talk reasonably at all about what might or might not be required for one to come into being.

We have the ability to reasonably talk about the origins of the universe already. Cosmological models allow us to do that. One model hypothesizes an inflating scalar field that spawns local areas of spacetime where the field value drops below a certain threshold, which then follows "regular" cosmic expansion and cools down to form a universe filled with matter/energy. We don't have the ability to test every aspect of such models at the present time, but that doesn't mean this limitation will always exist. And just because we cannot authoritatively state how our universe originated doesn't mean that we should accept stories from old books as being likely true. That is the point.

A "model" that isn't based on comparative observation of similar phenomenona and that cannot be confirmed or evaluated by further observation is really just a glorified philosophy.

 

[bilby]

Either the universe is eternal, or it began to exist. We can't know which, but I lean towards the eternal, as this avoids the highly dodgy and un-evidenced assumption that the First Law of Thermodynamics hasn't always applied.

Positing an eternal creator god (or gods) achieves the counterproductive step of ensuring that the First Law of Thermodynamics is violated despite an eternal universe.

God stories get us further from, not closer to, an understanding of origins.

 

[atrib]

Prove it no longer exists!

No need, I just need to prove that everything which specifically claims to be a cookie, isn't one. Since "absence of cookies" is the default assumption, the burden of proof is always on the baker. And since as we all know, everyone who claims to have seen the cookie is suffering from mental delusions, and moreover disagree even with each other as to what cookies look like, this should be.... a cakewalk.

A cookie is not analogous to a god in any meaningful way. Many of us have seen cookies, or biscuits, as the rest of the world calls them. Cookies are easily available from multiple retail stores, and can also be created from ingredients in our own homes. We can see, feel, taste and smell cookies. We can create standards to define what a cookie is, and test anything that claims to be a cookie against these standards. None of those things are possible with gods. And that is where your analogy breaks down.

It's not my analogy. I think it's moronic and infantile that we're trying to compare cookies to universes.

I did not compare the universe to a cookie. The universe is not a thing - it is a collection of things, everything that we can see or hypothesize as existing. You can't compare the universe directly to anything within it. As an example, the set of all 40-year old bachelors living in NYC at the present time is not comparable or analogous to any individual male that happens to belong in that set.

You're unintentionally making my point, actually, the one everyone is theoretically objecting to; that since we have only one universe to observe, there's no real possibility of scientifically studying how universes originate, or talk reasonably at all about what might or might not be required for one to come into being.

We have the ability to reasonably talk about the origins of the universe already. Cosmological models allow us to do that. One model hypothesizes an inflating scalar field that spawns local areas of spacetime where the field value drops below a certain threshold, which then follows "regular" cosmic expansion and cools down to form a universe filled with matter/energy. We don't have the ability to test every aspect of such models at the present time, but that doesn't mean this limitation will always exist. And just because we cannot authoritatively state how our universe originated doesn't mean that we should accept stories from old books as being likely true. That is the point.

A "model" that isn't based on comparative observation of similar phenomenona and that cannot be confirmed or evaluated by further observation is really just a glorified philosophy.

And the Higgs boson was really just glorified philosophy, the mere prediction of a model, until we built a particle accelerator big enough to detect it. And tell us that scalar fields were a real thing. Took us about half a century, but we did it eventually.

We don't have to build and observe multiple universes to figure out how our universe may have originated. We can replicate the earliest conditions of our universe using instruments like the Large Hadron Collider, instruments that can replicate "similar phenomena" in a test environment.

 

[atrib]

Either the universe is eternal, or it began to exist. We can't know which, but I lean towards the eternal, as this avoids the highly dodgy and un-evidenced assumption that the First Law of Thermodynamics hasn't always applied.

When I say "the universe originated", I am talking about the apparent singularity that people call the Big Bang event. I am not suggesting that the universe originated ex nihilo, that nothing existed prior to this point in spacetime. Just a clarification, since some theists seem to think that is what the Big Bang theory states (an ex nihilo creation).

 

[Politesse]

Prove it no longer exists!

No need, I just need to prove that everything which specifically claims to be a cookie, isn't one. Since "absence of cookies" is the default assumption, the burden of proof is always on the baker. And since as we all know, everyone who claims to have seen the cookie is suffering from mental delusions, and moreover disagree even with each other as to what cookies look like, this should be.... a cakewalk.

A cookie is not analogous to a god in any meaningful way. Many of us have seen cookies, or biscuits, as the rest of the world calls them. Cookies are easily available from multiple retail stores, and can also be created from ingredients in our own homes. We can see, feel, taste and smell cookies. We can create standards to define what a cookie is, and test anything that claims to be a cookie against these standards. None of those things are possible with gods. And that is where your analogy breaks down.

It's not my analogy. I think it's moronic and infantile that we're trying to compare cookies to universes.

I did not compare the universe to a cookie. The universe is not a thing - it is a collection of things, everything that we can see or hypothesize as existing. You can't compare the universe directly to anything within it. As an example, the set of all 40-year old bachelors living in NYC at the present time is not comparable or analogous to any individual male that happens to belong in that set.

You're unintentionally making my point, actually, the one everyone is theoretically objecting to; that since we have only one universe to observe, there's no real possibility of scientifically studying how universes originate, or talk reasonably at all about what might or might not be required for one to come into being.

We have the ability to reasonably talk about the origins of the universe already. Cosmological models allow us to do that. One model hypothesizes an inflating scalar field that spawns local areas of spacetime where the field value drops below a certain threshold, which then follows "regular" cosmic expansion and cools down to form a universe filled with matter/energy. We don't have the ability to test every aspect of such models at the present time, but that doesn't mean this limitation will always exist. And just because we cannot authoritatively state how our universe originated doesn't mean that we should accept stories from old books as being likely true. That is the point.

A "model" that isn't based on comparative observation of similar phenomenona and that cannot be confirmed or evaluated by further observation is really just a glorified philosophy.

And the Higgs boson was really just glorified philosophy, the mere prediction of a model, until we built a particle accelerator big enough to detect it. And tell us that scalar fields were a real thing. Took us about half a century, but we did it eventually.

We don't have to build and observe multiple universes to figure out how our universe may have originated. We can replicate the earliest conditions of our universe using instruments like the Large Hadron Collider, instruments that can replicate "similar phenomena" in a test environment.

When they do, I'll be most interested. I don't see "a boson" as being any more or less like "a universe" than a cookie is, though.

 

[Politesse]

Either the universe is eternal, or it began to exist. We can't know which, but I lean towards the eternal, as this avoids the highly dodgy and un-evidenced assumption that the First Law of Thermodynamics hasn't always applied.

Positing an eternal creator god (or gods) achieves the counterproductive step of ensuring that the First Law of Thermodynamics is violated despite an eternal universe.

God stories get us further from, not closer to, an understanding of origins.

How is the assumption of eternity any more evidenced or less "highly dodgy"?

 

[atrib]

Prove it no longer exists!

No need, I just need to prove that everything which specifically claims to be a cookie, isn't one. Since "absence of cookies" is the default assumption, the burden of proof is always on the baker. And since as we all know, everyone who claims to have seen the cookie is suffering from mental delusions, and moreover disagree even with each other as to what cookies look like, this should be.... a cakewalk.

A cookie is not analogous to a god in any meaningful way. Many of us have seen cookies, or biscuits, as the rest of the world calls them. Cookies are easily available from multiple retail stores, and can also be created from ingredients in our own homes. We can see, feel, taste and smell cookies. We can create standards to define what a cookie is, and test anything that claims to be a cookie against these standards. None of those things are possible with gods. And that is where your analogy breaks down.

It's not my analogy. I think it's moronic and infantile that we're trying to compare cookies to universes.

I did not compare the universe to a cookie. The universe is not a thing - it is a collection of things, everything that we can see or hypothesize as existing. You can't compare the universe directly to anything within it. As an example, the set of all 40-year old bachelors living in NYC at the present time is not comparable or analogous to any individual male that happens to belong in that set.

You're unintentionally making my point, actually, the one everyone is theoretically objecting to; that since we have only one universe to observe, there's no real possibility of scientifically studying how universes originate, or talk reasonably at all about what might or might not be required for one to come into being.

We have the ability to reasonably talk about the origins of the universe already. Cosmological models allow us to do that. One model hypothesizes an inflating scalar field that spawns local areas of spacetime where the field value drops below a certain threshold, which then follows "regular" cosmic expansion and cools down to form a universe filled with matter/energy. We don't have the ability to test every aspect of such models at the present time, but that doesn't mean this limitation will always exist. And just because we cannot authoritatively state how our universe originated doesn't mean that we should accept stories from old books as being likely true. That is the point.

A "model" that isn't based on comparative observation of similar phenomenona and that cannot be confirmed or evaluated by further observation is really just a glorified philosophy.

And the Higgs boson was really just glorified philosophy, the mere prediction of a model, until we built a particle accelerator big enough to detect it. And tell us that scalar fields were a real thing. Took us about half a century, but we did it eventually.

We don't have to build and observe multiple universes to figure out how our universe may have originated. We can replicate the earliest conditions of our universe using instruments like the Large Hadron Collider, instruments that can replicate "similar phenomena" in a test environment.

When they do, I'll be most interested. I don't see "a boson" as being any more or less like "a universe" than a cookie is, though.

The Higgs Field is what gives certain particles that interact with it their mass. The universe is a collection of massive particles and energy, and some of this matter/energy in the early universe interacted with the Higgs field to produce the universe we observe today. So very relevant to the question of how the universe came to be.

A cookie is also made out of matter which gets it mass from its interaction with the Higgs Field.

And the universe is not a thing, it is a collection of things, a set or a container, as I have explained before.

 

[steve_bank]

The general alternatives are limited.

1. A god created it all, without explaining where god came from. Native Americans have their own creation myths. as do all cultures.
2.The universe winked into existence without causation, something from nothing.
3. The universe has a finite beginning and a finite end. No explanation of how the starting point came to be.
4. A universe with no beginning and no end in constant change.

I go with number 4. Unless you dispense with causation or invoke the supernatural for which there is no evidence there is no explaining a starting point. The BB Theory starts with a set of theoretical initial condition's, but does not exlain what may have come before the event. The BB does no address ultimate organs of the universe.

Everything in our long history of experimental evidence says nothing happens without a cause. Given causation, there can be no 'first cause'. Hense am infinite sequence of causation. The alternative is a supernatural god not subject to causation. Or the universe creating itself out of nothing.


Is an infinite causation as whimsical as something from nothing?

As I like to say, if the unaverse itself is evidence of a god, then the god is not a very good god. Sloppy work.

 

[Politesse]

"Everything in our long history of experimental evidence"

has been a component of the thing we're studying.

If a group of fish in an opaque fishbowl concluded that the fishbowl itself existed but that there was nothing outside of it, their reasoning would be 100% sound, since they would have no way of experimentally confirming anything beyond what their senses could detect. Even their daily dose of fish food would make sense to them, as it would simply be a natural law that food appeared at a certain time, and why add "unnecessary entities" to explain what seems to simply exist without any need for a creator to explain it? Science can only confirm that the fish food appears, not these wild tales people come up with about it coming from another realm. Indeed, given that the food is made of similar stuff to the fish biochemically, a scientist fish would have reason to assume that they evolved both from and to eat the only scientifically known source of food in the universe, which simply exists and reoccurs at consistent intervals, no theories of intelligent design necessary. So there'd be nothing wrong with their logic.

But they'd still be very, very wrong.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

"Everything in our long history of experimental evidence"

has been a component of the thing we're studying.

If a group of fish in an opaque fishbowl concluded that the fishbowl itself existed but that there was nothing outside of it, their reasoning would be 100% sound, since they would have no way of experimentally confirming anything beyond what their senses could detect. Even their daily dose of fish food would make sense to them, as it would simply be a natural law that food appeared at a certain time, and why add "unnecessary entities" to explain what seems to simply exist without any need for a creator to explain it? Science can only confirm that the fish food appears, not these wild tales people come up with about it coming from another realm. Indeed, given that the food is made of similar stuff to the fish biochemically, a scientist fish would have reason to assume that they evolved both from and to eat the only scientifically known source of food in the universe, which simply exists and reoccurs at consistent intervals, no theories of intelligent design necessary. So there'd be nothing wrong with their logic.

But they'd still be very, very wrong.

They'd be dumb fish that believed in magic. To conclude that their fishbowl was all there is but that food magically appeared from outside where there wasn't anything? Yes, very dumb fish that pray to the great nothing that magically gives them food.

 

[Copernicus]

Can you cite the book and quote the passage that you reference here please? I have read a few of Erhman's books, and I don't remember him saying that pretty much all historians believe that Jesus was a flesh and blood person.

From page 173 of Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?

Jesus certainly existed. My goal in this book, however, is not simply to show the evidence for Jesus’s existence that has proved compelling to almost every scholar who has ever thought about it, but also to show why those few authors who have thought otherwise are therefore wrong.

I read that book a couple of years ago, so it came to mind when I read atrib's request for a reference. That was a really interesting book, because Ehrman used it to teach students how to read the gospels in parallel rather sequentially in order to pick our contradictions over large and small details. However, I was somewhat disappointed in his claim, because he appeared to contradict himself. He said up front that he wasn't going to use the popular tactic of claiming that Jesus must have existed because all the serious scholars think he did. Nevertheless, Ehrman seemed to do that repeatedly throughout his discourse. I do not think he succeeded in proving that "those few authors who have thought otherwise" were actually wrong. The strongest evidence against mythicists is still Paul's claim to have met his brother James, but that isn't actually very strong evidence at all. But Ehrman did a splendid job of explaining why the gospels themselves were riddled with inconsistencies. I don't know whether his defense of the historical Jesus helped him to tamp down the criticism he was receiving for refusing to embrace Christianity wholeheartedly, but it probably didn't hurt.

 

[Politesse]

"Everything in our long history of experimental evidence"

has been a component of the thing we're studying.

If a group of fish in an opaque fishbowl concluded that the fishbowl itself existed but that there was nothing outside of it, their reasoning would be 100% sound, since they would have no way of experimentally confirming anything beyond what their senses could detect. Even their daily dose of fish food would make sense to them, as it would simply be a natural law that food appeared at a certain time, and why add "unnecessary entities" to explain what seems to simply exist without any need for a creator to explain it? Science can only confirm that the fish food appears, not these wild tales people come up with about it coming from another realm. Indeed, given that the food is made of similar stuff to the fish biochemically, a scientist fish would have reason to assume that they evolved both from and to eat the only scientifically known source of food in the universe, which simply exists and reoccurs at consistent intervals, no theories of intelligent design necessary. So there'd be nothing wrong with their logic.

But they'd still be very, very wrong.

They'd be dumb fish that believed in magic. To conclude that their fishbowl was all there is but that food magically appeared from outside where there wasn't anything? Yes, very dumb fish that pray to the great nothing that magically gives them food.

How is that any more dumb than assuming our "physical laws" are laws, or that the universe has "always existed"? They have no access to any data that could possibly confirm the existence of anything outside the bowl; they'd think you were a complete blibbering idiot for suggesting there were living beings outside the bowl. Why is it necessary to posit magnificent but completely invisible alien beings who like to give us food, when everyone knows that the First Law of Food Materialization consistently explains the phenomenon they see better (and in much more sciencey-sounding language) than any mysticism could possibly hope to do? You might as well propose that the food comes from a pink fluffy invisible unicorn pooping into the bowl.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I’ll accept one UPC of God as proof. No facsimiles.