What would count as proof of God

[Jarhyn]

Do yoj have an actual sorce for the definition you posted? I am curious if there are other definitions alongside this one.

I tend to use evidence in the idea of "that which may disprove, when known, some set of potential causalities"

I find a leaf on the road. It disproves real causalities absent leaves.

I find a footprint in my house of a boot that is not mine... It disproves causalities wherein my home has not been entered by someone who is not me.

And so on.

Evidence is a fact (the leaf) that supports a contention reality isn't absent leaves. The more difficult questions in life are rarely as cut and dry. This discussion revolves around what happened billions of year ago minus eyewitnesses. Like detectives at a crime scene any evidence we have is after the fact.

It does not support the contention. It disproves the counter.

This is a failing of faith, trying to support rather than trying to kick out the support.

Evidence cannot support something. Axioms cannot be proven as necessary, nor sufficient.

Evidence can only narrow down the possibilities through disproving certain causalities, indicating them as purely imaginary or nonsense.

Verification happens through disproof. Trying to do it the other way is the core of foolishness and blind faith.

 

[Rhea]

I'm not deliberately being difficult. I know as soon as I list P1 some folks in here will make up a new definition for what is and isn't evidence. For many the absolute core foundation of atheism is the mistaken idea there is no evidence in support of theism.

Wait, so you’re saying “if I present evience, you’ll argue about it, and I might not prevail in that debate, so I’ll say nothing and claim to win?”


That’s your strategy?
And you think we’ll buy it?
Would you buy that?

 

[Drew2008]

I'm not deliberately being difficult. I know as soon as I list P1 some folks in here will make up a new definition for what is and isn't evidence. For many the absolute core foundation of atheism is the mistaken idea there is no evidence in support of theism.

Wait, so you’re saying “if I present evience, you’ll argue about it, and I might not prevail in that debate, so I’ll say nothing and claim to win?”


That’s your strategy?
And you think we’ll buy it?
Would you buy that?

I'm not selling anything and I don't care what you buy.

I'm attempting to get a baseline agreement of what constitutes evidence not just in the context of theism vs atheism. In the context of everyday life. Evidence is merely facts that make a proposition more likely then minus such a fact. What some folks will revert to is the notion if a fact doesn't personally persuade them then ifsofacto its not evidence. That's not true. If I claim Joe Montana was the best QB that ever lived, does the fact he won four super bowls make my contention more probable then say if he never played football? Of course its irrefutable evidence my claim might be true. You may disagree and say that schmuck was just lucky and therefore the fact he played football and won four super bowls doesn't even count as evidence. Not so. It does count as evidence. Just evidence you don't accept.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm not deliberately being difficult. I know as soon as I list P1 some folks in here will make up a new definition for what is and isn't evidence. For many the absolute core foundation of atheism is the mistaken idea there is no evidence in support of theism.

Wait, so you’re saying “if I present evience, you’ll argue about it, and I might not prevail in that debate, so I’ll say nothing and claim to win?”


That’s your strategy?
And you think we’ll buy it?
Would you buy that?

I'm not selling anything and I don't care what you buy.

I'm attempting to get a baseline agreement of what constitutes evidence not just in the context of theism vs atheism. In the context of everyday life. Evidence is merely facts that make a proposition more likely then minus such a fact. What some folks will revert to is the notion if a fact doesn't personally persuade them then ifsofacto its not evidence. That's not true. If I claim Joe Montana was the best QB that ever lived, does the fact he won four super bowls make my contention more probable then say if he never played football? Of course its irrefutable evidence my claim might be true. You may disagree and say that schmuck was just lucky and therefore the fact he played football and won four super bowls doesn't even count as evidence. Not so. It does count as evidence. Just evidence you don't accept.

Yeah, but most people have seen Joe Montana. Comparing claims made about the widely experienced corporeal with claims made about the incorporeal is very silly.

A much better comparison is asking whether bowler Mitchem Williamson was the best bowler the game of Cricket has ever seen, of course, the catch is he lived in 18th Century England and there is no record that he played (or really ever existed).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

I do deny I have ever been presented any good evidence for theism. It's not out of denialism, it's just that the claim has failed scrutiny.

I would ask you to provide some, but I am sure you have nothing I haven't seen already.

They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

Anyone who believes because they think they have good evidence is just wrong. Consciously believing out of faith is a more respectable position.

Welcome to the forum.

The most universal phenomena I have observed based on evidence is the phenomena that "what one believes, no matter what their evidence, is wrong, excepting facts that relate to the interactions within a system of axioms; it is the axioms, however, that can not be proven in any way necessary, sufficient or complete, ever."

Is your belief that the most universal phenomena you have observed based on evidence is the phenomena that "what one believes, no matter what their evidence, is wrong, excepting facts that relate to the interactions within a system of axioms; it is the axioms, however, that can not be proven in any way necessary, sufficient or complete, ever.", a false belief?

If it is a false belief, well then you're wrong.
If it is not a false belief, then it is not the case that what one believes, no matter what their evidence, is wrong, excepting facts that relate to the interactions within a system of axioms.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm not selling anything and I don't care what you buy.

I'm attempting to get a baseline agreement of what constitutes evidence not just in the context of theism vs atheism.

Wow. I hate this quote system. Anyway,

Dude, i don't even agree with the definition of theism you're flogging. I hear the word, i think of believers in one god, multiple gods, inhuman gods, false gods, time and/or space travellersposing as gods and the entire universe with a very slight touch of self-awareness.Gods that made the universe, gods that found it, and gods born into it regardless of the origin.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

I do deny I have ever been presented any good evidence for theism. It's not out of denialism, it's just that the claim has failed scrutiny.

I would ask you to provide some, but I am sure you have nothing I haven't seen already.

They demand theism be strictly a faith belief based on wishful thinking only.

Anyone who believes because they think they have good evidence is just wrong. Consciously believing out of faith is a more respectable position.

Welcome to the forum.

The most universal phenomena I have observed based on evidence is the phenomena that "what one believes, no matter what their evidence, is wrong, excepting facts that relate to the interactions within a system of axioms; it is the axioms, however, that can not be proven in any way necessary, sufficient or complete, ever."

Is your belief that the most universal phenomena you have observed based on evidence is the phenomena that "what one believes, no matter what their evidence, is wrong, excepting facts that relate to the interactions within a system of axioms; it is the axioms, however, that can not be proven in any way necessary, sufficient or complete, ever.", a false belief?

If it is a false belief, well then you're wrong.
If it is not a false belief, then it is not the case that what one believes, no matter what their evidence, is wrong, excepting facts that relate to the interactions within a system of axioms.

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

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

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

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

That's one strike.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Dude, i don't even agree with the definition of theism you're flogging. I hear the word, i think of believers in one god, multiple gods, inhuman gods, false gods, time and/or space travellersposing as gods and the entire universe with a very slight touch of self-awareness.Gods that made the universe, gods that found it, and gods born into it regardless of the origin.

Shit, where'd the rest of it go, then?

Anyway, posing the argument as theist vs. atheist is, clearly, a mistake. There are theists that accept BigBang Theory, as far as it goes, and evolutionary theory, for what it actually says, and four-color-map theory, all as ways for man to try to understand the universe that the divine has provided for them. Some even work in the fields advancing the science.
But they're not all finding the same god being revealed.
I mean, it'd be kinda telling if every god-loving cosmologist became Mormon, or god-fearing paleobotanist converted to Bantu ancestor worship. But that's not what we see. People go to examine the evidence for the creation of life, Earth, or the universe, and for the most part retain the tradition they held on the way in.

Save yourself time and aggravation. Post the reasons that you find the idea of the divine to be convincing, rather than arguing with other people about what you think they do or should believe. See what happens.

 

[Jarhyn]

To me, theism starts exactly when someone abandons doubt.

The non-theist doubts.

Lots of people who call themselves atheists, especially here, become theists under this definition. I do not think this is a categorization error ony part so much as it is on theirs.

And so I will call them "bad atheists", so as to avoid the no-true-scotsman.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

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

Secondly this discussion is not a one way street I know some atheists believe atheism is a negative claim not in need of any evidence or have any burden of proof. The claim theism is an answer to a question how did the universe and humans come to exist? Theism isn't a religion its a philosophical belief that the universe was intentionally created to cause sentient life to exist in contrast to the belief no God(s), or Creator of any sort was needed. If so existence of the universe was caused unintentionally and human existence was just an unintended coincidence.

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.

Political hand waving and diverseness, Pressed for facts and saying nothing. Like trying to get Trump to present factual evidence of voter fraud.

What is your evdebce?


When working on real problems I have used syllogisms to help make it clear.


P1 evidence 1 for a creator
P2 evidence 2 for a creator
C Given P1 and P2 a creator must exist.

What are your premises?

Just for once I'd like to hear a theist say I know it is not logical and I jave no objective factual evidence, but I belive in god. I coud actually res[ect that.

I wrote my premise above. Of course there is factual evidence. To be evidence it must be an established fact.

Do you accept the definition of evidence? Do you agree 'For instance if I accuse someone of shooting a gun the fact they own a gun makes my claim they shot a gun more probable.' Its far from proof but do you concede it is a fact that makes the subsequent claim more probable? Not true just more probable. By the same token if the suspect didn't own a gun though far from conclusive it better supports the contention he didn't shoot a gun. Those are facts and such facts are evidence.

I'm not deliberately being difficult. I know as soon as I list P1 some folks in here will make up a new definition for what is and isn't evidence. For many the absolute core foundation of atheism is the mistaken idea there is no evidence in support of theism.

The oneus is on the cliamant to prove assertions beyond doubt, not on the unbleivers.

I do not accept your definition of evidence. or facts.

Refresh my memory, what are your ecideced proofs of a creator?


The Wtachmaker theist argument.

P1 You have never seen a watch, you find one and with its complexity you assume it is not natural, someone or something crezted it
p2. You observe a complex universe.
C There must be a creator of the universe.

The teleological argument (from τέλος, telos, 'end, aim, goal'; also known as physico-theological argument, argument from design, or intelligent design argument) is an argument for the existence of God or, more generally, that complex functionality in the natural world which looks designed is evidence of an intelligent ...

The Telelogical Argument

The observed universe could not possibly exist without a god-creator, theretofore a god-creator exists.

Then there is what I call New Age Mysticism born out of the psychedelic 60s. The unverse is alive, I know because I feel the vibbratuions, and so on. The universe is love.

Hindu scripture is by far the most poetic and elegant in terms of creation.

Or Buddhism, what ever 'it' is, it is all created in your head.


So, exactly what is your argumnt for a creator that has not been used before?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

 

[Jarhyn]

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

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

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

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

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To me, theism starts exactly when someone abandons doubt.

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

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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

It's logic, not sophistry.

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

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

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

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

That is a very different thing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

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

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


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



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

 

[blastula]

We'll have to agree on what evidence is.

evidence​

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

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

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

Secondly this discussion is not a one way street I know some atheists believe atheism is a negative claim not in need of any evidence or have any burden of proof. The claim theism is an answer to a question how did the universe and humans come to exist? Theism isn't a religion its a philosophical belief that the universe was intentionally created to cause sentient life to exist in contrast to the belief no God(s), or Creator of any sort was needed.

That is one type of theism or one aspect of a theism, it is certainly not the only way to define theism. And most theisms define their gods with many more characteristics than solely a universe creator.

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

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

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

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

 

[bilby]

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

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

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


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



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

You are right about that.

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

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

My head hurts.

 

[Drew2008]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

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

 

[Drew2008]

Secondly this discussion is not a one way street I know some atheists believe atheism is a negative claim not in need of any evidence or have any burden of proof. The claim theism is an answer to a question how did the universe and humans come to exist? Theism isn't a religion its a philosophical belief that the universe was intentionally created to cause sentient life to exist in contrast to the belief no God(s), or Creator of any sort was needed.
That is one type of theism or one aspect of a theism, it is certainly not the only way to define theism. And most theisms define their gods with many more characteristics than solely a universe creator.

It is how theism is defined. Many religious beliefs are theistic in that they subscribe to the theistic belief that a Creator caused the universe and subsequently life to exist. Secondly attacking specific religious beliefs doesn't provide reason or evidence to believe the universe was caused by forces that somehow came into existence and caused the universe we now live in unintentionally.

For me to reject theism I would have to see some compelling evidence that convinces me the material world that I depend on for my existence was serendipitously caused by forces that didn't even intend there own existence to occur. I know creating and causing a universe to exist if it was caused by a personal agent would have to be a transcendent super intellect. A dumb ass wouldn't have much success. Yet in atheism the belief is mindless forces without plan or intent caused the conditions necessary for us to have this conversation.

: belief in the existence of a god or gods specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.