What would count as proof of God

[Jimmy Higgins]

You can relax though the existence of the universe doesn't prove God exists.

Pretty sure no one is anxious that you'll make them reject their stance.
But maybe the mods should split this off from the thread?

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

Yeah like I explained exactly what real burden is required for Christians to prove a god within the "creator" classes exists, and whether there are signs of "metaversal imprinting"

I suspect Drew's not interested in actual proof because that would be subject to critique and disproof. Rather, yet another believer who'll claim satisfaction for vague reasons with frangible boundaries and anyone who objects is a poopy head.

More likely Drew was trying to snare the atheist when they say F1 is perfectly fine. A HA!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Again, there are limited possibilities.

Universe without beginning or end.
Universe sprang into existence form nothing.
A creator did it, without explaining how the creator came to be.

Yes there are unlimited naturalism in the gaps explanations...

Just for the record I don't claim to know how a Creator came into existence. If the Creator did require a Creator that would still make theism true. So what's the point of that argument?

I'll take massive copouts for $1600 Alex.

Person A: What came first, the chicken or the egg.
Drew: The Chicken.
Person A: Where did the chicken come from?
Drew: I'm not saying I know the Chicken didn't come from an egg.
Person A: Then what are you saying?

 

[Jarhyn]

Again, there are limited possibilities.

Universe without beginning or end.
Universe sprang into existence form nothing.
A creator did it, without explaining how the creator came to be.

Yes there are unlimited naturalism in the gaps explanations...

Just for the record I don't claim to know how a Creator came into existence. If the Creator did require a Creator that would still make theism true. So what's the point of that argument?

I'll take massive copouts for $1600 Alex.

Person A: What came first, the chicken or the egg.
Drew: The Chicken.
Person A: Where did the chicken come from?
Drew: I'm not saying I know the Chicken didn't come from an egg.
Person A: Then what are you saying?

So I'm percolating a thread about Last Thursdayism, and the nature of "simulation time" that might actually be a lot more fun than a slap fight about theism. Would you be down?

 

[atrib]

What would count as proof of God​

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

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

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

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

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

We'll have to agree on what evidence is.

evidence​

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

I agree. When are you going to provide the evidence for creator god(s)?

Secondly this discussion is not a one way street I know some atheists believe atheism is a negative claim not in need of any evidence or have any burden of proof.

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

The claim theism is an answer to a question how did the universe and humans come to exist? Theism isn't a religion its a philosophical belief that the universe was intentionally created to cause sentient life to exist in contrast to the belief no God(s), or Creator of any sort was needed. If so existence of the universe was caused unintentionally and human existence was just an unintended coincidence.

A creator god is NOT an answer until there is sufficient evidence to (1) demonstrate that a god exists, and (2) a description of the mechanism by which this god could have created this universe is provided.

There are certain facts that have to be true for some claims to be true. For instance in a murder case it has to be true that someone is dead. Usually its easy you merely present a corpse. In some cases its harder nonetheless a foundational claim to murder is a dead human. It may sound trivial but anyone proving someone murdered someone has to prove a death occurred. They have to prove a whole lot more to prove murder. For theism to even possibly be true certain facts must be true or there is no case for theism. Those facts that have to be true for theism to be true are evidence theism is true. Proof no, evidence yes.

I understand what evidence is, and how Bayesian analysis is used to evaluate truth claims. Feel free to present the evidence for a creator god at this time.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'll take massive copouts for $1600 Alex.

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

 

[Elixir]

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

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

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

So the fact that anything is real is evidence that there is a super powerful alien called god that intends things into reality?

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

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

 

[Elixir]

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

So the fact that anything is real is evidence that there is a super powerful alien called god that intends things into reality?

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

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

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

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Elixir]

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

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

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

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

 

[TomC]

'Atheism' says nothing about cosmology.

A big part of the problem here is that while atheism doesn't say anything about cosmology, atheists often do. They don't always qualify their assertions with "It seems to me..." or anything like that.

"There is not and cannot be a God" is a big, unsupported, assertion. Most non-theists don't say that, but some do. I find many hard atheists quite as irrational and limited as hard theists. There aren't many, but enough to be aggravating.
Tom

It's not a particularly big assertion, any more than "there is and cannot be a dragon in my garage" is a big assertion.

Those two assertions are hugely different.

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

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

And it's not unsupported; For all but the most esoteric and unpopular ideas about what 'god' might be, the fact that they do not and cannot exist is supported by their being contradictory to quantum field theory.

For any of the mainstream gods to exist, QFT would need to be very badly wrong.

It's not.

We checked.

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

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

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

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

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

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

 

[bilby]

'Atheism' says nothing about cosmology.

A big part of the problem here is that while atheism doesn't say anything about cosmology, atheists often do. They don't always qualify their assertions with "It seems to me..." or anything like that.

"There is not and cannot be a God" is a big, unsupported, assertion. Most non-theists don't say that, but some do. I find many hard atheists quite as irrational and limited as hard theists. There aren't many, but enough to be aggravating.
Tom

It's not a particularly big assertion, any more than "there is and cannot be a dragon in my garage" is a big assertion.

Those two assertions are hugely different.

Perhaps the difference is so big you don't see it.
"garage" and "dragon" are both small concepts. They're both reasonably well understood and clearly defined. It's not difficult to assess the plausibility of your assertion.
"God" and "universe" are totally different. Nobody can explain what god(s) mean, outside of "category of character commonly found in fiction".

That's because god(s) don't have any other meaning. That they do is just more fiction.

We know lots more about the universe than ancient people did. But we're still limited humans doing the best we can to understand with what we've got to work with. Ancient people believed that the universe is a huge, solid, lumpy plain. It has a blue dome over it. The sun is a relatively small object that scoots along under the dome daily.

It's not that ancient people were stupid. They and their technology were primitive. They lived in an illusion created by their limited abilities.

Sure, ancient people were no different from us in levels of intelligence; Just in levels of knowledge. I never suggested otherwise.

We do too.
Primitive people didn't have the tools, methods, or skills to escape the illusion of a flat earth. We don't have the tools, methods, or skills to escape the illusion of a material universe. Doesn't mean we never will.

We have the tools, methods and skills to demonstrate that a material universe is all there is. We know, with certainty, that there are no unknown particles or forces that can influence objects of human scale without annihilating them; This rules out almost all of the fictions that constitute god(s), and that's true whether specific individuals understand it or not.

And it's not unsupported; For all but the most esoteric and unpopular ideas about what 'god' might be, the fact that they do not and cannot exist is supported by their being contradictory to quantum field theory.

For any of the mainstream gods to exist, QFT would need to be very badly wrong.

It's not.

We checked.

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

What else is there in the supernatural field? How could you sensibly assert the existence of a supernatural entity that neither can be imagined, nor can influence reality?

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

I have never in my entire life believed in any gods. I was quite shocked when I found out that there were grown adults who didn't know that it was all just pretend. That was some time in primary school.

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

That's not what "know" means.

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

 

[Jarhyn]

Ee gads...

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Elixir]

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

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

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

 

[atrib]

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

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

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

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

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate, or even articulate.
(Emphasis added by me)

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

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

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

I'll take a double helping.

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

 

[steve_bank]

'Atheism' says nothing about cosmology. I know of no science that clams the unverse has a starting point. An infinie unverse has no need of a creator.

The problem is that "universe" means "everything that exists".

Anywhere you look for the word universe and its definition you'll get something like this...

The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time[a] and their contents,[10] including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological description of the development of the universe. According to this theory, space and time emerged together 13.799±0.021 billion years ago,[2] and the universe has been expanding ever since.

They are even confident when the universe came into existence. Words are always subject to personal interpretaion.

The math is what counts.

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

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

Another theist tactic, the battle of internet dictionary definitions.

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

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

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

 

[steve_bank]

Same with the house. Even if it appeared weirdly to have just "come into existence", you surmise a HOW it can have been built and look for the traces to confirm it. Those traces are evidence. The house itself is not.

Its exactly what evidence is, evidence is a fact that makes a claim more likely. I went through what evidence is before I even listed one fact.

Subjective vs objective evidence.

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

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

How fast?

Oh somewhere between 50 and 80mph, subjective.