What would count as proof of God

[bilby]

Some people believe that pan-dimensional pixies created the universe with intelligent life in it
This belief would be falsified if a universe with intelligent life in it did not exist
The universe exists, and there is intelligent life in it
Therefore, the existence of the universe with intelligent life in it is evidence for the existence of pan-dimensional pixies

Some people believe we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend their own existence, the existence of the universe or life and least of all intelligent humans. They don't believe it was intentionally caused to exist. Its just like mindless forces to pull a stunt like this some how come into existence and accidentally cause the conditions for theism to be true. No matter how much blathering and posturing is done in the final analysis nothing we observe has to be true for the belief God doesn't exist to be true. There doesn't have to be a universe, galaxies, stars, planets, water, oxygen, carbon, laws of physics, gravity.

I'm not attempting to convince anyone responding to my posts the truth of my belief. Its a belief, an opinion. I'm not stating it's a fact. I don't deny there is evidence which supports a natural view of the world. No one here knows how or why a life permitting universe exists. If we discover how life actually got started and how it could have occurred that would be big fact in favor of naturalism. If it turns out this is in fact one of an infinitude of universes with varying characteristics then time and chance would rule.

I knew I was going to run into a buzz saw because its pratically a hallowed concept of atheism that there is no evidence, no facts, no data, no information no reason in the world anyone should think our existence might have been intentionally caused. We should just accept (evidently on faith) that our existence is the result of chance caused by mindless forces that didn't intend our existence. You don't feel people should be skeptical of your claim.

At this point your posts have degenerated into an emotional rant against atheists. Many people find it hard to believe that their cherished beliefs might be wrong, and I expect that is what you are experiencing. There is no good reason to believe in gods, no matter what you might have been indoctrinated into believing, and I think you understand that now, even if you are unwilling to acknowledge it publicly.

You are new here, and I hope you stick around and continue to participate in these discussions. Perhaps you will bring yourself to reflect on these discussions when you have calmed down, and make an effort to understand the perspectives of the people who have tried to engage you.

My posts are an emotional rant? Have you looked at the responses I've gotten?

You want to replace the word God or Creator with Pixies. I can replace natural causes with mindless forces. My belief is due in part to the three facts I listed. No God of the gaps. Just facts.

F1 The universe exists

I believe it was intentionally caused to exist. You believe it was unintentionally caused by forces that didn't intend their own existence. You believe all the circumstances to cause intelligent human life exist occurred naturally with no plan or intent for it to happen. We owe our existence to a fortuitous stroke of luck. You have an alternate explanation? If a universe didn't exist theism would be falsified.

F2 Life exists

You know of any law or rule that says life of any sort has to exist? Did mindless forces have to cause a universe to exist? Does a universe and life have to exist for theism to be true? Yeah they do. If any condition has to be true for a claim to be true those conditions are evidence the claim is true.

F3 Intelligent life exists.

Theism is the belief the universe was caused for the purpose of creating intelligent life. Did intelligent life have to exist? Is there some law of physics that compels mindless forces to create a universe with the properties that can subsequently cause intelligent life to exist?

F4. The fact the universe has laws of nature, is knowable, uniform and to a large extent predictable, amenable to scientific research, the laws of logic deduction and induction and is explicable in mathematical terms.

These characteristics are necessary for the second and third facts to obtain which are necessary for theism to be true. This fourth fact is not only essential for theism to be true it directly contradicts the belief this universe was caused by unguided forces with no plan or intent to cause intelligent life to occur.

No one has disputed the facts I've listed are true. Not one of them needs to be true for atheism to be true. All four have to be true for theism to be true. Your explanation for the aforementioned facts is shit happens. It wasn't intentional just an accident. A happy fortuitous luck of the draw.

If I were you I'd point out the chaotic nature of the universe, how evolution appears to account for how organisms become more complicated. How the earth formed by natural causes as well as the natural universe. But we can't have that discussion because you can't bring yourself to admit there are factual reasons why people believe the universe was intentionally caused to exist. So instead you resort to the usual tactics. Those tactics only impress your fellow totally committed atheists.

Your beliefs are not in any way related to these facts, though.

And these facts give the most tenuous possible support to your beliefs; That is, they are consistent with both your beliefs, AND the exact opposite of your beliefs.

F1 Some people have been murdered.

Therefore I believe that you are a murderer.

I suspect that you would demand a slightly more rigorous set of evidence for my belief that you are a murderer, before accepting that you should be sent to the electric chair.

Your entire 'argument' is a misapplication of logic and reason. It's structurally wrong on every level, so it's irrelevant that the premises are factual.

You cannot deny that some people have been murdered. If you can comprehend why your acceptance of that undeniable fact is NOT an admission of your guilt in first degree homicide, then you should also be able to comprehend why the existence of a universe with life, intelligence, and at least some comprehensible natural laws is NOT a reason to believe in any kinds of gods.

 

[blastula]

F3 Intelligent life exists.

Uhh...

 

[pood]

Drew, you say, without any evidence, that the universe had to be created by an intelligent designer.

Who designed the intelligent designer?

 

[Drew2008]

Your beliefs are not in any way related to these facts, though.

They are directly related. If the universe, life or intelligent life didn't exist theism would be falsified. You are saying facts that have to be true for a claim to be true aren't related? That would be like saying a corpse has no relationship to the charge of murder. It is essential to claim of murder that someone is dead. If no one is dead the claim murder is falsified.

And these facts give the most tenuous possible support to your beliefs; That is, they are consistent with both your beliefs, AND the exact opposite of your beliefs.

F1 Some people have been murdered.
Therefore I believe that you are a murderer.

Some folks conflate evidence with proof or truth of a claim. No one line of evidence seals a case. To defend belief in a claim you list facts which support the claim. They don't prove it the claim is true but they are evidence the claim is true. Some facts presented in a case are known as foundational

F1. A dead body exists

This fact supports the claim a murder occurred. You agree a dead body is related to the charge of murder no? It also supports the claim it occurred naturally and since more deaths occur by natural means a corpse alone doesn't prove a murder occurred. Without any further details we might assume a natural death until there is more evidence.

I never made a therefore statement.

I suspect that you would demand a slightly more rigorous set of evidence for my belief that you are a murderer, before accepting that you should be sent to the electric chair.

Of course I'm up to F4 now. Four facts that have to be true for theism to be true. That's four to one because there is nothing that has to be true for atheism to be true except God doesn't exist.

Your entire 'argument' is a misapplication of logic and reason. It's structurally wrong on every level, so it's irrelevant that the premises are factual.

Says you...so what's new?

then you should also be able to comprehend why the existence of a universe with life, intelligence, and at least some comprehensible natural laws is NOT a reason to believe in any kinds of gods.

Its ample reason to believe it was intentionally caused. I should look for the best answer to the question why does a universe exist that not only supports human life but also caused human life and the universe itself to exist including the enumerable conditions required for such to occur. The answer it was a fortuitous act of serendipity isn't the best answer.

I know the slogan you folks say with complete conviction 'There is no evidence, fact or even reason to subscribe to theism is the sacred cow the holy grail of atheism. You cite evidence (facts) that support your case and I will cite facts (evidence) that supports my case and we can have a fair discussion.

Case for atheism

F1. The universe is vast old and chaotic

Make an argument from that fact why it agrees with your conclusion.

F2. Evolution processes exist

Make an argument from that fact why it agrees with your conclusion.

Do you accept F1 and F2 as evidence that makes your proposition more probable than minus the two facts?

Or should I say...'Your entire 'argument' is a misapplication of logic and reason. It's structurally wrong on every level, so it's irrelevant that the premises are factual.'

 

[Drew2008]

Drew, you say, without any evidence, that the universe had to be created by an intelligent designer.

Why does every atheist think this is a winning argument? Its not even gotcha question.
Lets start with the lie first...

Drew, you say, without any evidence, that the universe had to be created by an intelligent designer.

No I never said that. I said there are facts that agree with that belief and I said if a universe didn't exist it would falsify the proposition God caused a universe to exist.

Who designed the intelligent designer?

Who knows and what does it matter? If a designer created a designer my belief we owe our existence to a Creator is correct. By the way I've already addressed this argument two other times.

 

[bilby]

Your beliefs are not in any way related to these facts, though.

They are directly related. If the universe, life or intelligent life didn't exist theism would be falsified. You are saying facts that have to be true for a claim to be true aren't related? That would be like saying a corpse has no relationship to the charge of murder. It is essential to claim of murder that someone is dead. If no one is dead the claim murder is falsified.

And these facts give the most tenuous possible support to your beliefs; That is, they are consistent with both your beliefs, AND the exact opposite of your beliefs.

F1 Some people have been murdered.
Therefore I believe that you are a murderer.

Some folks conflate evidence with proof or truth of a claim. No one line of evidence seals a case. To defend belief in a claim you list facts which support the claim. They don't prove it the claim is true but they are evidence the claim is true. Some facts presented in a case are known as foundational

F1. A dead body exists

This fact supports the claim a murder occurred. You agree a dead body is related to the charge of murder no? It also supports the claim it occurred naturally and since more deaths occur by natural means a corpse alone doesn't prove a murder occurred. Without any further details we might assume a natural death until there is more evidence.

I never made a therefore statement.

I suspect that you would demand a slightly more rigorous set of evidence for my belief that you are a murderer, before accepting that you should be sent to the electric chair.

Of course I'm up to F4 now. Four facts that have to be true for theism to be true. That's four to one because there is nothing that has to be true for atheism to be true except God doesn't exist.

Your entire 'argument' is a misapplication of logic and reason. It's structurally wrong on every level, so it's irrelevant that the premises are factual.

Says you...so what's new?

then you should also be able to comprehend why the existence of a universe with life, intelligence, and at least some comprehensible natural laws is NOT a reason to believe in any kinds of gods.

Its ample reason to believe it was intentionally caused. I should look for the best answer to the question why does a universe exist that not only supports human life but also caused human life and the universe itself to exist including the enumerable conditions required for such to occur. The answer it was a fortuitous act of serendipity isn't the best answer.

I know the slogan you folks say with complete conviction 'There is no evidence, fact or even reason to subscribe to theism is the sacred cow the holy grail of atheism. You cite evidence (facts) that support your case and I will cite facts (evidence) that supports my case and we can have a fair discussion.

Case for atheism

F1. The universe is vast old and chaotic

Make an argument from that fact why it agrees with your conclusion.

F2. Evolution processes exist

Make an argument from that fact why it agrees with your conclusion.

Do you accept F1 and F2 as evidence that makes your proposition more probable than minus the two facts?

Or should I say...'Your entire 'argument' is a misapplication of logic and reason. It's structurally wrong on every level, so it's irrelevant that the premises are factual.'

Were you dropped on your head as a baby?

How are you able to survive at all without the slightest ability to use logic or reason?

Seriously, there's like five thousand years of history behind epistemology, and you are trying to work it out from scratch. You aren't up to the job, and you don't need to do it.

Come back when you're at least prepared to attempt to learn how reasoning actually operates. Because right now, it's like talking to a madman - nothing joins up in any sane way in any of your arguments.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Who knows and what does it matter? If a designer created a designer my belief we owe our existence to a Creator is correct. By the way I've already addressed this argument two other times.

You have never addressed this question and you are not addressing it here, likely because you do not understand the question. Whether you think you've answered the question is irrelevant.

The question is asking how this quality you call "design" comes to be. Understand? Are you saying it just exists? It's a simple yes or no question.

If you say it exists in the universe because it was placed there by your designer being, then the question simply becomes how it came to exist in your designer being. When you say no one knows and it doesn't matter you miss the point entirely. If it just exists then it just exists. Understand? And if it "just exists" there is no need for your designer because it is a quality that can just exist as it does - by your contention - in the universe.

But you are saying it exists in the universe because it was placed there by your designer being. But if designer beings are undesigned then we have a designed universe from undesigned creator beings, which is a glaring contradiction in your argument.

Hopefully you now understand the question and will answer the question.

And of course this same line of reasoning goes for intelligence, life, complexity, beauty, creation, etc., any quality that you claim was placed in the universe but the ultimate genesis of which you have never accounted for.

 

[hyzer]

Who knows and what does it matter? If a designer created a designer my belief we owe our existence to a Creator is correct. By the way I've already addressed this argument two other times.

You have never addressed this question and you are not addressing it here, likely because you do not understand the question. Whether you think you've answered the question is irrelevant.

The question is asking how this quality you call "design" comes to be. Understand? Are you saying it just exists? It's a simple yes or no question.

If you say it exists in the universe because it was placed there by your designer being, then the question simply becomes how it came to exist in your designer being. When you say no one knows and it doesn't matter you miss the point entirely. If it just exists then it just exists. Understand? And if it "just exists" there is no need for your designer because it is a quality that can just exist as it does - by your contention - in the universe.

But you are saying it exists in the universe because it was placed there by your designer being. But if designer beings are undesigned then we have a designed universe from undesigned creator beings, which is a glaring contradiction in your argument.

Hopefully you now understand the question and will answer the question.

And of course this same line of reasoning goes for intelligence, life, complexity, beauty, creation, etc., any quality that you claim was placed in the universe but the ultimate genesis of which you have never accounted for.

Drew - have you ever heard the punchline "No dear, it's turtles all the way down."?

 

[pood]

Drew,

As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, the non-existence of a universe cannot falsify theism, for two reasons.

First, the existence of God does not entail that God create a universe.

Second, even if it did entail that, the lack of a universe would not falsify God, because someone or something must be around to notice the falsification. If there were no universe, no one and nothing would be around to notice the falsification.

This argument, which you keep repeating, is as silly as your “naturalism of the gaps” argument, which I have also refuted.

When you say that the existence of the universe makes it more probable that God exists than not exist, you are running a probability argument that cannot be sustained under frequentist probability. Under frequentism, there is no prior probability of the universe existing, or having the specific properties that it has. There is only a posterior probability, and that probability is 100 percent.

Under Bayesianism, you can construct a prior probability argument for the existence of the universe, because Bayesianism incorporates one’s prior expectations for some particular outcome. Because prior expectations for the existence of a universe or its fine-tuning are entirely subjective, Bayesianism, while good for many other things, is useless for this. Hence you have no argument.

You keep making the mistake that the universe must have a cause, in the same way that snow is caused by low temperatures or a billiard ball is caused to move by the cue ball striking it. As noted, this is a composition fallacy.

As I discussed, whether the universe has a temporal boundary like the big bang, or whether it does not have such a boundary, the universe has always existed and always will exist, because there has never been, nor ever will be, a time at which it did not or will not exist. Therefore any discussion of the cause of the universe is superfluous.

You have also elastically redefined “theism” to mean any creative entity or acts, such as now you call yourself a “theist” yet claim this means that the universe could have been created by cranky scientists in another dimension. Sorry, this is not theism. Theism is the belief in existence of God, period, and as noted, the existence of God does not entail that God create anything.

Is it possible, for all this, that the universe was created by an external entity, whether God or cranky scientists? Yes. All you need to do now is to provide evidence that this is true. You have not done so. The very existence of the universe, as noted, cannot be evidence for an external creator.

Finally, you dismiss explaining where the creator came from, if he/she/it exists, or else you admit, essentially, that it could be “turtles all the way down.”

This means that all you are doing is moving the so-called problem one step, two steps, or an infinite number of steps, backward, which means your God explanation for the universe doesn’t actually “explain” anything. If we must invoke a creator to explain the existence of the universe (and we do not), then we must invoke another creator to explain the creator, and another creator to explain the creator of the creator, and so on until we get turtles. Either that, or we stop invoking creators at some point, which means the original creator is simply a brute fact that requires no explanation. Occam’s Razor shows that if there is such a brute fact, the simplest hypothesis is that the universe itself is a brute fact, with no explanation required.

 

[Drew2008]

The question is asking how this quality you call "design" comes to be. Understand? Are you saying it just exists? It's a simple yes or no question.

I understand the question. You don't understand the answer. I've listed four facts in favor of the belief we owe our existence to a Creator who intentionally caused and designed the universe for life. I'm not attempting to answer the question how a Creator came to be or how a Creator caused the universe to exist. I have no idea and you have no better idea how mindless forces came to be. I'll ask you how did mindless forces come to be? Did they always exist? Did time always exist? Why are there laws of physics?

If you say it exists in the universe because it was placed there by your designer being, then the question simply becomes how it came to exist in your designer being. When you say no one knows and it doesn't matter you miss the point entirely. If it just exists then it just exists. Understand? And if it "just exists" there is no need for your designer because it is a quality that can just exist as it does - by your contention - in the universe.

No I've always stated the cause of the universe is transcendent to the universe. You're entitled to believe the universe just exists end of story. Little harder to persuade anyone else including scientists.

And of course this same line of reasoning goes for intelligence, life, complexity, beauty, creation, etc., any quality that you claim was placed in the universe but the ultimate genesis of which you have never accounted for.

I'm only accountable to defend belief in theism.

belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures"

I'm not attempting to explain how God came to be I'm defending my belief the universe and intelligent life was caused intentionally by a transcendent agent. If you want religious beliefs defended talk to a theologian.

Let me know what caused mindless forces to come into existence when you have time.

 

[pood]

No I've always stated the cause of the universe is transcendent to the universe. You're entitled to believe the universe just exists end of story. Little harder to persuade anyone else including scientists.

Wrong again. Most scientists do not believe that the universe had a transcendent cause. I’ve already explained this. You simply refuse to hear what is inconvenient for you to hear. Typical Christian apologetics (and yes, I think you believe in the Christian god).

 

[Elixir]

I'm defending my belief the universe and intelligent life was caused intentionally by a transcendent agent

...and in the process, making a fool of anyone else who harbors such superstitions.

Let me know what caused mindless forces to come into existence when you have time.

You mean besides the one(s) you "believe in"?
Okay, Vishnu, Odin, Allah, Waheguru, Hayyi Rabbi, Brahma, Mbombo... need more? (I can provide thousands - literally)

Now, Let me know what elevates a particular god above any of those objects of superstition named above... when you have time, of course.

 

[pood]

The question is asking how this quality you call "design" comes to be. Understand? Are you saying it just exists? It's a simple yes or no question.

I understand the question. You don't understand the answer. I've listed four facts in favor of the belief we owe our existence to a Creator who intentionally caused and designed the universe for life. I'm not attempting to answer the question how a Creator came to be or how a Creator caused the universe to exist. I have no idea and you have no better idea how mindless forces came to be. I'll ask you how did mindless forces come to be? Did they always exist? Did time always exist? Why are there laws of physics?

If you say it exists in the universe because it was placed there by your designer being, then the question simply becomes how it came to exist in your designer being. When you say no one knows and it doesn't matter you miss the point entirely. If it just exists then it just exists. Understand? And if it "just exists" there is no need for your designer because it is a quality that can just exist as it does - by your contention - in the universe.

No I've always stated the cause of the universe is transcendent to the universe. You're entitled to believe the universe just exists end of story. Little harder to persuade anyone else including scientists.

And of course this same line of reasoning goes for intelligence, life, complexity, beauty, creation, etc., any quality that you claim was placed in the universe but the ultimate genesis of which you have never accounted for.

I'm only accountable to defend belief in theism.

belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures"

I'm not attempting to explain how God came to be I'm defending my belief the universe and intelligent life was caused intentionally by a transcendent agent. If you want religious beliefs defended talk to a theologian.

Let me know what caused mindless forces to come into existence when you have time.

It has already been explained to you that there is no reason to think that the universe had a cause. You continually ignore these rebuttals of your so-called point as if they had never been posted at all. You are not interested in an honest discussion.

 

[Drew2008]

First, the existence of God does not entail that God create a universe.

Lets review again...I'm a theist you're an atheist. As a theist I'm defending theism.

Theism is the belief a Creator caused the universe we live into exist. Theism isn't true if no universe exists or if no intelligent beings exist.

Second, even if it did entail that, the lack of a universe would not falsify God, because someone or something must be around to notice the falsification. If there were no universe, no one and nothing would be around to notice the falsification.

It doesn't matter. No universe theism is falsified whether anyone is around to observe it or not. Are you implying the universe has to exist?

When you say that the existence of the universe makes it more probable that God exists than not exist, you are running a probability argument that cannot be sustained under frequentist probability. Under frequentism, there is no prior probability of the universe existing, or having the specific properties that it has. There is only a posterior probability, and that probability is 100 percent.

Stop it already. You're making it far more complicated than necessary. This is a coffee house debate not a scientific inquiry. If I say someone was shot with a gun does the fact guns exist make my claim more probable? Of course. Would my claim be less probable if guns didn't exist. Of course!!!! Its as simple as that you're just unwilling to concede the point.

You keep making the mistake that the universe must have a cause, in the same way that snow is caused by low temperatures or a billiard ball is caused to move by the cue ball striking it. As noted, this is a composition fallacy.

Huh? Do you actually believe it came into existence uncaused or do you just throw that out there to see if it sticks? Its also an example of naturalism in the gaps. There is no consensus or theory among astronomers that the universe came into existence uncaused. In fact the opposite is true.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I understand the question. You don't understand the answer. I've listed four facts in favor of the belief we owe our existence to a Creator who intentionally caused and designed the universe for life. I'm not attempting to answer the question how a Creator came to be or how a Creator caused the universe to exist. I have no idea and you have no better idea how mindless forces came to be. I'll ask you how did mindless forces come to be? Did they always exist? Did time always exist? Why are there laws of physics?

Oh I certainly understand your answer, but you still do not understand the question as evidenced by your response to pood.

Let me know what caused mindless forces to come into existence when you have time.

You are clearly stating that "mindless forces" - whatever you mean by that but I suspect you mean the universe - cannot just happen to exist. But you never explain how or why they cannot just happen to exist. You just keep stating that they cannot. But then it gets better. It is the very existence of these mindless forces that you then use as evidence for your creator. And you don't see any contradiction!

 

[blastula]

First, the existence of God does not entail that God create a universe.

Lets review again...I'm a theist you're an atheist. As a theist I'm defending theism.

Theism is the belief a Creator caused the universe we live into exist. Theism isn't true if no universe exists or if no intelligent beings exist.

Second, even if it did entail that, the lack of a universe would not falsify God, because someone or something must be around to notice the falsification. If there were no universe, no one and nothing would be around to notice the falsification.

It doesn't matter. No universe theism is falsified whether anyone is around to observe it or not. Are you implying the universe has to exist?

When you say that the existence of the universe makes it more probable that God exists than not exist, you are running a probability argument that cannot be sustained under frequentist probability. Under frequentism, there is no prior probability of the universe existing, or having the specific properties that it has. There is only a posterior probability, and that probability is 100 percent.

Stop it already. You're making it far more complicated than necessary. This is a coffee house debate not a scientific inquiry. If I say someone was shot with a gun does the fact guns exist make my claim more probable? Of course. Would my claim be less probable if guns didn't exist. Of course!!!! Its as simple as that you're just unwilling to concede the point.

You keep making the mistake that the universe must have a cause, in the same way that snow is caused by low temperatures or a billiard ball is caused to move by the cue ball striking it. As noted, this is a composition fallacy.

Huh? Do you actually believe it came into existence uncaused or do you just throw that out there to see if it sticks? Its also an example of naturalism in the gaps. There is no consensus or theory among astronomers that the universe came into existence uncaused. In fact the opposite is true.

PRATT.

 

[pood]

First, the existence of God does not entail that God create a universe.

Lets review again...I'm a theist you're an atheist. As a theist I'm defending theism.

Theism is the belief a Creator caused the universe we live into exist. Theism isn't true if no universe exists or if no intelligent beings exist.

Second, even if it did entail that, the lack of a universe would not falsify God, because someone or something must be around to notice the falsification. If there were no universe, no one and nothing would be around to notice the falsification.

It doesn't matter. No universe theism is falsified whether anyone is around to observe it or not. Are you implying the universe has to exist?

When you say that the existence of the universe makes it more probable that God exists than not exist, you are running a probability argument that cannot be sustained under frequentist probability. Under frequentism, there is no prior probability of the universe existing, or having the specific properties that it has. There is only a posterior probability, and that probability is 100 percent.

Stop it already. You're making it far more complicated than necessary. This is a coffee house debate not a scientific inquiry. If I say someone was shot with a gun does the fact guns exist make my claim more probable? Of course. Would my claim be less probable if guns didn't exist. Of course!!!! Its as simple as that you're just unwilling to concede the point.

You keep making the mistake that the universe must have a cause, in the same way that snow is caused by low temperatures or a billiard ball is caused to move by the cue ball striking it. As noted, this is a composition fallacy.

Huh? Do you actually believe it came into existence uncaused or do you just throw that out there to see if it sticks? Its also an example of naturalism in the gaps. There is no consensus or theory among astronomers that the universe came into existence uncaused. In fact the opposite is true.

God, dealing with quotes here is a nightmare. Somebody please fix this.

1. Your OWN DEFINITION, cadged from the internet, is:

Theism: ”belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe…”

Remember, that is YOUR definition. Do you see how the SECOND CLAUSE begins with the word, “especially“? That is a separate clause. That means the first clause can stand alone. That means the first clause indicates that a God can exist WITHOUT creating a universe. Your argument is refuted by your own chosen definition!

Also, you say you are a theist. Since you said that the universe may have been created by cranky scientists in another dimension, are you suggesting that cranky scientists are gods?

2. Am I implying that the universe HAS TO exist? Logically it does not have to exist. Physically, it may have to exist. No one knows. The point is that there is no such thing as a falsification unless someone or something exists to notice the falsification. Again, your argument fails on both counts, QED.

3. No, it is not a coffee house debate. It is an inquiry based on probability and statistics. I have shown that your argument fails under either frequentism or Bayesianim. The posterior probability of a universe existing is 100 percent. That is all we can say.

4. Holy crap, have you even read what I have written in about a dozen posts? Yes, I believe the universe is uncaused! It is NOT TRUE that the consensus among astronomers is that the universe had an external cause. The EXACT OPPOSITE is the case. I have SHOWN this to you. Did you read the Sean Carroll article I linked? No, of course you didn’t.

And, naturalism of the gaps, again??? I have rebutted your “naturalism of the gaps” crap. If you don’t like the rebuttal, then attempt to rebut the rebuttal. If you simply ignore the rebuttal and keep on recycling a rebutted argument, you will only reinforce the impression that you are dishonest.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think we're into "chess with a pigeon" territory.

 

[pood]

To reiterate for Drew a point I have made about fifteen dozen times:

Our best evidence shows the universe has always existed. This can be true in one of two ways:

Either it has infinite temporal extension in the past, which is perfectly possible; in that case, the big bang represents a phase transition form a prior state; OR,

the big bang is true past temporal boundary. But if it is, since time is PART OF the universe, with no existence independent of space and the gravitational field, then it follows that there is no time at which the universe did not exist. To ask what happened “before” the universe existed is as meaningless as asking what lies north of the North Pole. From the North Pole, all spatial directions are south, and from the big bang, all temporal directions are the future.

From the above evidence-based ideas, it follows that the universe did not have a cause since it has always, in the sense of either 1 or 2, existed. I have said this many times. Do you read what people write? A universe that has always existed does not and cannot have a cause.

 

[pood]

I think we're into "chess with a pigeon" territory.

LOL, exactly.