What would count as proof of God

[Rhea]

I have to say, though, that I really appreciate the discussion of the standard model by atrib and bilby. That’s been very interesting. Thanks!

 

[bilby]

F1 Refrigerators exist
F2 I own a refrigerator
F3 Refrigerators contain things
F4 Elephants are things

All of these MUST be true, for it to be true that there is an elephant in my refrigerator.

Drew, do you think that I have established that there is an elephant in my refrigerator? Or that the presence of an elephant in my refrigerator is more likely than the absence of an elephant in my refrigerator? If your answer to either or both is 'No', then why not? Do you deny that any of these facts are true? Or is their truth utterly irrelevant to determining whether or not there's an elephant in my refrigerator?

 

[Drew2008]

We can say one thing. The four facts I've submitted in favor of theism have to be true for theism to be true

Your “four facts” have to be true for a lot of imagined things to be true.
that does not make your imagined thing true. At all.

The lack of any of those four facts falsifies theism. In anything else we can discuss facts necessary for a claim to be true is evidence it is true. It doesn't prove its true it does provide reason and facts to think something is true. Theism is a belief not a fact. You want to make an exception in this case.

You claim (by extension) that leprechauns are more likely true than not because 4-leaf clovers exist.

If someone claimed 4 leaf clovers were caused to exist by leprechauns the existence of 4 leaf clovers would make that claim more probable than if they didn't exist. The claim is easily refuted by producing overwhelming evidence of a reproducible method of causing 4 leaf clovers to exist that doesn't involve leprechauns. This is just a silly counter argument that appears to be the best you can come up with. If you have some alternate explanation for the existence of a universe and the innumerable conditions necessary for life to obtain quite mumbling and come forth with it.

You claim that the Loch Ness monster is more likely than not because of the existence of Loch Ness.

You're making a lame analogy on my behalf this isn't anything I said. However would anyone claim the Loch Ness monster exists sans the Loch Ness? The reason there are people claiming we owe our existence to a Creator is because in fact the universe exists, life exists and human life exists. Those conditions are necessary for there to be anyone alive to claim theism is true. You're better alternate explanation is that all we observe just happened to happen. It didn't have to happen it just happened to happen. No intent, plan or design is necessary to cause a universe that creates and sustains life. No matter how many laws of physics we discover necessary to our existence (and unnecessary for natural forces) we should believe it fell into place accidentally. Anything that happens minus intent is accidental true?

You believe evolution occurred true? Evolution is the claim simple life evolved into more complex life.

Evidence evolution is true.

F1. Life exists

For the claim evolution to be true there must be life. You would never be able to convince anyone life forms evolved into more complex life forms over time sans life. If life doesn't exist the claim life evolved is false. The fact life exists makes the claim life evolved more probable. Doesn't make it true just more probable than if life didn't exist.

F2. Life forms transition and grow in complexity over time.

The fact we can see a record of life transitioning from less to greater complexity is evidence organisms evolved during that time. Its a fact necessary for evolution to be true. If life forms don't grow in complexity evolution is falsified.

Now explain how my logic and evidence above in favor of evolution makes me look silly and foolish. Explain to me how the facts above are like leprechauns, four leaf clovers and Lochness monsters that are roaming inside your head...

 

[Drew2008]

Let me offer evidence of another belief and see if you accept the facts of evidence I offer is valid or if I'm just being illogical.

What would count as proof evidence life exists on planets outside our solar system?

F1. The universe exists

No universe no planets, stars, solar systems exist. For there to be life outside of our solar system a universe has to exist. The existence of the universe is evidence life exists on exoplanets.

F2. Planets and solar systems exist.

The fact planets exist in our solar system was for the longest time the only evidence we had from which we could infer other solar systems existed around other stars.

F3. The fact life exists on a planet revolving around a star

Of course. Why should we think it exists only on our planet. The fact it exists exponentially raises the possibility it exists on other planets.

All these things are true but it doesn't guarantee life exists elsewhere. All these facts are necessary for the claim to be true and they qualify as evidence in favor of the belief claim there is life on other planets. Is it irrational to believe life might exist on other planets?

Just three facts no leprechauns, pixies, fairy dust or loch ness monsters.

 

[bilby]

Let me offer evidence of another belief and see if you accept the facts of evidence I offer is valid or if I'm just being illogical

Of course you're being illogical. You believe that there is an elephant in my fridge.

 

[Learner]

Look! The sky is green!

Also, just for Drew’s edification, a virtual universe is not the same thing as an actual universe.

In the 1930s, a couple of kids invented Superman. Presto! Superman is real, and those kids were gods!

Virtual universes already exist within our universe. So our universe is probably a virtual one within an even more real one. This raises the question-
Is the @Learner god the god of this universe, or of the universe within which ours is contained, or the one within which that one is contained, or … is it turtles all the way down, and Learner’s god only had to create turtles?
Important shit, people. I hope y’all get it sorted out before all those turtles wander off….

(in no particular order )

Gday Exlir, I'm not actually a virtual reality or matix proponant. This I thought I'd better make clear.

An interesting idea, considering the data or information would have to travel considerable faster than light, e.g. the refresh rate needing to go throughout the universe - light is said to be constant in our reality and apparently, nothing can travel faster than light (that idea could have its own issue).

And of course, there are no turtles all the way down in the bible, that's content thievery from another religion

 

[Learner]

Let me offer evidence of another belief and see if you accept the facts of evidence I offer is valid or if I'm just being illogical

Of course you're being illogical. You believe that there is an elephant in my fridge.

F1 Refrigerators exist
F2 I own a refrigerator
F3 Refrigerators contain things
F4 Chickens are things

I have chicken in the fridge. (non living)

What are the possibilties, if someone actually claims to have elephant in the fridge? Very little descriptive clarity, provided by you, on the state of the elephant.

Possiblity for such a claim if one dares to make...
Elephant steaks in the fridge?

 

[Elixir]

Look! The sky is green!

Also, just for Drew’s edification, a virtual universe is not the same thing as an actual universe.

In the 1930s, a couple of kids invented Superman. Presto! Superman is real, and those kids were gods!

Virtual universes already exist within our universe. So our universe is probably a virtual one within an even more real one. This raises the question-
Is the @Learner god the god of this universe, or of the universe within which ours is contained, or the one within which that one is contained, or … is it turtles all the way down, and Learner’s god only had to create turtles?
Important shit, people. I hope y’all get it sorted out before all those turtles wander off….

(in no particular order )

Gday Exlir, I'm not actually a virtual reality or matix proponant. This I thought I'd better make clear.

An interesting idea, considering the data or information would have to travel considerable faster than light, e.g. the refresh rate needing to go throughout the universe - light is said to be constant in our reality and apparently, nothing can travel faster than light (that idea could have its own issue).

And of course, there are no turtles all the way down in the bible, that's content thievery from another religion

Open your mind!
Light speed is only a “limit” in THIS universe, not the one that contains ours or the ones ours contains.
Turtles and bibles are trivial details.

 

[Learner]

Look! The sky is green!

Also, just for Drew’s edification, a virtual universe is not the same thing as an actual universe.

In the 1930s, a couple of kids invented Superman. Presto! Superman is real, and those kids were gods!

Virtual universes already exist within our universe. So our universe is probably a virtual one within an even more real one. This raises the question-
Is the @Learner god the god of this universe, or of the universe within which ours is contained, or the one within which that one is contained, or … is it turtles all the way down, and Learner’s god only had to create turtles?
Important shit, people. I hope y’all get it sorted out before all those turtles wander off….

(in no particular order )

Gday Exlir, I'm not actually a virtual reality or matix proponant. This I thought I'd better make clear.

An interesting idea, considering the data or information would have to travel considerable faster than light, e.g. the refresh rate needing to go throughout the universe - light is said to be constant in our reality and apparently, nothing can travel faster than light (that idea could have its own issue).

And of course, there are no turtles all the way down in the bible, that's content thievery from another religion

Open your mind!

Omm yes, I have done in the past, and now I'm a theist

Light speed is only a “limit” in THIS universe, not the one that contains ours or the ones ours contains.

Thats what theists say about God, beyond (all) limits .

Turtles and bibles are trivial details.

Agreed. I think the mentioning of them in the first place, doesn't seem to be as affective in making any points, as was probably intended. Alls good.

 

[Elixir]

Light speed is only a “limit” in THIS universe, not the one that contains ours or the ones ours contains.

Thats what theists say about God, beyond limits.

No shit, Dick Tracy. That’s why I posed it.
Now you get a glimpse of the ridiculous and irrelevant nature of theism.

 

[Learner]

Light speed is only a “limit” in THIS universe, not the one that contains ours or the ones ours contains.

Thats what theists say about God, beyond limits.

No shit, Dick Tracy. That’s why I posed it.
Now you get a glimpse of the ridiculous and irrelevant nature of theism.

Wel I don't know. But then, as you're indicating, you can demonstrate the factor for that descision, "Light speed is only a “limit” in THIS universe, not the one that contains ours or the ones ours contains." I am opened to it, I think.

 

[Elixir]

Wel I don't know. But then, as you're indicating, you can demonstrate the factor for that descision, "Light speed is only a “limit” in THIS universe, not the one that contains ours or the ones ours contains." I am opened to it BTW.

Don’t let your mind be so open your brain falls out. It might be too late…

 

[Learner]

No worries, I'm not fully convinced of the "Light speed is only a “limit” in THIS universe, not the one that contains ours or the ones ours contains."concept as of yet.

 

[Elixir]

No worries, I'm not fully convinced of the "Light speed is only a “limit” in THIS universe, not the one that contains ours or the ones ours contains."concept.

Ok.
So what?
Jerking off to imaginary gods, admitting or forbidding light speed limits in hierarchical universes … sounds like lotsa fun, if you can afford it. I take it you’re from a well off family…

 

[Jarhyn]

Light speed is only a “limit” in THIS universe, not the one that contains ours or the ones ours contains.

Thats what theists say about God, beyond limits.

No shit, Dick Tracy. That’s why I posed it.
Now you get a glimpse of the ridiculous and irrelevant nature of theism.

Except that as shown, while those limits may not be contextual to their interactions within the universe, even creator gods have limits contextual to themselves, and to their ability to side-channel modify that universe.

I think the ways that gods are not limited, particularly with respect to their conduct and ethical capabilities, is problematic to any claim of theism.

Theism is irrelevant even to gods. It is irrelevant to "there are zero or more gods".

I keep saying how someone might possibly even chase down one of these "god" things. It's not my fault that people seem too lazy to actually do that.

And no matter what way you slice it, the existence or not of simulation and those zero or more gods has ZERO impact on our own internal game theory with respect to ethical agents.

 

[Learner]

No worries, I'm not fully convinced of the "Light speed is only a “limit” in THIS universe, not the one that contains ours or the ones ours contains."concept.

Ok.
So what?
Jerking off to imaginary gods, admitting or forbidding light speed limits in hierarchical universes … sounds like lotsa fun, if you can afford it. I take it you’re from a well off family…

I'll cease it here, before it becomes a toing and froing - you have a point of view, fair enough..

I am from a working class backgound. I was one of those kids, that loved school dinners lol, speaking od dinners I smell burning.

 

[Elixir]

I think the ways that gods are not limited, particularly with respect to their conduct and ethical capabilities, is problematic to any claim of theism.

Theism is irrelevant even to gods. It is irrelevant to "there are zero or more gods".

I keep saying how someone might possibly even chase down one of these "god" things. It's not my fault that people seem too lazy to actually do that.

Settle down Jarhyn! Nobody is gonna single you out to blame for humans’ inability to chase down gods.
As we have learned about gods, it’s easy to create them, but once created they tend to scamper off into the night never to be seen again. Not your fault.

 

[atrib]

No.

Bilby is claiming that any god that interacts with humanity in any way would only be able to do so using one of the four known forces that are the only things that can possibly interact with humans.

I'm wandering if the tester readily had monitoring equipment in place, somehow, forecasting exactly where a God interaction claim, a miracle claim or similar claim, would spontaneously happen, just at the right place and right time? Assuming God is not going to come to the lab on your request.

And that therefore god's interactions with us would have been detected, easily.

When you look for something, knowing exactly what you are looking for and how to see it, and you never find it, then (if you are sane) you conclude that it's not there.

I was wondering what one would actually be looking for. What type of disturbances in the field, so to speak, would be noticeable and expected? Sounds like you have a "text-book" expectation for any creator of a universe to be noticed.

I'm pondering on the thought that by merely looking at the universe, which is systematically running as clockwork (considering the universe is created.). Does God neccessarily need to be pulling levers and strings; shovelling coal into the furnace engine, so to speak, so that you should expect to notice some creator indication? God would have included automation in my view, in concept.

If I claimed that there is an invisible creature living in my attic, that this creature has the ability to break the laws of nature and interfere in our lives, and that this creature never, ever does anything that could be detected by humans, would a reasonable person believe this claim? The answer is obviously "NO". How is an alleged god any different from the alleged creature in my story?

Never ever detected, or perhaps at least, not catching God doing it in the act. Is the claimer of "no gods possible" 100% very sure his cameras cover all bases?

As I previously posted:

"I'm wandering if the tester readily had monitoring equipment in place, somehow, forecasting exactly where a God interaction claim, a miracle claim or similar claim, would spontaneously happen, just at the right place and right time? Assuming God is not going to come to the lab on your request."

Well, its not like you can tell us where this god is going to show up. If you did that, we could bring our instruments and set up tests under controlled conditions. As of now, for every single observation we have ever made, we have zero tests to confirm the existence of a god or its ability to intervene in human affairs. Its not our fault that your god never shows up when there are scientists making observations.

I'm pondering on the thought that by merely looking at the universe, which is systematically running as clockwork (if considering the universe is created.). Does God neccessarily need to be pulling levers and strings; shovelling coal into the furnace engine, so to speak, so that you should expect to notice some creator indication?

How is this god any different from a god that does not exist? How could you possibly differentiate between the two?

I don't think I agree to the notion that all claims are the same. To state the obvious, in your sole claim of 'the invisible creature in the attic' versus 'the many eye witness reports of claims, written in thousands of manuscripts,' there's a big difference.

There are no eye witness accounts of the Jesus miracles. There are not thousands of manuscripts. There are Paul's letters, and the four Gospels. And the letters and the Gospels are not eyewitness accounts. Why did you repeat this falsehood knowing fully well that it is a falsehood?

How is the god claim different from the invisible creature in the attic that cannot be detected claim?

Getting back to my point, which you avoided because you had no answer:
How do you distinguish between a god that does not exist and a god that cannot be detected? Is there any practical difference between the two?

 

[atrib]

What is a god? What are its characteristics? What is the mechanism by which a god creates universes?

No idea. Theism isn't the claim theists know how God exists, where God comes from or how God creates a universe. Its an explanation for the four facts I've noted above. Those facts have to be true for theism to be true. They're not proof theism is true but it is evidence.

Theism is the claim "I believe in god(s)". Agnosticism of the god, the state of not-knowing about the god, is the reason to not believe it. If all you want to do is assert your "four facts", that's nothing but emoting about how perplexed you feel if existence wasn't intended.

There can be a number of possibilities to explain why existence turned out like it did. Maybe, just maybe, there's a god of some sort in there somewhere. But if there is, there's only one way to justify that its existence has any degree of likelihood -- and that's to know some better details about the hypothesized god (other than your emotional state of feeling perplexed if there isn't one). You keep saying you don't know any details of the god... but that's the reason to NOT believe. If you were using logic to reason this through instead of emotions, you'd realize this not-knowing is the basis for disbelief in the god.

There are other competing theories such as multiverse and inflationary theory. Folks in here complain about God in the gaps arguments yet you continue to ask questions about things neither I, you or anyone else knows about so you can pounce and say God of the gaps. We agree (I assume) that the universe exists. No one really knows how it came about. There is no natural forces did it facts or god did it facts that settle the issue. We can only argue from facts we do agree on and those are post universe.

We can say one thing. The four facts I've submitted in favor of theism have to be true for theism to be true. If any are not true, theism is false. In contrast none have to be true for the belief God doesn't exist to be true. No one would be around to observe it but no universe would prove God doesn't exist and the slogan there is no evidence of God's existence would actually be true.

I know if this discussion were to go on for 50 pages at the end of it most (all) of the atheists in here will fold their arms and say see still no evidence, facts, data or any logical rational reason to believe its even remotely feasible our existence was intentionally caused. That rhetoric only convinces your own group of committed believers that no evidence exists and no Creator is necessary.

F1 The universe exists
F2 Life exists
F3 Intelligent life exists.
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.

No one would say I believe the universe was unintentionally caused by mindless lifeless forces therefore it doesn't surprise me in the least bit that we observe a universe that '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.

How are these four facts evidence for the god-did-it claim? What is a god? How many times are you going to ignore these questions, dishonest creationist?

Not to mention the other four conditions which are dependent on F4. . All which have to be true for theism to be true none of which are necessary for atheism to be true.

F5. Scientists, engineers, IT people (intelligent humans) have caused a virtual universe to exist.

You'll disagree this has any significance of course that's expected. This forum hopefully isn't an echo chamber on to itself. I hope some impartial folks peek in and see what the noise is about and weigh the respective arguments. I argue that scientists, engineers and IT people that caused, designed and created a universe are the gods of that universe. The virtual universe was created using the theist method of causing a universe (albeit a virtual one) to exist. Planning, design and intent caused that universe to exist.

For the hundredth time I don't know how a transcendent being came into existence or how such a being would cause our universe to exist. You have no facts about how any forces came into existence at all. In the future we may have technology to not only create design and intentionally cause a virtual universe to exist but cause, design virtual beings to exist. No doubt if those beings find themselves in a nearly identical situation to ourselves they will argue about the cause of their existence. Some will argue it was caused intentionally pointing to the same facts I've referred to. The theists in that universe are correct.

Drew's new claim: Video games exist - therefore god-did-it.

 

[blastula]

I don't think I agree to the notion that all claims are the same. To state the obvious, in your sole claim of 'the invisible creature in the attic' versus 'the many eye witness reports of claims, written in thousands of manuscripts,' there's a big difference.

If you mean the 4 (not thousands of) gospels, there are no eyewitness reports in them. And eyewitness reports of ghosts are the same as any reports of undead Jesus appearances or miracles.

Hey, you know? I have come across 3 atheists that have said they've seen and heard ghosts, being quite sure they've not imagined it.. Of course they still think there's an explanation somewhere, within the parameters of human comprehension, and the realm of the four forces apparently, but we've not found it yet, but there is hope.

We've not found what yet? The explanation for why people believe in ghosts or gods? Yeah, we have.