What would count as proof of God

[atrib]

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.

But they are not evidence for theism!! These four facts could just as well be used to support the pan-dimensional-pixies created the universe argument. Or Bantu-did-it argument. Just substitute your favorite imaginary creature for the word god in the argument and the argument works just as well. Which is why it is worthless. Do you not understand this?

 

[Learner]

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.

On the basis of what information? This isn't how gods are normally discussed, and I presume he didn't test this experimentally. Are you positing that God is some sort of physical organism existing within the observed universe and subject to its laws? Like, a giant space lion or something? Why would a god be confined to the types of natural interactions you describe, if it is indeed a god?

I feel like the two comments above don’t unerstand the Standard Model yet.

No surprise to that answer. But do YOU understand the standard model can't tell you zilch? It can't tell you if there's ANY possibilty for a god to exist or not, soley based on the model. I would have thought it wise to think, and just say "we don't know, or couldn't know." Have an agnostic approach, once in a while.

You must also feel, we can boast of our supposedly full capacity, to fully understand, and know 'everything' of the whole entire universe (it sounds like you're claiming), and that there's nothing beyond our human comprehensionl; that you can make these "knowledge claims" or rather, faith claims, to say that NO gods, can ever exist, because we have a standard model which is subject to updates or even changes.

Not even Dawkins would take on that burden of proof, no creator or gods exist, in which you both have here. Unfortunately the standard model does have its limits....

You can define your god as being able to do anything you want, but if it cannot act on us without it being noticed that something happened that was NOT caused by the 4 forces, then, by definition, nothing acted on us.

The bit I don't understand is, how you (plural) derived that such a creator to exist, would have to be "soley" on the human scale to cause any influence?" Who says any such things would have to be on the "human" scale? YOUR god portrayal as according to you're definition seems somewhat mixed up with the concept of "advanced aliens" or something similar to the matrix perhaps? (The matrix funny enough, is usually considered a concept of a virtual reality copy of a non-virutal reality universe, not biblical).

If we cannot detect that anything happened why would anyone believe that a god(dess)(es) acted at all?

How was this test done, again?

I delayed this response to you, because I wanted to give you the transcription of Dr. Michael Egnor, in the video titled The evidence against materialism. (because of your internet coverage issue you have where you are), but I didn't have time. I wanted to hightlight what was collected from the accumalative data collected from the neurologist reports and experiments, which are better expeiments and data than the experiments mentioned in Bilby's soul catching post, which like, is basing your experiments on the standard model giving limted or no results at all.

They are trying to describe for you two main observances necessary for a god(dess)(es) claim:
1. Something happened
2. It can’t be explained by normal forces.

No theists claim this can be demonstrated by physics, just as you claim physics can tell you no such thing is possible.

The problem with the notion, see bottom line...

And they are pointing out that
A. nothing in human scale has ever happened, ever, that cannot be explained by the four normal forces, and
B. Nothing between atomic nucleus and solar system size is not understood.

Are you trying to claim that A is not true? Are you claiming that you know of acts on humanity, that have occurred, that occurred by a force that could not be described by the four forces?

I am claiming your method of making those god conclusions, based soley on the four forces are limited - that's if you're really investigating the plausibility - hence forth with your current claim - you're only going to get a small chunk of the whole.

That’s the part you both don’t seem to understand yet. That in order to argue against the standard model, you must be introducing a known act that affects a human that doesn’t follow it. If you can’t describe that act, then you have nothing. If you have no evidence of that act, then you have nothing.

What is that act?

Say you want to claim, “an afterlife.” What scrap of evidence of any kind do you have that this act happened?
Say you want to claim a purposely directed tornado of fire to punish a sinning town. What scrap of evidence of any kind do you have that this act happened and it was not random?
Say you want to claim that a football game was won due to supplication to a godly entity. What scrap of evidence do you have that non-normal forces made any impact, that a change in the outcome even happened?

Not many theists (if non at all) claims they became believers because of the physics just as YOU do, in that the understanding you currently have definetly tells you no such thing is possible. Unless you're going to base it soley around the standard model.

Bottom line .... why your notion for using the four forces and the standard model as your baseline monitor as the decider; "no existence possible for any god," WHY the thinking is ultimately a flawed idea as an investigation...

It's BECAUSE the other models or theories, that are needed to harmonize as full workings of the entire existence of the universe e.g. Dark matter, and anti-matter etc.. are NOT included in the standard model!!

 

[Elixir]

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

Makes sense to me. At least, more sense than the usual “goddidit, therefore, god exists”.

 

[atrib]

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.

On the basis of what information? This isn't how gods are normally discussed, and I presume he didn't test this experimentally. Are you positing that God is some sort of physical organism existing within the observed universe and subject to its laws? Like, a giant space lion or something? Why would a god be confined to the types of natural interactions you describe, if it is indeed a god?

I feel like the two comments above don’t unerstand the Standard Model yet.

No surprise to that answer. But do YOU understand the standard model can't tell you zilch? It can't tell you if there's ANY possibilty for a god to exist or not, soley based on the model. I would have thought it wise to think, and just say "we don't know, or couldn't know." Have an agnostic approach, once in a while.

You must also feel, we can boast of our supposedly full capacity, to fully understand, and know 'everything' of the whole entire universe (it sounds like you're claiming), and that there's nothing beyond our human comprehensionl; that you can make these "knowledge claims" or rather, faith claims, to say that NO gods, can ever exist, because we have a standard model which is subject to updates or even changes.

Not even Dawkins would take on that burden of proof, no creator or gods exist, in which you both have here. Unfortunately the standard model does have its limits....

You can define your god as being able to do anything you want, but if it cannot act on us without it being noticed that something happened that was NOT caused by the 4 forces, then, by definition, nothing acted on us.

The bit I don't understand is, how you (plural) derived that such a creator to exist, would have to be "soley" on the human scale to cause any influence?" Who says any such things would have to be on the "human" scale? YOUR god portrayal as according to you're definition seems somewhat mixed up with the concept of "advanced aliens" or something similar to the matrix perhaps? (The matrix funny enough, is usually considered a concept of a virtual reality copy of a non-virutal reality universe, not biblical).

If we cannot detect that anything happened why would anyone believe that a god(dess)(es) acted at all?

How was this test done, again?

I delayed this response to you, because I wanted to give you the transcription of Dr. Michael Egnor, in the video titled The evidence against materialism. (because of your internet coverage issue you have where you are), but I didn't have time. I wanted to hightlight what was collected from the accumalative data collected from the neurologist reports and experiments, which are better expeiments and data than the experiments mentioned in Bilby's soul catching post, which like, is basing your experiments on the standard model giving limted or no results at all.

They are trying to describe for you two main observances necessary for a god(dess)(es) claim:
1. Something happened
2. It can’t be explained by normal forces.

No theists claim this can be demonstrated by physics, just as you claim physics can tell you no such thing is possible.

The problem with the notion, see bottom line...

And they are pointing out that
A. nothing in human scale has ever happened, ever, that cannot be explained by the four normal forces, and
B. Nothing between atomic nucleus and solar system size is not understood.

Are you trying to claim that A is not true? Are you claiming that you know of acts on humanity, that have occurred, that occurred by a force that could not be described by the four forces?

I am claiming your method of making those god conclusions, based soley on the four forces are limited - that's if you're really investigating the plausibility - hence forth with your current claim - you're only going to get a small chunk of the whole.

That’s the part you both don’t seem to understand yet. That in order to argue against the standard model, you must be introducing a known act that affects a human that doesn’t follow it. If you can’t describe that act, then you have nothing. If you have no evidence of that act, then you have nothing.

What is that act?

Say you want to claim, “an afterlife.” What scrap of evidence of any kind do you have that this act happened?
Say you want to claim a purposely directed tornado of fire to punish a sinning town. What scrap of evidence of any kind do you have that this act happened and it was not random?
Say you want to claim that a football game was won due to supplication to a godly entity. What scrap of evidence do you have that non-normal forces made any impact, that a change in the outcome even happened?

Not many theists (if non at all) claims they became believers because of the physics just as YOU do, in that the understanding you currently have definetly tells you no such thing is possible. Unless you're going to base it soley around the standard model.

Bottom line .... why your notion for using the four forces and the standard model as your baseline monitor as the decider; "no existence possible for any god," This is ultimately a flawed idea for investigation....

BECAUSE the other models or theories, that are needed to harmonize as full workings of the entire existence of the universe. Dark matter, and anti-matter etc.. - are NOT included in the standard model!!

And those forces DO NOT interact with humans. A god could not use any forces other than those defined in the Standard Model to interact with humans. We know this.

 

[Learner]

Really? Is it because its hard to detect , therefore you can't tell what it's actually doing, and yet ... it is believed dark matter does have some affect to the its mirror opposite, apparently?

Check out the link The evidence against materialism. A good method we currently have at the moment.

 

[atrib]

Check out the link The evidence against materialism.

I have reviewed and commented on this link before. This does not support the idea that souls can exist independent of material brains: My comments can be found here, and are repeated below:
Why are you repeating shit that has been debunked already?

A quick post, But the science studies seem to be suggesting otherwise :

[YOUTUBE]
(sorry to bore some of you with the same vid)

First, when you post a youtube video or link to a lengthy article, please provide a summary of your argument that you believe the reference supports. Because I have no fucking clue as to what your point is.

I watched the video, all 30 mins of it, and I found nothing in it that contradicts my argument that consciousness is always associated with complex material networks. The person presents five evidences against materialism, but really, be brings up five things about human brains that we don't currently understand. None of the "evidences" provide examples, or even assert that consciousness can exist independent of a material foundation. Nobody here has claimed that we understand how the brain works, so you are arguing a strawman here. The person in the video then goes off the deep end, hypothesizing that nature can be best understood by imagining that nature has a purpose. He doesn't actually provide any evidence to support this argument.

So, my point and Bilby's point stands; consciousness in the universe is always tied to the complex interactions of matter/energy. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to provide examples of consciousness existing without the underlying material substrate. And we all know you can't do that.

It's strange but you and bilby seemed have defined immaterial i.e. Gods cosmic properties, and as to why it's an impossibilty outside organic material for any such thing especially God.

Immaterial, as in not made up of matter/energy. Nobody said anything about this matter being organic. You made that up.

God's cosmic properties: feel free to describe these properties, and tell us how we can verify these properties for ourselves.

Why should it be impossible for electrical data or infomation not to be held (in natural containment) of electrical or magnetic fields? Like the varying fundamental forces that each have particular unique characteristics affecting the properties of matter, in a predicatable fixed manner, like from memory when observed.
(not the best analogy)

What the fuck does any of this mean? When I use the word material, I am talking about things that are made up of matter/energy, or arise from matter/energy. Electric/magnetic fields would fall under this definition. But again, I have no fucking clue what you are trying to say here, and I am guessing that you don't have a clue either. You are just making up shit and throwing words together without comprehension of what the words mean, by themselves, or as part of the sentences you use them in.

I don't remember this being my premise - saying both existed!!? Certainly not a biblical view, you could have pointed out. I would have thought at least you would have summized from the biblical narrative, and saying the usual rhetoric "Other Christians would disagree with you" when the narrative says: God Himself created the universe.

This is what you said:

I suppose you could take a philosophical approach and say the above is like the chicken or egg scenario (other than the bible POV). Both can be forever, but which came first?

What did you mean by this?

And this post:

Context and the implications by the studies mentioned in the vid, is about 'thoughts or descisions'; the logical conclusion that they as qualified scientists say, after years of studies are suggestiing thoughts and dscisions can be executed outside/or seperate of the brain. I think even as a layman I understand the possible implications and besides, watching the vid you get to hear reference, straight from the horse's mouth.

Every single "evidence" that the video cites is with reference to physical brains made up of matter. The video does NOT make the claim that consciousness can exist independent of a material substrate. Go back and watch it again, and pay attention this time.

So, my point and Bilby's point stands; consciousness in the universe is always tied to the complex interactions of matter/energy. If you want to argue otherwise, you need to provide examples of consciousness existing without the underlying material substrate. And we all know you can't do that.

My, such limited options you present me with - when you say it that way, no wonder you're not getting the preferred response! Oddly, I take to the idea that All consciousness is made of energy, so I'm not at all making any argument against this. Immaterial & no energy at all was NOT the context I was viewing from. Non-physical structural matter with the existence of energy IS the context I view it from.

Your options are limited by your seeming inability and/or unwillingness to read and understand simple English. Matter and energy are two sides of the same coin, which is why I use the terms matter and energy interchangeably. They are the same thing. Were you really not aware of this?

Immaterial, as in not made up of matter/energy. Nobody said anything about this matter being organic. You made that up.

God's cosmic properties: feel free to describe these properties, and tell us how we can verify these properties for ourselves.

Immaterial as in completely nothing ( I think you mean), I think I get you. Well then, that's the problem innit?

Exactly. To dispute my claim, you have to demonstrate that immaterial consciousness can exist, and point to a few examples. Because every conscious thing in the universe we know of is associated with matter/energy patterns. Can you please do that now instead of sending us on wild goose chases.

With the way you're shaping the "argument" which looks suited to your argumentative need, although, you won't get that discussion that your looking for (if you call it that, accusations 'n' all) because quite simply, the concept I see is... God IS energy, and is described so, in the bible.

Matter and energy are the same thing. You can't claim God is immaterial, and in the same breath claim that God is energy.

I mean as posted above, a "philsophical" approach (with tongue in cheek), entertaining the idea in what seems to be the language everyone speaks since there's only philosophy, as steve_bank rightly mentions in a post, being hypothetical without knowing (because no one does) and making absolute claims.

Babbling away like a brook. Can you please pay attention to what you write? Put a little effort into it. Because I don't have a clue what any of this is supposed to mean.

 

[Learner]

I have reviewed and commented on this link before. This does not support the idea that souls can exist independent of material brains: My comments can be found here, and are repeated below:
Why are you repeating shit that has been debunked already?

You got to give me a little more than that, rather than your personal opinion. Nice try... you debunked zilch.

Again..
Check out the link The evidence against materialism. A good method we currently have at the moment.

We don't claim its absolute, it's a working progress. Testing and testing.

 

[pood]

Michael Egnor and The Discovery Institute!

Same old pathetic shit!

 

[Learner]

Well we can address those individual post a bit at a time.. .just dumping long posts for affect could be better done by links if you want that discussion, but no probs.. there are no issues for me here.

 

[Elixir]

I have reviewed and commented on this link before. This does not support the idea that souls can exist independent of material brains: My comments can be found here, and are repeated below:
Why are you repeating shit that has been debunked already?

You got to give me a little more than that

No he doesn’t. YOU need to come up with evidence, not just some surmise of possibility.

We don't claim its absolute

Who is “we”? Do you have a frog in your pocket or something?

There is obviously nothing that can convince a theist or any other superstitious believer of the non-existence of any invisible, undetectable entity. Least of all, one that is omnipotent and doesn’t want to be detected.

 

[Learner]

Michael Egnor and The Discovery Institute!

Same old pathetic shit!

Baby with bathwater lol yes...but the data ...the data? Did you see them?

 

[Learner]

I have reviewed and commented on this link before. This does not support the idea that souls can exist independent of material brains: My comments can be found here, and are repeated below:
Why are you repeating shit that has been debunked already?

You got to give me a little more than that

No he doesn’t. YOU need to come up with evidence, not just some surmise of possibility.

A little more than his non-existent debunking I mean.

We don't claim its absolute

Who is “we”? Do you have a frog in your pocket or something?

We don't claim physics can explain God. .Only you lot keep asking us to, rather disengenous, when we don't make those claims Heres the thing... Theoreticals can't tell you absolutes.

 

[pood]

Silly Michael Egnor.

 

[Elixir]

We don't claim physics can explain God. .Only you lot keep asking us to. Heres the thing... Theoreticals can't tell you absolutes.

Again, who is “we”?

And again - it is a given that no superstitious believer is going to be disabused of their delusion by an Internet forum discussion pointing out the vacuity of their argument for the existence of the object of their superstition.

 

[Learner]

You must assume I'm talking about Theists, as I mentioned in other posts, but for clarity as you ask, theists.

The second part. But how would one know, this couldn't be applied to atheists?

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

Interesting enough, there are terminologies built entirely around these concepts: Avatar.

I expect that similar to your statement, even if Avatars are born into our world by whatever means, actually tracking them down is not going to yield much fruit because of the sorts of observable concerns that such gods of universes would have.

We have a large corpus of honest discussion about what we do to entities we do not understand, especially when those entities seem to have power to do stuff that we cannot. And I will level with you, I would sooner nuke my avatars from existence in the universe they live in than allow a denizen access to my terminal, or even to allow them to validate the existence of Avatars at all... though to the best of my knowledge, the terminal is "iron-clad" in terms of accessibility from an entity there, and the entities are likewise "iron-clad" from attaining the cognitive complexities that would be necessary to do so anyway. It's convenient for me, but not descriptive of our situation: we can both understand the concept of an Avatar as well as predict the sorts of non-causal or implausible events that would expose them.

The only reason that such power does not corrupt me is that I am the only one participating in that universe who has no self-interest to use said powers, and in fact have active self-interest in not using them.

So, either my avatar ends up unplayable because they are being dissected and observed so as to RE access to my terminal (and so I would shut down any "spookiness" before that would happen), or it ends up unplayable because it is shoved unceremoniously into a position where I lack "power to" on account of being given unwanted "power over" in a cultural sense, or it ends up unplayable because someone rightly realizes they're pissed off to the point where every time I spawn in an avatar people are on the look out for it so as to prevent me from further acting in that universe.

I really see no situation where it would be "fun" to exist here while people know you exist here as "literally God".

I mean I am pretty clear that I will suffer no gods and no kings, and given the fact that I AM a god, I think it makes it pretty clear that Gods, even if they are godlike in raw potential, are unlikely to act in "stereotypically godlike" ways.

The people of this universe have a game theory that arises from the shape of their place in it. That game theory is solvable. The solution is, in a nutshell, "ethics". The presence of a god or an avatar does not impact this ethics, and in some ways bind any god to certain models and expectations of ethical behavior.

At best, such gods are really cosmic tourists.

Anyone who wishes to pose a god inconsistent with these observations is deluding themselves.

 

[blastula]

Really? Is it because its hard to detect , therefore you can't tell what it's actually doing, and yet ... it is believed dark matter does have some affect to the its mirror opposite, apparently?

Check out the link The evidence against materialism. A good method we currently have at the moment.

How about you summarize what you think is so compelling there, rather than expect anyone to watch a 30 minute video from a known creationist hack.

 

[Learner]

Really? Is it because its hard to detect , therefore you can't tell what it's actually doing, and yet ... it is believed dark matter does have some affect to the its mirror opposite, apparently?

Check out the link The evidence against materialism. A good method we currently have at the moment.

How about you summarize what you think is so compelling there, rather than expect anyone to watch a 30 minute video from a known creationist hack.

Fair enough.. I'll make a few transcritptions too, for the sake of the discussion. Bear with me.

Meanwhile (lets not digress on this bit) the logic sense of the standard model, absolutely telling us, we can claim that no universe creator is possible!

 

[atrib]

I have reviewed and commented on this link before. This does not support the idea that souls can exist independent of material brains: My comments can be found here, and are repeated below:
Why are you repeating shit that has been debunked already?

You got to give me a little more than that, rather than your personal opinion. Nice try... you debunked zilch.

Again..
Check out the link The evidence against materialism. A good method we currently have at the moment.

We don't claim its absolute, it's a working progress. Testing and testing.

Show me the fucking timecode on the video where the claim is made that souls can exist independent of material brains. The video does not say what you think it says.

I have been over this video before. Why did you not include the comments I have already made on the video? Fucking dishonest behavior!

 

[atrib]

Really? Is it because its hard to detect , therefore you can't tell what it's actually doing, and yet ... it is believed dark matter does have some affect to the its mirror opposite, apparently?

Check out the link The evidence against materialism. A good method we currently have at the moment.

How about you summarize what you think is so compelling there, rather than expect anyone to watch a 30 minute video from a known creationist hack.

He is not going to do that, because the video does not say what he claims it says. I don't think he has watched the video, or that he understood the content if he did.

He had posted this same video earlier, and I had debunked his claims. I even included my comments from my earlier post in this thread, but he just ignored them again. Which speaks volumes about his personal integrity, or lack thereof.