What would count as proof of God

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We're living in a scientific age. and there is no scientific evidence for ghosts or ghosts called gods. And if something cannot be scientifically demonstrated it isn't real. Maybe it's a good idea but it isn't real until facts come along.

Our courts rely on science to determine judgement. We don't gather there to pray to invisible ghosts to give us answers. Instead we seek out hard evidence, we use forensics and we weigh the facts.

Even the most hardcore believers rely on scientific fact everyday of their lives to survive. If they stop doing so they die. So science rules. In the end, gods are nothing more than mental legacy pollution form earlier times.

 

[bilby]

Our courts rely on science to determine judgement

On a good day, perhaps, a bit.

Mostly our courts rely on persuading a dozen random citizens to believe one convincing liar over the other, by whatever means the judge allows them to get away with.

That sometimes they can employ science (or science-like and science-adjacent arguments) as part of that persuasion is a good thing; But it's very much not the same thing as "rely[ing] on science to determine judgement".

 

[Ephesians]

So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

The existence of an apparently designed universe like ours.

 

[pood]

So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

The existence of an apparently designed universe like ours.

Living things are also apparently designed (implying a designer) but it turns out they evolved. No designer needed.

Is the universe even apparently designed? Apparently not, unless, perhaps, the designer had a liking for empty space. Ninety-nine percent of the universe is empty space, lethal to all life and utterly uninteresting. To be fair, it‘s not really empty — it’s full of virtual particles, fields, etc. — but for human purposes it‘s a void wasteland.

Funny kind of thing to “design.”

 

[Ephesians]

So it's been asked here and within philosophy generally, what would qualify as convincing evidence of God to a skeptic not ideologically inclined to believe?

I thought of something that would be rather compelling. Suppose one day every person on the planet simultaneously saw the face and heard the voice of God in the sky. That voice simultaneously declared to every human some personal fact unknown to anyone but that person, then also told them some personal fact unknown to anyone about a total stranger they never met along with that person's contact information so they could verify it. It wouldn't be surprising to for those who already believe to claim both facts they were told are accurate. But this would mean that every non-believing human would also verify their unique facts, which means many millions of people worldwide. While mass hallucinations can occur, they do so b/c all the people are within a particular shared context and frame of mind. That would be impossible for everyone on the planet at the same moment. I can't think of any possible explanation that wouldn't entail some form of supernatural, either God or at least some moment of unified psychic type consciousness.

Would you find this convincing? If not, what alternative explanation could you give?

The existence of an apparently designed universe like ours.

Living things are also apparently designed (implying a designer) but it turns out they evolved. No designer needed.

Is the universe even apparently designed? Apparently not, unless, perhaps, the designer had a liking for empty space. Ninety-nine percent of the universe is empty space, lethal to all life and utterly uninteresting. To be fair, it‘s not really empty — it’s full of virtual particles, fields, etc. — but for human purposes it‘s a void wasteland.

Funny kind of thing to “design.”

That's like arguing that a car is only apparently designed because it was in fact created by a car factory. No car designer needed.

There is no reason to presume evolution, like the car factory, wasn't designed.

 

[pood]

A car factory was also designed — for the purpose of designing and producing cars.

Evolution is a mindless stochastic process fueled by random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift.

You’re making the usual mistake about design, identified by David Hume even before Darwin came along. We see a house, a car, we know someone designed it, because we have seen people designing and building these things, for specified purposes. No one has ever seen anyone or anything design or build a universe.

 

[Ephesians]

A car factory was also designed — for the purpose of designing and producing cars.

Evolution is a mindless stochastic process fueled by random mutation, natural selection and genetic drift.

You’re making the usual mistake about design, identified by David Hume even before Darwin came along. We see a house, a car, we know someone designed it, because we have seen people designing and building these things, for specified purposes. No one has ever seen anyone or anything design or build a universe.

You missed the point. The universe looks designed; therefore, one should think it is designed until there is a defeater for this appearance.

You then brought up how biological life looks designed too. I agree. You then tried to use evolution as a defeater for this appearance--but it can't be used as a defeater because evolution in and of itself looks designed as well, in the same way a car factory looks designed.

 

[pood]

Evolution naturally, without intent or design, occurs when two conditions are fulfilled: reproduction with variation in diverse and ever-changing environments. Both those conditions are fulfilled, therefore evolution happens.

As to the universe, to me, it does not look designed, unless, as noted, the designer prefers empty space. But even if it did look designed, or looks designed to you, your conclusion that we should think of it as designed is a non sequitur, as explained hundreds of years ago by Hume.

 

[Ephesians]

Evolution naturally, without intent or design, occurs when two conditions are fulfilled: reproduction with variation in diverse and ever-changing environments. Both those conditions are fulfilled, therefore evolution happens.

But there's no reason to presume evolution isn't designed. You keep missing that point. In fact, it looks designed. Therefore, one should presume it is designed until there's a defeater for this appearance.

As to the universe, to me, it does not look designed

At least that's consistent. Because it'd be awfully strange for somebody to think that evolution and the universe itself is apparently designed while holding onto the belief that it is in fact not designed, without any good defeater for this appearance of design.

unless, as noted, the designer prefers empty space

I don't see this as a good defeater because what is 'a lot of empty space' to an omniscient and omnipresent mind? To you there may be a lot of empty space. My room is pretty cluttered right now, but to an ant there would be a lot of empty space.

And if we're talking about an intelligent mind, then let's not forget intent, creativity, and artistic expression. There may be a lot of empty space for artistic reasons. Or God may have wanted to illicit wonder or the feeling that we are small. Who knows?

Most important, the empty space doesn't explain away all of the intelligible processes in the universe that have the appearance of design.

your conclusion that we should think of it as designed is a non sequitur

Obviously not. If we met in person, I'd believe you to be human and not a figment of my imagination based on appearances and presuppositions alone! But if I were given a good defeater for my belief, then I'd change my mind.

 

[pood]

Evolution does not look designed. I’ve already explained that.

The rest is just bafflegab. Much of this thread has been devoted to explaining why the existence of the universe cannot serve as evidence of a creator. I suggest you read those posts from myself and others, as I doubt anyone here is eager to repeat him or herself for the sake of an eager-beaver noob with a religious fantasy.

 

[pood]

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?

 

[Politesse]

In the meantime, you might ask yourself: What would a universe that was NOT designed look like?

Wouldn't one anticipate chaos, if anything?

 

[Elixir]

it looks designed. Therefore, one should presume it is designed until there's a defeater for this appearance.

Uh.. the bible looks fictional. Therefore, one should presume it is fictional until there's a defeater for this appearance.

 

[Ephesians]

it looks designed. Therefore, one should presume it is designed until there's a defeater for this appearance.

Uh.. the bible looks fictional. Therefore, one should presume it is fictional until there's a defeater for this appearance.

To most people, it doesn't look fictional. Moreover, you never gave a reason for thinking it looks fictional. The universe looks designed because it's filled with rationally intelligible processes.

 

[Ephesians]

Evolution does not look designed. I’ve already explained that.

Yes it does, which is why we're able to rationally discern it, explain it, make predictions, etc.

If evolution were apparently undersigned, arbitrary, or chaotic, then one would think it'd be extremely difficult to understand if not impossible to understand, explain, and predict.

The rest is just bafflegab

That's a pretty bad argument, bro. My faith in God has just grown 10-fold. Are you mad?

 

[Elixir]

To most people, it doesn't look fictional.

Bzzzzt. No need to read further. That's bullshit.
Show your "work".*

*2.3 billion (the most generous and inclusive estimate) is less than a third of all people.

 

[Ephesians]

To most people, it doesn't look fictional.

Bzzzzt. No need to read further. That's bullshit.
Show your "work".*

*2.3 billion (the most generous and inclusive estimate) is less than a third of all people.

Atheists and people who think the Bible is fiction are in the minority. You're about as numerous as the flat earthers.

 

[Elixir]

Atheists and people who think the Bible is fiction are in the minority. You're about as numerous as the flat earthers.

Hogwash. Look and learn:



And meanwhile, "According to YouGov’s report, when asked, “Do you believe that the world is round or flat,” 2 percent of the 8,215 respondents chose “I have always believed the world is flat.”"

So, your claim is bullshit.
Plus, most flat earthers ARE Christians - prove me wrong!

 

[Ephesians]

Atheists and people who think the Bible is fiction are in the minority. You're about as numerous as the flat earthers.

Hogwash. Look and learn:

View attachment 36656

And meanwhile, "According to YouGov’s report, when asked, “Do you believe that the world is round or flat,” 2 percent of the 8,215 respondents chose “I have always believed the world is flat.”"

So, your claim is bullshit.

You should learn how to read pie charts. Lul.

How does 'unaffiliated' equate to 'I think the Bible is fiction.' It doesn't even equate to agnosticism or atheism. And a Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist or a person who is into 'folk religion' may not think the Bible is fiction.

That was easy.

 

[Ephesians]

Atheists and people who think the Bible is fiction are in the minority. You're about as numerous as the flat earthers.

Hogwash. Look and learn:

View attachment 36656

And meanwhile, "According to YouGov’s report, when asked, “Do you believe that the world is round or flat,” 2 percent of the 8,215 respondents chose “I have always believed the world is flat.”"

So, your claim is bullshit.
Plus, most flat earthers ARE Christians - prove me wrong!

According to Encyclopædia Britannica 2007, 2.3% of the world identifies as atheist.
According to YouGov, 2% of 8,215 respondents chose, "I have always believed the world is flat."

Damn I'm good.