Evidence for the existence of God

[Asmodee]

How many answers do you need?  Multiple people (myself included) have said "I don't know."  A few have given some examples, and you've either tried to refute them or simply say something like "Isn't the fact that reality exists evidence of God?"

What is the point of this thread if you aren't even interested in defending your assertions?  Why should anyone bother to respond to you?

That is a very good point.  "I don't know" is always a more valid answer to a question than to simply make something up.  And really, you don't need to know.  God knows what will convince you and if he wants you to be convinced, he will see to it that you get the convincing evidence.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I am sincerely interested in why you think that. Could you please elaborate?

Firstly, the universe is most certainly not entirely intelligible.  Quantum mechanics basically goes against everything that appears intuitive about the universe, like completely rewriting the rules of cause and effect.

I agree that QM is strongly counter-intuitive. So also are our notions about the solidity of objects and the constancy of time and space intervals. I don't see that as the same as being unintelligible. As I understand it QM is one of the most thoroughly tested and consistent theories in all of science. Its perplexing findings just show that we need a better model of causality.

Plus, our understanding of physics breaks down in a black hole.  That's not to say that maybe one day we will be able to reconcile quantum mechanics with relativity, but there are definitely holes in our understanding that seem beyond our capabilities to grasp.

Sounds more like our current physical models of some phenomena are incomplete not that the phenomena themselves are beyond the reach of inquiry.

Even if we could figure these things out, they would be such esoteric solutions that only a handful of people on this planet would be able to understand it.  I wouldn't exactly call that intelligible.

Something can be intelligible without being widely understood.

Secondly, science has shown that human reason is notoriously flawed.  Our perceptions and thought processes are riddled with bias, and our memories have been shown to be largely made up of information our brain invented and cobbled together.

All of this is true. I would say in reply that people are able to overcome those bias. While in a particular illusion, one line may appear longer to the unaided eye, one can use a ruler to determine the actual lengths are equal. As I see it reason is self-correcting rather than inherently flawed. If two clocks show a different time, I can bring in a third, etc.

[pocaracas]

Did you fail to read the sentence up to the end?
As far as we can tell, all those things you mentioned can be accounted for by trivial gravity and a bit of nuclear fusion.

Gravity and nuclear fusion would be included in "the vast universe and everything in it" that I mentioned. Gravity and nuclear fusion are not self-creating.

Again, as far as we can tell, no god is required to account for the whole cosmos.
So, given our current state of knowledge about physics, the creation of the universe by a creator gods is indistinguishable from a completely natural phenomena.

[Mister Agenda]

Arguments from personal incredulity aside...

"Argument from personal incredulity" is itself a weak argument, since incredulity is perfectly acceptable if warranted.

Incredulity is perfectly acceptable if it's justified, yes. It's not an argument at all lacking that justification. You don't get to stop at 'I find that hard to believe' because the obvious retort is 'well, I don't find that hard to believe'.

Yes, a god that started creation, then ceased to have any measurable effect on reality at all, is indistinguishable from one that doesn't exist.

How so? Even if God started creation then ceased to have any measurable effect on reality, would not the existence of creation itself still testify to the fact of it being created by God?

No, that would be affirming the consequent.

If A, then B.
B, therefore A.

If God, then the universe.
The universe, therefore God.

If I am Bill Gates, I am rich.
I am rich, therefore I am Bill Gates.

So far as we can tell, there are multiple other plausible causes for the universe; if there is a creator, it has chosen to create a universe that appears to have the property that it doesn't require a creator to explain it.

The existence of your computer testifies to the fact that some tech people put it together and programmed it, even though they do not come over to your house every day to maintain it.

It testifies to that fact because we KNOW that's where computers come from. That's why it's a fact.

---

What I consider to be evidence of God has no bearing whatsoever on my question.

Once again, this thread is not about me. It's about you. I'm asking you what you think.

You don't seem to have much to say about the posts where the person tells you what would convince them.

[Yadayadayada]

So now not only have you utterly destroyed the definition of "God", making it impossible for me to answer your question with any intellectual honesty, you also just added considerable ambiguity to your already ambiguous answer when asked for an  "unambiguous" definition of God. 


At this point I am no longer even sure of what your definition of God was.

Once again, this thread is not about me. It's about you (atheists/agnostics). I'm asking you what you think.

---

How many answers do you need?  Multiple people (myself included) have said "I don't know."  A few have given some examples, and you've either tried to refute them or simply say something like "Isn't the fact that reality exists evidence of God?"

What is the point of this thread if you aren't even interested in defending your assertions?  Why should anyone bother to respond to you?

It's not compulsory for you to be here.

---

Gravity and nuclear fusion would be included in "the vast universe and everything in it" that I mentioned. Gravity and nuclear fusion are not self-creating.

Again, as far as we can tell, no god is required to account for the whole cosmos.
So, given our current state of knowledge about physics, the creation of the universe by a creator gods is indistinguishable from a completely natural phenomena.

What natural phenomena do you know of that is capable of creating the universe?

---

"Argument from personal incredulity" is itself a weak argument, since incredulity is perfectly acceptable if warranted.

Incredulity is perfectly acceptable if it's justified, yes. It's not an argument at all lacking that justification. You don't get to stop at 'I find that hard to believe' because the obvious retort is 'well, I don't find that hard to believe'.

The onus is on the one asserting "Argument from personal incredulity" to prove that that the incredulity is not justified.

How so? Even if God started creation then ceased to have any measurable effect on reality, would not the existence of creation itself still testify to the fact of it being created by God?

No, that would be affirming the consequent.

If A, then B.
B, therefore A.

If God, then the universe.
The universe, therefore God.

If I am Bill Gates, I am rich.
I am rich, therefore I am Bill Gates.

So far as we can tell, there are multiple other plausible causes for the universe; if there is a creator, it has chosen to create a universe that appears to have the property that it doesn't require a creator to explain it.

Name one other plausible cause for the universe , please.

The existence of your computer testifies to the fact that some tech people put it together and programmed it, even though they do not come over to your house every day to maintain it.

It testifies to that fact because we KNOW that's where computers come from. That's why it's a fact.

No, it's a fact because we know that a device such a computer is of a complex design which requires an intelligent designer. The conclusion would be the same even if we didn't know where it came from.

---

What I consider to be evidence of God has no bearing whatsoever on my question.

Once again, this thread is not about me. It's about you. I'm asking you what you think.

You don't seem to have much to say about the posts where the person tells you what would convince them.

They have answered the question satisfactorily. There is nothing more to ask from them.

[Asmodee]

So now not only have you utterly destroyed the definition of "God", making it impossible for me to answer your question with any intellectual honesty, you also just added considerable ambiguity to your already ambiguous answer when asked for an  "unambiguous" definition of God. 


At this point I am no longer even sure of what your definition of God was.

Once again, this thread is not about me. It's about you (atheists/agnostics). I'm asking you what you think.

This response is getting pretty fucking old.  YOU are the one asking the question, so yeah, it's a little bit about you.  As has been pointed out to you repeatedly "evidence" is dependent on the particular circumstance.  Do you just want the definition of "evidence"?  The buy a dictionary.  Or Google it.  Do you want the definition, as we see it, in a particular context?  Then we absolutely need some context!
I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, as many of us are, and you're being a jackass about it.  You either want something from me or you don't.  If you do, then answer my damned questions so I can figure out what the fuck you're asking, which makes it possible for me to answer your question.  If you don't want to have an intelligent conversation, then fuck off.

[The Grand Nudger]

Looks like we've got another creatard on our hands.  These people are so unoriginal. I'm sure it's novel and exciting to them, they imagine that they're presenting the first instances of these sorts of claims and arguments to us. They never appreciate the tedium.

Now that I;ve got a better handle on what the OP considers evidence for a god, I;m less interested in that thread. I could just pull an identical thread up.

[pocaracas]

Now I remember why I hated this post concatenation thingy.... I don't get info about there being new posts for me to address...

Again, as far as we can tell, no god is required to account for the whole cosmos.
So, given our current state of knowledge about physics, the creation of the universe by a creator gods is indistinguishable from a completely natural phenomena.

What natural phenomena do you know of that is capable of creating the universe?

No need to bring out the bold font.

Just try this trick:

---

---

To answer your question, some more info needs to be gathered concerning the Universe itself and what there is beyond it, if beyond the Universe makes any sense.
Allow me to clarify a bit.
Current consensus states that the space-time within our Universe was once "compressed" into a dimensionless point... a singularity. As you can see, that point includes whatever "time" was. This presents a difficulty as we can't really claim anything about a "before the Universe exists", as such a concept may not make any sense, given the absence of time itself, at least, as we know it.
To our minds, this absence of time feels weird. All our actions rely on there being time, so how can we ever conceptualize a timeless action? How can there be anything happening without time? How can anything be created, if there is no time?
Personally, I can't see how this scenario can ever lead to a creator entity... but I can't also propose any natural "creation event". Time is "created" with the Universe. Space is created with the Universe. Space-time and all energy (and mass) are created as one. Maybe that dimensionless point just was. And no more space-time exists beyond the Universe.

But, if we allow for space-time to slip through the singularity, byt not letting it be that small, then the singularity becomes an instant when all energy (and matter) of the Universe was condensed to the maximum, then it is conceivable that space-time exists beyond our Universe... a possibly infinite space-time.
Under such a scenario, it is possible that quantum fluctuations were responsible for all the generation of mass in one particular place, suddenly causing a warping of space-time and our singularity.



Also, if there is an intelligent entity out of our Universe, it should also be a natural being.... just very different from us. The extra-universal alien.
If so, the guy should have others with it. Our Universe is possibly the high-school project of such a being. Or the product of a team of "scientists". Or just a speck of dust, unnoticed by anyone, standing on an extra-universal flower... cue in Dr. Seuss!

Should I try to come up with even more possibilities?

[robvalue]

I was thinking to myself that the "evidence" this guy has is going to be that everything is evidence of God. I was right.

That's not evidence. Well, it is, in that anything can be put forward as evidence. It's just that it's not going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe what you believe, because it's a tautology. It's just assuming your conclusion. We have no way of differentiating between a reality from a "God" (whatever that is) from one that isn't from one. If you have a way that isn't just announcing your conclusion, go ahead.

We don't have all the answers, but that doesn't mean we want people to make them up for us. Especially when they can't even define their answers.

The problem is a lack of data. We have one reality, which we can't study externally. We're kind of stuck. So it may well be that there is no evidence that can decide this question, until we find a way to "break out".

[Esquilax]

---

I think we're dancing around the real issue here, though, which is that your god cannot supply that sort of evidence.

We're not dancing around the issue. We're discussing what would it take for atheists to be convinced.

And I'm telling you that the god you believe in could not provide that. The first hurdle is that you'd have to show how all the things that contradict your god in reality are somehow wrong, and you're simply not up to that.

Please elucidate your meaning of "well supported and verifiable calculations" by providing examples.

Well, okay: when you say that a thing is the best explanation for something, you're asserting a calculation of probability, in which that thing has the highest such probability. Given that, you'd need an actual means of doing this. So if you want to say that god is the best explanation for the universe, you don't just get to skip all the steps that theists always do with their apologetic arguments: you have to begin by demonstrating that a god is even possible, and work up from there. You don't just get to vomit some waffle about first causes and stop there.

If you want to say god is the best explanation, that necessarily implies that he's A: an explanation for the phenomena under discussion, and B: has the highest probability of being the explanation given the current evidence. Without observations of such a being and a demonstrable understanding of the conditions it operates within, no such probability can be attained. If you have observations of god and a solid understanding of his underlying conditions and abilities, then that's where you start. But you've already excluded those sorts of evidence.