RE: Evidence for the existence of God
January 12, 2017 at 5:26 pm
(This post was last modified: January 12, 2017 at 5:50 pm by Yadayadayada.)
(January 12, 2017 at 4:43 pm)Asmodee Wrote: 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.
(January 12, 2017 at 4:59 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: 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.
(January 12, 2017 at 5:15 pm)pocaracas Wrote:(January 12, 2017 at 4:51 pm)Yadayadayada Wrote: 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?
(January 12, 2017 at 5:17 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:Yadayadayada Wrote:"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.
Yadayadayada Wrote: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.
Yadayadayada Wrote: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.
Yadayadayada Wrote: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.
