Proof that God exists

[The Grand Nudger]

I think there is a difference:

We can't say entropy reverses because a law says so.
We can't say entropy reverses because it's inconsistent with what we've always seen.

One is appeal to authority and the other is appeal to evidence.  If there is evidence saying what we've always seen will always be what we see, then what is that evidence?  Until that evidence arises, it seems to be an error to assume.

Didn't we just discuss, between us, that the term natural law is shorthand for "what we've always seen"?  The only authority being appealed to when someone mentions natural law is the authority of an overwhelming weight of observational evidence. 

-even if the person doing it doesn't know that, lol.

As to the latter part, do you consider it to be an error to assume that a ball will roll down a ramp "just because" that's what it's always done?  

Good point about etymology, but the meaning of "law" hasn't changed in the way "car" has, which was kinda my point... that we inherited "law" from theology and the original meaning persists to this day.  A law implies some authority to enforce it.

Law derives from lagu, old english by way of norse - laid down or fixed.  That's a more apt description of a natural law than car is as a chariot.  We didn't inherit this one from theology, and it doesn't imply an "authority to enforce" either conceptually or in point of fact.    Much was cribbed in this way...here..amusingly, from one of the last pagan kingdoms of the middle ages - and a remarkably secular one to boot with respect to "law". Germanic and/or norse law was kind of a thing of envy for early christers. We didn't steal this one from god belief, god belief re-appropriated and, after enough time had passed, told yet another lie about it's origin.

You know what I mean, silly.  A funny quip from a creationist goes, "Hydrogen - a colorless, odorless gas that, given enough time, turns into people.  "  Isn't that what the atheist believes?

Um.......................no, lol.

Apparently that's what the creationists think the atheists believes, but I'm not atheist, so I can only guess at what they believe.  I don't want to step on any toes and I know that atheist are sensitive to misconceptions about what it means to be atheist, but I have to generalize the group in some way.

Atheists don't believe in gods.  Stick with that.

My assumptions of atheist beliefs are:

The universe is not teleological, meaning processes do not aim for a goal, but just happen.  What exists, exist by a natural selection from a realm of possibilities which requires no conscious guidance.  So it would seem that life exists as a consequence of complexity that just happened within enormous quantities of matter and time.  The shear quantity of stuff, time, and complexity is mindboggling enough to make it seem plausible even though the exact mechanism isn't readily apparent.  To me, it doesn't seem much different from substituting the stuff, time, complexity with god... only one is a peeping tom and the other isn't lol.

OH IDK, what can gawk in nature does seem to gawk as a matter of habit. If evo-devo had eyes, it would use them.  

You're conflating facts with "atheists beliefs" above, though.  What exists (by which I take it you mean life like yourself since that;s the question you've asked a variety of ways) -does- exist by natural selection..which doesn't require any conscious guidance...even if there is any, as there is in artificial selection..which is also a thing that accounts for some of what exists as it it currently exists.   Evolutionary biology isn't some substitute for a god.  If there were a god, evolutionary biology would still be as accurate and effective as it is now. We would still have to account for demonstrable truths about it and how it relates to us.

That it -seems-.....partiularly to believers and demi-believers, to be a substitute is down to the fact that the people who told god stories spun blatant lies about our origins, and whose fault is that when their pattern of silly and pointless lying turns out to be wholly and hilariously wrong?

RE: eastern spiritualism
That it's any less silly or any better aligned with some western ideology x..or that, fundamentally, it's a different thing than western spiritualism.

(I'd really love to figure out what it is, specifically, you're having trouble with in biology - or the confluence of god and biology, I actually enjoy the opportunity to help believers reconcile their god with facts - even if I don't believe in their gods. In my experience, when it can be pulled off, it's a productive and enjoyable experience. Faith strengthening, even - just one less fact a person feels compelled to deny in maintaining their belief. Let me help you take the load off? )