Let's say that science proves that God exists

[Brian37]

Here's a fun one…
Let's say that science proves the existence of God - A perfect logical proof (with evidence) that clearly states that the universe was created by a creator. Nothing more, nothing less...

What will happen to the people on earth?
What religion would they cling to?
Would there be world peace?

Lets say science proves pink unicorns.
Lets say science proves snarfwidgets.
Lets say science proves FSM.
Lets say science proves I can fart a Lamborghini out of my butt.

Above all the questions you pose IF, after all the crap humans go through in our existence, it still would not solve the problem of morality of claimed being. So far this guy seems to be a deadbeat jerk. I don't care if suddenly everything became rosy. That would be like an abusive husband beating his wife and then buying her roses afterward.

Sorry, but threads like this give me a lip twitch and just fuels the fantasies of believers.

"If ifs and butts were candy and nuts we'd all have a party".

[Drew_2013]

In fact, it is not true that certain conditions must be true for life as we know it (or any other possible life, for that matter) to exist. You cannot extrapolate onto the entire universe, a data point of one. .

It is true that certain conditions had to obtain for life as we know it. According to Sir Martin Rees at least 6 characteristcis in a mindboggling narrow degree have to obtain for their to be life. Some of those characteristics are necessary just for planets and stars to form.

In fact, we know next to nothing about what conditions exist elsewhere that could lead to life, or for that matter, in some other universe. What we are certain of is that there is nothing special in this universe that requires, or even guarantees life to exist. It could just as easily not have come about

Thats right so there's no reason to consider that. I was told when I first came to this discussion board that atheists only consider established facts.

As a human, I have this thing called empathy, which allows me to interface with the experiences of my fellow human beings. In having this ability- and since we're herd creatures evolution no doubt sharpened this sense in most of us- I am willing to allow other humans certain rights that I would like to have myself.

I'm glad you do arbritrarily feel that way. But your feelings don't have any basis in fact if humans are just the unintended by product of the laws of physics....your feelings not withstanding.

Do you really not see the absurdity of your situation? You don't know how much of other life is out there. You don't know what other life is possible. And yet you insist that its occurrence on a tiny part of a miniscule portion of universe had to be intentional. Its like finding a speck of dust in the corner of your room and yelling "Who put it there?".

Thats an argument from ignorance (or a naturalism in the gaps argument). My opinion about theism is based on what we do know, not on what might be. And I have been told atheists base thier opinion on established facts only also.

Except, since even the definition does not mention the word "mindless", it means that it is your assumption of mind and intent that is anomalous.

Let's quit the semantics...you don't believe mind was involved in the creation or cause of the universe do you?

Yes, indeed, we have. And not just in countries based on theism but on societies in general. If it stands to reason that humans have a special status because the world around them favors their existence, then it also stands to reason that some humans whose status in the society is more favorable are more special than others and therefore deserving of greater rights and privileges. This is seen in the special privileges afforded to emperors, kings, feudal lords, priests, brahmins etc. throughout the history. Theistic underpinnings to human rights lead to segregated class and status based societies.

According to atheists its a fluke of nature that humans exist at all and humans are doomed to perish collectively or individually at any time. We can agree and pretend humans have special rights, but we can't infer such from the philosophy of naturalism.

A: If humans are intentional and purposeful creations, then they have inalienable human rights.
B: Humans are not intentional and purposeful creations (being the result of mechanistic processes).
C: Therefore, they do not have inalienable human rights.

Do you see now the error of your position?

No I don't. Explain to me where inalienable rights can be derived from beings that had no right to existence to begin with. Do you think humans have a right to live? By what reckoning do humans have to live when they were created by accident in the first place. Does the universe have the right to exist? How so? Where would the notion you have the right to live come from? It might be conferred upon you by other humans because they arbitrarily want you to live but they might just as well want you to die.

Furthermore, you assume that if someone was intended to live then he/she has the right to live. Where is the justification for that? How does the fact that something out there intended for me to live give me with the "right to life"? And how does that make me equal everything else that it might also have intended to live, thus giving me right to equality? And clearly, these rights are in no way inalienable. After all, since they are based upon the entity's intentions, then as soon as it no longer intends for me to live, I no longer have the right to live.

If we were intended to exist and the universe was created for our inhabitance, we have a philosophical reason to infer a right to live. Certainly more of a reason then if we are just the accidental by product of mindless forces. We can also infer the belief that all people are created equal since we all derived from the same source. It is the basis on which rights are inferred in the declaration of independence.

No matter. We'll overlook this lack of rationale for now and assume that if the creator of a living entity intends for it to live then it has the right to live. As it happens, the people most directly responsible for my creation are my parents. They most certainly do intend for me to live. Why isn't that sufficient to grant me the right to life and all the other rights my special status in their eyes would ensue?

You undermine your own argument, you cite the fact you were intentionally brought into the world by sentient beings as a reason to philosophize you have a right to live. I'm employing the same reasoning to all humans. If instead of being the by product of parents that intended your existence you were just the unintended by product of mindless forces you wouldn't have any rights.

But you might say that the only intention that matters is god's. Ofcourse, this is a special pleading fallacy, but let's put that aside for the moment. According to your logic, this creator would not only be responsible for intentional and purposeful creation of human beings but that of all living creature. Which means, he intended for all of them to live. Why, then are humans any more special than the rest of them? Wouldn't all of them have the same rights to life and equality that you have?

Good point some (such as Peta) argue they do.

[Cinjin]

Answering the OP:

Humans are so painfully stupid and so stubborn in their beliefs that god himself could show up on this planet shooting laser beams out of his eyes and miracles out of his fingertips and it wouldn't change a damn thing. Some would immediately shit their pants and beg forgiveness for "sins" that god never accused them of. Some would claim it was a hoax. Others would claim it was the "powerful work of Satan," and still others would use it to start a war against their age-old enemies.

If God exists, he long since figured out that showing up on this rock is a pointless, futile waste of time. Between the Christards and the Muslicks alone, we are way too painfully stupid for God to bother with.

...and that's if there even is one.

[genkaus]

It is true that certain conditions had to obtain for life as we know it. According to Sir Martin Rees at least 6 characteristcis in a mindboggling narrow degree have to obtain for their to be life. Some of those characteristics are necessary just for planets and stars to form.

For your position to hold any water you have to prove two things:
1. Those constants could've been something other that what they are, i.e. they are tunable.
2. Any other type of life-form cannot possibly exist if those conditions are not met.

Thats right so there's no reason to consider that. I was told when I first came to this discussion board that atheists only consider established facts.

And since it's a fact that we don't have any knowledge of possibility of life in other places of this universe or another, there is no basis to assume that there is anything special regarding the so called conditions of life.

I'm glad you do arbritrarily feel that way. But your feelings don't have any basis in fact if humans are just the unintended by product of the laws of physics....your feelings not withstanding.

What's so arbitrary about it? These feeling do have a basis in fact - the very fact of human nature.

That's an argument from ignorance (or a naturalism in the gaps argument). My opinion about theism is based on what we do know, not on what might be. And I have been told atheists base thier opinion on established facts only also.

That's hilarious. Do you come up with this crap on your own or is someone feeding it to you?

Here are some facts for you. Life, as we know it, is impossible to sustain in all but a tiny portion of the universe. Of that tiny portion, it is known to exist in an even tinier portion. Assuming Earth to consist of everything from its core to upper atmosphere, we know that life is possible only in a thin shell around its surface and even there in specific areas. Given the astronomically low occurrence of life in universe, the reasonable conclusion is that its existence was not the product of purposeful design.

In face of this evidence, you continue to insist that even this extremely miniscule success could not have been achieved without intent. So, this time, the burden of proof is on you. You bear the responsibility to show that this extremely low occurrence of life was still the intent and purpose behind the universe. I've even given you a way to prove it.

Let's quit the semantics...you don't believe mind was involved in the creation or cause of the universe do you?

Let's not play underhanded word-games either. I don't believe that any mind was involved in formation of life. As for the universe, I don't believe it to be created or caused - so the question of mind is moot.

According to atheists its a fluke of nature that humans exist at all and humans are doomed to perish collectively or individually at any time. We can agree and pretend humans have special rights, but we can't infer such from the philosophy of naturalism.

Complete and utter nonsense. First of all, I don't know of any atheists who see human existence as a fluke of nature any more than they see the earth revolving around the sun as a fluke of nature. Both are necessary and inevitable consequences of mechanistic processes at work (that's my belief, other atheists may believe differently). Secondly, I also don't believe that humans are doomed to perish. Thirdly, it is incorrect to assume that all atheists automatically follow the philosophy of naturalism or that their entire worldview is inferred solely from it. Finally, even if we can't infer special rights from the philosophy of naturalism that does not mean they can't be inferred from other aspects of an atheist's worldview (not, as you are wont to assume, as atheistic worldview).

And lastly, did you really think I would not notice that you fail to address the actual argument that you are apparently replying to? I can only assume from this lame attempt at diversion that you have no counter-argument to the fact that theistic societies lead to segregated class based rights and privileges.

No I don't.

I don't see how I can make your failure to apply logic any more transparent? I gave you the name of your logical fallacy, an example and detailed description of how you apply it.

Explain to me where inalienable rights can be derived from beings that had no right to existence to begin with.

From the fact of their existence itself.

Do you think humans have a right to live? By what reckoning do humans have to live when they were created by accident in the first place.

From the reckoning of their existence as conscious, self-aware and self-directing beings.

Does the universe have the right to exist?

No. The concept of rights can only apply to conscious entities.

Where would the notion you have the right to live come from?

Answered already.

It might be conferred upon you by other humans because they arbitrarily want you to live but they might just as well want you to die.

Exactly my point. Any right conferred by any other being would hold no value - even of that being is your god.

If we were intended to exist and the universe was created for our inhabitance, we have a philosophical reason to infer a right to live.

That's precisely what you have failed to provide. What is that "philosophical reason to infer right to live"? You haven't drawn the connection between the two, you simply keep repeating it.

Certainly more of a reason then if we are just the accidental by product of mindless forces.

In absence of any given reason - no, you don't.

We can also infer the belief that all people are created equal since we all derived from the same source.

Nonsense. We happen to know for a fact that everyone is not "created" equal, given the existence of disparity in their physical, mental and social stature.

It is the basis on which rights are inferred in the declaration of independence.

Declaration of whose independence?

You undermine your own argument, you cite the fact you were intentionally brought into the world by sentient beings as a reason to philosophize you have a right to live. I'm employing the same reasoning to all humans. If instead of being the by product of parents that intended your existence you were just the unintended by product of mindless forces you wouldn't have any rights.

Are you truly this dense or are you intentionally acting this way? This is your argument. You are the one arguing (without providing the necessary justification) that some other being's intention for me to live is sufficient to provide right to life. I'm simply pointing out how your argument fails, since if that was sufficient, then my parents' intentions for me would confer special rights upon me.

As for me, I do not recognize the idea that any other being's intentions or purposes have any bearing on my rights.

Good point some (such as Peta) argue they do.

Peta is irrelevant. Do you follow the logical consequences of your own premises to acknowledge special or greater rights of all beetles or not? If not, why not?

[fr0d0]

A philosophical question for the christians.

What if science did prove the existence of god and it turned out to be Allah?

For Muslims that would be possible, I believe. Rayaan be upon me.

Still us christians would get off lightly next to you reprobates :p

[Esquilax]

As a human, I have this thing called empathy, which allows me to interface with the experiences of my fellow human beings. In having this ability- and since we're herd creatures evolution no doubt sharpened this sense in most of us- I am willing to allow other humans certain rights that I would like to have myself.

I'm glad you do arbritrarily feel that way. But your feelings don't have any basis in fact if humans are just the unintended by product of the laws of physics....your feelings not withstanding.

Couple of things: One, it's not arbitrary, it's an evolutionary instinct honed in the majority of mankind specifically to engender social health in the herd animal that is humanity.

And two, you asked where our rights came from, and I answered; first by showing you that it's ridiculous to think that we have any predefined rights at all- something you neglected to even acknowledge- and then by showing you where the desire for those rights developed in a universe without a god. And instead of actually responding you give me... what? A restatement of my original premise, as though that should count for anything when I was working within that framework to begin with?

If you don't have an answer that's fine, just don't pretend like you do.

[orogenicman]

It is true that certain conditions had to obtain for life as we know it. According to Sir Martin Rees at least 6 characteristcis in a mindboggling narrow degree have to obtain for their to be life. Some of those characteristics are necessary just for planets and stars to form.

For your position to hold any water you have to prove two things:
1. Those constants could've been something other that what they are, i.e. they are tunable.
2. Any other type of life-form cannot possibly exist if those conditions are not met.

What's more to the point, there are millions and millions of ways to snuff out life, or to prevent it from occuring altogether. The reality is that these facts do not support the notion that the universe is finely tuned for life. However, there is plenty of evidence to support the thesis that life is finely tuned to the universe, having evolved in it, being a product of it.

[Drew_2013]

For your position to hold any water you have to prove two things:
1. Those constants could've been something other that what they are, i.e. they are tunable.
2. Any other type of life-form cannot possibly exist if those conditions are not met.

No, it doesn't make any difference whether there tunable or not. Even if for some unknown reason they had to be as they are its still just as astonishing that if a universe comes into existence it has to be in the narrow range to support life. I'm only concerned about the life forms we do know of not fantasy ones.

Secondly It doesn't matter to me whether you think the arguments I make hold water. I assume none of them will.

And since it's a fact that we don't have any knowledge of possibility of life in other places of this universe or another, there is no basis to assume that there is anything special regarding the so called conditions of life.

We don't have to consider knowledge we don't have. At this point we know of life on earth alone and for the only life we know of to exist the universe has to fallen in an incredibly narrow range of characteristics. We don't have to consider facts not in evidence.

Here are some facts for you. Life, as we know it, is impossible to sustain in all but a tiny portion of the universe. Of that tiny portion, it is known to exist in an even tinier portion. Assuming Earth to consist of everything from its core to upper atmosphere, we know that life is possible only in a thin shell around its surface and even there in specific areas. Given the astronomically low occurrence of life in universe, the reasonable conclusion is that its existence was not the product of purposeful design.

So if life was teeming everywhere you'd say it must be by design?

In face of this evidence, you continue to insist that even this extremely miniscule success could not have been achieved without intent. So, this time, the burden of proof is on you. You bear the responsibility to show that this extremely low occurrence of life was still the intent and purpose behind the universe. I've even given you a way to prove it.

The only burden on me is to make a reasonable case for what I believe. Its not my burden to pretend I can persuade a dyed in the wool atheist.

First of all, I don't know of any atheists who see human existence as a fluke of nature any more than they see the earth revolving around the sun as a fluke of nature. Both are necessary and inevitable consequences of mechanistic processes at work (that's my belief, other atheists may believe differently).

But you don't believe those laws of nature were by design correct? There was according to atheists no engineer who designed the laws of physics to produce a specific result, true? You don't believe the universe was intentionally engineered to support galaxies, stars or planets do you? You don't think the universe or mechanistic processses cared whether humans existed right? All the conditions and characteristics necessary for humans to exist didn't according to atheists come about by plan. If a extremely specific result occurs minus any design or planning then the end result is by happenstance. Even if you counter propose just as a hypothetical that for some reason if a universe exists it has to take on the characteristics that support life as we know it how it is any less bizarre it has to take on characteristics in a mindboggling narrow range of parameters that support life when supposedly the mindless forces that caused the universe never intended human life and don't care if human life results?

And lastly, did you really think I would not notice that you fail to address the actual argument that you are apparently replying to? I can only assume from this lame attempt at diversion that you have no counter-argument to the fact that theistic societies lead to segregated class based rights and privileges.

No I just had no comment about it.

I don't see how I can make your failure to apply logic any more transparent? I gave you the name of your logical fallacy, an example and detailed description of how you apply it.

I'd like to hear in your own words how you describe it and think it applies to our discussion.

From the fact of their existence itself.

An existence according to atheists that was never intended to occur. Again the point which you conceded is that we can't infer any rights from the basis of naturalism.

Btw what makes you think at some point humans aren't doomed to perish either individually or collectively at some point?

Exactly my point. Any right conferred by any other being would hold no value - even of that being is your god.

On this point we'll have to agree to disagree. If human existence is the result of a transcendent Creator who designed the universe for the purpose of humans existing, then we have an external reason beyond our own opinion from a higher source as a reason to believe we have certain inalienable rights. I know you're going to respond with your reasons for disagreeing but I doubt we will cover any new ground.

---

What's more to the point, there are millions and millions of ways to snuff out life, or to prevent it from occuring altogether. The reality is that these facts do not support the notion that the universe is finely tuned for life. However, there is plenty of evidence to support the thesis that life is finely tuned to the universe, having evolved in it, being a product of it.

The only evidence you can be referring is life on earth a planet with a myriad of conditions that allow life in the first place. From the small sample of planets around us with no life it would appear life can only occur under certain circumstances.

[Brian37]

Answering the OP:

Humans are so painfully stupid and so stubborn in their beliefs that god himself could show up on this planet shooting laser beams out of his eyes and miracles out of his fingertips and it wouldn't change a damn thing. Some would immediately shit their pants and beg forgiveness for "sins" that god never accused them of. Some would claim it was a hoax. Others would claim it was the "powerful work of Satan," and still others would use it to start a war against their age-old enemies.

If God exists, he long since figured out that showing up on this rock is a pointless, futile waste of time. Between the Christards and the Muslicks alone, we are way too painfully stupid for God to bother with.

...and that's if there even is one.

That gives God an out, if there is one(which there is not). This would mean God shit in the toilet and left it clogged and blamed his turds for what he shit.

What you are doing is giving the concept holders an excuse to say "it is not his fault". Why shouldn't it be?

It isn't that God doesn't bother, it is that humans make up gods. It is that we don't bother as a species to recognize our own concocted fantasies.

[Angrboda]

Exactly my point. Any right conferred by any other being would hold no value - even of that being is your god.

On this point we'll have to agree to disagree. If human existence is the result of a transcendent Creator who designed the universe for the purpose of humans existing, then we have an external reason beyond our own opinion from a higher source as a reason to believe we have certain inalienable rights. I know you're going to respond with your reasons for disagreeing but I doubt we will cover any new ground.

Higher in what sense? In what way are God's judgements or intentions or whatever more important than mine, or in any way binding on me or anyone else?

What is a right?

What does it mean for a right to be inalienable?

What is the mechanism by which these moral truths and inalienable rights work? I'm assuming they're not dependent on my consent. Why?

Why do the intentions of another (God) imbue my existence with purpose or intent (mine) ? And how?