Evidence for the existence of God

[Cyberman]

Actually the fact that science works is evidence that no gods exist.

[Angrboda]

This is why we can't have nice things.

You might have well have said you see God in every sunrise, in the smile of every baby, in every dog fart...

What is your explanation for the fact that the universe has a rational order?

Does it have rational order, or does reason find meaning in ordered patterns? Last we visited this subject, you said you were of the "opinion," that our ability to pick out patterns in the underlying chaos of the universe is suggestive of a proscriptive order. Just what is that "opinion" based on?

What is your explanation for why people have the rational capacity to discern that order?

Because it is useful to the survival of our species. That's all that evolution requires for there to be a selective advantage to preserving this feature. But you already know this. So what is the point of your rhetorical question?

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, it's the new religious approach. Science is true, but God did science. It does allow theists to accept science and get on with an education, so I prefer it to the old "deny reality" method. I think religion will have to take this approach or perish, in secular countries.

They;re in the process.  The catholic church accepts "evolution", for example...just not evolutionary biology, lol. Protestant cretinists accept "microevolution".

[AceBoogie]

First, you define god. What is a god? What are its physical characteristics? How do we detect god? Can god even be detected? If so, what data could we collect that would show us quantifiable proof of god? See, in order for us to define what we would see as evidence, we have to know the object, being or phenomena of which we're reviewing the evidence for.

I find it quite arrogant for a theist to come on to the atheist forum (where theists are in fact welcome) and demand that we define what we see as evidence while nothing even close to what anyone could consider evidence, atheist or otherwise, has ever been brought to the table by theists, deists or anyone else for that matter.

I mean, seriously?

What would I consider evidence for god? I don't know. What would you consider evidence for a unicorn? Would you even believe your own two eyes if you saw a unicorn walk across a clearing in the woods one day?

This is certainly an interesting question to ask, since the existence of god is such a fantastical idea, but it is definitely not a fair one to ask if you're looking for a serious debate.

[Neo-Scholastic]

http://atheistforums.org/thread-47143-po...pid1488982

What is your explanation for the fact that the universe has a rational order?

Does it have rational order, or does reason find meaning in ordered patterns? Last we visited this subject, you said you were of the "opinion," that our ability to pick out patterns in the underlying chaos of the universe is suggestive of a proscriptive order. Just what is that "opinion" based on?

You at least tacitly acknowledge that people can find ordered patterns the universe. Indeed. And those patterns are extremely precise, highly detailed, and coherent. It seems strange to me that you would dismiss the whole of human knowledge as casually as one would a pancake with the face of Jesus on it. Your answer to why the universe appears to be ordered is simply that it appears to be so. That is not really an answer. It’s empty rhetoric.

On what do I base my opinions about proscription? Why not say that science only produces are models and descriptions? My opinion is based on another question: what is the nature of the thing described? With respect to natural science, inductive reasoning adequately justifies the belief that the apparent order of the physical universe reflects an actually ordered fundamental reality, since, as I previously mentioned, the descriptions only become more detailed, the findings more precise, the models more nuanced, and the predictions more accurate with every improvement in the experimental and conceptual tools Mankind uses observe and interpret the natural world.

There appears to be an epistemological limit with respect to whether reality, at the most fundamental level, is orderly or chaotic. Beyond that limit people can only guess. I acknowledge as much. That is not to say that the question is esoteric. Each guess, or existential choice, comes with a price. I only ask that people recognize the implications of their choice with respect to important values, such as human rights, personal autonomy, meaning & purpose, and their obligations to others. As a general rule I think you understand and accept those implications.

What is your explanation for why people have the rational capacity to discern that order?

Because it is useful to the survival of our species. That's all that evolution requires for there to be a selective advantage to preserving this feature. But you already know this.

That answer doesn’t address the sense of my question. You’re just saying that it works. So what? Many species survive and thrive without rationality. Claws work because they are sharp. Camouflage works because it blends with the background. What is it about reason that makes it work? I say, reason works because it produces real knowledge of external reality. You frequently seem to pooh-pooh this notion. The senses are unreliable, you say. Our interpretations are biased, you say. And that is true to some extent. So also is our sense of time unreliable and subjective. That is why we invented clocks and calendars to correct our limitations. In the same way, we have developed conceptual tools from symbolic logic to the modern scientific method to overcome fallacious thinking and interpretive bias. We have developed physical tools, from rulers to microscopes, to supplement and correct the senses. But none of that matters, you say, if the efficacy of the tools themselves is suspect since they are the products of conceptual bias and deceptive senses That kind of radical skepticism leads nowhere. And it comes with a price, a very steep one at that.

---

Evidence is anything that is concordant with and exclusively indicative of one conclusion.

That rules out the majority of scientific theories.

[Asmodee]

You at least tacitly acknowledge that people can find ordered patterns the universe.

The human brain is wired to find patterns, even when they don't exist.  It is a well-known phenomena which has spawned multiple studies.  There's even a word for it.  It is called apophenia and it is the human tenancy to see meaningful patterns within random data.  So that we "see a pattern" is absolutely meaningless.  We are wired to see patterns, whether they exist or not.

[Neo-Scholastic]

You at least tacitly acknowledge that people can find ordered patterns the universe.

The human brain is wired to find patterns, even when they don't exist.  It is a well-known phenomena which has spawned multiple studies.  There's even a word for it.  It is called apophenia and it is the human tenancy to see meaningful patterns within random data.  So that we "see a pattern" is absolutely meaningless.  We are wired to see patterns, whether they exist or not.

Read the sentences immediately after that quote and you will find that I already anticipated this objection. Nice try, though.

[Asmodee]

The human brain is wired to find patterns, even when they don't exist.  It is a well-known phenomena which has spawned multiple studies.  There's even a word for it.  It is called apophenia and it is the human tenancy to see meaningful patterns within random data.  So that we "see a pattern" is absolutely meaningless.  We are wired to see patterns, whether they exist or not.

Read the sentences immediately after that quote and you will find that I already anticipated this objection. Nice try, though.

I see no direct or implied mention of apophenia there, nor any acknowledgement that it is a thing, nor that because of it humans recognizing patterns isn't exactly what one would call "meaningful".  On the contrary, you seem to put great stock in these supposed "patterns" with no suggestion whatsoever that they may hold no meaning whatsoever.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Read the sentences immediately after that quote and you will find that I already anticipated this objection. Nice try, though.

I see no direct or implied mention of apophenia there, nor any acknowledgement that it is a thing, nor that because of it humans recognizing patterns isn't exactly what one would call "meaningful".  On the contrary, you seem to put great stock in these supposed "patterns" with no suggestion whatsoever that they may hold no meaning whatsoever.

I acknowledge that apohenia is a real phenomena. That alone does not justify undermining the objectivity of science with radical skepticism.

[Mister Agenda]

Science is what helps us determine that a pattern we perceive isn't jus apophenia. Can you walk me through how Asmodee is undermining the objectivity of science, please? Despite my tendency to apohenia, I don't see it.