Benevolent Creator God?

[R00tKiT]

OK, so I'm open to other "types" of evidence.  What you got?  Describe your "evidence".  Explain to me how you came to possess it.  Or at least explain your theory.

My favorite argument in favor of God's existence was and always will be the teleological argument, it simply spells out our natural tendency to interpret things teleologically. If by design we mean adaptation of means to end, we can argue that the entire universe is designed and is adapted to life -when I say the entire universe, I really mean it, everything is designed, even things like snowflakes, that opponents of the teleological argument generally present as a counter-example-.

Ah, you agree there is no empirical evidence for supernatural beings.  Great, we've established some common ground; that's huge!  But wait, the distinction between natural and supernatural is not meaningless, as you say.  It is quite meaningful.  Natural refers to something that we can, by definition, observe or measure in some way.  The term "supernatural" is a bit elusive but it certainly means something that is beyond that which is natural, right?  So that implies that humans would likely not have the ability to observe or measure something supernatural.

Well, if it's elusive, then it's meaningless. If we can't correctly assess that some process X is supernatural, then the label supernatural is empty of meaning. A deity may as well intervene through natural processes like evolution and selection, or, to put it differently, only sets out the stage early in the beginning of the universe, and leaves laws of physics take care of it, then interevenes rarely by revealed messages.

No one here is allergic to posteriori arguments.  Science depends on it.  Empirical data is not always a premise for such an argument, it is the grounds on which such an argument is judged.  Einstein used no empirical data to develop his theory of special relativity.  But once technology was developed to test his theory, it was done.  So, to your point, any sort of idea can be imagined and considered whether you have data or not.  But it cannot be evaluated as truthful without some kind of measurement or observation.

Well, Einstein, in order to formulate SR, still relied on big chunks of classical mechanics, electromagnetism, etc. all of which are based on empirical data. But it doesn't matter, the requirement of empirical observation is only valid inside the observable world. If the entity under investigation is not observable or detectable by definition, it's meaningless to require empirical evidence.

[LadyForCamus]

@Klorophyll still mad he can’t convince atheists god exists without any actual evidence, I see.

*popcorn*

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, Einstein, in order to formulate SR, still relied on big chunks of classical mechanics, electromagnetism, etc. all of which are based on empirical data. But it doesn't matter, the requirement of empirical observation is only valid inside the observable world. If the entity under investigation is not observable or detectable by definition, it's meaningless to require empirical evidence.

Some people would tell you that a thing asserted to have absolutely no detectable effect, is a thing which doesn't do anything in this world.  

Now, I don't think this notion of unobservability really washes out.  People who believe in gods do tend to believe that those gods do something in the world.  That they have some detectable effect.  If we're arguing on the strength of some thing x really happening that's not going to be empirically meaningless, for example.  If, however, we're arguing on the strength of literally no detectible thing happening - then the pitch is that we should believe in, let alone worship, an absentee god...on the strength of how there's absolutely no evidence for it......why?

[LadyForCamus]

@Klorophyll

Here’s a thought for you to chew on. Rather than drive yourself crazy trying to figure out why atheists aren’t aren’t convinced by the things you point to as evidence for your god, perhaps you should ask yourself why you are convinced by those things, and if you should be.

[R00tKiT]

Some people would tell you that a thing asserted to have absolutely no detectable effect, is a thing which doesn't do anything in this world.  

A deity in itself is not detectable, this much is absolutely indisputable. But.. no detectable effects? 

Let's take a row of thousands of dominoes in a really big room, X pushes the first domino and leaves the room. Dominoes just keep falling for hours, and investigator A enters the room some time after X left. Investigator A only observes the process unfold. Now, it's clear that it's impossible for A to detect X, but he can observe the effect of X and, through this effect -and a deductive argument, conclude that X very likely exists, somebody must have initiated the whole thing.

@Klorophyll

Here’s a thought for you to chew on. Rather than drive yourself crazy trying to figure out why atheists aren’t aren’t convinced by the things you point to as evidence for your god, perhaps you should ask yourself why you are convinced by those things, and if you should be.

For me, God's existence is self-evident. All people would believe if some didn't think evolution/modern science somewhat dispense with the existence of God,

[The Grand Nudger]

Some people would tell you that a thing asserted to have absolutely no detectable effect, is a thing which doesn't do anything in this world.  

A deity in itself is not detectable, this much is absolutely indisputable. But.. no detectable effects? 

That much isn't actually indisputable - but I can only tell you again that some people might explain that detecting the effect of something is very often how we detect just about anything.  From the way that our senses work, to the way that our sensors work.  

Let's take a row of thousands of dominoes in a really big room, X pushes the first domino and leaves the room. Dominoes just keep falling for hours, and investigator A enters the room some time after X left. Investigator A only observes the process unfold. Now, it's clear that it's impossible for A to detect X, but he can observe the effect of X and, through this effect -and a deductive argument, conclude that X very likely exists, somebody must have initiated the whole thing.

If I walked into a room full of obsessively arranged dominoes, whether they'd fallen or not, I would tell you that I have very much detected the presence of a human being in that room.
Now, if your god is detectable in a similar way as this, then this would be the evidence you would need to provide to convince the evidence minded, and it obviously wouldn't be meaningless to request or present it - nor do you actually believe that god is undetectable.

You think, in short...that somebody must have initiated the whole thing, not just about dominoes, but about the cosmos, and for whatever reason you think that somebody is your god. I don't. But even if you climbed mount improbable and demonstrated all of that - we'd still be left with the question of it's benevolence, and questions regarding the sensibility of worship at all, let alone worship of that thing.

[Spongebob]

My favorite argument in favor of God's existence was and always will be the teleological argument, it simply spells out our natural tendency to interpret things teleologically. If by design we mean adaptation of means to end, we can argue that the entire universe is designed and is adapted to life -when I say the entire universe, I really mean it, everything is designed, even things like snowflakes, that opponents of the teleological argument generally present as a counter-example-.

Well, the teleological argument itself is one based on perceived evidence.  IOW, design is inferred based on someone's interpretation of how the universe works.  So this is not an argument to be made without the use of evidence.  Your interpretation of design in the universe is an opinion, but there are other interpretations and other hypotheses.  Now, arguing that a snowflake is "designed" is pretty weak since we know what happens on a molecular level to cause crystalline formation of ice and we can repeat this with variable results by varying the conditions.  Another similar approach is that of intelligent design, which has been demonstrated to be absolutely false from just about everything claiming to be designed, such as eyeballs.  These arguments are weak largely because those making the arguments don't have the imagination to form theories of evolutionary development.

Well, Einstein, in order to formulate SR, still relied on big chunks of classical mechanics, electromagnetism, etc. all of which are based on empirical data. 

No, he didn't.  His fascination with light began as a boy when he saw the light glinting off of the water.  He formed these thought experiments as a way of imagining what was going on.  He didn't use science or math until his ideas were already formed and he knew he needed mathematics to confirm his hypothesis would work so the scientific community would take him seriously.

Well, if it's elusive, then it's meaningless. If we can't correctly assess that some process X is supernatural, then the label supernatural is empty of meaning. A deity may as well intervene through natural processes like evolution and selection, or, to put it differently, only sets out the stage early in the beginning of the universe, and leaves laws of physics take care of it, then interevenes rarely by revealed messages.

I'm sorry if you find the term "supernatural" to be daunting.  I'm not appealing to it; you are.  If you want me or any atheist to understand your argument, then it's up to you to define what you mean by supernatural and you can't just keep appealing to obscure parts of the unknown universe, like quantum mechanics or black holes.

Now you say a deity acts through natural processes.  Well, how are we to tell the difference between a deity's actions and just plain natural processes?  How are we to determine that the laws of the universe are they way they are because of a deity or because that's just how they are?  And how are we to determine when a message is divinely revealed?

But it doesn't matter, the requirement of empirical observation is only valid inside the observable world. If the entity under investigation is not observable or detectable by definition, it's meaningless to require empirical evidence.

Yes, it's only valid because that's the only way it can work.  If you are arguing something not known to exist in the observable universe, you really have only one tool left, and that is logic.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The teleological argument doesn’t seem so much an argument as it does an expression of confirmation bias. Thusly:

-I believe in a god.

-The god in which I believe designed the universe.

-Since this god designed the universe, evidence of design should be observable.

-Everything I see exhibits design.

-This design is clearly the work of the god in which I believe.

-Therefore, the god in which I believe exists.

The only irrefutable clause in the above it the first one. Everything else is supposition, unsupported assertions, wishful thinking, and dizzyingly circular logic. I think even Voltaire was much too forgiving when he said that the most the TA could ‘prove’ was an Architect, not a god.

Boru

[LadyForCamus]

Some people would tell you that a thing asserted to have absolutely no detectable effect, is a thing which doesn't do anything in this world.  

A deity in itself is not detectable, this much is absolutely indisputable. But.. no detectable effects? 

Let's take a row of thousands of dominoes in a really big room, X pushes the first domino and leaves the room. Dominoes just keep falling for hours, and investigator A enters the room some time after X left. Investigator A only observes the process unfold. Now, it's clear that it's impossible for A to detect X, but he can observe the effect of X and, through this effect -and a deductive argument, conclude that X very likely exists, somebody must have initiated the whole thing.

@Klorophyll

Here’s a thought for you to chew on. Rather than drive yourself crazy trying to figure out why atheists aren’t aren’t convinced by the things you point to as evidence for your god, perhaps you should ask yourself why you are convinced by those things, and if you should be.

For me, God's existence is self-evident. All people would believe if some didn't think evolution/modern science somewhat dispense with the existence of God,

“All people would believe”? 

Go ahead and show that. I’ll wait.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

For me, God's existence is self-evident. All people would believe if some didn't think evolution/modern science somewhat dispense with the existence of God,

That’s precisely what modern science does - it points out, to anyone who is intellectually prepared to accept it, that your God is a God of the gaps. This particular fallacy is special case of the argument from ignorance. Since you’re not able to grasp a mundane explanation  for a natural phenomenon, you simply ‘goddidit’ and go your merry way. Alternately, you do the same thing when you pounce on something that science has not yet explained.

1000 years ago, it was widely considered that God was the explanation for everything, from the opening of a morning glory to a meteor strike. As science uncovers more and more about how the world wags and what wags it, there is less and less for God to do. You’re desperately clinging to a smaller and smaller God.

Boru