View Full Version : Proof of a Deity
Has a peer reviewed test been established to verify a deity's existence? Common ground amongst atheist that would confirm the existence of a deity?
spidergoat
06-23-08, 07:49 PM
I don't even need proof, just some indication that there is one, or that the universe could not occur without one.
the universe could not occur without a cause, so there must be a god, because the word god means first cause.
I don't even need proof, just some indication that there is one, or that the universe could not occur without one.
are you an atheists?
spidergoat
06-23-08, 10:15 PM
Yup.
The word God means much more than first cause, since that could be something inanimate.
scorpius
06-23-08, 11:56 PM
the universe could not occur without a cause, so there must be a god, because the word god means first cause.
what IF it always existed,
no cause needed,
Has a peer reviewed test been established to verify a deity's existence? Common ground amongst atheist that would confirm the existence of a deity?
How would you go about proving it? So far we've only been able to work our way through some of the mechanics involved. Even if we were to discover tomorrow that M-Theory is absolute scientific fact, we still wouldn't be able to say whether or not the branes weren't just God's kneecaps.
what IF it always existed,
no cause needed,
impossible. every effect needs to be caused by something, especially the universe, since it's such a big effect. if the universe didn't have a cause, it would have no reason to exist, so its existence would be illogical.
even if the universe had always existed, there would still have to be something that causes it to always exist.
notice that god is not an effect, so he is the only thing that doesn't need to have a creator/cause behind it.
pharaohmoan
06-24-08, 09:05 AM
the universe could not occur without a cause, so there must be a god, because the word god means first cause.
I agree for me the first cause hypothesis is plain common sense even as a minimum it means the first consciousness that divided itself to procreate.
phlogistician
06-24-08, 09:09 AM
the universe could not occur without a cause, so there must be a god, because the word god means first cause.
No, the words 'big bang' are 'first cause'. The word 'God' is superstitious bullshit.
Oh, and words are defined by men, so your argument rather falls on it arse.
No, the words 'big bang' are 'first cause'. The word 'God' is superstitious bullshit.
a 'bang' can't cause anything because it's an effect, so that bang must be caused by something.
you think god is nonsense because you associate it with your own idea of the word god. to say that god is nonsense you first have to have the right definition of god.
phlogistician
06-24-08, 10:00 AM
a 'bang' can't cause anything because it's an effect, so that bang must be caused by something.
you think god is nonsense because you associate it with your own idea of the word god. to say that god is nonsense you first have to have the right definition of god.
It's just a term for a process, a happening. Stop being so literal.
impossible. every effect needs to be caused by something, especially the universe, since it's such a big effect. if the universe didn't have a cause, it would have no reason to exist, so its existence would be illogical.
even if the universe had always existed, there would still have to be something that causes it to always exist.
notice that god is not an effect, so he is the only thing that doesn't need to have a creator/cause behind it.
lol your thinking is seriously flawed.
lol your thinking is seriously flawed.
then explain why it's flawed so that i can explain why your thinking is flawed.
i only said perfect statements so how could there be a flaw?
notice that god is not an effect, so he is the only thing that doesn't need to have a creator/cause behind it.
This is silly. If you're going to say that god is not an effect, why not just say that the universe is not an effect? What is your proof that the universe is not an "effect," whatever that means?
If you're going to say that god is not an effect, why not just say that the universe is not an effect?
because the universe is obviously an effect. an effect is the result of a cause. an effect is something that can be seen. god is invisible. the cause is invisible.
the universe can be seen, so there must be a cause for it. god and the universe is not the same thing.
Crunchy Cat
06-24-08, 11:29 AM
Has a peer reviewed test been established to verify a deity's existence? Common ground amongst atheist that would confirm the existence of a deity?
Nope.
phara, yorda,
I agree for me the first cause hypothesis is plain common sense even as a minimum it means the first consciousness that divided itself to procreate.This is a paradoxical impossibility. There cannot be a first of anything. It implies there was a point where nothing existed. If that were true then there would be nothing to cause an effect, and we couldn't be here. I.e. nothing could have ever begun.
It then necessarily follows that something infinite exists. This also proves that not everything needs a cause.
This then negates the argument that the universe must be caused because everything needs a cause, which we just just disproved.
This means that a god is not a necessity and that it is perfectly logical to consider the possibility that the universe is infinite.
because the universe is obviously an effect. an effect is the result of a cause. an effect is something that can be seen. god is invisible. the cause is invisible.
the universe can be seen, so there must be a cause for it. god and the universe is not the same thing.
"I'll take 'logical FAILS' for $2000, Alex!"
And even if this BS reasoning was true, it would only prove that something created the universe - it wouldn't prove that it was any sort of deity, consciousness, or entity that has thoughts or a will. You can label it "god" if you want, but it doesn't actually tell you anything about god (other than that god created the universe, which is only true a priori because you defined whatever created the universe as "god").
Nope.
Not that you speak for atheists, but I here from atheists I talk with that they don't believe because there is no proof. Which seems all well and good, but why don't atheists establish a parameter for a proof so theists had an idea what they were wanting, rather than some sort of personal affirmation for themselves?
And then there's the question of "what caused the god"?
If someone can explain to me how you can have a cause without a preceeding cause?
How can the "god" be "first cause" without something causing him to create, and something causing that... and that... and that... ad infinitum?
Unless, of course, you wrap up the "ad infinitum" causes and define all of them leading up to the creation of the universe as a single uncaused cause (i.e. God) - but then this is just definition without explaining anything.
If someone can explain to me, other than through definition, how "god" can be uncaused... then that would be a start.
How would you go about proving it? So far we've only been able to work our way through some of the mechanics involved. Even if we were to discover tomorrow that M-Theory is absolute scientific fact, we still wouldn't be able to say whether or not the branes weren't just God's kneecaps.
That is basically my question for atheists. I have no idea how you would "prove" something like that. Yet when you ask some why they don't believe in a deity, they say there is no proof. I am confused by this, as people take for granted or believe things all the time for no reason other than they observe results from these phenomena.
That is basically my question for atheists. I have no idea how you would "prove" something like that. Yet when you ask some why they don't believe in a deity, they say there is no proof. I am confused by this, as people take for granted or believe things all the time for no reason other than they observe results from these phenomena.Surely first the onus is on the theist to provide a definition of "god" that can be subjected to testing, no? But if theists squirm around such by claiming that god is outside of testing then there can be, by definition, no proof.
So... please come up with a definition of a god that can be subjected to testing, and then I'm sure people will come up with tests to see if it exists or not.
Crunchy Cat
06-24-08, 03:44 PM
Not that you speak for atheists, but I here from atheists I talk with that they don't believe because there is no proof. Which seems all well and good, but why don't atheists establish a parameter for a proof so theists had an idea what they were wanting, rather than some sort of personal affirmation for themselves?
They have many times. For example, praying a lost limb back, or a block of wood into diamond, or a severly retarded person into an smart person.
spidergoat
06-24-08, 03:49 PM
That is basically my question for atheists. I have no idea how you would "prove" something like that. Yet when you ask some why they don't believe in a deity, they say there is no proof. I am confused by this, as people take for granted or believe things all the time for no reason other than they observe results from these phenomena.
Theists also tend to define God in such a way that defies testing. I think on purpose. Nevertheless there are notions put forward about what God actually does. Creates life? Not really, evolution explains how that can be accomplished without intelligence. Answers prayers? Testing of this shows no prayer effect. Creates morality? It seems to cause immorality as much as create morality, but no, morality seems a part of intelligent life, and in any case, religious people wind up in jail even more than atheists.
I look at it like this:
If you are interviewing someone for a job, you can do all the research that you want. You can look at their resumé, check out their references, do a complete background check... everything that makes you as rationally certain as possible that they are the right person for the job. But, at some point, you're going to have to take a chance on that person; it other words, make a personal commitment to them. It's only then that you will get to certainty. You'll have a chance to see how they perform, and whether or not alll of their credentials hold true.
For Christians, it works the same for a personal relationship with God.
Now, the only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes. If you don't believe in God, you need to try to understand why anybody does, or we're not going to be able to work in a pluralistic society. When the new atheist books (Dawkins, Hitchens, and company) say that religion is bad, that's not a new thesis. What's new about those books is that they say respect for religion is bad.
If you counsel one section of your population to belittle and disdain the beliefs of another group of people - who's beliefs give them great joy and meaning if life - and do nothing to understand the other group - that's a recipe for social disaster.
spidergoat
06-24-08, 04:04 PM
How do you make yourself love something that has no apparent manifestation except in our minds?
I look at it like this:
If you are interviewing someone for a job, you can do all the research that you want. You can look at their resumé, check out their references, do a complete background check... everything that makes you as rationally certain as possible that they are the right person for the job. But, at some point, you're going to have to take a chance on that person; it other words, make a personal commitment to them. It's only then that you will get to certainty. You'll have a chance to see how they perform, and whether or not alll of their credentials hold true.
For Christians, it works the same for a personal relationship with God.
A better analogy would be a person applying for a job and claiming that they have magical powers that will benefit your business, but won't provide a demonstration or give you any evidence.
Contrary to what many theists like to imagine, most atheists do not demand iron-clad proof before they believe in god. Rather, they simply want some type of serious evidence. Most atheists do not consider other people's subjective, internal experiences or 2000+ year old books full of stories of talking snakes or people conjuring things from thin air to be "serious evidence." And beyond that, there doesn’t really seem to be any evidence. Religious figures can’t predict the future. Prayer does not affect reality in any measurable way. Natural disasters strike atheist and theists equally.
Now, the only way that we'll all be able to get along is to get sympathetically into one another's shoes. If you don't believe in God, you need to try to understand why anybody does, or we're not going to be able to work in a pluralistic society.
The thing is, after talking to many theists I feel a already have a pretty good understanding of why people believe in god. The vast majority of theists seem to believe in god for one of three reasons:
1) The idea is appealing to them and they are able to simply make themselves believe in things that sound appealing. These people will often give themselves away by asking atheists questions like "Don't you want eternal life?" or even bluntly say things like "I believe in god because I want to go to heaven."
2)They were indoctrinated at a very early age and now can't bring themselves to critically evaluate something that they have always assumed is true. Often they have built so much of their own identity upon the idea of a god that they feel lost or like their life would be pointless if they stopped believing.
3)They have some sort of subjective, internal experience that leads them to believe god exists. Usually this is something along the lines of "feeling his presence" or some such. I cynically suspect that most of these people really all fall into categories 1 and/or 2.
Of course there are many other reasons why theists might believe in god, but the majority of people seem to fall into those categories. And before anyone accuses me of making this up, I’d like to point out that most theists will explicitly tell you one of the three above reasons if you ask them for an explanation of why they believe in god.
PsychoticEpisode
06-24-08, 05:37 PM
Proof of God was put forward to me by my old Sunday school teacher. She said that if I were to pray to god for whatever and one day that whatever manifested itself then that's proof of God. Simple...don't know why this is so difficult.
That is basically my question for atheists. I have no idea how you would "prove" something like that. Yet when you ask some why they don't believe in a deity, they say there is no proof. I am confused by this, as people take for granted or believe things all the time for no reason other than they observe results from these phenomena.
The difference between a theist and an atheist is that the atheist either wasn't indoctrinated as a child, or just never really bought it if he was. I am more towards the latter, as I did go to church as a kid, and even served as an altar boy (nobody touched by naughty bits, though...which, considering how may priests touched young boys, INCLUDING my priest, kind of leaves me wondering he just didn't find me attractive...great, now I'm ugly), but I never really bought into the whole thing. Not when I was signing the songs or when I was taking communion or when I was kneeling in prayer. I just never believed it.
So the burden of proof, therefore, is on the theists. They are the ones who indoctrinate their young with these stories, a practice without which there would be far less, if any, theists in the world. So they need to be able to convince grown ups, ones who either didn't buy the indoctrination or who didn't suffer it, that a god exists. We don't have to convince you of anything, as you are the one who is believing in something you can't see.
There cannot be a first of anything. It implies there was a point where nothing existed. If that were true then there would be nothing to cause an effect, and we couldn't be here. I.e. nothing could have ever begun.
isn't space nothing? if it is, then something can come from it, because scientists have seen particles suddenly appear from vacuum.
also, if the universe has always existed, why hasn't all life "already" died? scientists say that the entropy in the universe is increasing. they say that all stars will eventually run out of energy, and the universe will be lifeless and empty. so if the universe has always existed, why hasn't that already happened? where does it get all the energy for its perpetual motion?
btw, if the universe has existed forever, then nothing caused it. but how can nothing cause anything?
It then necessarily follows that something infinite exists. This also proves that not everything needs a cause.
everything has a cause except everything/universe? what a funny statement.
This means that a god is not a necessity and that it is perfectly logical to consider the possibility that the universe is infinite.
i agree that the universe has always existed, but i think there still has to be something that causes it to exist eternally. it doesn't make any sense otherwise. it would be a universe without an explanation. it has to make sense. the universe is not nonsensical.
How can the "god" be "first cause" without something causing him to create, and something causing that... and that... and that... ad infinitum?
everything that is visible must be caused by something, but invisible things don't need to be caused.
infinite "causes" means that nothing caused it.
what causes the invisible being to create? it is the invisible being itself. what causes me to write this? me.
The thing is, after talking to many theists I feel a already have a pretty good understanding of why people believe in god. The vast majority of theists seem to believe in god for one of three reasons:
1) The idea is appealing to them and they are able to simply make themselves believe in things that sound appealing. These people will often give themselves away by asking atheists questions like "Don't you want eternal life?" or evenbluntly say things like "I believe in god because I want to go to heaven."
2)They were indoctrinated at a very early age and now can't bring themselves to critically evaluate something that they have always assumed is true. Often they have built so much of their own identity upon the idea of a god that they feel lost or like their life would be pointless if they stopped believing.
3)They have some sort of subjective, internal experience that leads them to believe god exists. Usually this is something along the lines of "feeling his presence" or some such. I cynically suspect that most of these people really all fall into categories 1 and/or 2.
Let me throw this back to you. Conversely, I've learned that is never just one reason for belief or disbelief in God. There are always 3 basic reasons for why people believe, and why people disbelieve.
1. Intellectual
You read the arguments for belief and find them compelling, and you believe. If you think the arguments don't stack up, you don't believe. It's the intellectual, or reasoning proper.
2. Personal
One thing that I've found in people that I've personally met, or have chatted with on a message board, is that nobody believes or disbelieves in God purely for intellectual reasons. There are always personal reasons. An interesting tidbit: most people, at some point in their lives, will go through a very trying time where they are dealing with a terrible experience (tragedy, disappointment). Some people interpret that in meaning they that need God to help get them through that. Others who have the exact same experiences interpret that in meaning that they can't believe in a God who can lets stuff like that happen.
3. Social
This falls under the category of the sociology of knowledge, that says that the people that are in your community, or the community that you want to be part of, that their beliefs tend to be more plausible than the beliefs of the people in the communities that you don't like or don't want to be part of. You believe or don't believe because of the social support.
Those are the 3 reasons. Now, what you can't do, is reduce belief or non-belief to just one of those reasons. It's always all 3. It's wrong and almost exploitative to say that one's position is based only on reasoning and another's is based on cultural and personal reasons.
everything that is visible must be caused by something, but invisible things don't need to be caused.If you're talking "invisible" as in beyond detection - then these are akin to something that doesn't exist... and we all know that something that doesn't exist also doesn't need to be created.
Those are the 3 reasons. Now, what you can't do, is reduce belief or non-belief to just one of those reasons. It's always all 3. It's wrong and almost exploitative to say that one's position is based only on reasoning and another's is based on cultural and personal reasons.
Atheists are usually atheists because of reason and serious evaluation of evidence, while christians are usually christians for emotional reasons. You might not like it, but that doesn't change reality. Like I said, people's reasons for being christian generally aren't complicated - they like the idea that they have a special, powerful friend who is always with them and looking out for them, who they can always talk to, who will help them when they need it, who gives them purpose in life, and who will allow them to continue to exist after they die. Of course that fact that they want all this to be true doesn't have any impact on whether or not it actually is true, but they don't let that stop them.
Surely first the onus is on the theist to provide a definition of "god" that can be subjected to testing, no? But if theists squirm around such by claiming that god is outside of testing then there can be, by definition, no proof.
So... please come up with a definition of a god that can be subjected to testing, and then I'm sure people will come up with tests to see if it exists or not.
This post addresses my conundrum that inspired the question. Why do atheists say they don't believe in God because there is no proof? I know that may sound stupid, but please give it some thought. And maybe most atheists don't say that( no proof). I don't know, thus the thread.
They have many times. For example, praying a lost limb back, or a block of wood into diamond, or a severly retarded person into an smart person.
Why would any of those things prove the existence of a deity?
The difference between a theist and an atheist is that the atheist either wasn't indoctrinated as a child, or just never really bought it if he was. I am more towards the latter, as I did go to church as a kid, and even served as an altar boy (nobody touched by naughty bits, though...which, considering how may priests touched young boys, INCLUDING my priest, kind of leaves me wondering he just didn't find me attractive...great, now I'm ugly), but I never really bought into the whole thing. Not when I was signing the songs or when I was taking communion or when I was kneeling in prayer. I just never believed it.
So the burden of proof, therefore, is on the theists. They are the ones who indoctrinate their young with these stories, a practice without which there would be far less, if any, theists in the world. So they need to be able to convince grown ups, ones who either didn't buy the indoctrination or who didn't suffer it, that a god exists. We don't have to convince you of anything, as you are the one who is believing in something you can't see.
No one will be convinced by another, I think. It is a matter of exploration and understanding. You say in your post that without religion there would be no theists. Do you believe this has always been the case, through history. Basically religion created theists, not the other way around?
Crunchy Cat
06-25-08, 03:29 PM
Why would any of those things prove the existence of a deity?
It provides very compelling evidence for the claim that their deity exists because humans lack the ability to spontaneously alter reality with thought.
It provides very compelling evidence for the claim that their deity exists because humans lack the ability to spontaneously alter reality with thought.
Yeah, I've seen a number of these threads where a christian asks what it would take to convince an atheist. Usually some atheists provide some more-or-less reasonable things that would serve as convincing evidence. Strangely (as we see here) the christians often seem to act all confused about why the listed pieces of evidence would satisfy atheists, as if it was hard to understand why having prayers sent to a particular deity miraculously come true with statically significant frequency was evidence that the deity existed.I recall one thread by vitalone where he actually started arguing about whether or not the listed pieces of evidence would convince atheists, even though it was atheists who provided the list!
On a side note, a number of times now I've started threads where I asked christians what it would take to convince them that their god did not exist or that some other religion was correct. Usually I got a boatload of responses saying that nothing could ever possibly convince them that they were wrong. They often bluntly admit that they would simply ignore any and all evidence that their beliefs were wrong. I've actually seen people say that if followers of some other religion started doing things that christians couldn't do, like miraculously healing people, they would automatically assume that it was the work of the devil. And often when they do privde things that would convince them, the things that they list don't really make sense. I've seen things like "I would stop believing in god if humans could create life from scratch" or "if science could provide a way to make people live forever"...as if any of that was evidence for or against the existence of god.
It's hilarious that christians accuse atheists of being "closeminded," when in fact most atheists will happily list things that could change their mind, while most christians can't. Hey rjr6, what would it take to convince you that your religion was wrong?
Crunchy Cat
06-25-08, 09:56 PM
Yeah, I've seen a number of these threads where a christian asks what it would take to convince an atheist. Usually some atheists provide some more-or-less reasonable things that would serve as convincing evidence. Strangely (as we see here) the christians often seem to act all confused about why the listed pieces of evidence would satisfy atheists, as if it was hard to understand why having prayers sent to a particular deity miraculously come true with statically significant frequency was evidence that the deity existed.I recall one thread by vitalone where he actually started arguing about whether or not the listed pieces of evidence would convince atheists, even though it was atheists who provided the list!
On a side note, a number of times now I've started threads where I asked christians what it would take to convince them that their god did not exist or that some other religion was correct. Usually I got a boatload of responses saying that nothing could ever possibly convince them that they were wrong. They often bluntly admit that they would simply ignore any and all evidence that their beliefs were wrong. I've actually seen people say that if followers of some other religion started doing things that christians couldn't do, like miraculously healing people, they would automatically assume that it was the work of the devil. And often when they do privde things that would convince them, the things that they list don't really make sense. I've seen things like "I would stop believing in god if humans could create life from scratch" or "if science could provide a way to make people live forever"...as if any of that was evidence for or against the existence of god.
It's hilarious that christians accuse atheists of being "closeminded," when in fact most atheists will happily list things that could change their mind, while most christians can't. Hey rjr6, what would it take to convince you that your religion was wrong?
Your observations are quite correct. Consequently the reason why Christians push back when an atheists specifies what he would consider supportive evidence is because it puts them in the performance chair and they know deep down inside that their prayer wont work... much like all claimers of psi fail demonstration in a controlled environment.
Yorda,
isn't space nothing? if it is, then something can come from it, because scientists have seen particles suddenly appear from vacuum.If the universe didn’t exist then there would be no space.
also, if the universe has always existed, why hasn't all life "already" died? scientists say that the entropy in the universe is increasing. they say that all stars will eventually run out of energy, and the universe will be lifeless and empty. so if the universe has always existed, why hasn't that already happened? where does it get all the energy for its perpetual motion?The concept of entropy is only applicable to a closed system, something infinite has no boundaries so can’t be considered closed.
btw, if the universe has existed forever, then nothing caused it. but how can nothing cause anything?For something infinite there can be no cause.
“ It then necessarily follows that something infinite exists. This also proves that not everything needs a cause. ”
everything has a cause except everything/universe? what a funny statement.You need to read what I said more carefully. Something infinite is a necessity. Something infinite cannot have a cause/beginning. Whether that is the universe or something else is not determined here.
i agree that the universe has always existed, but i think there still has to be something that causes it to exist eternally.That’s just a simple contradiction. If it always existed then it had no beginning and hence no cause.
it doesn't make any sense otherwise. it would be a universe without an explanation. it has to make sense. the universe is not nonsensical.Why does it have to have a purpose or meaning? That is also not a necessity.
Yeah, I've seen a number of these threads where a christian asks what it would take to convince an atheist. Usually some atheists provide some more-or-less reasonable things that would serve as convincing evidence. Strangely (as we see here) the christians often seem to act all confused about why the listed pieces of evidence would satisfy atheists, as if it was hard to understand why having prayers sent to a particular deity miraculously come true with statically significant frequency was evidence that the deity existed.I recall one thread by vitalone where he actually started arguing about whether or not the listed pieces of evidence would convince atheists, even though it was atheists who provided the list!
On a side note, a number of times now I've started threads where I asked christians what it would take to convince them that their god did not exist or that some other religion was correct. Usually I got a boatload of responses saying that nothing could ever possibly convince them that they were wrong. They often bluntly admit that they would simply ignore any and all evidence that their beliefs were wrong. I've actually seen people say that if followers of some other religion started doing things that christians couldn't do, like miraculously healing people, they would automatically assume that it was the work of the devil. And often when they do privde things that would convince them, the things that they list don't really make sense. I've seen things like "I would stop believing in god if humans could create life from scratch" or "if science could provide a way to make people live forever"...as if any of that was evidence for or against the existence of god.
It's hilarious that christians accuse atheists of being "closeminded," when in fact most atheists will happily list things that could change their mind, while most christians can't. Hey rjr6, what would it take to convince you that your religion was wrong?
Your observations are quite correct. Consequently the reason why Christians push back when an atheists specifies what he would consider supportive evidence is because it puts them in the performance chair and they know deep down inside that their prayer wont work... much like all claimers of psi fail demonstration in a controlled environment.
I believe that amongst atheists and theists there is much prejudice and stereotyping, myself included. Though I am not schooled in various religous theory, I imagine that most mainstream religions at their core expouse that the mind of God can not be known completely by Humans. I imagine that most religions speak to how to conduct yourself as a human and how to get closer to God.
That being said, my belief as such, christianity aside, how could a test be developed to establish "proof" inside our reality testing something outside of it (this reality)?
To answer the question posed about what would make me not(?) believe in a deity.
The absence of my spirit, consciousness, soul or that which is of me that is God's.
Crunchy Cat
06-28-08, 04:12 PM
I believe that amongst atheists and theists there is much prejudice and stereotyping, myself included. Though I am not schooled in various religous theory, I imagine that most mainstream religions at their core expouse that the mind of God can not be known completely by Humans. I imagine that most religions speak to how to conduct yourself as a human and how to get closer to God.
That being said, my belief as such, christianity aside, how could a test be developed to establish "proof" inside our reality testing something outside of it (this reality)?
If you're asking about how to prove your specific 'God' (which I am assuming is not the christian 'God') then you have to tell me the details about what you are claiming. What is it? How has it interacted with reality? How will it interact with reality? What has it claimed? etc. etc. etc.
Mike Honcho
06-28-08, 04:16 PM
Jesus loves you
If you're asking about how to prove your specific 'God' (which I am assuming is not the christian 'God') then you have to tell me the details about what you are claiming. What is it? How has it interacted with reality? How will it interact with reality? What has it claimed? etc. etc. etc.
specific details of deity aside, the question remains if atheist responding to thread hold their views because of lack of proof of a deity. If so what proof are they lacking?
Crunchy Cat
06-28-08, 04:40 PM
specific details of deity aside, the question remains if atheist responding to thread hold their views because of lack of proof of a deity. If so what proof are they lacking?
An instance of a deity, instances of a deity omnipotently interacting with reality, instances of a deity omnipresently interacting with reality, and instances of a deity omnisciently interacting with reality would be good starters.
That's why I chose prayer as a 'best case' demonstration of a particular deity's existence. The most popular religions claim their respective deities will grant humans pretty spectacular miracles via prayer. Praying amputee's limbs back, severly retarded people intelligent, or the statue of liberty into solid diamond are pretty spectacular manipulations of reality that humans cannot perform or fake; hence, they are perfect demonstrations of a deity's existence.
As I mentioned earlier, no theist is going to do this because they know it will fail. Several on this board have tried and failed; thus, demonstrating they are liars.
Why would any of those things prove the existence of a deity?
It provides very compelling evidence for the claim that their deity exists because humans lack the ability to spontaneously alter reality with thought.
Why wouldn't someone's arm growing back not be thrown into the category of "yet unexplained by science"? Even if it were being prayed for?
To Crunchy:
As stupid as it sounds, say for instance the situations you described began happening. Everyone in the world became believers and then there was a "dark age" so to speak.
These "miracles" are forgotten and they become "reality" -accepted-, though unexplained they are observed, tested, peer reviewed--but unexplained. What then would be needed to prove the existence of a deity?
Crunchy Cat
06-28-08, 05:16 PM
Why wouldn't someone's arm growing back not be thrown into the category of "yet unexplained by science"? Even if it were being prayed for?
It would have to be prayed for and the results would have to be more or less instantaenous and perfect. That would show a strong correspondence between prayer and some omnipotent life form's intervention.
As far as scientific categorization is concerned, it would likely result in a branch of study for omnipotent life.
Crunchy Cat
06-28-08, 05:19 PM
To Crunchy:
As stupid as it sounds, say for instance the situations you described began happening. Everyone in the world became believers and then there was a "dark age" so to speak.
Why would there have to be a "dark age"? I would bet the farm that science would help devise improved methods of communication with omnipotent life and benefit from knowledge gained from it.
These "miracles" are forgotten and they become "reality" -accepted-, though unexplained they are observed, tested, peer reviewed--but unexplained. What then would be needed to prove the existence of a deity?
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.
It would have to be prayed for and the results would have to be more or less instantaenous and perfect. That would show a strong correspondence between prayer and some omnipotent life form's intervention.
As far as scientific categorization is concerned, it would likely result in a branch of study for omnipotent life.
Why would there have to be a "dark age"? I would bet the farm that science would help devise improved methods of communication with omnipotent life and benefit from knowledge gained from it.
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.
The basis of the thread is that there are many unexplained phenomena in the world, why would your specific case(s) make the existence of a deity true to you and/or the majority of unbelievers? Why would this proof not just become "reality"?
Crunchy Cat
06-28-08, 07:54 PM
The basis of the thread is that there are many unexplained phenomena in the world, why would your specific case(s) make the existence of a deity true to you and/or the majority of unbelievers? Why would this proof not just become "reality"?
Because they are part of a specific claimed cause and effect chain:
Claim->An omnipotent life form exists that grants fantastic miracles through prayers.
Knowledge->Humans lack the ability to spontaenously manipulate reality via thought.
Demonstration->A theist prays for one of the aformentioned items.
Results->Achieved
Observation->The claim corresponds to reality.
I think you know this already and you're intentionally acting stupid about it. Regardless, atheists have given their criteria. The onus is on theists to demonstrate.
lightgigantic
06-28-08, 08:41 PM
Regardless, atheists have given their criteria. The onus is on theists to demonstrate.
and lo and behold there is also criteria regarding issues of qualification that have to be met before one can even begin to look at issues of evidence
:shrug:
Because they are part of a specific claimed cause and effect chain:
Claim->An omnipotent life form exists that grants fantastic miracles through prayers.
Knowledge->Humans lack the ability to spontaenously manipulate reality via thought.
Demonstration->A theist prays for one of the aformentioned items.
Results->Achieved
Observation->The claim corresponds to reality.
I think you know this already and you're intentionally acting stupid about it. Regardless, atheists have given their criteria. The onus is on theists to demonstrate.
The thread states "proof of a deity". Actual details of this deity, how it interacts with this world etc... was not ascribed. The thread was created in an attempt to understand that if atheists required proof of a "supreme being" what would that proof entail?
Testable supernatural spontaneous results from prayer was your answer (paraphrased), and that is a very good answer. But this thread is not attempting to discuss religion, just existence of a deity.
Crunchy Cat
06-29-08, 12:17 AM
and lo and behold there is also criteria regarding issues of qualification that have to be met before one can even begin to look at issues of evidence
:shrug:
Not with the prayer demonstration that was outlined. It's quite self-evident when an amputee magically has a limb in the blink of an eye. In other words, the average adult is quite over-qualified to make such an observation.
Crunchy Cat
06-29-08, 01:31 AM
The thread states "proof of a deity". Actual details of this deity, how it interacts with this world etc... was not ascribed. The thread was created in an attempt to understand that if atheists required proof of a "supreme being" what would that proof entail?
Testable supernatural spontaneous results from prayer was your answer (paraphrased), and that is a very good answer. But this thread is not attempting to discuss religion, just existence of a deity.
rj, you have the answer. If you don't want to accept it then that's your problem.
rj, you have the answer. If you don't want to accept it then that's your problem.
Thanks, Crunchy.
Old man
07-03-08, 10:28 AM
what IF it always existed,
no cause needed,
Then you would have an uncaused effect which is a logical impossibility.
Old man
07-03-08, 10:36 AM
It seems to me that the argument from mathematics alone establishes the necessity of a deity. Notice that I don't say 'existence of a deity'. God does not exist; He is, which is something entirely different. Exist is from the Latin prefix ex meaning from or out of. We exist. The universe exists. God does not.
It seems to me that the argument from mathematics alone establishes the necessity of a deity. Notice that I don't say 'existence of a deity'. God does not exist; He is, which is something entirely different. Exist is from the Latin prefix ex meaning from or out of. We exist. The universe exists. God does not.
Thank you for clarifying terms being used. Question:
Does mathematics establish or discover the necessity of a Deity and how does it do this?
Old man
07-10-08, 06:59 PM
Thank you for clarifying terms being used. Question:
Does mathematics establish or discover the necessity of a Deity and how does it do this?
It would have been better if I had said necessity of a creator rather than deity since 'deity' is a loaded term around here. ;)
When I say 'mathematics' I have specific reference to probability, and an indirect reference to its cousin, information theory. The Earth exhibits staggering complexity on every level. Even the most simple self replicating molecule that could be considered living (according to NASA) contains at least 400 linked amino acids, and each acid is itself made up of 4 or 5 other major units. Golay demonstrated (Golay, Marcel,Reflections of a Communications Engineer, Analytical Chemistry, Vol 33, June 1961, p23.) that the probability of the chance formation of even the simplest self replicating protein molecule is 1 in 10^450.
In other words--flatly impossible. So, if it could not have happened by chance then what? Where did it come from? To me it is obvious: it was designed, and that brings us to information theory. In a nut shell, information does not and can not create itself. So where did the necessary information for the formation of that little 400 acid chain come from?
It would have been better if I had said necessity of a creator rather than deity since 'deity' is a loaded term around here. ;)
When I say 'mathematics' I have specific reference to probability, and an indirect reference to its cousin, information theory. The Earth exhibits staggering complexity on every level. Even the most simple self replicating molecule that could be considered living (according to NASA) contains at least 400 linked amino acids, and each acid is itself made up of 4 or 5 other major units. Golay demonstrated (Golay, Marcel,Reflections of a Communications Engineer, Analytical Chemistry, Vol 33, June 1961, p23.) that the probability of the chance formation of even the simplest self replicating protein molecule is 1 in 10^450.
In other words--flatly impossible. So, if it could not have happened by chance then what? Where did it come from? To me it is obvious: it was designed, and that brings us to information theory. In a nut shell, information does not and can not create itself. So where did the necessary information for the formation of that little 400 acid chain come from?
If you express the probability of an event, how can you then say it is flatly impossible. If it were, the probability would be zero.
Read up on evolution and give creationism a rest. You might learn something
It has already been pointed out to you that your argument based on probability is invalid. You might learn something if you read as I suggest.
iceaura
07-10-08, 07:18 PM
that the probability of the chance formation of even the simplest self replicating protein molecule is 1 in 10^450. In the first place, none of the assumptions necessary for that calculation hold in reality - the events are not independent, for starters.
In the second, that calculation only applies to chance formation, not evolutionary development.
So it is an argument for a Creator only in a world in which evolution has been ruled out, and chance is the only other possibility. In this world, evolution has been firmly supported, not ruled out.
It would have been better if I had said necessity of a creator rather than deity since 'deity' is a loaded term around here. ;)
When I say 'mathematics' I have specific reference to probability, and an indirect reference to its cousin, information theory. The Earth exhibits staggering complexity on every level. Even the most simple self replicating molecule that could be considered living (according to NASA) contains at least 400 linked amino acids, and each acid is itself made up of 4 or 5 other major units. Golay demonstrated (Golay, Marcel,Reflections of a Communications Engineer, Analytical Chemistry, Vol 33, June 1961, p23.) that the probability of the chance formation of even the simplest self replicating protein molecule is 1 in 10^450.
In other words--flatly impossible. So, if it could not have happened by chance then what? Where did it come from? To me it is obvious: it was designed, and that brings us to information theory. In a nut shell, information does not and can not create itself. So where did the necessary information for the formation of that little 400 acid chain come from?
Thank you for your posts. They speak to my question to atheist- what would they consider as proof? If you have quoted your figures correctly, and assuming they are correct, any aspect of this universe is impossible without a creator-as discovered by mathematics.
Sadly, atheatic scientists prescribe clever names for things they don't understand and base every bit of their knowledge, and the enviornment they conduct their experiments in, on something they have no explanation for.
Old man
07-10-08, 09:18 PM
Thank you for your posts. They speak to my question to atheist- what would they consider as proof? If you have quoted your figures correctly, and assuming they are correct, any aspect of this universe is impossible without a creator-as discovered by mathematics.
Sadly, atheatic scientists prescribe clever names for things they don't understand and base every bit of their knowledge, and the enviornment they conduct their experiments in, on something they have no explanation for.
Thank you. It amazes me that someone could cling to the hope that a 10^450 chance of even the simplest self replicating molecule forming by chance is what happened. There is evidently no comprehension how large a number that is. Within mathematics any probability >10^50 is defined as impossible. Further, several posters have tried to insist that "evolutionary development" somehow differs from pure chance when pure chance is the foundation, such as it is, of evolution. The same also deny the calculations, not because they can prove them wrong, but on the basis of special pleading.
I'm glad I didn't mention the probability of forming the proteins and DNA in that simple 400 unit entity is on the order of 10^167626.
spidergoat
07-10-08, 10:07 PM
Old man, you are making the mistake of thinking the simplest presently known self-replicating entity arrived complete in a spontaneous way. This is a misunderstanding. Evolution describes a gradual process of improvement. One can envision other replicating systems that are possible that no longer exist, starting from even simpler systems.
Old man
07-10-08, 10:17 PM
Old man, you are making the mistake of thinking the simplest presently known self-replicating entity arrived complete in a spontaneously way. This is a misunderstanding. Evolution describes a gradual process of improvement. One can envision other replicating systems that are possible that no longer exist.
No, I do not assume a complete spontaneous appearance even though the odds are better for that than for a process of gradual evolution.
Old man
07-11-08, 07:21 AM
So it is an argument for a Creator only in a world in which evolution has been ruled out, and chance is the only other possibility. In this world, evolution has been firmly supported, not ruled out.
I quote George Wald, 1967 Nobel Prize winner in Science:
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved long ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."
I quote George Wald, 1967 Nobel Prize winner in Science:
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved long ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."
lol
You can't be serious..
Thank you. It amazes me that someone could cling to the hope that a 10^450 chance of even the simplest self replicating molecule forming by chance is what happened. There is evidently no comprehension how large a number that is. Within mathematics any probability >10^50 is defined as impossible. Further, several posters have tried to insist that "evolutionary development" somehow differs from pure chance when pure chance is the foundation, such as it is, of evolution. The same also deny the calculations, not because they can prove them wrong, but on the basis of special pleading.
I'm glad I didn't mention the probability of forming the proteins and DNA in that simple 400 unit entity is on the order of 10^167626.
What is the probability that you will eventually learn that your argument is invalid ? I put it at zero.
Thank you. It amazes me that someone could cling to the hope that a 10^450 chance of even the simplest self replicating molecule forming by chance is what happened. There is evidently no comprehension how large a number that is. Within mathematics any probability >10^50 is defined as impossible. Further, several posters have tried to insist that "evolutionary development" somehow differs from pure chance when pure chance is the foundation, such as it is, of evolution. The same also deny the calculations, not because they can prove them wrong, but on the basis of special pleading.
I'm glad I didn't mention the probability of forming the proteins and DNA in that simple 400 unit entity is on the order of 10^167626.
Not to mention a Boeing aircraft with exactly 50 passengers plus crew flying over Davy Crockett's hut near Greenville TE and exactly 2 mins past 12 on the first Tuesday of every month in consecutive leap years !
No, I do not assume a complete spontaneous appearance even though the odds are better for that than for a process of gradual evolution.
So why do you choose not to express what you regard as the better odds ?
Do not assume that my statement validates your argument in any way: it is nonsense.
Thank you for your posts. They speak to my question to atheist- what would they consider as proof? If you have quoted your figures correctly, and assuming they are correct, any aspect of this universe is impossible without a creator-as discovered by mathematics.
Sadly, atheatic scientists prescribe clever names for things they don't understand and base every bit of their knowledge, and the enviornment they conduct their experiments in, on something they have no explanation for.
You should know by now that his figures are meaningless. If you disagree, tell us why !
snake river rufus
07-11-08, 09:02 AM
No, I do not assume a complete spontaneous appearance even though the odds are better for that than for a process of gradual evolution.
Really? how so?
iceaura
07-11-08, 02:39 PM
Further, several posters have tried to insist that "evolutionary development" somehow differs from pure chance when pure chance is the foundation, such as it is, of evolution. The same also deny the calculations, not because they can prove them wrong, but on the basis of special pleading. A tip - don't tell the evolutionary theorists what their theory really is, or is really founded on, when they tell you different. They know what their theory is, and you don't.
Your probability calculations depend on assumptions not met in reality. You might as well calculate the probability of a given set of water vapor molecules scattered throughout the earth's atmosphere randomly coalescing in the air and being pulled down exactly where you are standing, and conclude that raindrops could never fall on your head unless God aimed them.
Old man
07-11-08, 05:54 PM
lol
You can't be serious..
The Nobel Prize winner George Wald was completely serious. I wonder why you aren't?
Old man
07-11-08, 06:02 PM
From the foreword to the 1971 edition of Origin of Species the British biologist L. Harrison Matthews concedes:
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory---is it then science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation---both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
And I'll go him one better. Evolution isn't, by definition, even a theory because it can not be observed or tested, or experimentally verified.
From the foreword to the 1971 edition of Origin of Species the British biologist L. Harrison Matthews concedes:
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory---is it then science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation---both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."
And I'll go him one better. Evolution isn't, by definition, even a theory because it can not be observed or tested, or experimentally verified.
Why not quote from something a bit more up to date and based on a consensus view rather than that of one individual.
You are clearly unaware that nothing can be proved. All one can offer is the best explanation available at a particular time. It is even possible that the law of gravity may one day be disproved but I would say it is highly unlikely. Compare this open-minded attitude with the half-truths put about by people such as yourself who regard their views as gospel ( pun intended ). Your sort of stuff will prove convincing to others such as yourself. who do not understand the sheer nonsense of your arguments.
You are constantly being told on here that your propbabilities have no basis in reality but you cannot accept it. You clearly do not know what the hell you are talking about, which is why you persist in believing you have an argument to offer.
iceaura
07-11-08, 07:22 PM
And I'll go him one better. Evolution isn't, by definition, even a theory because it can not be observed or tested, or experimentally verified. Evolution has been observed and tested. No theory can be "verified" - that's not one of the criteria of a theory.
Meanwhile, a quick check on Matthew's quote turned this up:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/author.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.7
Chris Nedin has pointed out that Matthew's introduction also played a small part in the Arkansas creation trial (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education) of the early 80's. Professor Michael Ruse, an expert witness at that trial, writes in "A Philosopher's Day in Court" that:
...stopping over in England, I spoke to an elderly zoologist, L. Harrison Matthews, who wrote the introduction to Darwin's Origin in the Everyman Edition. In phrases which have been seized on by Creationists, Matthews argues that belief in Darwinism is like a religious commitment. This was going to be used by the State of Arkansas, who would argue that belief in Creation-science is logically identical to belief in evolution. Hence, since one can teach the latter, one should be allowed to teach the former. (A more rigorous conclusion would be that since both are religion, neither should be taught. But no matter.)
Would Matthews recant? He was happy to do so, and wrote me a strong letter about the misuse that he felt Creationists had made of his introduction. Reading between the lines, I got the strong impression that what motivated Matthews in his introduction was not the logic of evolutionary theory at all. He wanted to poke the late Sir Gavin de Beer in the eye. De Beer was a fanatical Darwinian, and Matthews was dressing him down for the undue strength of his feelings! [Ruse 1984, 323]
I wrote to Professor Ruse in an attempt to get a copy of Matthews's letter, but he replied that some things don't survive 20 years and a move to another country, Matthews's letter being one of them. However, in his narrative of the Arkansas trial, Ruse relates that at the end of his testimony:
We had covered just about everything under the sun, with the possible exception of L. Harrison Matthews' claims about the religious nature of Darwinism. When Williams [the assistant attorney general of Arkansas] saw the scathing letter that Matthews wrote to me about Creationism, he decided not to introduce Matthews into the testimony. [Ruse 1984, 334]
And this is of course nonsense: I quote George Wald, 1967 Nobel Prize winner in Science:
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved long ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance." Why should anyone believe something silly like that, because some Nobel Prize winner (in Science? are you parodying yourself ? ) said it ?
But there's more wrong with that particular version of arguing from authority - namely that no apparent source exists. As far as I can tell George Wald never said that, or anything like it. It appears to be fabricated. Can you provide the original source, in Wald's writings ?
Wald did say these: In fact, death seems to have been a rather late invention in evolution. One can go a long way in evolution before encountering an authentic corpse
There's life all over this universe, but the only life in the solar system is on earth, and in the whole universe we are the only men.
You see, every creature alive on the earth today represents an unbroken line of life that stretches back to the first primitive organism to appear on this planet; and that is about three billion years.
snake river rufus
07-12-08, 08:09 AM
I guess that old man needs to be a little more sure of his authority before he argues from it.
lightgigantic
07-12-08, 07:58 PM
Evolution has been observed and tested. No theory can be "verified" - that's not one of the criteria of a theory.
has all that is driven home under the banner of evolution been observed and tested?
Or have they merely observed spindly milk sapped plants give rise to other spindly milk sapped plants etc etc?
spidergoat
07-12-08, 09:57 PM
No, I do not assume a complete spontaneous appearance even though the odds are better for that than for a process of gradual evolution.
Incorrect again. A complex organism is extremely unlikely to spontaneously generate, even from a sea of ingredients. A simple relf-replicating chemical system is not only likely, it is almost certain to happen given the right conditions- a sea of liquid water saturated with complex chemistry in a variety of pressures, temperatures, and mixes with rock, sand, air, and light.
lightgigantic
07-12-08, 11:27 PM
Incorrect again. A complex organism is extremely unlikely to spontaneously generate, even from a sea of ingredients. A simple relf-replicating chemical system is not only likely, it is almost certain to happen given the right conditions- a sea of liquid water saturated with complex chemistry in a variety of pressures, temperatures, and mixes with rock, sand, air, and light.
has this been observed and tested?
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.