The existence of the universe requires a god

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 136 here:

...
The universe could not exist in the form that it is in unless there was an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God.
...

For debate:

Please offer some means to confirm the referenced claim is true and factual.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #55]

You wrote "there must be some valid reason for its acceptance as being true" yet none of the definitions you provided say that. They say "accepted as true" and "established rule or principle" and "widely accepted on its intrinsic merit".

These definitions do not equate to your original statement in post 53:

"... the axioms are themselves simply assumed to be always, always, always true and are not themselves the outcome of some preceding explanation."

Give me an example of an axiom that is "simply assumed" to be true without any intrinsic merit or prior established rule or principle. In post 57 you said this:

"Well the belief that "dead folks hop up and walk away" is not true, is a perfect example of an axiom."

A (genuinely) dead person coming back to life has never been observed in the history of humankind, so the idea that this does not happen is not based on a simple assumption, but on the fact that despite the many billions of people who have lived since "humans" came along, not once has a dead person been observed to "hop up and walk away." If this is an axiom, it is based on something besides a mere assumption without basis (unlike many religious beliefs, which are taken on faith despite how nonsensical and demonstrably false they may be ... for example, the creation story in Genesis taken literally).

[Sherlock Holmes]

Then surely someone, anyone, can offer confirmatory evidence of it happening.

Why do you care about that?

Because it's fun to explore why religious people believe the things they do.

what does "confirmatory" mean anyway?

Since I already had the dictionary open, here you go.

I have no idea what a "religious person" is nor what it has to do with axioms.

Regarding "confirmatory" do you hold that claims which cannot be confirmed (as defined above) are an impossibility?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Then surely someone, anyone, can offer confirmatory evidence of it happening.

Why do you care about that?

Because it's fun to explore why religious people believe the things they do.

what does "confirmatory" mean anyway?

Since I already had the dictionary open, here you go.

I have no idea what a "religious person" is nor what it has to do with axioms.

Regarding "confirmatory" do you hold that claims which cannot be confirmed (as defined above) are an impossibility? is it possible for a proposition which cannot be confirmed, to ever be true?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]

Scientific explanations (aka "theories") are always founded on axioms, the axioms are themselves simply assumed to be always, always, always true and are not themselves the outcome of some preceding explanation.

So if you ponder this for a while you begin to see that nothing is ever really explained because all explanations are in terms of unexplained things.

Therefore if it is OK to elevate scientific theories to the status of truth then it must be OK to elevate other beliefs to the status of truth surely?

Agreed.

Folks have the right to believe it's true there's a magic sky daddy, that dead folks hop up and walk away, and all manner of sense assaulting claims.

My issue is when such folks point to such goofy beliefs to restrict the rights and freedoms of others.

Well the belief that "dead folks hop up and walk away" is not true, is a perfect example of an axiom.

Then surely someone, anyone, can offer confirmatory evidence of it happening.

Why do you care about that?

Cause some folks legislate.

what does "confirmatory" mean anyway?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confirmatory

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #55]

You wrote "there must be some valid reason for its acceptance as being true" yet none of the definitions you provided say that. They say "accepted as true" and "established rule or principle" and "widely accepted on its intrinsic merit".

These definitions do not equate to your original statement in post 53:

"... the axioms are themselves simply assumed to be always, always, always true and are not themselves the outcome of some preceding explanation."

Give me an example of an axiom that is "simply assumed" to be true without any intrinsic merit or prior established rule or principle.

How about this one "the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe" - this is untestable.

In post 57 you said this:

"Well the belief that "dead folks hop up and walk away" is not true, is a perfect example of an axiom."

Yes I did say that.

A (genuinely) dead person coming back to life has never been observed in the history of humankind

How did you establish this?

so the idea that this does not happen is not based on a simple assumption, but on the fact that despite the many billions of people who have lived since "humans" came along, not once has a dead person been observed to "hop up and walk away."

Again, this seems to be a claim that has no evidential support.

If this is an axiom, it is based on something besides a mere assumption without basis (unlike many religious beliefs, which are taken on faith despite how nonsensical and demonstrably false they may be ... for example, the creation story in Genesis taken literally).

Yes the claim "the dead cannot be made to live again" is axiomatic, it is based on a set of beliefs, one of these beliefs is that what we've observed to be the case in the past must also be the case in the future.

What is commonly called "Newtonian celestial mechanics" is based on axioms for example time is universal, the simultaneity of a pair of observable events is universal, independent of observer circumstances.

Those axioms are now regarded as completely false, so whatever reasoning was used by Newton to justify them, must very obviously have been flawed, therefore relying on reasoned arguments to justify axioms is folly, because the reasoning itself has been assumed to be trustworthy, again nothing but assumption.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #65]

How about this one "the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe" - this is untestable.

It may be untestable presently, but it is not without basis and simply an assumption. We have observed a tremendous number of planets, stars, galaxies, comets, asteroids, etc, either directly or through their emission or reflection of photons, and followed their movements and interactions, and have yet to find any reason to believe that the laws of physics do not operate the same "everywhere." But we also don't know everything about every aspect of the laws of physics in every possible environment so can only go by what we can observe and refine our ideas as new information becomes available.

How did you establish this?

Can you contradict it with a confirmed example (ie. a genuinely dead person coming back to life)? It is physiologically impossible given the definition of "dead." There are certainly claims that this sort of thing has happened (eg. in holy books), but it has never been demonstrated for human beings to be anything but myth.

Again, this seems to be a claim that has no evidential support.

It is not possible to produce evidential support that something did not happen (proving a negative). But it can easily be proven that something is possible by demonstrating it, or observing it in some way. I don't know of any claims of resurrected human beings that have been confirmed (eg. by seeing the dead person no longer being dead). Can you site even one example to the contrary?

Yes the claim "the dead cannot be made to live again" is axiomatic, it is based on a set of beliefs, one of these beliefs is that what we've observed to be the case in the past must also be the case in the future.

What is the alternative? To believe that nothing behaves rationally or in any predictable way and give up on trying to understand nature? I don't think that approach would help us.

Those axioms are now regarded as completely false, so whatever reasoning was used by Newton to justify them, must very obviously have been flawed, therefore relying on reasoned arguments to justify axioms is folly, because the reasoning itself has been assumed to be trustworthy, again nothing but assumption.

Newtonian mechanics is not regarded as "completely false." There are just realms in which it does not work accurately enough and General Relativity (GR) works better. Apart from the precession of the perihelion of Mercury (known to not be adequately described by Newtonian mechanics well before GR came along) the orbits of the other planets and moons in our solar system are well described by Newtonian mechanics. And lots of everyday products and the activities of humans proceed along perfectly well using Newtonian mechanics alone. His assumptions were based on observations of how things move and react, how light behaved, etc. and were not simply made up willy nilly without any basis.

Science has never known "all" the answers and may never get there, but to say it is all based on assumptions with no basis, or that these assumptions are equivalent to religious or similar faith-based claims (which I assume was your point in post 53, unless "other beliefs" referred to something besides religion) is wrong. There is no analogy between the two.

[brunumb]

What is the alternative? To believe that nothing behaves rationally or in any predictable way and give up on trying to understand nature? I don't think that approach would help us.

Precisely. We are in deep trouble if suddenly we discover that all the progress we have made through science is somehow shown to be based on false axioms. Planes will start falling from the skies, buildings will collapse, satellites will fall to earth and telecommunications will fail, exploratory satellites will miss their planetary targets and we will learn nothing about the solar system, and on it goes. I think the aim of the sort of argument presented is simply to sneak unsupported claims and the supernatural in through the back door.

[Difflugia]

I have no idea what a "religious person" is

I doubt that.

nor what it has to do with axioms.

A straw man already? I answered your question: "Why do you care about that?"

Regarding "confirmatory" do you hold that claims which cannot be confirmed (as defined above) are an impossibility?

I answered your second question: "what does confirmatory mean?"

Impossible in a Deepak Chopra, quantum mechanics, anything is possible sort of way? No. In that sense, though, it shares the space with every possible made up thing ever. It's "possible" in the same way that it's "possible" that my ink pen is dictator of an intergalactic empire or that Adolf Hitler was actually my great granddaughter. There's also the wording of your question that implies that the mere lack of confirmation is our only reason for thinking that dead people don't come back to life and I've learned that apologists love nothing more than disingenuous, socratic word games.

By any reasonable standard, though, it's impossible for dead people to come back to life.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #65]

How about this one "the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe" - this is untestable.

It may be untestable presently, but it is not without basis and simply an assumption. We have observed a tremendous number of planets, stars, galaxies, comets, asteroids, etc, either directly or through their emission or reflection of photons, and followed their movements and interactions, and have yet to find any reason to believe that the laws of physics do not operate the same "everywhere." But we also don't know everything about every aspect of the laws of physics in every possible environment so can only go by what we can observe and refine our ideas as new information becomes available.

I agree with what you say, yet it does not alter the fact that it is an assumption, if something is regarded as true without incontrovertible proof then it is an assumption, scientific claims are after all based on induction not deduction.

The absence of evidence to the contrary does not serve as proof either, if it does then on what basis does the atheist object to claims about the supernatural? I could argue "we have yet to find any reason to believe that God does not exist".

How did you establish this?

Can you contradict it with a confirmed example (ie. a genuinely dead person coming back to life)? It is physiologically impossible given the definition of "dead." There are certainly claims that this sort of thing has happened (eg. in holy books), but it has never been demonstrated for human beings to be anything but myth.

The absence of a counter example is not the same as the presence of an example, you made a claim and seem to have no basis for it.

Again, this seems to be a claim that has no evidential support.

It is not possible to produce evidential support that something did not happen (proving a negative). But it can easily be proven that something is possible by demonstrating it, or observing it in some way. I don't know of any claims of resurrected human beings that have been confirmed (eg. by seeing the dead person no longer being dead). Can you site even one example to the contrary?

Yet it is you who wrote "A (genuinely) dead person coming back to life has never been observed in the history of humankind" that is what you claimed and you have no evidence yet expect it to be respected as it if had evidence, once again just because one cannot prove the non-existence of something does not allow us to make such assertions.

Yes the claim "the dead cannot be made to live again" is axiomatic, it is based on a set of beliefs, one of these beliefs is that what we've observed to be the case in the past must also be the case in the future.

What is the alternative? To believe that nothing behaves rationally or in any predictable way and give up on trying to understand nature? I don't think that approach would help us.

No, I do not believe one should believe that nothing behaves rationally, I also never suggested that so this is a strawman. It is clear I think that someone in the past could have observed a dead person returning to life, if they had they might have tried to record what they saw to so that others could be made aware, do you think such a record could be regarded as evidence?

Those axioms are now regarded as completely false, so whatever reasoning was used by Newton to justify them, must very obviously have been flawed, therefore relying on reasoned arguments to justify axioms is folly, because the reasoning itself has been assumed to be trustworthy, again nothing but assumption.

Newtonian mechanics is not regarded as "completely false." There are just realms in which it does not work accurately enough and General Relativity (GR) works better.

I disagree, Newtons claims about the nature of time and observers has been proven completely false, predictions arising from it contradict what we observe, this is called falsification.

The equation: 1 = 2 is false is it not? or would you argue it is not completely false?

And who decides what "accurately enough" means? one the one hand Newton stands falsified and on the other you hand he has not - please make up your mind.

Apart from the precession of the perihelion of Mercury (known to not be adequately described by Newtonian mechanics well before GR came along) the orbits of the other planets and moons in our solar system are well described by Newtonian mechanics. And lots of everyday products and the activities of humans proceed along perfectly well using Newtonian mechanics alone. His assumptions were based on observations of how things move and react, how light behaved, etc. and were not simply made up willy nilly without any basis.

I'm not arguing against the utility of Newtonian mechanics (despite it being a serious hindrance for a GPS system) only that what was once regarded as true, assumed to be true is in fact false, this is my point, that because something appears true, has "good reasons" to be claimed as true does not actually amount to anything more than an assumption, justifiable? yes of course but pretending claims that have not been proven false are the same as truths is the very thing the atheist objects to in theism yet here you are advocating the very same thing!

Science has never known "all" the answers and may never get there, but to say it is all based on assumptions with no basis, or that these assumptions are equivalent to religious or similar faith-based claims (which I assume was your point in post 53, unless "other beliefs" referred to something besides religion) is wrong. There is no analogy between the two.

I'll try again, an assumption whether it has no basis or a huge basis, is still an assumption, Newton had a huge basis yet was wrong, so this is something we need to be aware of at all times when making general claims about what we think reality is.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I have no idea what a "religious person" is

I doubt that.

nor what it has to do with axioms.

A straw man already? I answered your question: "Why do you care about that?"

Regarding "confirmatory" do you hold that claims which cannot be confirmed (as defined above) are an impossibility?

I answered your second question: "what does confirmatory mean?"

Impossible in a Deepak Chopra, quantum mechanics, anything is possible sort of way? No. In that sense, though, it shares the space with every possible made up thing ever. It's "possible" in the same way that it's "possible" that my ink pen is dictator of an intergalactic empire or that Adolf Hitler was actually my great granddaughter. There's also the wording of your question that implies that the mere lack of confirmation is our only reason for thinking that dead people don't come back to life and I've learned that apologists love nothing more than disingenuous, socratic word games.

By any reasonable standard, though, it's impossible for dead people to come back to life.

How does one decide what is a "reasonable standard"? As I said elsewhere by any reasonable standard Newton was correct about time and space yet was found to be wrong, therefore the reasonable standard was misleading and people were misled.

The "reasonable standard" is simply extrapolation, attributing to the general case what has been established from the special case, we do this all the time, there's nothing inherently wrong or unreasonable about doing it, I do it we all do, but one must be careful about then objecting to claims that run counter to the reasonable standard, such claims might very well be true.