The existence of the universe requires a god

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18678
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1638 times
Been thanked: 1120 times

The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #1

Post by JoeyKnothead »

From Post 136 here:
EarthScienceguy wrote: ...
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.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2294
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1843 times
Been thanked: 1363 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #91

Post by Difflugia »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 1:17 pmCan you prove that the laws of physics won't change in some way tomorrow? No.
Would you say that Christians should have a similar confidence that a resurrection happened as they do that the laws of physics will change tomorrow? Your argument puts those two propositions in the same class, so if they should be conceptually different, then your argument is fallacious.
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #92

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Difflugia wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 1:28 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 1:17 pmCan you prove that the laws of physics won't change in some way tomorrow? No.
Would you say that Christians should have a similar confidence that a resurrection happened as they do that the laws of physics will change tomorrow? Your argument puts those two propositions in the same class, so if they should be conceptually different, then your argument is fallacious.
I don't see how that can serve as an answer to my question!
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #93

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #85]
It is not me asking for the impossible but you believing the impossible, that's the problem here. Three times you have stated with the utmost certainty that some event or other never ever has occurred, I ask how you can be sure of that, what leads you to claim that, and you berate me for asking!

Let me paraphrase. I say X is true, you ask can you prove this claim? and I berate you and say why are you asking for the impossible?
This issue is that you are asking me to prove that something did not happen, which I cannot do. I cannot prove that negative. I can claim that it did not happen for the reasons I've stated multiple times (ie. no verifiable cases are known to me).

There is a big difference between asking someone to prove a negative (ie. that something did not happen) which is what you are asking of me, and asking someone to refute a claim by providing an example that does so (what I am asking you to do ... ie. give an example where a dead person has demonstrably come back to life). Asking for an example to refute my claim is not berating, but trying to get an answer to a question that is not forthcoming.

I can't prove a negative, but you can disprove my claim with just one example (ie. provide a positive).
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #94

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 6:24 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #85]
It is not me asking for the impossible but you believing the impossible, that's the problem here. Three times you have stated with the utmost certainty that some event or other never ever has occurred, I ask how you can be sure of that, what leads you to claim that, and you berate me for asking!

Let me paraphrase. I say X is true, you ask can you prove this claim? and I berate you and say why are you asking for the impossible?
This issue is that you are asking me to prove that something did not happen, which I cannot do. I cannot prove that negative. I can claim that it did not happen for the reasons I've stated multiple times (ie. no verifiable cases are known to me).
If you cannot prove a proposition true then do not make it, that's the problem here, you are making unprovable claims.

So perhaps what you meant to say all along was not "A (genuinely) dead person coming back to life has never been observed in the history of humankind" but rather "I don't believe that a (genuinely) dead person coming back to life has everbeen observed in the history of humankind"? That is a statement of personal belief rather than an objective claim about the world, if you had said that we'd not be going back and forth as we are.
DrNoGods wrote: Sat Jan 01, 2022 6:24 pm There is a big difference between asking someone to prove a negative (ie. that something did not happen) which is what you are asking of me, and asking someone to refute a claim by providing an example that does so (what I am asking you to do ... ie. give an example where a dead person has demonstrably come back to life). Asking for an example to refute my claim is not berating, but trying to get an answer to a question that is not forthcoming.

I can't prove a negative, but you can disprove my claim with just one example (ie. provide a positive).
So am I permitted too to make claims as if they were facts and be excused from having to provide evidence for them? if so then that would be equitable, we can each spend our time saying whatever we believe is a fact and never have to support what we're saying!

Now let's also put another misunderstanding to bed shall we, the claim one cannot prove that something doesn't exist, do you really think that this too is an absolute truth? Can you prove that it is impossible to prove something does not exist?

Take mathematics, can one prove that a rational number equal to pi does not exist?
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2294
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1843 times
Been thanked: 1363 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #95

Post by Difflugia »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 12:18 pmNow let's also put another misunderstanding to bed shall we, the claim one cannot prove that something doesn't exist, do you really think that this too is an absolute truth? Can you prove that it is impossible to prove something does not exist?

Take mathematics, can one prove that a rational number equal to pi does not exist?
At the risk of branding you a one-trick pony, this argument is an equivocation between different meanings of "exist." Proving that a class defined to exclude certain things does indeed exclude those things is just a tautology based on definition. If I define "rational" to exclude belief in gods, then I can claim that there are no rational Christians. When we're talking about whether or not Christianity is a rational belief, though, that's not the definition we use.
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #96

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Difflugia wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:58 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 12:18 pmNow let's also put another misunderstanding to bed shall we, the claim one cannot prove that something doesn't exist, do you really think that this too is an absolute truth? Can you prove that it is impossible to prove something does not exist?

Take mathematics, can one prove that a rational number equal to pi does not exist?
At the risk of branding you a one-trick pony, this argument is an equivocation between different meanings of "exist." Proving that a class defined to exclude certain things does indeed exclude those things is just a tautology based on definition. If I define "rational" to exclude belief in gods, then I can claim that there are no rational Christians. When we're talking about whether or not Christianity is a rational belief, though, that's not the definition we use.
Might there be evidence that Christ did rise from the dead? or does the definition of such evidence deliberately exclude what does exist from being considered?

We are also not talking about whether Christianity is a rational belief, I was asking for evidence to support the claim that nobody has ever observed a person coming back to life.

That claim is a belief, it is not a fact, it is not supported by evidence, it is a personal belief that can never be proven wrong because whatever might constitute true evidence can just be dismissed.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #97

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #94]
So perhaps what you meant to say all along was not "A (genuinely) dead person coming back to life has never been observed in the history of humankind" but rather "I don't believe that a (genuinely) dead person coming back to life has everbeen observed in the history of humankind"? That is a statement of personal belief rather than an objective claim about the world, if you had said that we'd not be going back and forth as we are.
Yes ... it is a statement of personal belief for the reasons I keep having to repeat (never been demonstrated to have happened, is physioligically impossible based on the definition of dead, etc.). We're going back and forth because I am repeatedly asking for you to provide just one confirmed example, and you've yet to offer up anything at all in that regard (although it seems reasonably clear reading between the lines that you would offer up the ressurection of Jesus as described in the bible). There are entire threads here devoted to that episode and those go far more in depth on the prospects if it being true, but the bible also describes many other resurrection events, including a mass resurrection event when all the graves opened up in Jerusalem and the dead bodies came back to life to celebrate the ressurection (Matthew 27:52). Do you believe that actually happened?
So am I permitted too to make claims as if they were facts and be excused from having to provide evidence for them? if so then that would be equitable, we can each spend our time saying whatever we believe is a fact and never have to support what we're saying!
For the umpteenth time now, you're asking me to prove that something didn't happen, and I'm asking you to prove that it did with just one example. Do you not see the difference between these two things? I can't possibly prove that a dead body has never come back to life, but can state my rationale for claiming that it has never happened (as I have done repeatedly). All you have to do to win this argument is to provide the one example I've been asking for, but you've yet to offer up anything at all. Are you making a claim that dead people can come back to life? Or just suggesting it and absolving yourself from any obligation to support that with an example of it having occurred?
Now let's also put another misunderstanding to bed shall we, the claim one cannot prove that something doesn't exist, do you really think that this too is an absolute truth? Can you prove that it is impossible to prove something does not exist?
I can come up with examples by playing word games. For example, if someone dies and their body is cremated, that person ceases to exist as a human being. So I can then claim the existence of a nonexistent human being. Or I can claim that something that is blue, and also not blue, does not exist because it is a contradiction, and so I have proven that something does not exist. But we're talking about dead people coming back to life, or gods existing, and physical items that involve evidence or the lack thereof. In these cases it is impossible as far as I'm aware to prove the negative proposition but trivial to prove the positive (with just one example). I can never prove that gods don't exist, just like I can never prove that flying unicorns don't exist.
Take mathematics, can one prove that a rational number equal to pi does not exist?
A rational number, by definition, is the ratio of two integers. Any number that doesn't fall into this category is an irrational number. pi is a real (irrational) number equal to the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. So to find a rational number that is equal to pi would mean that a circle exists whose circumference and diameter are both integers. That is, C = pi * D where C (circumference) and D (diameter) are both integers. This is not possible. For example, pick one of these proofs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_tha ... irrational

Do you put this kind of thing into the same category as proving that gods don't exist, or that dead people who have come back to life have never existed?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1903
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #98

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #96]
That claim is a belief, it is not a fact, it is not supported by evidence, it is a personal belief that can never be proven wrong because whatever might constitute true evidence can just be dismissed.
And, presumably, you would dismiss any reasons given by someone who challenged the evidence, correct? The problem you have with this resurrection topic is that you can't produce any confirmation that such a thing has happened other than hearsay from various sources (eg. holy books). Do you believe that the last such event was about 2000 years ago and it has not happened since? If so, why would that be? Have the criteria for being the beneficiary of a resurrection event changed since then so that no one who lived in eras where such an event could be documented qualified?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #99

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 6:00 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #94]
So perhaps what you meant to say all along was not "A (genuinely) dead person coming back to life has never been observed in the history of humankind" but rather "I don't believe that a (genuinely) dead person coming back to life has everbeen observed in the history of humankind"? That is a statement of personal belief rather than an objective claim about the world, if you had said that we'd not be going back and forth as we are.
Yes ... it is a statement of personal belief for the reasons I keep having to repeat (never been demonstrated to have happened, is physioligically impossible based on the definition of dead, etc.). We're going back and forth because I am repeatedly asking for you to provide just one confirmed example, and you've yet to offer up anything at all in that regard (although it seems reasonably clear reading between the lines that you would offer up the ressurection of Jesus as described in the bible). There are entire threads here devoted to that episode and those go far more in depth on the prospects if it being true, but the bible also describes many other resurrection events, including a mass resurrection event when all the graves opened up in Jerusalem and the dead bodies came back to life to celebrate the ressurection (Matthew 27:52). Do you believe that actually happened?
So am I permitted too to make claims as if they were facts and be excused from having to provide evidence for them? if so then that would be equitable, we can each spend our time saying whatever we believe is a fact and never have to support what we're saying!
For the umpteenth time now, you're asking me to prove that something didn't happen, and I'm asking you to prove that it did with just one example. Do you not see the difference between these two things? I can't possibly prove that a dead body has never come back to life, but can state my rationale for claiming that it has never happened (as I have done repeatedly). All you have to do to win this argument is to provide the one example I've been asking for, but you've yet to offer up anything at all. Are you making a claim that dead people can come back to life? Or just suggesting it and absolving yourself from any obligation to support that with an example of it having occurred?
Now let's also put another misunderstanding to bed shall we, the claim one cannot prove that something doesn't exist, do you really think that this too is an absolute truth? Can you prove that it is impossible to prove something does not exist?
I can come up with examples by playing word games. For example, if someone dies and their body is cremated, that person ceases to exist as a human being. So I can then claim the existence of a nonexistent human being. Or I can claim that something that is blue, and also not blue, does not exist because it is a contradiction, and so I have proven that something does not exist. But we're talking about dead people coming back to life, or gods existing, and physical items that involve evidence or the lack thereof. In these cases it is impossible as far as I'm aware to prove the negative proposition but trivial to prove the positive (with just one example). I can never prove that gods don't exist, just like I can never prove that flying unicorns don't exist.
Take mathematics, can one prove that a rational number equal to pi does not exist?
A rational number, by definition, is the ratio of two integers. Any number that doesn't fall into this category is an irrational number. pi is a real (irrational) number equal to the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter. So to find a rational number that is equal to pi would mean that a circle exists whose circumference and diameter are both integers. That is, C = pi * D where C (circumference) and D (diameter) are both integers. This is not possible. For example, pick one of these proofs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_tha ... irrational

Do you put this kind of thing into the same category as proving that gods don't exist, or that dead people who have come back to life have never existed?
Right so all this boils down to you have a personal belief that a dead person has never been resurrected, that's all this has been about?

We all have beliefs, we can't debate beliefs because they are simply beliefs, are we now done with this then? can we move on?
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1566
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: The existence of the universe requires a god

Post #100

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Sun Jan 02, 2022 6:07 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #96]
That claim is a belief, it is not a fact, it is not supported by evidence, it is a personal belief that can never be proven wrong because whatever might constitute true evidence can just be dismissed.
And, presumably, you would dismiss any reasons given by someone who challenged the evidence, correct? The problem you have with this resurrection topic is that you can't produce any confirmation that such a thing has happened other than hearsay from various sources (eg. holy books). Do you believe that the last such event was about 2000 years ago and it has not happened since? If so, why would that be? Have the criteria for being the beneficiary of a resurrection event changed since then so that no one who lived in eras where such an event could be documented qualified?
I have no reason to believe that resurrection (for example the documented example of Jesus) cannot occur.

I don't claim to be able to prove it to you either, proof requires three things

1. An advocate
2. A skeptic
3. An agreed basis for evaluating the truth of what is advocated.

We have 1. and 2. but we do not have 3. and until we do any attempt at "proof" is futile.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Post Reply