Direct evidence for the existence of God.

[JoeyKnothead]

For debate:

Please offer direct evidence for the existence of God, and some means to confirm it is direct evidence.

[1213]

...You made the claims that 'God is the creator'. How do you know that? ...

I think it is the Bible that makes the claim. And if we want to find evidence for God, it is important to know what God is, so that we could know what would be the evidence for Him.

[Clownboat]

...You made the claims that 'God is the creator'. How do you know that? ...

I think it is the Bible that makes the claim.

Got it, 1213 no longer claims that the Bible God is the creator. If he is not the creator as you now claim, what is the Bible God? Is it just one of many god concepts referenced in religious holy books?
I'm glad to see you have been set free.
There is hope for all!

And if we want to find evidence for God, it is important to know what God is

Or in this case, what he is not. Which is, 'not a creator' according to your words above.

[TRANSPONDER]

...You made the claims that 'God is the creator'. How do you know that? ...

I think it is the Bible that makes the claim. And if we want to find evidence for God, it is important to know what God is, so that we could know what would be the evidence for Him.

I don't think it works like that. You make the claim because the Bible does, It makes no difference. We still need the evidence to support the claim. and I don't think it matters much what God is supposed to be. The evidence for Intelligent creatiion is valid or not irrespective of what form the creator takes

...You made the claims that 'God is the creator'. How do you know that? ...

I think it is the Bible that makes the claim.

Got it, 1213 no longer claims that the Bible God is the creator. If he is not the creator as you now claim, what is the Bible God? Is it just one of many god concepts referenced in religious holy books?
I'm glad to see you have been set free.
There is hope for all!

And if we want to find evidence for God, it is important to know what God is

Or in this case, what he is not. Which is, 'not a creator' according to your words above.

And, as you say the debate about Biblegod and the Bible is pretty much a matter remote from the 'creator' argument.

[Goat]

...You made the claims that 'God is the creator'. How do you know that? ...

I think it is the Bible that makes the claim. And if we want to find evidence for God, it is important to know what God is, so that we could know what would be the evidence for Him.

So, what is God, if you can divorce God from that actions attributed to God? I mean, proclaiming God to be the creator, and then proclaiming that the universe was created is making an unsupported claim. You have to show that the universe was created, rather than formed from preexisting conditions without intent. That makes the claims entirely metaphysical without evidence.

What is god? How do you measure God? How do you detect God? What is the objective and tangible evidence that God is more than a metaphysical concept that people made. That is how you could get direct evidence for God.

What statement that potentially could be tested, if proven true would falsify the concept of God?

Those are the issues that would have to be resolved before you say you have direct evidence of God.

[TRANSPONDER]

Very good. We (plainly) have a battle between an intelligent creator (which needn't be anything to do with any religion, Holy Book or its' god, or gods) and the god of a particular religion. Though the Cosmic origins argument works the same way and 'which god?' comes afterwards.

So the Cosmic origins argument falls into two main sides or arguments.

Assuming we reject infinite regression (1) we assume a Cause (which is the basis of Kalam, which actually has merit but merely says that Something must have stated it all off. The BB is a red herring here as the Cosmic stuff that the BB molecule came from had to have pre -existed so where that came from (as Creationists have pointed out) is actually the question. And you know what my answer is, and what the rejection of that is and what I say: "I don't care. Theism may reject Something from Nothing as impossible, and I say they do not know what is possible, and a Creative intelligence with no origin is (logically) even more impossible. Where this ends up is that they may bluster and curse but they cannot force goddunnit as the only possible answer or even the only logical or intuitive answer. So appeal to Kalam or 'who made everything, then?' fails. The conclusion is: 'Nobody knows' and is not 'God must be the answer'.

The gap for god is still open but it is still a gap, not a god.

Cue: 'well then, God is not disproven'. Counter - cue: 'True, but that isn't a case for Theism. The burden of prove falls on those claiming a god to prive that it does ecxist, not for atheism to prove that it doesn't'. Which is of course the most difficult proposition for Theists to comprehend.

(1) our pal William I recall argued that infinite regression was not of itself impossible. Very well, but if we admite infinite regression as a possible explanation, that rules out a god (and Theism) as a necessary explanation.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
(1) our pal William I recall argued that infinite regression was not of itself impossible. Very well, but if we admite infinite regression as a possible explanation, that rules out a god (and Theism) as a necessary explanation.

Not that it's being said otherwise, but here we go...

In my friend's defense, for me, if only me, William presents a compelling "negative argument" (my term), where he's capable of casting doubt on some of the more common theories or notions we might have regarding "how it all came to be".

Adding to that, his "cosmic mind" hypothesis reads far less like a god, than, well, a mind (however powerful). His "cosmic mind" never expects us to worship, think, or act in any of the ways I associate with god belief. It "just is".

Though he may come across as "I know this to be true", he's plenty capable of admitting the limits of his own mind, and for all this, I think he's one of our strongest, most honest debaters.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
(1) our pal William I recall argued that infinite regression was not of itself impossible. Very well, but if we admite infinite regression as a possible explanation, that rules out a god (and Theism) as a necessary explanation.

Not that it's being said otherwise, but here we go...

In my friend's defense, for me, if only me, William presents a compelling "negative argument" (my term), where he's capable of casting doubt on some of the more common theories or notions we might have regarding "how it all came to be".

Adding to that, his "cosmic mind" hypothesis reads far less like a god, than, well, a mind (however powerful). His "cosmic mind" never expects us to worship, think, or act in any of the ways I associate with god belief. It "just is".

Though he may come across as "I know this to be true", he's plenty capable of admitting the limits of his own mind, and for all this, I think he's one of our strongest, most honest debaters.

That is all correct and understood. I am just mentioning, in case of those who cannot separate an intelligent creator (name your own) from Biblegod, a Cosmic Mind is rather academic. Even if its' fingerprints could be found in nature, that would still not tell us which god it was. But (despite the very best efforts of ID) the fingerprints have not been found and attempts to make anything in nature "Impossible" so a god had to have dunnit fail, and so there is no good case for a Creator of the Cosmic Mind type, let alone a knock on (or knock off) personal god of some religion.

Now, I do recognise the goldilocks argument. There are several conditions needed for us to be here at all, I am aware of that and it is an argument for a Thing that set it up so that Life, the Universe and everything could happen. Yet it is possible to greatly overdraw this by falling into the 'water fits the puddle' fallacy. The world was not made for us. Indeed, most of it wants to kill us. Life over 2 billion years found a way to survive and we are the unplanned outcome. This land was not made for you or me, but we adapted to live in it.

Those who think there is a Cosmic Mind or Creator; - Deists, "agnostics" or irreligious Theists - well, we atheists see them as cuzzins. We are in the same camp or laager, and while we argue our case for not crediting this Deist -god, these are bods we can do business with, that Business being the pushback against organized religion. That's if they want to do that business with us. Some may not believe religion by they still hate the name of atheism.

Infinite regression? Do we need to talk about that? It is generally seen as irrational or at least counter intuitive. I have tried to think of a time loop where creation isn't necessary. But is a Creator? Whether or no an uncreated creator is still more logically invalid than a something from nothing because with the latter, you just need the something - you don't need an Intelligence as well. So infinite regression, as an argument for or against a god, does nothing for either. It is an irrelevance.