Evidence for God #1

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
DaveD49
Apprentice
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2022 8:08 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Evidence for God #1

Post #1

Post by DaveD49 »

Two of the constant things I have heard from atheists on other sites is that first "There is no proof of God" and "There is no evidence for God". The first can be dismissed because to the total impossibility of there being "proof". The ONLY things that can be scientifically proven are within the universe. Anything outside of the universe or non-physical can only be theorized about, but NO "theory" is proof of anything. So, just as there can be no "proof" for God, nor can there be proof of alternate universes, membranes producing endless universes, etc. etc. In as far as the second assertion, that there is no evidence for God, that one is blatantly false as evidence for Him exists in many, many different categories. It is my intention to list some of them one at a time so as to get everyone's reaction as to the viability or lack thereof of the evidence presented. I realize that some, if not all, of these you have heard before and may have actually responded to. I already listed a few of the in a response to a earlier question, but I think that they will only get the attention they deserve if listed individually.

Topic for Debate: Do you agree or disagree with the following being evidence for the existence of God?
In answering please state clearly whether you agree or disagree
Your reasoning for doing so
Please rate from 1 to 10 with 10 being the strongest what you feel the strength of the evidence is.
If you have something further to add please let me know.

#1 The Existence of Scientific Laws

Everything about mathematics involves intelligence. One cannot add 1+1 without the intelligence to do so. Randomness cannot produce intelligence. No matter how many monkeys you have banging away on typewriters for whatever length of time, it is highly unlikely that any of them will ever produce the complete works of Shakespeare. They won’t produce even one of his sonnets. But even if they did that would be a semblance of intelligence, not the real thing. Intelligence would only be shown if the task could be repeated many times.

Therefore, the very existence of scientific LAWS, such as the Law of Gravity or the Law of Thermodynamics, is firm evidence of an intelligent being who is in some way responsible for the existence of everything. In our society are human laws just random words on a piece of paper? No. They show purpose and meaning which positively proves an intelligence behind them. In reality man-made "laws" are not laws at all, but rather rules which can be broken. However scientific laws can not be broken thus making them unlike civil laws. But they BOTH show a purpose. But in the case of scientific laws without them the universe could never exist. There is no reason why a universe created by randomness should be compelled to obey ANY laws, let alone display complex mathematics. Intelligence is absolutely necessary.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: Evidence for God #1

Post #21

Post by Diagoras »

Virtually unreadable.

Can I ask that people please consider using the ‘Reply to’ function in place of the ‘Quote’ function? There’s too much redundant, repeated content in this thread.

TRANSPONDER
Prodigy
Posts: 3963
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 1954 times

Re: Evidence for God #1

Post #22

Post by TRANSPONDER »

DaveD49 wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:14 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:32 am
DaveD49 wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:40 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 6:58 am
DaveD49 wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:21 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:20 pm
DaveD49 wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 12:17 pm
Diagoras wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 6:56 pm To address this point:
DaveD49 wrote: First off I chose to use the green because of situations such has this where trying to reply to one section of the dialogue at a time,
If the aim is readability, my suggestion is to elide all non-relevant portions of quoted text, rather than to simply use a different coloured text. There’s a limit of ten nested quotes in any post, and I’ve noticed that many posts on the forum quickly become tiresomely long well before that limit’s reached.

Note how the remainder of my post is constructed, as an example. Yes, it’s more work (and benefits from using the ‘Preview’ function to catch coding errors), but the result is that more people will read your posts, rather than be put off by post length).

(Further: if you wish to respond to several points from a single post, you could always cut and paste them into a series of posts. That keeps the readability and also allows debaters to move on from resolved arguments and concentrate on just the more contentious parts.)

DaveD49 wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:49 pm The fact that the universe runs by these laws and that these laws have existed from the beginning of the universe's time-line is evidence that a mega-intelligence was responsible in some way for the beginning of the universe.
<snip>
DaveD49 wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:49 pmMan did not create these formulas as they were present almost at the very beginning of the universe.
<bolding mine>

Which is it? Adding ‘almost’ in your claim is allowing for those laws to have changed at some point. Whereas if you are claiming that the laws existed at the very start of the universe in exactly the same form as we describe them today, then you need to offer some evidence of that claim; scientific evidence is very much to the contrary.
I was speaking about how science says that the closer you get to the Big Bang singularity the laws of physics break down. That is why I said that the these laws have existed "almost" from the beginning of time.
When you think of it, aside that argument from Cosmic origins does nothing to help any particular religion, or that it raises the eyebrows to have a reference to the cutting edge of science when Christian apologetics is so prone to dismiss science as mere 'opinion'. This point suggests that No physical laws was the state in the beginning and Dem laws evolved as matter came to sort itself out, pretty much as life did with evolution.

The question is, is there any good reason to suppose that it was intelligently planned and worked out? With evolution...Nah. With First cause...arguable. But it doesn't amount, really, to evidence For a god, never mind Which One.
I certainly do not think that the scientific laws "evolved" nor changed. They are far too complex for that. It could be that they just "kicked in" at a particular point after the singularity, I do not know, nor does anyone truly know. The reports I read said that the laws seemed to break down the closer you got to the singularity. It could be that this observation was incorrect. I do not know. But whatever actually happened during the birth of the universe the laws certainly were fully in force by the time the very first sun appeared. So, although the comment "almost" at the beginning may (or may not) be more technically correct we can still refer to as the beginning of the universe.

You are correct that my argument does not favor one religion over another. I am not trying to promote one religion over another. But the fact that these laws have existed from the "beginning" I 100% believe that this shows that a mega-intelligence is in some way responsible for the existence of the universe. I am disappointed that you still bring up the "which" god point with me. We have been through that. As I have said a number of times there can be only one. No matter what name people have given Him through time, no matter what people thought His nature was (even thinking there were numerous gods), and no matter what people thought their god wanted them to do, they were all blindly searching for the exact same Supreme Being. As I said man's concept of God varies quite a lot, but that does not change His true nature.
You misunderstand 'scientific laws'. They are what happens in nature and can be as complex as you like. Science merely discovers what it can about those natural laws. Though I suspect that you are trying on argument from complexity 'It is too complex to be down to unthinking biology'.

Aside from any religious god, we have natural complexity. I argue that a pebble is (in terms of atomic particles) incredibly complex, but nobody says a pebble was designed. We know how it was naturally made. Same with snowflakes, lightning and evolved instinct, at one time considered to 'designed', complex or inexplicable to be other than designed, hammered out and operated by a big invisible human. Sorry; to me, the working of nature from chemical evolution (a scientific fact, I gather) to biological, (also a validated fact) makes skepticism about 'evolution' and insistence on ID an unfounded faithclaim.

I agree that with religion and all the appalling stuff that comes with it left aside, an ID creator isn't something for us to quarrel over, yet the ID case is nothing like compelling and the evolutionary case is actually backed up by facts, and irreligious theism, based on ID claims is Not the best - supported or more logical hypothesis. Evolved natural processes are.
I do not think that I misunderstand the laws at all. Of course you are arguing from the point of view that "nature did it". In my mind that is an appeal to randomness, not complexity. And yes, I do see complexity as an indication of an intelligence behind it. We are not talking about ONE scientific law but rather all of them, as well as the complexity found in nature itself. Even the very FIRST forms of life, most likely bacteria, are incredibly complex. Darwin was unaware of its complexity and saw them just as gobs of protoplasm. We have strayed into some of my following arguments. The present argument was simply about the existence of scientific laws which I clearly see as intelligence. My next argument is going to be the exact fine-tuning of all these laws or "universal constants". Even the pebble you speak about could not exist unless these constants were precisely aligned. And don't get me wrong; it am NOT arguing that what we call "natural processes", including evolution, do not exist. But I do see something very unnatural in natural processes that expose an intelligent mind behind it.

I think we have been having a good discussion, but I was disappointed that you brought up your concept of God as a "big invisible human." That is a lingering childhood concept and has no place in a discussion over facts.
That's the point I was making. Even things so simple that nobody would think they were made by anybody, like a pebble, por complex things we may have thought once had to have been made by some being but wee know better now, like a snowflake, shows that what is complex does not have to be therefore created. Complexity - and this is a classic error of creationism - does not refute the natural. A landscape is very complex, but it is made by geological and biological processes, we know them No God needed.

The evolutionary and geological and Physics processes are known. They are sufficient explanation. God is a faithclaim and is not needed. Nor in fact, is your rejection of 'change' .Even creationists accept 'change' within denialist limits. The arguments from complexity, order and design are all fallacious. Design (such as the calyx of a dhaliah or the shell of a whelk, are down to the same biological process repeating but getting larger. It's pleasing and regular to the eye, but the process is known, it does not imply a designer.

Randomness is an argument from a lack of understanding on the part of the ID -punter, not a flaw in the naturalist argument.

Oh yes, the thing about 'a big invisible human' is to point up anthropomorphism, which is what you are doing in supposing that everything that exists has to have been made by a divine equivalent of a human. Really a big invisible human is what you are doing, not me. So I cannot be swayed by your 'disappointment, which is no worse than mine at your use of tatty and fallacious arguments from complexity, order and rejection of the idea of 'change' as though we didn't see it all around us.
First off, I am not making a claim that God is actually controlling nature (although I do not see it beyond His capability to do so). I am saying that He is responsible for the processes by which nature runs. Is that a "faithclaim"? Of course it is. But so is your trust that science is the answer for everything. If universal laws did not exist then most certainly events of the universe would be totally random. These existed from the very beginnings of the universe. They are complex mathematical formulas that required an intelligence to formulate them.

And sorry, but the concept of a "big invisible giant human" as a stereotype of God I think I dismissed when I was about 12.
Yes, it is a faithclaim. Because nobody knows for sure. Do they? We are all agnostics even though some think (on faith) that they do know. Now I have never said that an intelligence or Will as a start to everything is not a hypothesis, but nobody knows one way or the other. It is, on logic and evidence, not enough to make God a credible claim. That's why gaps for god fail and Theists can never see it because......

.....they think that God is the default hypothesis - through Faith. Or at least assiduous indoctrination by the church (1). Logically it isn't, material physical natural laws, are.

Now you appear to have retreated to that last ditch of 'who made everything, then?' even if you had to pull back from Kherson because you have no case for ID or against evolution, chemical or biological. But that is not a defence, it is 'They couldn't hit an elephant from here'. We can. You may deny it but the fact remains it is not a case and you have only faithbased denial, even with First Cause. It is not even the best hypothesis using Occam's razor, or so I argue. You have in fact, nothing but faithbased denial. You may profess that, but it is not a valid argument.

You are still misunderstanding the material default. Theists always do, or at least they cut and paste it from McDowell. The material default - not that "science is the answer for everything." - a nice little strawman - but that science, demonstrating that things do not need a god to work, is based on validated researched evidence, NOT Faithclaims.

It is also invalid to try to wangle the mathematics of physical laws as necessarily the product of an intelligence. It is a human devised language for describing the natural and repeatable workings of the evolved innate workings of matter/energy - "What doesn't work, goes Extinct". If a planet rotates around a star, if radioactive isotopes decay at a constant rate, if seas erode cliffs by a regular amount, we can use mathematics to describe and even predict it. There is nothing mysterious about it or needing any Intelligence other than the human to devise the mathematical language.

And sorry, but - as I explained - Big Invisible human is still what you are doing with Intelligence. You may have refined it since you were 12, but that's still what it is.

(1) I was a bit irritated I have to confess in Doug. Adams "Hitch hiker's guide to the universe" that he kept making jokes about God. He was living in the fellows' head, even though clearly he didn't credit it. the God -claim looms too large in our psyche.

TRANSPONDER
Prodigy
Posts: 3963
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 1954 times

Re: Evidence for God #1

Post #23

Post by TRANSPONDER »

DaveD49 wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:20 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 7:24 am "Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things."
---Albert Einstein
I just saw this post for the first time. I don't know how I missed it. Einstein also wrote that "Reality is an illusion, albeit a convincing one." which is another mind-bender when you think about it. You still arrive at the same place... if it is an illusion, there must be an illusionist. This why I am not arguing for the concept of God taught by a particular faith, because I firmly believe that there is only One and He is the God of all faiths.
Sorry, wrong. This is merely a play on words. Now, whatever Einstein meant, my take on it is actually what theists say when they want to discredit science "Imperfect human perceptions" (though that never applies when it comes to what pops into their heads).

The world of matter/energy is not as we see it. Our senses are mentally coded information about what is out there. It is, as a philosopher on my previous board used - or rather, misused - as an analogy, like people looking at radar signal of an aircraft. It is nothing like the way the aircraft looks, but it is a signal they have learned to identify.

Matter is not solid, it is made of atoms that are near nothing as far as material goes but their structure gives the illusion of solidity to us. It is an illusion but, rather than Einstein's term, I say 'It is a reliably repeatable one'. Or I also say "Reality is what repeats and can even be predicted, not what you can bang on a table."

I sense the presence of Woo, which is to frighten us by 'making us doubt everything we thought we knew'.Theists love to confuse and upset up with indeterminacy and the like in hopes to frighten us into fleeing to the God -claim for some reliable certainly. Sorry, the reliable laws of physics are good enough even if a rainbow is not a thing put in the sky by God to remind us that he will never exterminate all creation again, but an illusion caused by refracting the light that enters our eyes. I am glad to know what it really is, not downcast that it isn't a multicolored monument put up to his own dictatorship by a god.

TRANSPONDER
Prodigy
Posts: 3963
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 1954 times

Re: Evidence for God #1

Post #24

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Diagoras wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 2:57 pm Virtually unreadable.

Can I ask that people please consider using the ‘Reply to’ function in place of the ‘Quote’ function? There’s too much redundant, repeated content in this thread.
Ok, got it. I do use it at times, though it is handy to trace the development of the argument. I do much prefer to write one lump at the end rather than quote and respond to a dozen snarky one -liners. I sometimes think they try to defeat us by overwork. But I do try to find the most readable format.

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #20]

This point requires some comment

"I am not arguing for the concept of God taught by a particular faith, because I firmly believe that there is only One and He is the God of all faiths."

How about the god of none? The point is that a postulated creative intelligence is academic.It doesn'tin practice,matter whether the universe is run on regular physics or there is a Cosmic Intelligence that runs it or just pushed the Start Button. Unlessit is an intervening god.

You know better than me whether you arer eally talking about Deistgod,in which case it is the 'god of all faiths and none', or whether you are talking about a cosmic minds that intervenes and may even be contacted mentally (aka 'spiritually'by humans on any Faith or even none, I suppose.

This is of course a neat answer to 'which god?' and is a welcome progression from'My Faith is right and all the others are false' which we get far too often. But of course it is still a logically untenable claim not least that this Cosmic Mind is somehow male.

God's pronouns are He, She and It.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 4962
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 4805 times
Been thanked: 2463 times

Re: Evidence for God #1

Post #25

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #19]

:x What is the point of quoting an entire post when it becomes totally unreadable in the process? It helps if you only select relevant portions or just post a reply without quoting.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 4962
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 4805 times
Been thanked: 2463 times

Re: Evidence for God #1

Post #26

Post by brunumb »

Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

TRANSPONDER
Prodigy
Posts: 3963
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 539 times
Been thanked: 1954 times

Re: Evidence for God #1

Post #27

Post by TRANSPONDER »

brunumb wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 6:35 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #22]

See Diagoras above. O:)
Ok...I guess I should keep in mind to identify who posted what, whether one -linersor blocks of text. I'll try to remember to address that.

DaveD49
Apprentice
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2022 8:08 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Evidence for God #1

Post #28

Post by DaveD49 »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 3:19 pm
DaveD49 wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:14 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 12:32 am
DaveD49 wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 10:40 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 6:58 am
DaveD49 wrote: Wed Nov 23, 2022 12:21 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:20 pm
DaveD49 wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 12:17 pm
Diagoras wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 6:56 pm To address this point:
DaveD49 wrote: First off I chose to use the green because of situations such has this where trying to reply to one section of the dialogue at a time,
If the aim is readability, my suggestion is to elide all non-relevant portions of quoted text, rather than to simply use a different coloured text. There’s a limit of ten nested quotes in any post, and I’ve noticed that many posts on the forum quickly become tiresomely long well before that limit’s reached.

Note how the remainder of my post is constructed, as an example. Yes, it’s more work (and benefits from using the ‘Preview’ function to catch coding errors), but the result is that more people will read your posts, rather than be put off by post length).

(Further: if you wish to respond to several points from a single post, you could always cut and paste them into a series of posts. That keeps the readability and also allows debaters to move on from resolved arguments and concentrate on just the more contentious parts.)

DaveD49 wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:49 pm The fact that the universe runs by these laws and that these laws have existed from the beginning of the universe's time-line is evidence that a mega-intelligence was responsible in some way for the beginning of the universe.
<snip>
DaveD49 wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 9:49 pmMan did not create these formulas as they were present almost at the very beginning of the universe.
<bolding mine>

Which is it? Adding ‘almost’ in your claim is allowing for those laws to have changed at some point. Whereas if you are claiming that the laws existed at the very start of the universe in exactly the same form as we describe them today, then you need to offer some evidence of that claim; scientific evidence is very much to the contrary.
I was speaking about how science says that the closer you get to the Big Bang singularity the laws of physics break down. That is why I said that the these laws have existed "almost" from the beginning of time.
When you think of it, aside that argument from Cosmic origins does nothing to help any particular religion, or that it raises the eyebrows to have a reference to the cutting edge of science when Christian apologetics is so prone to dismiss science as mere 'opinion'. This point suggests that No physical laws was the state in the beginning and Dem laws evolved as matter came to sort itself out, pretty much as life did with evolution.

The question is, is there any good reason to suppose that it was intelligently planned and worked out? With evolution...Nah. With First cause...arguable. But it doesn't amount, really, to evidence For a god, never mind Which One.
I certainly do not think that the scientific laws "evolved" nor changed. They are far too complex for that. It could be that they just "kicked in" at a particular point after the singularity, I do not know, nor does anyone truly know. The reports I read said that the laws seemed to break down the closer you got to the singularity. It could be that this observation was incorrect. I do not know. But whatever actually happened during the birth of the universe the laws certainly were fully in force by the time the very first sun appeared. So, although the comment "almost" at the beginning may (or may not) be more technically correct we can still refer to as the beginning of the universe.

You are correct that my argument does not favor one religion over another. I am not trying to promote one religion over another. But the fact that these laws have existed from the "beginning" I 100% believe that this shows that a mega-intelligence is in some way responsible for the existence of the universe. I am disappointed that you still bring up the "which" god point with me. We have been through that. As I have said a number of times there can be only one. No matter what name people have given Him through time, no matter what people thought His nature was (even thinking there were numerous gods), and no matter what people thought their god wanted them to do, they were all blindly searching for the exact same Supreme Being. As I said man's concept of God varies quite a lot, but that does not change His true nature.
You misunderstand 'scientific laws'. They are what happens in nature and can be as complex as you like. Science merely discovers what it can about those natural laws. Though I suspect that you are trying on argument from complexity 'It is too complex to be down to unthinking biology'.

Aside from any religious god, we have natural complexity. I argue that a pebble is (in terms of atomic particles) incredibly complex, but nobody says a pebble was designed. We know how it was naturally made. Same with snowflakes, lightning and evolved instinct, at one time considered to 'designed', complex or inexplicable to be other than designed, hammered out and operated by a big invisible human. Sorry; to me, the working of nature from chemical evolution (a scientific fact, I gather) to biological, (also a validated fact) makes skepticism about 'evolution' and insistence on ID an unfounded faithclaim.

I agree that with religion and all the appalling stuff that comes with it left aside, an ID creator isn't something for us to quarrel over, yet the ID case is nothing like compelling and the evolutionary case is actually backed up by facts, and irreligious theism, based on ID claims is Not the best - supported or more logical hypothesis. Evolved natural processes are.
I do not think that I misunderstand the laws at all. Of course you are arguing from the point of view that "nature did it". In my mind that is an appeal to randomness, not complexity. And yes, I do see complexity as an indication of an intelligence behind it. We are not talking about ONE scientific law but rather all of them, as well as the complexity found in nature itself. Even the very FIRST forms of life, most likely bacteria, are incredibly complex. Darwin was unaware of its complexity and saw them just as gobs of protoplasm. We have strayed into some of my following arguments. The present argument was simply about the existence of scientific laws which I clearly see as intelligence. My next argument is going to be the exact fine-tuning of all these laws or "universal constants". Even the pebble you speak about could not exist unless these constants were precisely aligned. And don't get me wrong; it am NOT arguing that what we call "natural processes", including evolution, do not exist. But I do see something very unnatural in natural processes that expose an intelligent mind behind it.

I think we have been having a good discussion, but I was disappointed that you brought up your concept of God as a "big invisible human." That is a lingering childhood concept and has no place in a discussion over facts.
That's the point I was making. Even things so simple that nobody would think they were made by anybody, like a pebble, por complex things we may have thought once had to have been made by some being but wee know better now, like a snowflake, shows that what is complex does not have to be therefore created. Complexity - and this is a classic error of creationism - does not refute the natural. A landscape is very complex, but it is made by geological and biological processes, we know them No God needed.

The evolutionary and geological and Physics processes are known. They are sufficient explanation. God is a faithclaim and is not needed. Nor in fact, is your rejection of 'change' .Even creationists accept 'change' within denialist limits. The arguments from complexity, order and design are all fallacious. Design (such as the calyx of a dhaliah or the shell of a whelk, are down to the same biological process repeating but getting larger. It's pleasing and regular to the eye, but the process is known, it does not imply a designer.

Randomness is an argument from a lack of understanding on the part of the ID -punter, not a flaw in the naturalist argument.

Oh yes, the thing about 'a big invisible human' is to point up anthropomorphism, which is what you are doing in supposing that everything that exists has to have been made by a divine equivalent of a human. Really a big invisible human is what you are doing, not me. So I cannot be swayed by your 'disappointment, which is no worse than mine at your use of tatty and fallacious arguments from complexity, order and rejection of the idea of 'change' as though we didn't see it all around us.
First off, I am not making a claim that God is actually controlling nature (although I do not see it beyond His capability to do so). I am saying that He is responsible for the processes by which nature runs. Is that a "faithclaim"? Of course it is. But so is your trust that science is the answer for everything. If universal laws did not exist then most certainly events of the universe would be totally random. These existed from the very beginnings of the universe. They are complex mathematical formulas that required an intelligence to formulate them.

And sorry, but the concept of a "big invisible giant human" as a stereotype of God I think I dismissed when I was about 12.
Yes, it is a faithclaim. Because nobody knows for sure. Do they? We are all agnostics even though some think (on faith) that they do know. Now I have never said that an intelligence or Will as a start to everything is not a hypothesis, but nobody knows one way or the other. It is, on logic and evidence, not enough to make God a credible claim. That's why gaps for god fail and Theists can never see it because......

.....they think that God is the default hypothesis - through Faith. Or at least assiduous indoctrination by the church (1). Logically it isn't, material physical natural laws, are.

Now you appear to have retreated to that last ditch of 'who made everything, then?' even if you had to pull back from Kherson because you have no case for ID or against evolution, chemical or biological. But that is not a defence, it is 'They couldn't hit an elephant from here'. We can. You may deny it but the fact remains it is not a case and you have only faithbased denial, even with First Cause. It is not even the best hypothesis using Occam's razor, or so I argue. You have in fact, nothing but faithbased denial. You may profess that, but it is not a valid argument.

You are still misunderstanding the material default. Theists always do, or at least they cut and paste it from McDowell. The material default - not that "science is the answer for everything." - a nice little strawman - but that science, demonstrating that things do not need a god to work, is based on validated researched evidence, NOT Faithclaims.

It is also invalid to try to wangle the mathematics of physical laws as necessarily the product of an intelligence. It is a human devised language for describing the natural and repeatable workings of the evolved innate workings of matter/energy - "What doesn't work, goes Extinct". If a planet rotates around a star, if radioactive isotopes decay at a constant rate, if seas erode cliffs by a regular amount, we can use mathematics to describe and even predict it. There is nothing mysterious about it or needing any Intelligence other than the human to devise the mathematical language.

And sorry, but - as I explained - Big Invisible human is still what you are doing with Intelligence. You may have refined it since you were 12, but that's still what it is.

(1) I was a bit irritated I have to confess in Doug. Adams "Hitch hiker's guide to the universe" that he kept making jokes about God. He was living in the fellows' head, even though clearly he didn't credit it. the God -claim looms too large in our psyche.
Transponder, you just don't see it... EVERYONE is making faith-claims, you included. I cannot "prove" there is a God to anyone but myself. Likewise you cannot "prove" that there isn't one. You don't KNOW that what you say is true, you just assume it must be true because of your faith in science and nature. But here is the thing... science, nature and other "facts", even though in much of them there can be seen hints of God that may have slipped by you, will not bring you to a knowledge of God. Our science, our nature, our facts can ONLY tell us of what happens within the universe. It can say absolutely nothing about the beyond with any surety. The only way you can know of God is if you EXPERIENCE Him. And everyone who has truly sought Him has found Him. Some people have experienced Him through Scripture.. I have done that when I found that Christ's message of love were words to live by even before I accepted Him as the Son of God. Some people have experienced Him personally as in a vision or other such experience... I have done that when I encountered Christ in an legitimate out-of-body experience who said to me as I approached "It is not yet your time." I say it was "legitimate" because I was able to repeat a portion of the conversation of two friends as they were walking along a beach 1/2 mile away and I was right behind them unseen. My body was all the time sitting on the porch of the house where we were staying in meditation. Some people have experienced Him through the miraculous.... I have done that when I saw the deaf boy regain his hearing right in front of me. Some people have experienced Him in prayer.. . I have experienced that often while in deep prayer. I get an overwhelming feeling of His presence that literally causes my body to spasm. Has every person of faith had all these experiences? No. I consider myself very lucky for having so many of them. But all it takes is one. However, the only way it is going to happen is if a person has an open mind to Him. Scriptures say this clearly in Matthew 7:7 when it says “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you." But simply because you have never had that experience that does not mean that no one else has had it either.

"So long, and thanks for all the cheese."

DaveD49
Apprentice
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2022 8:08 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Evidence for God #1

Post #29

Post by DaveD49 »

[Replying to Diagoras in post #21]

Thank you for pointing that out. I didn't even realize that button was there.

DaveD49
Apprentice
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2022 8:08 am
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 12 times

Re: Evidence for God #1

Post #30

Post by DaveD49 »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]

You said "The point is that a postulated creative intelligence is academic.It doesn'tin practice,matter whether the universe is run on regular physics or there is a Cosmic Intelligence that runs it or just pushed the Start Button. Unlessit is an intervening god."

In my experiences He is most assuredly a personal and intervening God.

T: "You know better than me whether you arer eally talking about Deistgod,in which case it is the 'god of all faiths and none', or whether you are talking about a cosmic minds that intervenes and may even be contacted mentally (aka 'spiritually'by humans on any Faith or even none, I suppose.

This is of course a neat answer to 'which god?' and is a welcome progression from'My Faith is right and all the others are false' which we get far too often. But of course it is still a logically untenable claim not least that this Cosmic Mind is somehow male."

In my search I dismissed Deism rather quickly because Deism does not really acknowledge an interactive God but rather just a creative force. I truly believe that He is interactive with us. The image of a "Cosmic Mind" could be correct, and yes I believe that He is the God of all no matter what faith or lack thereof. But I disagree that people think of Him as male. Certainly we use the male pronouns when we speak of Him and He has been depicted in art for centuries as a bearded old man, but almost all people realize that God is spirit and has no gender. We use male pronouns because there is no other pronoun to use that describes an intelligence with no gender. "It" would be inappropriate because it implies something without intelligence like a desk or chair.

Post Reply