Evidence for God #1

[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.

[William]

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.

Okay, let's say I concede this. Laws = god. Not necessarily proof, but at least some evidence of a purpose. It is more likely that a universe with laws is designed, and a universe without laws is undesigned.

What then would the undesigned universe look like? Would we even be able to perceive it? It would be chaos, wouldn't it? We would never and could never observe chaos, because either our observational capabilities would also be chaos so they'd be useless, or they might make order from the chaos that doesn't exist. So the evidence can't point the other way, because if it did, there would either be no such thing as evidence because the universe would not conform to logic.

The way I see it, this is the universe we are dealing with. What opposite universe to this one that might exist, cannot be examined by us. We may not even be able to accurately imagine such a universe...

[Purple Knight]

The way I see it, this is the universe we are dealing with. What opposite universe to this one that might exist, cannot be examined by us. We may not even be able to accurately imagine such a universe...

In a way though, saying that logic (rules, laws, order) exists proves anything is sort of assuming your conclusion, because we'd need a way to observe this thing that supposedly proves it not being true if it indeed was not true. What I'm getting at is close to the notion of falsifiability, but it's not exactly that.

Let me draw a parallel. Swans live in and around water and we know so. But we know so because we observe them always going in the water, and we observe that wherever there are swans, there is water. We also see fewer swans where there is not water.

So I see a few swans and conclude that there is probably water nearby. Swans prove that there is water. Maybe not certainty but it's good evidence.

But if somebody said this in a world where we were perpetually buried ten meters deep in swans I would call them on it and tell them they had no frame of reference, even if there was also always water. It could still be just as true but it's important to be able to look at places without swans not having large water bodies to draw the connection reliably.

[brunumb]

[Replying to William in post #36]

Thank you for your post and your agreement. I was beginning to think that I was the only one on this board which had people that could think outside of the box.

On the other hand it could mean that you are both in the same box together. The existence of scientific laws does not necessarily point to any intelligence behind it. That is just a leap based on confirmation bias.

"Could"?
"Not necessarily"?
"Is"?

Perhaps these statements of opinion come from one's own confirmation bias...

Or you should question your statements of opinion from inside your box.

[brunumb]

What then would the undesigned universe look like? Would we even be able to perceive it? It would be chaos, wouldn't it?

Why would it be chaos? What order we see in the universe seem to be largely due to gravity. Did gravity need a designing hand behind it?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #49

The point is that it is not a circular argument of material existence explaining itself.

Yes, it is. Whenever you set out to account for the existence of the material with nothing but the material itself to draw upon, your explanation is going to be the very thing you're trying to explain. That makes the argument circular.

Nobody but you is saying that is the question.

That is a question, even if I'm the only one addressing it.

So far as I can see it is trying to debunk science with a circular argument that nobody but you is making and making out that the limitations of science at present is a limitation of science - that there are some things that it can never discover.

It isn't a matter of science "someday" leading to a material explanation which doesn't need an explanation of its own. It simply can't happen, as it is logically untenable. The pursuit of such is a carrot on a stick, always receding as we try to approach, and the attempt to justify that fruitless pursuit is the Appeal to the Future fallacy, what's been referred to as "promissory materialism".

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #52]

In a way though, saying that logic (rules, laws, order) exists proves anything is sort of assuming your conclusion, because we'd need a way to observe this thing that supposedly proves it not being true if it indeed was not true.

All that is required for me personally, is evidence from this universe that it is a created thing. I have no interest is trying to or demanding the necessity to, observe whatever created it.

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #55]

It isn't a matter of science "someday" leading to a material explanation which doesn't need an explanation of its own. It simply can't happen, as it is logically untenable. The pursuit of such is a carrot on a stick, always receding as we try to approach, and the attempt to justify that fruitless pursuit is the Appeal to the Future fallacy, what's been referred to as "promissory materialism".

Agreed.

This is also why I think the demand for evidence of a creator outside of the evidence one can obtain from the creation, is fallacy.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #49

The point is that it is not a circular argument of material existence explaining itself.

Yes, it is. Whenever you set out to account for the existence of the material with nothing but the material itself to draw upon, your explanation is going to be the very thing you're trying to explain. That makes the argument circular.

Nobody but you is saying that is the question.

That is a question, even if I'm the only one addressing it.

So far as I can see it is trying to debunk science with a circular argument that nobody but you is making and making out that the limitations of science at present is a limitation of science - that there are some things that it can never discover.

It isn't a matter of science "someday" leading to a material explanation which doesn't need an explanation of its own. It simply can't happen, as it is logically untenable. The pursuit of such is a carrot on a stick, always receding as we try to approach, and the attempt to justify that fruitless pursuit is the Appeal to the Future fallacy, what's been referred to as "promissory materialism".

That's just a play on words. The matter has far more than just looking at 'existence' (everything there is) and asking it explain itsaelf. As I say, that is a question that nobody is asking but you. You may be asking it but it validated nothing, even if it is a circular argument.

It certainly doesn't invalidate materialism or science as you imply. Science trying explain existence is not the same matter as existence trying to explain existence.

If an analogy would help, you may as well say that medical science can never find a cure for this or that disease, because medicine can never explain medicine. Nobody is asking it to. It is a pointless point.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #52]

In a way though, saying that logic (rules, laws, order) exists proves anything is sort of assuming your conclusion, because we'd need a way to observe this thing that supposedly proves it not being true if it indeed was not true.

All that is required for me personally, is evidence from this universe that it is a created thing. I have no interest is trying to or demanding the necessity to, observe whatever created it.

That looks sound to me. We do a lot from indirect evidence. By analogy, we don't need a time machine to go back to 4000 BC to explain what was going on, we can come to some conclusions by indirect methods, like archaeology.

By observing the universe we live in (and our own world) we can see whether the gaps for god can be closed. If not, the possibility of a creator is still there. We don't have to be able to observe the creator itself.

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #55]

It isn't a matter of science "someday" leading to a material explanation which doesn't need an explanation of its own. It simply can't happen, as it is logically untenable. The pursuit of such is a carrot on a stick, always receding as we try to approach, and the attempt to justify that fruitless pursuit is the Appeal to the Future fallacy, what's been referred to as "promissory materialism".

Agreed.

This is also why I think the demand for evidence of a creator outside of the evidence one can obtain from the creation, is fallacy.

I think I agree there, if you are saying that the question invalidates itself. Quite likely we can never expect to observe or even detect what will probably always be beyond our power to observe or detect. However,, we can and do observe and detect what is in our own existence and that can explain our existence, potentially. A lot has been explained and no 'Something more; as yet, just remaining questions. Anything more remains unknown, speculative and certainly not something to be regarded as true until disproven.

As always, (and I think this is the elephant in the room, here) the position on unanswered questions is 'we don't know'; it is not 'an intelligent creator - until science has explained and proven everything'.

[DaveD49]

Evidence for God #1

You are talking about Him.

Not really... I am talking about my understanding of Him, but none of us have that right.