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 wont 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.

[DaveD49]

The ONLY things that can be scientifically proven are within the universe.

Since the universe is all of space and time, that is all there is. To speak of something beyond the universe is a contradiction in terms, a fantasy. But then, that is what religion is, fantasy, the realm of gods and goblins, fairies and figments of imagination. Of course there is no evidence, no 'proof' of god any more than there is proof of other fantasies.

So you are saying that science is wrong when they speak about 11 dimensions with universes and life of their own, or about the multiverse? And if they are actually talking about life forms and universes that may exist outside of our perception are they not speaking about what could only be called the "supernatural". Also it is rather odd that you say that there is no evidence of God when you are within a thread that has given evidence for Him.

[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".

Both of which remain true.

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 the better term then'd be "hypothesized", as in "I've hypothesized God exists, it's just these dagblamed atheists keep asking for evidence, or proof, and I'm tearing my hair out over here about it."

So, just as there can be no "proof" for God, nor can there be proof of alternate universes, membranes producing endless universes, etc. etc.

So we ask the alternate universe folks, that bunch of membrane producing endless universe zealots to produce some means by which we may confirm they speak truth.

And that's the exact same question we ask of the Truth(tm) bunch. Only it is, the truth is they got more complaints on the getting asked than they have on the evidence for producing proof.

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.

For each and every individual piece of data you present as evidence for a god or gods, I can, with equal validity, assert such is because of magical billy goats sneaking into grammaw's medicine jug.

...
Topic for Debate: Do you agree or disagree with the following being evidence for the existence of God?[/u][/i][/b]
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.

Y'all religious folks sure like to tell rules, but here we go...

#1 The Existence of Scientific Laws

Everything about mathematics involves intelligence.

Only superficially.

If pretty thing leaves out two pies to cool, and one of em shows up missing, her hypothetical inability to count up to two, so she could subtract her back down to one, ain't got nothing to do with it. She sees her a pie missing. So, without one single math class necessary, I done learned one pie missing is equal to one me getting a fussing.

Some math can be intuited, regardless of one's inability to put it into symbols, or to even understand math is involved

One cannot add 1+1 without the intelligence to do so.

Don't none of y'all teach this'n long division, they'll be sacrificing newborns!

I'll leave the rest of your post rest for now. It's clear all you have's logic leaps that'd shame Superman.

And absolutely none of this has given an answer to the question that was actually asked.

[JoeyKnothead]

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".

Both of which remain true.

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 the better term then'd be "hypothesized", as in "I've hypothesized God exists, it's just these dagblamed atheists keep asking for evidence, or proof, and I'm tearing my hair out over here about it."

So, just as there can be no "proof" for God, nor can there be proof of alternate universes, membranes producing endless universes, etc. etc.

So we ask the alternate universe folks, that bunch of membrane producing endless universe zealots to produce some means by which we may confirm they speak truth.

And that's the exact same question we ask of the Truth(tm) bunch. Only it is, the truth is they got more complaints on the getting asked than they have on the evidence for producing proof.

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.

For each and every individual piece of data you present as evidence for a god or gods, I can, with equal validity, assert such is because of magical billy goats sneaking into grammaw's medicine jug.

...
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.

Y'all religious folks sure like to tell rules, but here we go...

#1 The Existence of Scientific Laws

Everything about mathematics involves intelligence.

Only superficially.

If pretty thing leaves out two pies to cool, and one of em shows up missing, her hypothetical inability to count up to two, so she could subtract her back down to one, ain't got nothing to do with it. She sees her a pie missing. So, without one single math class necessary, I done learned one pie missing is equal to one me getting a fussing.

Some math can be intuited, regardless of one's inability to put it into symbols, or to even understand math is involved

One cannot add 1+1 without the intelligence to do so.

Don't none of y'all teach this'n long division, they'll be sacrificing newborns!

I'll leave the rest of your post rest for now. It's clear all you have's logic leaps that'd shame Superman.

And absolutely none of this has given an answer to the question that was actually asked.

You'd might do better to ask how I think it does answer the question.

Instead of having folks who think I did, set to think it flew past you like a bouncy house in a hurricane.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #94

Since the universe is all of space and time, that is all there is.

And we have no way of knowing how much space and time there is.

But then, that is what religion is, fantasy, the realm of gods and goblins, fairies and figments of imagination.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.
---Albert Einstein

And we have no business telling ourselves that we know anything about it, until we know something about it.

Imagination is fine; love it, but it must be tempered with Reason.Not just imagining stuff and thinking it must be true. Einstein's theory of relativity was not fully accepted until it was proven by experiment. Same with Black holes and the Higgs -Boson.

Fine----as long as the principle is applied to the

religion is, fantasy, the realm of gods and goblins, fairies and figments of imagination

assumption made above as well.

No; it's the logical and evidence based position that claims for any of these supernatural, mythical or faithbased beings are without evidential force until validated. The burden of proof is on you.

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #92]

Why to you type both sides of a conversation without asking a theist if that is what they would actually say?

Oh, and a compass does point south at the same time it is pointing north. Not only that but there have been quite a few times in Earth's history that the magnetic poles have switched. If that happened compasses would point south.

That's what we call a 'cheap and irrelevant point', in both cases. The reverse of a pointer points south in the same way a back end of a car points 'forwards' to where it's been. Also yes, the poles did swing, but even then, the compass would point North. The rules of physics obtain even if the landscape changes.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #104]


Granted. I was annoyed with myself for answering that way. I guess it just annoys me when people make up both sides of the conversation.

[Purple Knight]

Why to you type both sides of a conversation without asking a theist if that is what they would actually say?

I'm not strawmanning. But I understand why it seems that way. Frankly I probably could have set it up so it didn't seem that way.

I'm illustrating exactly where I think the flaw is in using evidence that cannot possibly indicate otherwise, even if the truth was otherwise.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #104]


Granted. I was annoyed with myself for answering that way. I guess it just annoys me when people make up both sides of the conversation.

It should. I could have worded it better.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #106]

Purple Knight: "I'm not strawmanning. But I understand why it seems that way. Frankly I probably could have set it up so it didn't seem that way.

I'm illustrating exactly where I think the flaw is in using evidence that cannot possibly indicate otherwise, even if the truth was otherwise."

Granted. I have seen people answer like that before and it has always annoyed me.

I am not at all sure that I understand your last sentence. Could you please explain what you mean?

[Purple Knight]

"I'm illustrating exactly where I think the flaw is in using evidence that cannot possibly indicate otherwise, even if the truth was otherwise."

I am not at all sure that I understand your last sentence. Could you please explain what you mean?

I've been trying and honestly it's difficult to understand, even for me. Let's say we have this man Bluey, and evidence points to the fact that he committed some crime. If he can show you that the evidence could not possibly be otherwise, or that if the evidence was otherwise (indicated someone else committed the crime or no crime was committed) you would not have seen it, in fact could not have seen it, would you still be as confident in that piece of evidence?

[brunumb]

That's what we call a 'cheap and irrelevant point', in both cases. The reverse of a pointer points south in the same way a back end of a car points 'forwards' to where it's been. Also yes, the poles did swing, but even then, the compass would point North. The rules of physics obtain even if the landscape changes.

Put a magnet near a compass and it will point to the magnet. It just aligns in the stronger magnetic field.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #108]

Let's say we have this man Bluey, and evidence points to the fact that he committed some crime. If he can show you that the evidence could not possibly be otherwise, or that if the evidence was otherwise (indicated someone else committed the crime or no crime was committed) you would not have seen it, in fact could not have seen it, would you still be as confident in that piece of evidence?

Wouldn't it be better for the individual personality to place judgement about Bluey to one side, in order that this will not affect one's ability to see evidence which could be seen, if not for a prior judgment which possibly makes such evidence hard to see/not want to be seen?

In that, even that evidence points to Bluey committing a crime, and Bluey cannot show you evidence which clearly shows he did not commit the crime, is it not the accusers task to use whatever evidence there is to convict Bluey of the crime, regardless?

Would this not indicate that you are confident that you can accuse someone of a crime even if someone else committed the crime or no crime was committed at all, and find them guilty and punish them anyway?