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.

[Purple Knight]

[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?

I'm just talking about one piece of evidence pointing towards Bluey having committed a crime. Not the person's judgment of Bluey; just their judgment of that piece of evidence. Not whether it's okay to convict someone or with how much evidence.

Just one piece of evidence (analogous to this topic, that order indicates a creator), and what it seems to indicate. I'm saying this one piece of evidence gets weaker if it can't indicate differently if the truth is different.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #111]

I'm saying this one piece of evidence gets weaker if it can't indicate differently if the truth is different.

Why would it 'get weaker' unless the evidence is subsequently tampered with? Shouldn't the evidence remain consistent/the same?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #111]

I'm saying this one piece of evidence gets weaker if it can't indicate differently if the truth is different.

Why would it 'get weaker' unless the evidence is subsequently tampered with? Shouldn't the evidence remain consistent/the same?

Think about a piece of evidence that can only indicate that Bluey did it, even if he didn't do it.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #111]

This is the thing about 'evidence'. Witness evidence was at one time (apart from historical detective novels (1) all they had. Though even then, serious contradiction would have the evidence thrown out, even though they were Christians at the time. But then, evaluation of evidence counts outside of the Bible.

"Your Honor, my client is innocent. The reason the victim had a bullet in him was because Satan had put it there." No, we don't do it like that, but by bullet marks, DNA blood testing and all the stuff of science. Now of course this is not perfect, and improvements are going on all the time, but the principle is sound; the evidence is the data - the clues; and the conclusions from analysis is 'Proof'. And I hardly need to explain the process of a sliding scale of credibility. Sometimes it is hard to be sure and the accused is given the benefit of doubt about not having dunnit because the evidence wasn't good enough. This applies in the courtroom where we all know what evidence and 'proof' means, and it should apply in the religious case, where the evidence for God having dunnit is not good enough on evidence, for Proof.

(1) I love em from Falco to Sister Fidelema and especiially Judge Dee. I read one story where some fellow was accused of murder and, I recall witchcraft, too. In any case the suspect had an angry mob with pitchforks and torches hounding him until at the last minute the Elizabethan detective shouted out the 'evidence' that he could not have done the deed and the crowd was struck silent and shamed. I thought at the time, one would have shouted 'Only the truly guilty deny their guilt!!', tied carrots on both their noses and burned them, both.

[Diogenes]

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.

Not only have you given NO evidence of a god, let alone whatever particular "God" you fancy, you are confusing conflicting theories with each other and with fact; not to mention offering no source or support for your claims about either science or theory.

For example, in bosonic string theory, spacetime is 26-dimensional, while in superstring theory it is 10-dimensional, and in M-theory it is 11-dimensional. In order to describe real physical phenomena using string theory, one must therefore imagine scenarios in which these extra dimensions would not be observed in experiments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

If you are going to make claims about science, you should cite your source or be ignored and you should distinguish between theory and accepted fact.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #113]

I'm saying this one piece of evidence gets weaker if it can't indicate differently if the truth is different.

Why would it 'get weaker' unless the evidence is subsequently tampered with? Shouldn't the evidence remain consistent/the same?

Think about a piece of evidence that can only indicate that Bluey did it, even if he didn't do it.

Then the indication is weak in that the evidence can only show that Blue did it, not the bluey didn't do it.

Is the indication enough to make the call that Bluey did it, or should more evidence be collected so that a more comprehensive call can be made, even if the more comprehensive indicates that Bluey didn't do it?


[we can discard the idea that no crime was committed, right?]

Also;

What are your thoughts on the following statement;

In order for justice to be fair, fairness has to be just.

[DaveD49]

"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?

I think you are making it a bit more difficult than it need be. On perhaps every issue evidence exists on both sides of it. There is evidence that a man is guilty, there is evidence that he is not guilty. It is up to the jury to decide which side has the most compelling (or believable) evidence. On the issue of the existence of God I am trying to give what I see as compelling evidence. People can decide to listen to it or not listen to it. The choice is entirely up to them. But I just want to point out that when so many atheists say "there is no evidence for God", they are incorrect.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #104

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.

The burden of proof is on anyone who states anything as fact.

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

....is a statement of that being a complete assesment of religious belief as fact. The statement is itself, therefore, under a burden of proof.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #104

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.

The burden of proof is on anyone who states anything as fact.

Yes, more or less. Any claim requires some verification. Of course there is a sliding scale of verification. Some things are verified. Relatyivity, Black holes and the Higgs -Boson were given a lot of credit but requires experimental verification before they were considered 'fact'. Abiogenesis is of decent credibility bit not yet validated. Evolution is supported by so much evidence (and the recent Cetan sequence apologetic makes it slam dunk) that it is factually verified. Theism, the god -claim the Bible and Christianity all have to be evaluated using the same parameters, and that's what get discussed here.

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

....is a statement of that being a complete assesment of religious belief as fact. The statement is itself, therefore, under a burden of proof.

Didn't I already do this? These claims have not been verified. Therefore they remain unverified claims. The evidence is anecdotal, where not mythological.

Am i far wrong if I detect 'how do we know what we know?' here? In other words, science denial. In this case denial of the validity of logic. The burden of proof is based on Occam's razor, really, in that various hypotheses may account for observed data. e.g the boulder and the bush.

"Do you see that when we pass by that boulder, the bush behind disappears?"

"It doesn't disappear. It is still there, only we don't see it."

"How do you know it doesn't disappear?"

"Well....that's what happens."

"Prove it."

"Well that's what you'd expect to happen. Why would it suddenly not exist? It can't decide to vanish just when it's out of sight. It's just too improbable."

"But you can't disprove it, so it's still possible."

"But not the optimum argument The one that it's there but out of sight is the best explanation that fits the fact, given how we know the world works."

"But you still haven't proven it."

"You there sir...would you look behind that rock and see whether the bush is still there?....Never mind the odd looks, just do it!"

"Yep it's still there."

"Proof positive."

"Not necessarily...it could have refused to vanish when a third party looks."

"Are you saying that trees have a childish sense of mischief?"

"You can't prove that they don't...."

And so on until everyone is laughing at them. Occam's razor is valid in practical terms. Logic is valid in practical terms.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #104

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.

The burden of proof is on anyone who states anything as fact.

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

....is a statement of that being a complete assesment of religious belief as fact. The statement is itself, therefore, under a burden of proof.

Or such can be recognized as unsupported statements of opinion and treated as such...