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.

[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.

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.

The evidence was from basic logic and basic science. I didn't do sources here, but I did in my next question which studies them a bit more. I am sorry that you cannot see the evidence in my first post on the subject. Note that "evidence" and "proof" are not the same thing. Evidence is merely an indication of the truth. There can be evidence found on virtually both sides of any issue. If you have any evidence that God does NOT exist then please post it so it can be discussed.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

The evidence was from basic logic and basic science. I didn't do sources here, but I did in my next question which studies them a bit more. I am sorry that you cannot see the evidence in my first post on the subject. Note that "evidence" and "proof" are not the same thing. Evidence is merely an indication of the truth. There can be evidence found on virtually both sides of any issue. If you have any evidence that God does NOT exist then please post it so it can be discussed.

I'll take the best view of this, after al,l we atheists can reasonably expect comprehension of some abbreviated arguments without Theists jumping on us. Such as 'no evidence for a god' reading 'no good evidence for a god."

'Fact', shall we say, is what is true, whether humans know it or not.

Evidence is data which has to be evaliated.

Evaluation is by science or logic or both. They are the best (indeed the only) valid method of extracting proof from data.

Proof is what the evidence demonstrably indicates. Far fetched possibile other explanations are not the go -to explanation and are (aside that rethink is always possible) little more than denialist excuses, intended to allow the Faith to be propped up.

I haven't seen any valid evidence for a god (name your own) presented. Not Ontology or ID, including Rasmussen's based on Plantinga based on Anselm based on the logical fallacy of Godfaith.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #119

Am i far wrong if I detect 'how do we know what we know?' here? In other words, science denial.

You have yet to learn the difference between recognizing the limits of science and "science denial". Acknowledging that science cannot reveal everything about everything to us is perhaps the most highly scientific stance we can take. The limits on science are what give it its power----the power to distinguish between what it can tell us and what it can't.

In this case denial of the validity of logic.

When direct observation is not possible, logic is what we have to go on. And logic suggests that material existence does not account for itself and is, therefore, quite possibly contingent upon something other than itself.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #122]

Transponder: "I'll take the best view of this, after al,l we atheists can reasonably expect comprehension of some abbreviated arguments without Theists jumping on us. Such as 'no evidence for a god' reading 'no good evidence for a god."

'Fact', shall we say, is what is true, whether humans know it or not. Evidence is data which has to be evaliated. Evaluation is by science or logic or both. They are the best (indeed the only) valid method of extracting proof from data. Proof is what the evidence demonstrably indicates. Far fetched possibile other explanations are not the go -to explanation and are (aside that rethink is always possible) little more than denialist excuses, intended to allow the Faith to be propped up.

I haven't seen any valid evidence for a god (name your own) presented. Not Ontology or ID, including Rasmussen's based on Plantinga based on Anselm based on the logical fallacy of Godfaith.

Please tell me that in what way is the evidence which I offered "far-fetched"? In what way have I been a denialist? What faith am I attempting to "prop up"? And in what way is what I presented NOT evidence for God. I know that you are an intelligent person, I know that you see the sense in what I was talking about. Math indicates intelligence. Complex math can be seen in the scientific laws which were present from the very beginnings of the universe. No what other arguments you can make I am certain that you see how it does provide some evidence for the existence of God.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #119

Am i far wrong if I detect 'how do we know what we know?' here? In other words, science denial.

You have yet to learn the difference between recognizing the limits of science and "science denial". Acknowledging that science cannot reveal everything about everything to us is perhaps the most highly scientific stance we can take. The limits on science are what give it its power----the power to distinguish between what it can tell us and what it can't.

In this case denial of the validity of logic.

When direct observation is not possible, logic is what we have to go on. And logic suggests that material existence does not account for itself and is, therefore, quite possibly contingent upon something other than itself.

I'm well aware of the difference. The problem is that the limitations of science are NO argument for a god. It is simply saying that science may not be able to detect a god that is boyond anything it can see or detect. That does not do a single, solitary, thing to make a case for a god, only to give an excuse as to why there is no spoor or it. This is, as I'm sure you will see, a type of science denial, specifically the 'negative evidence'on the question. Bear in mind that ID is saying that the handiwork of God ought to be detectable; they are always trying to find it. Science shows that they haven't.

" material existence does not account for itself " Just to clarify any possible confusion, nobody is asking material existence to account for itself, any more than geologists shout at a rock demanding to know how it got there. It is that science as yet has no explanation for material existence, or rather, it does in the Big Bang. It is the stuff the BB was made from that is the gap for god. I know and you know the arguments intended to show that an Intelligence is the only possible answer. Well it is one of the more plausible gaps for God, but it is a long way from being any real evidence for it. You may recall that logic makes a case that a natural origin of the Stuff requires one less explanation than an intelligent origin.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #125

It is that science as yet has no explanation for material existence

Here's the Appeal to the Future fallacy again. You're forgetting the carrot-on-a-stick principle.

You may recall that logic makes a case that a natural origin of the Stuff requires one less explanation than an intelligent origin.

But any natural "origin" needing an origin of its own undermines that case.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #124]

I refer you to your posts and my responses to them.Please(if you wish) repost your argument, my response (if I missed it, I will make one) and where I was wrong. Ball back in your court, sunshine .

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #125

It is that science as yet has no explanation for material existence

Here's the Appeal to the Future fallacy again. You're forgetting the carrot-on-a-stick principle.

No. As I have said a couple of times before, science has answered many, many of these unexplained questions, gaps for God or not. Science has now surely earned a little credit fore perhaps being able to come up with explanations and even proof in time. Even if not it IS a fallacy to regard the unexplained as some kind of evidence for a god.

Trans. You may recall that logic makes a case that a natural origin of the Stuff requires one less explanation than an intelligent origin.

(You) ]But any natural "origin" needing an origin of its own undermines that case.

You may recall that I logic makes a case that something from nothing is only one unexplained. A creative beingis one problem and an intelligence to go with it is two. You denied this a couple of times before as i recall and I fully expect you to do it again. The simple mathematics of it obtains, nevertheless.

(Cue 'God is eternal'. Rebuttal as a Block - 'that's just infinite regression with a theist tweak'.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #128

You may recall that I logic makes a case that something from nothing is only one unexplained. A creative beingis one problem and an intelligence to go with it is two.

As you may recall, something from nothing is a logical absurdity, which is a gigantic step down from just having more than one unexplained.

[Diagoras]

As you may recall, something from nothing is a logical absurdity, which is a gigantic step down from just having more than one unexplained.

Just how logically absurd is it though?

Consider the ‘logical absurdity’ of superposition (something being in two places at the same time), or of quantum entanglement (‘spooky action at a distance’) as described here.

It’s more truthful to say, “we observe quantum entanglement, but cannot fully explain it”, than to say it’s ’logically absurd’. I suggest ‘something from nothing’ should be treated in a similar fashion.