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]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #137]

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

Right. That's all I'm saying. It's very weak evidence. Laws, order, and logic do indicate a creator. I concede that.

Even if we do regard it as "weak" evidence, it is extremely stronger than the evidence we have against it.

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

In the analogy I didn't mean for that, but in the situation for which I'm constructing the analogy it's not only possible that the universe was created but not by anything intelligent, but that it didn't need to be created at all because it's always been.

The evidence supports intelligence, and there is no evidence supporting it has always existed, which is why we can discuss the possibility that it was created.

[Athetotheist]

It isn't special pleading; it's a process of elimination extrapolated from the logical impossibility of material existence accounting for itself.

How’s God accounting for himself, then?

Some resources here on the Cosmological Argument:

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences ... ogical.htm

Why is there something rather than nothing ?" and the answer might be because nothing is an unstable state.

Since the article is a bit lengthy, could you direct me to the point at which it explains exactly how nothingness would be "unstable"?

I was under the impression that an unstable state was a more complex state which collapsed into a simpler one. Nothingness could hardly be that, since it would already be the simplest state possible. And the ultimate simplicity of nothingness could hardly rise into a more complex state, since any force or principle you invoke to cause it to do so is a force or principle which nothingness would not have.

It occurs to me again that applying causality to a creator is ultimately an attempt to avoid applying it to the universe, and that invoking an infinite regression for the universe is an admission that you don't have a "self-causing" universe.

[DaveD49]

I look on God as not being constricted by space or time at all.

It’s certainly a convenient workaround for any pesky questions starting with ‘how, where, what, why or when’.

This speaks strongly to a point I made earlier (might have been in a different thread - I’m losing track): scientists try to narrow down their hypotheses based on observation. It seems apologists have no problems doing the opposite. If something looks to contradict God being in the universe, or being there at the start of time - no worries! Just grant him extra powers to ignore things like space and time!

Logic. If God is responsible for the creation of the universe, in which ever way He chose, then it logically follows that He is not a "part" of the universe itself. As a result He would not be confined by the universe's space or time.

[William]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #142]

I can agree with that. This is actually why I refer to YHVH as "timeless" rather than "eternal".

Okay.

In relation to the statement;
"The Future creates the past"
and
re YHVH -

Q: Do you think that this statement is applicable, [re YHVH] rather than nonsense/irrational/illogical/et al, when compared with the idea that the "time" in spacetime moves only in one direction?

[TRANSPONDER]

It isn't special pleading; it's a process of elimination extrapolated from the logical impossibility of material existence accounting for itself.

How’s God accounting for himself, then?

Some resources here on the Cosmological Argument:

https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences ... ogical.htm

Why is there something rather than nothing ?" and the answer might be because nothing is an unstable state.

Since the article is a bit lengthy, could you direct me to the point at which it explains exactly how nothingness would be "unstable"?

I was under the impression that an unstable state was a more complex state which collapsed into a simpler one. Nothingness could hardly be that, since it would already be the simplest state possible. And the ultimate simplicity of nothingness could hardly rise into a more complex state, since any force or principle you invoke to cause it to do so is a force or principle which nothingness would not have.

It occurs to me again that applying causality to a creator is ultimately an attempt to avoid applying it to the universe, and that invoking an infinite regression for the universe is an admission that you don't have a "self-causing" universe.

There's a lot here where 'We don't know' applies. I don't know how a nothingness is an unstable state. If we are talking of a numerical potential (I have seen it discussed mathematically, but I don't pretend to understand it) for all I know, that might 'collapse' to a 'simpler' state, which is to say, more ordered and stable. 'Stuff' in fact which interacts with itself to become the basics of energy; matter in motion. I don't know, but to dismiss it as (in other words) impossible and God is the only answer is no more than a placeholder for not knowing, an easy way out and a miracle that avoids having to explain anything.

There is no point in linking yet again to Anselm and Kalam. As already said, there is a case for something staring the cosmic stuff off (remember that the origin of the universe - Our universe - is not the problem, it the origins of the Stuff the BB event was made from) and if nothing can act like something, there is no reason why it can't be eternal and uncreated. It makes far more sense to me (less logical entities to explain) than a god with intelligence the power to plan and create and with no origin of its' own.

I'm surprised that the god - postulants point to the sawdust in the atheist eye but can't see the timber - beam sticking out of their own. And I have to repeat that this discussion is Academic. Even if there is a 'case' for a cause starting off Everything and it was intelligent, that would be interesting to know, but not life -changing. The Real debate is about which (if any) is the true religion, and does it save us after death? And yet a huge amount of effort is put in by Theist apologists into pushing through credibility for an intelligent creator. I don't know whether it's because they believe it can only be one god (theirs) or that it provides a springboard for the leap of faith for Jesus. But one day I'll find out.

I look on God as not being constricted by space or time at all.

It’s certainly a convenient workaround for any pesky questions starting with ‘how, where, what, why or when’.

This speaks strongly to a point I made earlier (might have been in a different thread - I’m losing track): scientists try to narrow down their hypotheses based on observation. It seems apologists have no problems doing the opposite. If something looks to contradict God being in the universe, or being there at the start of time - no worries! Just grant him extra powers to ignore things like space and time!

Logic. If God is responsible for the creation of the universe, in which ever way He chose, then it logically follows that He is not a "part" of the universe itself. As a result He would not be confined by the universe's space or time.

I don't see that it follows at all. It depends on the analogy. Yours seems to be of a mechanic working on a pile of junk on a large table and creating something, but It (if we are to be logical rather than grovelling) is not part of the table or junk.

But another analogy is the head honcho of an organisation, first mentally set up by she or he, given form and order and set in business, and the head is not only the creator but part of it. And in fact is more like what God supposedly did by an act of creation than is banging out a metal sculpture on a table. So the 'Logic; of a god outside of space and time is at best speculative and at worst, self - serving as it escapes the closing 'kalam' gap for god and finds God yet another safe place where science cannot reach.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #155]

Transponder: "there is a case for something staring the cosmic stuff off (remember that the origin of the universe - Our universe - is not the problem, it the origins of the Stuff the BB event was made from) and if nothing can act like something, there is no reason why it can't be eternal and uncreated."

I disagree with you there. If there were "Cosmic stuff" that was present to start the Big Bang there would have to be a source for that as well. Everything physical, no matter how small, needs a cause for its existence. You cannot have an infinite number of causes because without a FIRST cause that is non-physical (thus needing no starting place) you would have an infinity of nothingness. Even if He did have a "starting place" because He is timeless and can go back and forty in our timeline as He pleases this would make His "starting place" meaningless. Space/time are OUR dimensions. Science however suggests that that lifeforms complexly different from our own can live in the other dimensions which they say exist. If a being did not possess our space/time dimensions then they would be considered both omnipresent and eternal. I am not saying that this is what He is like, it is just a guess at what could be.

Dave (from previous post): "Logic. If God is responsible for the creation of the universe, in which ever way He chose, then it logically follows that He is not a "part" of the universe itself. As a result He would not be confined by the universe's space or time."

T: "I don't see that it follows at all. It depends on the analogy. Yours seems to be of a mechanic working on a pile of junk on a large table and creating something, but It (if we are to be logical rather than grovelling) is not part of the table or junk.

But another analogy is the head honcho of an organisation, first mentally set up by she or he, given form and order and set in business, and the head is not only the creator but part of it. And in fact is more like what God supposedly did by an act of creation than is banging out a metal sculpture on a table. So the 'Logic; of a god outside of space and time is at best speculative and at worst, self - serving as it escapes the closing 'kalam' gap for god and finds God yet another safe place where science cannot reach."

Neither analogy is correct, but the first I think is closer. God cannot be a "part" of the universe, nor is He a "part" of anything physical. He can however express Himself within it if He so chooses, even to the point of taking on human form. I know I am bringing in another conversation which we had earlier, but if He is responsible the creation of the universe how difficult do you think it would be for Him to make it appear that the sun stood still for Joshua or or zig-zagged across the sky at Fatima, or recently pulsed in the Philippines? And yes, this event was witnessed by 10,000+ people and there are many, many videos of it doing so as well as scientific evidence presented that there was no natural cause for the event. These things are happening whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. Am I stating that I know what the true nature of God is and that He is from a different dimension? Absolutely not. I have absolutely no idea what His true nature is. But I have experienced Him and as a result I can speculate.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #155

and if nothing can act like something, there is no reason why it can't be eternal and uncreated.

"Aye.....and if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon."
---Scotty, "Star Trek III"

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #157]

Neither analogy is correct, but the first I think is closer. God cannot be a "part" of the universe, nor is He a "part" of anything physical. He can however express Himself within it if He so chooses, even to the point of taking on human form. I know I am bringing in another conversation which we had earlier, but if He is responsible the creation of the universe how difficult do you think it would be for Him to make it appear that the sun stood still for Joshua or or zig-zagged across the sky at Fatima, or recently pulsed in the Philippines? And yes, this event was witnessed by 10,000+ people and there are many, many videos of it doing so as well as scientific evidence presented that there was no natural cause for the event. These things are happening whether you choose to acknowledge them or not. Am I stating that I know what the true nature of God is and that He is from a different dimension? Absolutely not. I have absolutely no idea what His true nature is. But I have experienced Him and as a result I can speculate.

This is why I regard the universe as created thing re Simulation Theory.