Atheists what is your proof?

[phlogistician]

All you ever do is drop insults and accuse people of not knowing what they are talking about. I have yet to see you dissect anyone's position on anything, so I am certainly not going to chase my tail for you. If you would like to point out specific errors in my position, I would be more than happy to address them. But if you aren't willing to do that, I'm not willing to give you more of my time than it took to type this post.

OK, let's start.

You assert that 'God' exists outside the Universe. Well, that's taking liberties with the meaning of the word 'Universe'. It means the sum of everything that exists. So if you are saying that God lies outside the Universe, you are saying he doesn't exist, or you are being lazy, and alluding to some attribute of God's elusiveness without bothering to qualify it. That's a really poor way to start off your description. The rest is just unsubstantiated prose, no need to dissect that.

 

[phlogistician]

I do find the idea of something that exists outside of space and time and is indistinguishable from natural law to be hard to discuss in any objective manner.

That's a huge cop out that theists make, without any basis or logical reason for asserting such. The journey starts when we ask 'where did it all come from' and we think that everything has to have had a cause, ... so they invent God as the first cause, creating the Universe, but then realise this then gives them infinite regression, what created God? Ah, nothing. This of course disagrees with the starting premise that we needed to have a cause for the Universe, negating the need to invent a creator, but theists cannot see this logical contradiction, and fail to backout from their dead end reasoning, they just say 'God exists outside the Universe', as if this excuses anything. It actually confusing things more, and begs more questions for which they still have no answers.

If all a person has to offer is faith and belief then it leaves little to discuss in a scientific context. :shrug:

Makes me wonder why they come to a Scientific board to put forward such unsubstantiated claims,... surely they should know that scientists want evidence, and a testable hypothesis, and they'll be given short shrift of they fail to provide these things?

 

[spidergoat]

Atheists and theists alike have to face the problem of something from nothing.

Sure, but which is more likely, that the early universe was a tiny region of chaotic energy balanced exactly by negative energy, or that a complex mind called God sprang into existence complete with a plan to make everything and the power to do so?

Why?
If you think God is material, thereby subject to the laws of nature, please
state why?

jan.

Only a deist God that set everything going and then stepped back and is not involved in the universe is not subject to the laws of nature. Such a God is not a Christian God. God is said to be involved in wordly events, in fact all worldy events.

Because he (like so many atheists) likes to define God in such a way that he can argue against the idea. I am finding that many atheists on these forums refuse to accept a definition of God that they cannot argue against - indicating they are really only interested in winning arguments. I've stopped wasting my time with those people. I'm not twelve any more.

(Incidentally, gmilam has actually had plenty to contribute, so I am not slapping the above description on him per se - just on individual who display the above characteristics.)

And theists like to refuse to acknowledge the nature of a Christian God, preferring instead a concept that avoids scientific investigation. As has been stated before, an hypothesis that isn't falsifiable can be dismissed as pure speculation. Science can support a deist God, but the nature of the early universe after he set things going would have erased any evidence of his involvement. It's would have been a clockwork universe where any plan would have to be initiated within the initial conditions. However, we now know that it isn't a clockwork universe, due to quantum indeterminism.

 

[SolusCado]

Thanks for not lumping me in with the others. But really there are many concepts of "god".

No problem.

It's good to know which one you're discussing.

True, but I have found some people like to push back on definitions until you agree to describe God with a definition with which they are familiar, because it is that definition for which they have prepared arguments. (Or so I would guess to be the reason.)

I do find the idea of something that exists outside of space and time and is indistinguishable from natural law to be hard to discuss in any objective manner.

Agreed, which is why I think the very notion of trying to prove its non/existence is ridiculous, if not downright infantile (since the questions of proof seem to only arise out of arguments where one side is trying to condemn the other, either spiritually [in the case of religious folk], or intellectually [in the case of secular folk]).

If all a person has to offer is faith and belief then it leaves little to discuss in a scientific context. :shrug:

Yep. And likewise, if all a person has to offer is science and evidence, then it leaves little to discuss in a spiritual context.

 

[SolusCado]

OK, let's start.

You assert that 'God' exists outside the Universe. Well, that's taking liberties with the meaning of the word 'Universe'. It means the sum of everything that exists. So if you are saying that God lies outside the Universe, you are saying he doesn't exist, or you are being lazy, and alluding to some attribute of God's elusiveness without bothering to qualify it. That's a really poor way to start off your description. The rest is just unsubstantiated prose, no need to dissect that.

That's just it. God is that entity that created reality, that created existence - so his "existence" is unlike anything we can comprehend (which is why mankind has been stuck with metaphor in trying to describe him). As to alluding to some attribute of God's elusiveness - I have no idea what you are suggesting. I'm not intending to allude to any attribute, so you are going to have to be more specific. However, your post here seems to confirm my other post. You are refusing to accept a definition for God because it doesn't fit with your understanding of reality.

 

[SolusCado]

Makes me wonder why they come to a Scientific board to put forward such unsubstantiated claims,... surely they should know that scientists want evidence, and a testable hypothesis, and they'll be given short shrift of they fail to provide these things?

Dude, look at the breadcrumb. This entire thread is in the RELIGION forum.

 

[SolusCado]

Sure, but which is more likely, that the early universe was a tiny region of chaotic energy balanced exactly by negative energy, or that a complex mind called God sprang into existence complete with a plan to make everything and the power to do so?

The "realm of God" so to speak isn't the early universe of a tiny region of chaotic energy; it is the point BEFORE said universe.

Only a deist God that set everything going and then stepped back and is not involved in the universe is not subject to the laws of nature. Such a God is not a Christian God. God is said to be involved in wordly events, in fact all worldy events.

I don't have the energy to get into repeating myself, but this paragraph is only applicable to a God experiences time the same way we do. Since time is part of the universe, it is part of his creation, which indicates he is not bound to time. IOW, there is no "stepping back," like a clockmaker that makes his clock and then watches it run. The entirety of time is all "an instant" for God. This IS described in the Bible, so this IS a Christian God.

And theists like to refuse to acknowledge the nature of a Christian God, preferring instead a concept that avoids scientific investigation. As has been stated before, an hypothesis that isn't falsifiable can be dismissed as pure speculation. Science can support a deist God, but the nature of the early universe after he set things going would have erased any evidence of his involvement. It's would have been a clockwork universe where any plan would have to be initiated within the initial conditions. However, we now know that it isn't a clockwork universe, due to quantum indeterminism.

Are you suggesting that the nature of a Christian God requires scientific investigation? If so, I don't know what Bible you are reading. See my comment above. I think you have the wrong idea of what a "Christian God" is. Also, regarding quantum indeterminism would be irrelevant to a God that created time itself. (Again, see above.)

 

[gmilam]

True, but I have found some people like to push back on definitions until you agree to describe God with a definition with which they are familiar, because it is that definition for which they have prepared arguments. (Or so I would guess to be the reason.)

I also get tired of the semantics and definitions "game". I'd rather discuss ideas. But even then, it's good to make sure everyone is speaking the same language.

Agreed, which is why I think the very notion of trying to prove its non/existence is ridiculous, if not downright infantile (since the questions of proof seem to only arise out of arguments where one side is trying to condemn the other, either spiritually [in the case of religious folk], or intellectually [in the case of secular folk]).

Again, we agree. The definition I learned for agnostic was someone who "believes" that the existence of god can neither be proven or disproven. It is something each person must figure out for themselves. In this case it is possible to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. (Or someone who still hasn't found what he's looking for.)

 

[SolusCado]

I also get tired of the semantics and definitions "game". I'd rather discuss ideas. But even then, it's good to make sure everyone is speaking the same language.


Again, we agree. The definition I learned for agnostic was someone who "believes" that the existence of god can neither be proven or disproven. It is something each person must figure out for themselves. In this case it is possible to be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. (Or someone who still hasn't found what he's looking for.)

I don't know what U2 has to do with it, but I agree completely.

 

[gmilam]

I don't know what U2 has to do with it, but I agree completely.

I'm a musician. I can find "related" quotes and ideas in many odd places.

There once was a note, listen!

 

[SolusCado]

I'm a musician. I can find "related" quotes and ideas in many odd places.

There once was a note, listen!

Not to get too off topic, but it reminds me of a FANTASTIC show I saw in London... "We Will Rock You" - it made fun of pop culture and the dialog incorporated lyrics from songs over the last 30 years, including at one point the lead character stating quite matter-of-factly "I still haven't found what I'm looking for."

 

[spidergoat]

The "realm of God" so to speak isn't the early universe of a tiny region of chaotic energy; it is the point BEFORE said universe.

I think you are describing a deist God, who could have existed to bring all this into motion, but could not continue past the big bang, no coherent structures could survive it. It means he played dice with the universe, and so could not have predicted mankind.

I don't have the energy to get into repeating myself, but this paragraph is only applicable to a God experiences time the same way we do. Since time is part of the universe, it is part of his creation, which indicates he is not bound to time. IOW, there is no "stepping back," like a clockmaker that makes his clock and then watches it run. The entirety of time is all "an instant" for God. This IS described in the Bible, so this IS a Christian God.

"Outside of time" is the same as saying "non-existent". Everything that exists or could be meaningful to human beings is subject to time. What I mean when I say the Christian God is subject to scientific investigation is that he is involved in our day to day events. He was "friends" with the Jews, he conversed with Moses, he might answer a prayer, he might punish sin through catastrophic events, or control the outcome of a war. This means that his effects are not outside the realm of investigation.

Are you suggesting that the nature of a Christian God requires scientific investigation? If so, I don't know what Bible you are reading. See my comment above. I think you have the wrong idea of what a "Christian God" is. Also, regarding quantum indeterminism would be irrelevant to a God that created time itself. (Again, see above.)

Not "requires" per se, but allows for investigation. Science can prove the Christian God doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. Other Gods could still exist, but either they don't care about us, or they are above it all, or they are waiting to get involved at some future date.

The Christian God also has other attributes that can be investigated logically. He is said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. Do you agree?

 

[gmilam]

Makes me wonder why they come to a Scientific board to put forward such unsubstantiated claims,... surely they should know that scientists want evidence, and a testable hypothesis, and they'll be given short shrift of they fail to provide these things?

In all fairness, this is the religion section. They were invited...

Having said that, the only reason I ever ventured into the religious section of science forums was that I heard there was a "theory" of intelligent design. I wanted to know what this "theory" was.

Still haven't heard anything that even resembles a "theory".

Under most circumstances I would've just moved on, except that I live in a part of the US where people are working very hard to get this non-existant theory into the science textbooks of the public school system. As such, I feel it's a good idea to try and understand the mindset of those who feel that threatened by science.

 

[science man]

See, you are so stupid you don't know how stupid you are. I've explained this, and STILL you don't get it. Here we go again:

Evolution covers biological processes of change. That's it.

Cosmology covers the creation if the Universe, stellar evolution, and planteray formation etc. NOT BIOLOGY.

The fact that you think that evolution has anything to do with Cosmology proves how ill-educated you are about the sciences, and it's a travesty they you go by the name you do.

sigh,
maybe if I wrote it in caps. I KNOW EVOLUTION DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH COSMOLOGY THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!!! IT'S BECAUSE OF THAT THAT I DON'T SEE WHAT THE ATHEISTIC EXPLANATION FOR THE BIRTH OF THE UNIVERSE IS!!!!!

 

[SolusCado]

I think you are describing a deist God, who could have existed to bring all this into motion, but could not continue past the big bang, no coherent structures could survive it. It means he played dice with the universe, and so could not have predicted mankind.

"Outside of time" is the same as saying "non-existent". Everything that exists or could be meaningful to human beings is subject to time. What I mean when I say the Christian God is subject to scientific investigation is that he is involved in our day to day events. He was "friends" with the Jews, he conversed with Moses, he might answer a prayer, he might punish sin through catastrophic events, or control the outcome of a war. This means that his effects are not outside the realm of investigation.


Not "requires" per se, but allows for investigation. Science can prove the Christian God doesn't exist beyond a reasonable doubt. Other Gods could still exist, but either they don't care about us, or they are above it all, or they are waiting to get involved at some future date.

The Christian God also has other attributes that can be investigated logically. He is said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. Do you agree?

I disagree. Read my previous post regarding my definition of God. I think it fits the role of the Christian God perfectly without the various limitations you have ascribed here. It requires fundamentally looking at the universe differently, but in ways that are already supported scientifically. (IOW, you need to rethink your views on time to be consistent with Einstein/Minkowski sacetime.) Time is as integral to space as up/down, left/right. To allow for a God that created space but not time just doesn't make any sense, theologically or scientifically. To expect God's interaction to be a sort of intercession on his part would limit him to experiencing a timeline that just doesn't apply to him.

 

[SolusCado]

sigh,
maybe if I wrote it in caps. I KNOW EVOLUTION DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH COSMOLOGY THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!!! IT'S BECAUSE OF THAT THAT I DON'T SEE WHAT THE ATHEISTIC EXPLANATION FOR THE BIRTH OF THE UNIVERSE IS!!!!!

Beyond inflationary cosmology? P-Branes? There are plenty "atheistic" explanations - though I would simply call them "scientific" - they are as valid to the theist as they are the atheist.

 

[AlexG]

sigh,
maybe if I wrote it in caps. I KNOW EVOLUTION DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH COSMOLOGY THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!!!! IT'S BECAUSE OF THAT THAT I DON'T SEE WHAT THE ATHEISTIC EXPLANATION FOR THE BIRTH OF THE UNIVERSE IS!!!!!

Do you think that atheists claim the theory of evolution applies to other than living organisms?

An atheistic explanation for the birth of the universe might be a random quantum fluctuation triggering off 10e-33 seconds of hyperinflation, followed by 13.7 billion years of slower expansion.

Nothing to do with evolution, so I fail to see your point.

 

[AlexG]

phlogistician,


If something doesn't exist, why claim there is no evidence for it?


jan.

Because if something doesn't exist, there can't be any evidence for it.

 

[SolusCado]

Because if something doesn't exist, there can't be any evidence for it.

Although if something exists beyond the realm of physical existence, there can't be evidence for it either. That doesn't mean it is any less real, it's just not part of our reality. It's as much a philosophical point as any, but a legitimate point nonetheless.

 

[spidergoat]

I disagree. Read my previous post regarding my definition of God. I think it fits the role of the Christian God perfectly without the various limitations you have ascribed here. It requires fundamentally looking at the universe differently, but in ways that are already supported scientifically. (IOW, you need to rethink your views on time to be consistent with Einstein/Minkowski sacetime.) Time is as integral to space as up/down, left/right. To allow for a God that created space but not time just doesn't make any sense, theologically or scientifically. To expect God's interaction to be a sort of intercession on his part would limit him to experiencing a timeline that just doesn't apply to him.

If God acts at all to change this world, those actions take place in time. Even a God who's existence is largely "out of time" (a non-sensical concept, but I will indulge you), his effects must be measurable. If he alters things via a kind of butterfly effect, in which he simply alters a quantum event in a non-detectable way, the power of his actions must therefore be limited. There is only so much one can change in this manner. That makes him less than omnipotent.