To prove God not existing, atheists conflate God with invisible unicorns.

[wellwisher]

If you consider dark matter and dark energy, these are inferred by their apparent affect, millions of light years away. However, neither dark energy or dark matter have ever been seen in the lab, to confirm these are actually real or imaginary The same template is true of aliens and big foot. People infer from apparent affect but lack lab proof.

All these examples of science and pseudo-science follow the template of God. To the faithful, God is inferred by the existence of life, intelligence and the universe itself. Like dark energy and big foot, God also has never being seen in the lab, but is inferred from affect.

If atheist can accept one or more of these, why is the original not acceptable? The answer is not about reason and a consistent standard, but it is about biased irrationality.

 

[Sarkus]

If you consider dark matter and dark energy, these are inferred by their apparent affect, millions of light years away. However, neither dark energy or dark matter have ever been seen in the lab, to confirm these are actually real or imaginary The same template is true of aliens and big foot. People infer from apparent affect but lack lab proof.

Utter nonsense!
No, the same template is not true of aliens, nor bigfoot: there is no observable evidence that requires the assumption of aliens, nor bigfoot, to explain the observations.
However, there is observable evidence that does require the assumption of something hitherto unobserved directly in order to arrive at a consistent and comprehensible model of the universe: namely dark matter and dark energy. The existence of dark energy and dark matter may in the future be proven incorrect, or may simply become an irrational conclusion if additional data arises that means that the universe can be modeled in as much accuracy without their inclusion.
But to date there is no competing theory that can do so, and so while their existence is not proven but, as far as my understanding of the situation goes, it is currently accepted as the rational explanation among the scientific community.
The same just simply is not true of aliens, nor of bigfoot. For the reasons outlined above.

All these examples of science and pseudo-science follow the template of God. To the faithful, God is inferred by the existence of life, intelligence and the universe itself. Like dark energy and big foot, God also has never being seen in the lab, but is inferred from affect.

Yet the inference by theists assumes the premise of God's existence. And while a competing theory that can as accurately and comprehensively model the observations of the universe exists without such a premise, that premise becomes unwarranted, and thus not rational for some of us to assume.

If atheist can accept one or more of these, why is the original not acceptable? The answer is not about reason and a consistent standard, but it is about biased irrationality.

The answer is entirely about reason, and you have shown yours to be lacking in your assessment of dark matter and energy being equivalent in this regard to aliens and bigfoot.

 

[wellwisher]

Utter nonsense!
No, the same template is not true of aliens, nor bigfoot: there is no observable evidence that requires the assumption of aliens, nor bigfoot, to explain the observations.
However, there is observable evidence that does require the assumption of something hitherto unobserved directly in order to arrive at a consistent and comprehensible model of the universe: namely dark matter and dark energy. The existence of dark energy and dark matter may in the future be proven incorrect, or may simply become an irrational conclusion if additional data arises that means that the universe can be modeled in as much accuracy without their inclusion.
But to date there is no competing theory that can do so, and so while their existence is not proven but, as far as my understanding of the situation goes, it is currently accepted as the rational explanation among the scientific community.
The same just simply is not true of aliens, nor of bigfoot. For the reasons outlined above.
Yet the inference by theists assumes the premise of God's existence. And while a competing theory that can as accurately and comprehensively model the observations of the universe exists without such a premise, that premise becomes unwarranted, and thus not rational for some of us to assume.
The answer is entirely about reason, and you have shown yours to be lacking in your assessment of dark matter and energy being equivalent in this regard to aliens and bigfoot.

The explanation I have for the unproven lab mythology of dark matter and dark energy is connected to the erroneous assumption of relative reference and no center of the universe. The relative assumption creates a violation of energy conservation creating the need for a dark energy/matter fudge factor.

As an analogy, say we have a small car and a large dump truck moving in space with relative velocity V. We are in space so we can't tell which is moving. The relative assumption says we can assume either in the base reference since all references are relative.

If we do a head-on collision, the collision dynamics will not be the same. The small car with velocity V hitting the stationary truck will stop in its tracks like a pancake. If the truck is moving at V, and the car is stationary, the car will be launched the truck will move forward. These are not the same when it comes to energy.

The reason we need dark energy and dark matter is we assume all references are relative, so we use the earth We then expect the car to the hit the truck, based on the results of our choice. But what we see is the car being launched. We need add extra invisible energy to account for this. We invented the mythology of dark energy.

This mythology is bigger than dark energy, since the base premises are erroneous, leading to this problem. The result is dogmatic appeal to cover tracks and buy time.

 

[Sarkus]

We invented the mythology of dark energy.

There is no mythology, and such language is purely aimed at poisoning the well.
There is merely a theoretical notion called dark energy, and another called dark matter, that are required to balance the books, so to speak.
Whether these are an actual force, actual matter, or due to some built in imbalance in the assumptions is neither here nor there: there is evidence for the need of such a balance given the scientific evidence to date.

This mythology is bigger than dark energy, since the base premises are erroneous, leading to this problem. The result is dogmatic appeal to cover tracks and buy time.

There is no dogmatic appeal, rather just a process that requires alternative theories to be supported by at least as much other evidence that rationally and unambiguously leads to it as the conclusion.

 

[Yazata]

If you consider dark matter and dark energy, these are inferred by their apparent affect, millions of light years away. However, neither dark energy or dark matter have ever been seen in the lab, to confirm these are actually real or imaginary

Yes. I think that I'd call dark matter and dark energy 'hypothetical' at the moment.

The same template is true of aliens and big foot. People infer from apparent affect but lack lab proof.

Aliens and big-foot are the purported objects of anecdotal reports. (In that respect, they aren't unlike reports of religious miracles.) They aren't inferences drawn from repeatable objective observation.

I'll agree that there's a hypothetical aspect to these kind of claims. But I don't agree that the hypotheses are being arrived at in the same way as the dark matter hypothesis was.

All these examples of science and pseudo-science follow the template of God. To the faithful, God is inferred by the existence of life, intelligence and the universe itself.

If the word 'God' is defined in such a way that the existence of God is consistent with any imaginable state of affairs, the existence of such a God would be completely unfalsifiable. In other words, the nature and existence of such a God doesn't seem to be a conclusion drawn by inference from observation at all. It's more long the lines of an initial definitional posit.

Like dark energy and big foot, God also has never being seen in the lab, but is inferred from affect.

If atheist can accept one or more of these, why is the original not acceptable? The answer is not about reason and a consistent standard, but it is about biased irrationality.

If we want to define 'God' as something like 'whatever it is that accounts for the fact that there is something rather than nothing', then one might want to argue that the observation of any being whatsoever (to say nothing of the existence of the observer) constitutes evidence for the existence of whatever it is that accounts for reality in general.

Of course, that gives us no insight into what that explanation for being itself might be.

It doesn't even really give us any reason to think that an explanation for being itself exists. How could such an account avoid being either circular or begging the question? Presumably anything we hypothesize as the generating source of being itself would have to exist in its own right, hence falling within the scope of what's to be explained.

That's part of why I consider myself an agnostic with regards to this biggest of metaphysical questions.

We should also remember that we are calling this hypothetical metaphysical function 'God' simply because we chose to. The association of the source of being in general with personality, with revelation, with goodness and with salvation is all seemingly gratuitious.

 

[Pachomius]

I have searched for Spidergoat's reply to my last post prior to this one, and I have not found it.

• Quote:
  Pachomius, Saturday at 11:13 AM #255
  http://www.sciforums.com/threads/to...nvisible-unicorns.143034/page-13#post-3251195
  
  To Spidergoat, are you opting out of your statement that an example of something with a beginning but without any cause are virtual particles which pop in and out of existence without cause? See Annex, text in bold.
  
  [From Spidergoat] I don't even need to show an example of something that began with no cause.
  
  So, you realize that your virtual particles popping in and out of existence without cause are not science but pseudo-science or science fiction.
  
  
  Now I like to talk with you on two facts:
  
  1. There has always existed something instead of nothing.
  
  2. There has existed a first cause to everything that is with a beginning.
  

Dear posters here, let us all talk about the verity or fact that there has always existed something instead of nothing.

If you dare not talk about that, then you are not willing to face the real issue at the end of the day of so much useless talk over virtual particles popping in and out of existence without cause.



See you guys again.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Dear posters here, let us all talk about the verity or fact that there has always existed something instead of nothing.

If you dare not talk about that, then you are not willing to face the real issue at the end of the day of so much useless talk over virtual particles popping in and out of existence without cause.

The way I understand things, distance and time has always existed. Let's recap some of the basics, shall we?

Work=Force times distance
Power=Work/time
Energy=Power times time

K. I'm ready to listen to you on these existences. Distance and time, the real issues!!

If, in fact, God is so powerful, then he must be able to do work. If he did work then it took time. If he did work then there was an opposing force, otherwise there was no force. No force means no work. No work means no power. No power means powerless. So how do you figure God is powerful if there was nothing in the beginning to oppose him? What good is a powerless God anyway?

Edit: What makes you think if there was a God that this is his first design attempt? Doesn't it make you wonder if this is his 345,876,093,181st attempt at a good design, and each failure came to a disastrous end? Do you think he'll ever get it right? How many attempts do you think it will take? How will this attempt end?

See you guys again.

Is that a preliminary message letting us know you're out of here?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Define it first and then we can carry on this line of discussion, otherwise it seems to be an irrelevant sidetrack... a strawman/quote]


You’re the one who claims humans are psychologically, and , physiologically capable of being in love for the whole of the their lives.

You even cited Mom & Dad.

Then you have defined it sufficiently to deem it unscientific in nature. Why not do so from the outset when asked?

I didn’t say it was unscientific. It’s just not something that pop science can handle. J It is scientific though.

How is the term "all" ambiguous???

Like I said, it could mean chocolate pooki bears. I want to know whay you mean by all. Please comply, or forget about it.

As for Superman, it is a matter of context. We can accept Superman as true within the context of the fictional realm.

So why can’t you accept God within the context of a fictional character?

IF God exists then everything is evidence.
IF you believe God exists then you believe that everything is evidence of God.

You believe in the existence of God, therefore you believe that everything is evidence of God.
You thus do claim it, Jan, through what you claim to believe (that God exists) and through your argument above: IF God exists, then everything is evidence.

For the purpose of discussion, I have not claimed that God exists. I don’t need to.

You should try and argue with the points I make, rather than evade the subject by digression.

So we have a God that just exists, either from nothing, or created itself, out of itself

Nope. We don’t have a God that just exists from nothing, or a God that or “created itself, out of itself”, unless you make stuff up. Which unfortunately, you do.


Why should I accept that matter creates itself out of nothing, Whether I believe in God or not? What, in nature would inspire me to think that?

How does "I don't know" stop people acquiring knowledge if it is there to be acquired? This last comment is thus a non-sequitur.
So if you don't mind "I don't know" why do you jump on "God did it"?

Did I say that it stops people from acquiring knowledge? Why don’t you stick to what I say instead of making stuff up?


I accept that you see my position as one that jumps on God did it, because you don’t really comprehend what I’m trying to tell you. Or you comprehend but stubbornly decide to be difficult.

Do or do you not believe God exists? That it is true that the scriptures are the word of God etc?

Yes. But now you have to show that it was due to the assumptions I made. Good luck with that.


[/quoteNo, but from my perspective you do, and you have failed to provide any evidence that can lead me to rationally and unambiguously conclude in the existence of God.

Firstly, I could care less about convincing you of anything (especially things you stubbornly prefer not to be convinced of). But this thread isn’t about provide evidence of God, existence or not. Get over it.

And if there remains no evidence held by the person, the analogy remains valid, regardless of what method one uses to find evidence.

Haven’t got to that stage yet. Let’s stay on: If God exists, then it stands to reason that everything is evidence of God. What you do from there is up to you.

What about it?
If God exists then the manifestation of the material world is evidence of God's existence... agreed?

Sarkus: “I have no knowledge of God that can be unambiguously and rationally attributed to God rather than the work of Man.”

If God does not exist then the manifestation of the material world is evidence that God does not need to exist... agreed?

How does this factor into your above quote?

If God exists then it stands to reason that everything, including the manifestation of the material world, is evidence.

It doesn’t matter if God does not exist. We wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Thus the manifestation of the material world can not lead me to rationally or unambiguously conclude that God exists, as it would be what it is whether God exists or God does not exist.

I didn’t say it should lead you to any conclusion, other than it stands to reason that everything is evidence (if God exists).

(If you do not agree to the second part then either you are lying, being deliberately dishonest, or simply unable to follow the simplest of logic).

I don’t agree with the second part, because it is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if God doesn’t exist.

This is why the manifestation of the material world is not deemed evidence that supports God's existence.

I didn’t say it was.

I start from the position that God's existence is what is in question and thus start from no assumption as to God's existence.

You have no reason to assume God does not exist, other than you want to.

If I’m wrong, explain how the current evidence you are in touch with, dismiss the notion of the existence of God?

I then see what evidence there is that supports one position over the other. I am not aware of any, and you have not provided me with any. Thus I can not conclude that God either exists or does not exist. I am agnostic.

Who’s asking you to conclude anything?

You’ve already concluded that God does not exist, because you’ve accepted that God doesn’t exist.

Don't make me laugh so much! Theism? Open minded?? LOL!

What’s funny about that?

One can accept the definition of God without believing in God, and thus not be a theist.

Was this meant to be a rhetorical question?

you trying to argue that theists do not need to believein God (as you would want it defined), or in the existence of God (as the rest of us define it)?

That is silly. Theist’s are so because they believe in God as defined. I’m saying that people who can accept who and what God is (as defined), are more open to believing in God, because they have a comprehension of who and what God is, and are able to understand that evidence for God, is different from evidence of mundane things. It doesn’t mean they automatically believe in God.


Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

If one is not aware of what one is looking for, how can they logically conclude that they have evidence for it?

Good point.

Also, how can one conclude that one has NO evidence for it?

So I am confused as to why you are then arguing against this conclusion that they reach.

Because they go as far as to equate the evidence needed to find God, with finding evidence of silly things. That is the title of this thread. Haven’t you been paying attention.

Which, as logically shown in my post above, and given your belief in the existence of God, means that you interpret everything as evidence of God.

My theism is irrelevant in this discussion.

Premise 1: If God exists, everything is evidence of God.
Premise 2: I believe God exists.
Conclusion: I believe everything is evidence of God.

Now let me put it in the way that I have been doing.

1. If God exists it stands to reason that everything is evidence of God’s existence.
2. If God exists it stands to reason that everything is evidence of God’s existence.
3. If God exists it stands to reason that everything is evidence of God’s existence.

But the issue here, as mentioned previously, which you merely skirt around without ever addressing, is that if one does not accept premise 2 then the conclusion does not follow, and thuseverything does not become evidence of God, even if it is the same notion as the one theists have.

If you want a discussion on whether or not there is evidence for God’s existence, then start a thread, and if it doesn’t get too stupid, we’ll dialogue.

But in this thread I’m stick with my 3 points. The reason being that one cannot equate God with invisible rock star ducks in a serious discussion about God, less one wishes not to be taken seriously. It hasn’t been like that for a good few years, but now theists shouldn’t accept such stupidity as serious arguments or explanations.

To believe that everything is evidence of God one has to believe God

That’s impossible to achieve, because if one believes, one does not need to pretend to previously believe, as one already believes. What you mean to say is ‘’Once you can accept that it stands to reason that if God exists, everything is evidence of God, you have a better idea of what constitutes evidence for God. See there, belief didn’t even come into it.


Jan.

 

[Seattle]

It stands to reason that if God doesn't exist, everything is evidence of his non-existence.

The evidence for your God is the same as the evidence for all the God's that you don't believe in and that other's do believe in (how's that, no teapots needed).

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

A teapot orbiting Jupiter is much more plausible than a god.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It stands to reason that if God doesn't exist, everything is evidence of his non-existence.

The evidence for your God is the same as the evidence for all the God's that you don't believe in and that other's do believe in (how's that, no teapots needed).

If God exists, there can only be one God.

How's about that then?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

A teapot orbiting Jupiter is much more plausible than a god.

I appreciate your honesty, if nothing else.

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

If God exists, there can only be one God.

How's about that then?

jan.

If God exists, there can only be 33 Gods.

I appreciate your honesty, if nothing else.
jan.

I don't believe you.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If God exists, there can only be 33 Gods.



I don't believe you.

Why??

jan.

 

[Sylvester]

...LOL WUT?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Why??

jan.

If 33 gods created everything, everything is evidence of 33 gods.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If 33 gods created everything, everything is evidence of 33 gods.

If you had two heads, you would be two-headed.

jan.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

If you had two heads, you would be two-headed.

jan.

I would not.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I would not.

Yes you would.

jan.