Existence of God. Can debate satisfy atheist ?

[Polymath257]

And what kind of evidence would you accept as evidence for God, that couldn’t be dismissed by “OHHHH that’s just a God of the Gaps argument”……….

Well, first you need to define what you mean by the term 'God'.

Then, find something that would differ between a universe with a God and one without a God. It would be nice to have something that is not just circumstantial. What that might be depends on your definition.

For example, you might present a being that everyone can see that claims to have created the universe and can demonstrate the ability to create other universes.

In other words, it would have to be something where 'God of the Gaps' could not apply. It would have to be based on positive knowledge that is unambiguous and clearly linked to a being defined by your definition.

 

[Polymath257]

The really big problem here is that people insist on confusing and wrongly conflating evidence with proof. There is plenty of evidence, but there is no proof. Because what evidence there is, is subjective evidence, and "proof" is likewise a subjective determination. And on top of this, materialists (most atheists are materialists) will not even consider subjective evidence, evidence. So for them, there is "no evidence", even though there is actually plenty of subjective evidence. And there can be no "proof", because they have already determined that to be so.

You are right. 'Subjective evidence' is indistinguishable from 'self-delusion' or 'unsupported opinion'. So I do deny the effectiveness of 'subjective evidence' as being supporting evidence for the existence of anything outside of one's own mind.

So the debate just goes around and around in a pointless circle unless and until the debaters clarify and agree on what constitutes "evidence", and what determines potential "proof". Unfortunately this almost never happens.

I would agree that 'absolute proof' is only available in mat and logic and not in the real world. But we can certainly ask for evidence that is at least as strong as the evidence for, say, dark matter. But subjective evidence simply cannot provide that level of confidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Is time governed by the laws of physics though?

Yes, absolutely. Just look at both special and general relativity.

The laws that apply to this universe were created by this universe. It is hypothesized there may be trillions of other universes, each with different laws of physics, many we could not even recognise as universes, yet alone comprehend the laws that govern them

The usual speculation about such is that the same basic laws apply across universes, but each has a different selection of 'fundamental constants'.

As someone once said (Neil Turok i think) time may be a logical contradiction.

I'd have to read exactly what he said to make sense of that.

 

[osgart]

The really big problem here is that people insist on confusing and wrongly conflating evidence with proof. There is plenty of evidence, but there is no proof. Because what evidence there is, is subjective evidence, and "proof" is likewise a subjective determination. And on top of this, materialists (most atheists are materialists) will not even consider subjective evidence, evidence. So for them, there is "no evidence", even though there is actually plenty of subjective evidence. And there can be no "proof", because they have already determined that to be so.

So the debate just goes around and around in a pointless circle unless and until the debaters clarify and agree on what constitutes "evidence", and what determines potential "proof". Unfortunately this almost never happens.

Not to argue, but what does subjective evidence look like? Is it a feeling, or certain kinds of understandings.

A materialist would probably only accept that which is discernible by the senses. Then they might question the interpretation of the things sensed.

For me I look more toward proofs on the logical basis of cause and effect. I have had deeply intense religious experiences, but I only consider those experiences evidence of my own soul.

 

[leroy]

For example, you might present a being that everyone can see that claims to have created the universe and can demonstrate the ability to create other universes.

.

Sure lets define God as a “Personal creator of the universe”…….. why wouldn’t you dismiss that evidence as “ohhh its just a Gap in our knowledge” just because we* don’t understand how this new universe was created it doesn’t mean that God did it…

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, absolutely. Just look at both special and general relativity.



The usual speculation about such is that the same basic laws apply across universes, but each has a different selection of 'fundamental constants'.



I'd have to read exactly what he said to make sense of that.

Sr and gr apply in our universe, who knows about others?

Andrew Linde et al have calculated a possible 10^10^10^7 universes, with 10^10^16 that we could recognise the basic laws, the rest? Again, who knows.

I heard it on documentary, i don't know if he wrote it

 

[QuestioningMind]

Okay who created universe ?

No one did.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It shan't, for the known universe is evidence for original Creation.

And if Jesus appeared to an RF atheist in person and commanded obedience, they would call a friend to find a solution for the "horrible hallucination" they've just experienced.

Yet I'm hopeful that some atheists I know are in a mere temporary state of rebellion and denial. Grace to them, I say! GRACE UPON GRACE UPON GRACE, with love!

Actually the only thing that the universe is evidence of is the universe.

 

[rrobs]

If, atheists predetermined that they will NOT accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence / proof -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them ?

Judging from the fact that there are Christians who were once Atheists, I'd say at least some of them were definitely unsatisfied as Atheist.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If, atheists predetermined that they will NOT accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence / proof -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them ?

What about people who are prepared to believe some things without evidence or proof, but not other things? Since the decision to believe must be made with neither evidence nor proof, what is the belief based on?

Spoiler

(Hint: what you were taught before you learned to think.)

 

[Polymath257]

Sr and gr apply in our universe, who knows about others?

Andrew Linde et al have calculated a possible 10^10^10^7 universes, with 10^10^16 that we could recognise the basic laws, the rest? Again, who knows.

I heard it on documentary, i don't know if he wrote it

Yes, that is the estimate from string theory. The differences are NOT differences in basic laws, but in the constants that enter into those laws.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Judging from the fact that there are Christians who were once Atheists, I'd say at least some of them were definitely unsatisfied as Atheist.

And given the fact that there are atheists who were once Christian (and often in the ministry itself)...what would you say?

 

[Polymath257]

Sure lets define God as a “Personal creator of the universe”…….. why wouldn’t you dismiss that evidence as “ohhh its just a Gap in our knowledge” just because we* don’t understand how this new universe was created it doesn’t mean that God did it…

What does 'personal' even mean in this context? Why would we assume the universe has a creator at all? And what evidence do you give for such a creator? If the 'evidence' amounts to 'gee whiz, this sure looks created to me', that is clearly not enough to justify the conclusion.

And the fact that we don't know how the universe came to be (whether created or not) and have no way of testing such goes to the point that a claim that it is attributable to some outside entity is, in fact, a 'God of the Gaps'.

 

[Polymath257]

Not to argue, but what does subjective evidence look like? Is it a feeling, or certain kinds of understandings.

A materialist would probably only accept that which is discernible by the senses. Then they might question the interpretation of the things sensed.

For me I look more toward proofs on the logical basis of cause and effect. I have had deeply intense religious experiences, but I only consider those experiences evidence of my own soul.

The main difficulty is that 'cause and effect' has little to nothing to do with logic. it is an *assumption* that the universe works via cause and effect, especially at its beginning.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

If, atheists predetermined that they will NOT accept existence of God until somebody provide physical evidence / proof -- do they still hope that somebody could ever satisfy them ?

If the only proof offered is easily shot down then why should atheist believe in a god?

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, that is the estimate from string theory. The differences are NOT differences in basic laws, but in the constants that enter into those laws.

I can only go by comments such as this by Linde

The calculation of the number of universes is an important step toward an even larger goal: to find the probability of living in a universe with a particular set of properties. What are the chances that we live in a world in which the laws of physics are these laws that we currently observe? Answering this question requires finding probabilities that depend on knowing about other universes, among many other challenges.

 

[osgart]

The main difficulty is that 'cause and effect' has little to nothing to do with logic. it is an *assumption* that the universe works via cause and effect, especially at its beginning.

Then logic is just a play thing and nothing necessarily follows from anything?

There's other arguments that don't rely on cause and effect back to a beginning to induct that a fundamental unconditioned reality must exist. Have you seen any of those?

 

[Polymath257]

Then logic is just a play thing and nothing necessarily follows from anything?

Logic ultimately only gives tautologies. To do anything, you need some extra assumptions on top of mere logic. The question then becomes how to justify those extra assumptions.

There's other arguments that don't rely on cause and effect back to a beginning to induct that a fundamental unconditioned reality must exist. Have you seen any of those?

I have no idea what the phrase 'fundamental unconditioned reality' could mean that is any different than 'reality'. And we usually assume that some sort of 'reality' exists to get off the ground in our investigations.

 

[osgart]

Logic ultimately only gives tautologies. To do anything, you need some extra assumptions on top of mere logic. The question then becomes how to justify those extra assumptions.



I have no idea what the phrase 'fundamental unconditioned reality' could mean that is any different than 'reality'. And we usually assume that some sort of 'reality' exists to get off the ground in our investigations.

An unconditioned reality exists in and of itself and there are no conditions necessary to fulfill in order for it to exist.

Why Must There Be at Least One Unconditioned Reality?

 

[Polymath257]

An unconditioned reality exists in and of itself and there are no conditions necessary to fulfill in order for it to exist.

Why Must There Be at Least One Unconditioned Reality?

In other words, it is uncaused. I agree. In fact, I consider the universe to be such. No deities required.

You realize this is just another argument from first causes, right? To be 'unconditioned' means there are no conditions required for the existence. In other words, it is not caused.

And, by the way, the argument in your link fails because it assumes an ordering for 'fundamental conditions' which may not exist.