How to prove God.

[leroy]

OK, but then how does that play into your argument?

For example, using the same definition, the universe is fine tuned to produce planets. You focus on life, when the argument works for *any* property of the universe that could be slightly different.

So, the universe is fine tuned (according to this definition) to produce iron atoms.

Yes the universe is FT for planets and iron too.... The only difference is that life requires a narrower rage of values , but sure you could make the same argument for iron.

This is either design, chance, or necessity.

Hmm....what does this mean and is it a valid trichotomy? Design usually means 'an intelligent agent intended the event to happen as it did'. Necessity, on the other hand, says that it couldn't be other than it is. Chance, though, suggests a randomness that is not guaranteed by the exclusion of the previous two. So, if the laws of nature are not necessary and are also not the result of an intelligent agent, it is still possible they come about in an orderly way that is MOSTLY determined.

Mostly determined sounds like a combination of chance and necessity , so sure there is a 4th option
Necessity chance design or a combination of any of these 3 alternatives ..... So sure if you want to be strict this is not a trichotomy because there is a 4rth option

In this context, necessity would mean that it is impossible for the constants to be other than they are. Frankly, we do not know if this is the case or not. It is also possible that the values we see are the result of natural laws that we do not know about that 'push' the constants to the values we have. We simply do not know what determines the values of those constant, if anything.

Because we are talking about many independent values that all seemed to conspired to produce life permitting numbers.

If you see an arrow hitting the center of a bulls eye you would naturally conclude design because many values have to be turned in order to achieve something like that . (If the wind , the angle, the initial force, the initial position, distance , mass of the arrow, etc would have been slightly different the arrow would fail to hit the bulls eye.)

But, let's turn your trichotomy around: is it clear that something is either necessary, happens according to chance (probabilities), or is designed? I don't think so. For example, an acorn falling from a tree with nobody around. The falling of the acorn would not be necessary. it would not be due to chance (since it is governed by natural laws), nor would it be by any design (since no intelligence is in the picture at all). All that is required is that there be variance in how the natural laws work from situation to situation and we get a fourth category of possibilities. The leap to design seems very premature in this argument.

A correct analogy would be, if a bunch of acorns fall such that they create patterns that look like letters and produce meaningfull words and sentences.

Why would the laws of mature conspire to produce words and sentences ?

You see even if we don't know anything about the laws that govern acorns design would still be the best explanation for words and sentences.

 

[leroy]

I actually think the analogy is quite apt. As a juror, I am supposed to fairly look at the evidence presented by the government and determine if they have proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Or, we could go to civil proceedings and ask for 'a preponderance of the evidence'.

I would point out that this standard is far less than that required in the science, for which doubts need to be actively sought out and judgement withheld until they have been met.

I also note that you seem to agree that an objective juror would decide against the existence of a deity based on the evidence.



I disagree. In a search for the truth, it is important to withhold belief until the issues have been sufficiently resolved. This is unlike a court case, where there is often a time constraint on the decision.

In this case, if the burden of proof is not met, then the argument fails. If both sides fail in their argument, the issue is either considered unresolved or unresolvable (and then meaningless).



Sounds to me that you have already decided one or the other is the best option. Maybe that assumption is what needs to be questioned?

I would certainly hope that the standard of proof for something like a deity is far, far more than the standard required to decide what financial decisions to make.

Ok it seems to me that you are saying

I am an atheist because the existence of God has not been proven beyond read doubt.....

But that is raising the bar to high , you don't need evidence beyond reasonable doubt to conclude that buy gold is probably the best alternative. All you need is a probability above 50%


I am also curious , why did you assume that your view has the benefit of the doubt ?

It seems to me that you are saying : since you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that God created the universe , I will conclude that the universe had a natural origin (am I representing your view accurately)

But why can't it be the other way around ? Since you haven't proved beyond reasonable doubt that the universe had a natural origin, I will conclude that God did it ?

Why is it that your view has the benefit of the doubt?

 

[leroy]

I encourage you to read about how the human brain evolved to be religious. Early humans had an advantage if they adopted group/tribe norms and rituals. God concepts were created as a solution to the mysteries the mind could acknowledge but not answer.

k.

So God is a delusion? A false idea that evolved in our brain because it had selective benefits ?

 

[F1fan]

Ok it seems to me that you are saying

I am an atheist because the existence of God has not been proven beyond read doubt.....

But that is raising the bar to high , you don't need evidence beyond reasonable doubt to conclude that buy gold is probably the best alternative. All you need is a probability above 50%


I am also curious , why did you assume that your view has the benefit of the doubt ?

It seems to me that you are saying : since you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that God created the universe , I will conclude that the universe had a natural origin (am I representing your view accurately)

But why can't it be the other way around ? Since you haven't proved beyond reasonable doubt that the universe had a natural origin, I will conclude that God did it ?

Why is it that your view has the benefit of the doubt?

Because ancient people lacked facts and knowledge about how the universe works, so they assumed gods and magic did it.

Now as modern humans we have facts and instruments that inform us that there is energy and laws that govern how it behaves, and nothing suggests gods or magic, so we throw out those old ideas. If gods and magic is discovered some day, then that will be what we use to describe and explain the universe.

 

[F1fan]

So God is a delusion?

It depends on which god you're referring to, and how you describe it. Do you believe Thor causes thunder? If not, why not?

A false idea that evolved in our brain because it had selective benefits ?

Not so much idea that evolved as the behavior. Religion is a social behavior, and human biology evolved this way because it was a benefit for survival.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is not about God necessarily, but about how different we--human beings called by the latest term "homo sapiens" are from the gorillas and others that we are said to 'evolve' from. Or to be more specific, are claimed by "scientists" to be in the same lineage or something like that, lol...
With the collapse of the building in Florida, if you read the comments of the family members, they are all very upset, naturally, and one report has them talking about getting the last remains for the funerals, their best outfits, which they can't do. Now I'm not saying this is proof of God, but it sure is proof that humans (in the form of so-called homo sapiens) are. "We" are a whole lot different in perspective and thought about life and death than, let's say, cockroaches, ducks, and gorillas.
God said in the Bible, "Let US make man in OUR image..." hmmm....
Nearly 48 Hours Since Miami Condo Collapse, Son of Missing Couple Says There’s ‘No Hope’ (msn.com)
(worth a read --)

 

[leroy]

Now on another thread you accepted that evolution is natural. There is no intended design, just the progressive complexity creating more beneficial adaptations trough multiple means to alter genetic structure and presentation. You sighted evidence for this. Now you through in some absolutely ridiculous argument about design.

p1:Science shows that the universe is fine tuned for life.
This statement is false. Life has adapted complex ways to survive in our world not the other way around. Most of the universe is completely inhospitable for life.

P2: its either due to chance, necessity or design.
The evolution of life is obviously part chance, part opportunity, part necessity and adaptation. There was no design by anything so second statements

p3 its not due to chance or necessity.
The is a statement of ignorance. Of course there is chance and other factors the only thing it is not is designed.

C: Therefore its due to design.
This is fantasy. From some of your arguments you seem to be trying not to present fantasy so why present this?

You misunderstood the meaning of FT , and your objections are based on this misunderstanding.

FT simply means that if the values and contrast would have been slightly different, life would have not been possible.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Because ancient people lacked facts and knowledge about how the universe works, so they assumed gods and magic did it.

Now as modern humans we have facts and instruments that inform us that there is energy and laws that govern how it behaves, and nothing suggests gods or magic, so we throw out those old ideas. If gods and magic is discovered some day, then that will be what we use to describe and explain the universe.

Facts? Let me remind you there are no facts in science.
If it's a fact that our instruments can determine certain things about the universe because there are such things as laws of physics, that seems to me to be evidence of intelligence in and of itself.

 

[F1fan]

God said in the Bible, "Let US make man in OUR image..." hmmm....
Nearly 48 Hours Since Miami Condo Collapse, Son of Missing Couple Says There’s ‘No Hope’ (msn.com)
(worth a read --)

The Hebrew God Yahweh evolved from a polytheistic system. One reason why there are two creation accounts is because there were two different scenarios and gods at the core of them. It was a way to satisfy the divergent groups.

 

[leroy]

It depends on which god you're referring to, and how you describe it. Do you believe Thor causes thunder? If not, why not?


Not so much idea that evolved as the behavior. Religion is a social behavior, and human biology evolved this way because it was a benefit for survival.

So under what basis do you trust the human brain ?

If the brain (and what we consider truth) depends on natural selection , then natural selection could have selected many false ideas . (Maybe we falsely belief in a round earth because this believe had benefits in the ancient world) and we evolved to reputable any evidence for a Flatt earth

 

[F1fan]

You misunderstood the meaning of FT , and your objections are based on this misunderstanding.

FT simply means that if the values and contrast would have been slightly different, life would have not been possible.

Then it's a misleading title to say "fine tuning" as "tuning" implies adjustments. We see creationists often try to get terms accepted with definitions used by creationists so they can be smuggled in later. If you can smuggle in your notion that the universe was "tuned" well that implies an adjustment, and how did the adjustments get made, and by what? It's your idea of god, right?

If not, then let's drop the FT as being misleading, confusing, and open to fraud, and use more reliable words, OK?

 

[F1fan]

So under what basis do you trust the human brain ?

I'm not aware that I trust brains. Rephrase your question.

If the brain (and what we consider truth) depends on natural selection , then natural selection could have selected many false ideas . (Maybe we falsely belief in a round earth because this believe had benefits in the ancient world) and we evolved to reputable any evidence for a Flatt earth

Evolution also allowed many genetic diseases like polio, cancers, deformities, mental incapacity, etc. That our brains are not perfectly objective, and that our emotion centers are overactive and often disrupt our ability to think rationally, hasn't been enough of a liability for humans to over-populate.

 

[F1fan]

Facts? Let me remind you there are no facts in science.

Really? Is that a fact?

If it's a fact that our instruments can determine certain things about the universe because there are such things as laws of physics, that seems to me to be evidence of intelligence in and of itself.

Human intelligence, yes. Intelligence outside of human brains? No one has discovered any.

 

[F1fan]

Facts? Let me remind you there are no facts in science.

So the existence of sodium and chlorine aren't facts? That these are poisons to humans isn't a fact? That combining these two elements makes table salt and safe for humans isn't a fact?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So the existence of sodium and chlorine aren't facts? That these are poisons to humans isn't a fact? That combining these two elements makes table salt and safe for humans isn't a fact?

Technically there is no such thing as facts in science, only evidence.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Human intelligence, yes. Intelligence outside of human brains? No one has discovered any.

And how would we know? If the world looks like it was designed for human habitation, chances are it is.
After awhile, when you start looking at all the things that had to be precisely a certain way for us to live, here coincidence doesn't quite cover it.

 

[F1fan]

Technically there is no such thing as facts in science, only evidence.

So when scientists refers to facts they are wrong?

 

[F1fan]

And how would we know?

Right, so let's not assume the universe has an intelligence. Most of the universe is extremely hostile to life. Not a good design if life is what you want out of it.

If the world looks like it was designed for human habitation, chances are it is.

Yeah, when german soldiers died by freezing to death outside of Moscow in the winter of 1941, and then in Stalingrad in the winter of 1942, i'm sure they didn't see a world designed for human habitation. This goes for anyone who dies due to the inhospitable environment they're in on earth. And it's a good thing humans were smart enough to cover themselves in hides and furs to stay alive since the environment was deadly.

So, by what we observe the planet wasn't designed for humans.

After awhile, when you start looking at all the things that had to be precisely a certain way for us to live, here coincidence doesn't quite cover it.

Is it part of the design that children are born with genetic diseases that lead them to a painful death? If you insist there is a design to the universe explain why genetic faults were included and why children suffer from them.

Would you design that, and watch children cry as they endured treatment that would inevitably fail to save them?

 

[Wildswanderer]

So when scientists refers to facts they are wrong?

That's not what I said. Look it up. Facts don't exist in science, only evidence exists. Science isn't supposed to be concerned with proof.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So, by what we observe the planet wasn't designed for humans.

Oh please!
That's so short sighted
Because someone froze to death, earth was not designed for humanity? It's a perfect distance from the Sun with the perfect angle..
Nobody is bragging about their oceanfront property on Mars or the cool breeze on Venus.

There's just the right amount of gravity for us.
And a protective magnetic field.
And it does have some temperative climates, and we have brains to learn to live in the more difficult climates.