Required evidence for design?

[Parsimony]

Hey, there's good evidence, mediocre evidence, and poor evidence. So, sure, these centuries of truthfulness combined with your displays of power over reality might be used as evidence, but you may be nothing more than Joe Schmo, a supernatural being who can read the future and has superhuman powers. These parlor tricks still don't demonstrate you're the designer of the universe, or that the universe was even designed at all.

So if I came to you personally and asked what it would take for me to convince you that I was God, what would your answer be? Is there any degree of evidence sufficient, even in principle, that a god could supply to you in order for you to believe that the existence of said god is more likely than not?

 

[Skwim]

So if I came to you personally and asked what it would take for me to convince you that I was God, what would your answer be? Is there any degree of evidence sufficient, even in principle, that a god could supply to you in order for you to believe that the existence of said god is more likely than not?

In the first place, being omniscient, you would need to ask me. You'd already know. But to play along, I don't know. Give me your best shot and we'll go on from there. So far all I've seen are unsubstantiated claims that god exists.

 

[Parsimony]

In the first place, being omniscient, you would need to ask me. You'd already know.

The only way that I'd know would be if there actually is a way. That's what I'm trying to discern.

But to play along, I don't know.

You don't know? Really? You don't even know what compelling evidence for a god would look like? I'm starting to wonder if the complaints of some theists are actually justified then, in that there are atheists/agnostics for which no evidence would ever be good enough to convince them to believe there is a deity...

Give me your best shot and we'll go on from there. So far all I've seen are unsubstantiated claims that god exists.

Given what I've already posted, I'm curious why the pieces of evidence that "God-me" has provided would more likely lead a rational person to the conclusion that "This being is probably not God" or "This being is probably a powerful alien" rather than "This being is probably God".

 

[Skwim]

You don't know? Really? You don't even know what compelling evidence for a god would look like? I'm starting to wonder if the complaints of some theists are actually justified then, in that there are atheists/agnostics for which no evidence would ever be good enough to convince them to believe there is a deity...

It's not that agnostics don't think there's any convincing evidence out there, it's just that they haven't seen any. As for atheists, who disavow the existence of a god, no such evidence could exist.

Given what I've already posted, I'm curious why the pieces of evidence that "God-me" has provided would more likely lead a rational person to the conclusion that "This being is probably not God" or "This being is probably a powerful alien" rather than "This being is probably God".

Because god involves far more super duper stuff than some fortune telling, star-shifting, ear whispering entity. You're talking about the guy who designed the entire universe and brought his design into being. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Have a good day.


.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is there any particular reason why it should be possible to convince unbelievers?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

So if I came to you personally and asked what it would take for me to convince you that I was God, what would your answer be? Is there any degree of evidence sufficient, even in principle, that a god could supply to you in order for you to believe that the existence of said god is more likely than not?

Did you see the video I posted about what designed life forms might be like?

 

[Parsimony]

It's not that agnostics don't think there's any convincing evidence out there, it's just that they haven't seen any. As for atheists, who disavow the existence of a god, no such evidence could exist.

I'd like to think that many of us are "gnostic" towards the existence of Santa Claus in knowing that he doesn't exist. However, that's because of the lack of existing evidence combined with Occam's Razor. If the situation was different, and there was a large amount of evidence for Santa Claus (such as one being able to actually travel to the North Pole to meet him at his workshop as well as accompanying him on his trip around the world), I'd like to think that even the strongest disbelievers would accept that he was real. Well, at least, the strongest rational disbelievers. Likewise, I'm trying to find out what it would take to provide a similar scenario for a god.

Because god involves far more super duper stuff than some fortune telling, star-shifting, ear whispering entity. You're talking about the guy who designed the entire universe and brought his design into being. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

So if a god created another universe and allowed you to watch him or her do it or even travel there afterwards, would that be enough? I mean, at least that would demonstrate that he or she did indeed had the ability to make our Universe.

Is there any particular reason why it should be possible to convince unbelievers?

Only if they are rational. One sign of a closed mind is the inability to accept any level of evidence as sufficient to change their mind.

Did you see the video I posted about what designed life forms might be like?

Yep, and it's pretty much the same kind of thinking I've had about how the evolution of cars is fundamentally different from the evolution of life.

So would that meet your burden of proof? If living things could not be fit into phylogenies, I mean?

 

[LuisDantas]

Only if they are rational. One sign of a closed mind is the inability to accept any level of evidence as sufficient to change their mind.

How do you know that such evidence even exists?

 

[Parsimony]

How do you know that such evidence even exists?

I'm not talking about existing evidence. That's an important distinction to make. Even the existing evidence seems a little shaky to me. This thread isn't about what a deity has done, but rather would a deity would need to do in order to convince unbelievers (assuming that such a deity exists). I'm not even limiting this to the Abrahamic God. For discussion's sake, I'm defining a deity as a living being that can create universes.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

So would that meet your burden of proof? If living things could not be fit into phylogenies, I mean?

If life suggested no phylogeny, then it would mean that evolution is false. And it may suggest a conscious creator depending on the details, or it could mean life arises due to some entirely different natural process that's responsible for life. If it parallels the variation patters seen in cars, then it could mean a creator.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not talking about existing evidence. That's an important distinction to make. Even the existing evidence seems a little shaky to me. This thread isn't about what a deity has done, but rather would a deity would need to do in order to convince unbelievers (assuming that such a deity exists). I'm not even limiting this to the Abrahamic God. For discussion's sake, I'm defining a deity as a living being that can create universes.

So you are asking why we can't be convinced by evidence that may well not even exist?

 

[Parsimony]

So you are asking why we can't be convinced by evidence that may well not even exist?

No, I'm asking what evidence it would take to convince you. What evidence would be good enough to meet the burden of proof. If a god did exist, what would they need to do to provide enough evidence of their existence?

 

[LuisDantas]

No, I'm asking what evidence it would take to convince you. What evidence would be good enough to meet the burden of proof. If a god did exist, what would they need to do to provide enough evidence of their existence?

I can think of perhaps three. Variations on a theme, but still:

1. He could manifest to me somehow, even in person. Most likely as a simple, firm certainty, I assume.

2. Believers in either theism or some specific faith could manifest clear, undeniable benefit. I wonder if that could happen had I met and interacted at length with Badshah Khan.

3. One or several scriptures could show comparably clear worth. I am talking things such as reading an Epistle or Surah consistently leading people towards improved religious wisdom and moral virtue. Automatically, or close to it.

 

[Parsimony]

I can think of perhaps three. Variations on a theme, but still:

1. He could manifest to me somehow, even in person. Most likely as a simple, firm certainty, I assume.

2. Believers in either theism or some specific faith could manifest clear, undeniable benefit. I wonder if that could happen had I met and interacted at length with Badshah Khan.

3. One or several scriptures could show comparably clear worth. I am talking things such as reading an Epistle or Surah consistently leading people towards improved religious wisdom and moral virtue. Automatically, or close to it.

And that's all I was asking for.

 

[viole]

For those who do not believe that the Universe was a product of intelligent design, what qualities of the Universe would you expect to be different if it was intelligently-designed? What would have to be different about the Universe so that intelligent design would be considered the most likely explanation for these qualities? Take note that I am not talking about absolute proof, just whatever evidence would be sufficiently strong to lend weight to intelligent design.

Please take note that this isn't about evolution, the Big Bang or abiogenesis per se, unless you want to work those into it somehow.

This is a good question. My first instinct was to defuse the question by making it absurd if we do not know what the purpose of the alleged design is. Alas, that does not hold water. If I find a perfect monolith buried deep inside the moon, then I can deduce design even if I have no idea what it is designed for.

So, I have to ponder about this a bit longer.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

For those who do not believe that the Universe was a product of intelligent design, what qualities of the Universe would you expect to be different if it was intelligently-designed? What would have to be different about the Universe so that intelligent design would be considered the most likely explanation for these qualities? Take note that I am not talking about absolute proof, just whatever evidence would be sufficiently strong to lend weight to intelligent design.

Please take note that this isn't about evolution, the Big Bang or abiogenesis per se, unless you want to work those into it somehow.

Probably I would have to compare it against something that is not designed. But where do I find something that is not designed, if the Universe were, indeed, designed? I would need a piece of evidence, something undesigned, that defeats the seeked conclusion of everything being designed. In other words, either no evidence or evidence that defeats the conclusion.

Prima facie, this begs the question: how do you know then that the Universe is not designed if you cannot possibly compare it with something that is designed, either?

And my answer to that would be: my car is designed, that heap of mud is not. After all, this is what creationists have in mind when they differentiate between designed and not designed things: car obviously designed, heap of mud not necessarily so, see the difference, you heathen?

For instance, Palay's clock on the sand analogy implicitly assumes that sand is not designed, or not worth attention, defeating, thereby, the whole argument.

So, at the end of the day, all this reduces to perceived teleology, after all. And the apparent teleology of a clock does not entail an equally obvious teleology for the surrounding sand.

Ciao

- viole

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I think above all else, if IDers came up with a theoretical framework where an intelligent designer was at the core of this theory, and this theory made predictions and yielded applications, then you'd have something. Not the pseudoscience that we see where excuses are made for its discrepancies.

 

[outhouse]

Just wondering, but would you consider a universe designed by a deity to be indistinguishable from a universe that wasn't designed?

That is why it is pseudoscience

You can substitute imagination and get the same results.

 

[McBell]

For those who do not believe that the Universe was a product of intelligent design, what qualities of the Universe would you expect to be different if it was intelligently-designed? What would have to be different about the Universe so that intelligent design would be considered the most likely explanation for these qualities? Take note that I am not talking about absolute proof, just whatever evidence would be sufficiently strong to lend weight to intelligent design.

Please take note that this isn't about evolution, the Big Bang or abiogenesis per se, unless you want to work those into it somehow.

Is each snowflake individually intelligently designed?

 

[Parsimony]

Is each snowflake individually intelligently designed?

Given that they are created by natural forces, I'd say no.

That is why it is pseudoscience

You can substitute imagination and get the same results.

So you do consider a designed Universe to be indistinguishable from a non-designed Universe? That a deity could not make it apparent that it was designed even if He/She/It wanted to?