Why the low bar for evidence of gods?

[A Vestigial Mote]

So if you see HELP written in rocks on the beach, even if deserted, no sign of any person ever being there before- you default to the random action of the waves as the best explanation?

why not? you don't need me to answer the question for you

You're dodging my point entirely. I understand that it is assumed an intelligence was required to place the rocks in a specific pattern. However, that is knowing what we know about the actions of rocks by themselves and our ability to contemplate the probabilities associated with any given pattern of rocks existing by chance.

But, here, I will just state in plainly - nothing in the universe is ordered in such a way as to affirm intelligence was required in its formation. You can point at RNA/DNA all you want, but it is, at its core, a chain of molecules that, like everything else, adhere to what we have come to understand are the rules of our reality. Factor in accretion of complexity over time due to evolution, and where is intelligence required to "write" that RNA or DNA strand? Do you ACTIVELY see intelligence being utilized to produce each new creature that is born? Or is the process automated? And are you absolutely sure it was automated by God? Or is it automated by the driving forces of the cosmos? By rules that have (thus far in our meager time here within it) proven themselves constant and immutable. We can even delve through history using our various dating methods, examining geological strata here on earth, and examining positions and light transmissions of far-more-than-ancient celestial bodies and conclude with a pretty high certainty that "the rules" were the same way way way back when also.

Which is why you point, specifically, to rocks formed by what you are absolutely sure was intelligence, and not to rocks in general... which you also suppose were crafted by some form of "intelligence" - but don't accept as being special on their own. You're appealing to the human realm of knowledge, because God's supposed realm of knowledge isn't good enough.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're dodging my point entirely. I understand that it is assumed an intelligence was required to place the rocks in a specific pattern. However, that is knowing what we know about the actions of rocks by themselves and our ability to contemplate the probabilities associated with any given pattern of rocks existing by chance.

But, here, I will just state in plainly - nothing in the universe is ordered in such a way as to affirm intelligence was required in its formation. You can point at RNA/DNA all you want, but it is, at its core, a chain of molecules that, like everything else, adhere to what we have come to understand are the rules of our reality. Factor in accretion of complexity over time due to evolution, and where is intelligence required to "write" that RNA or DNA strand? Do you ACTIVELY see intelligence being utilized to produce each new creature that is born? Or is the process automated? And are you absolutely sure it was automated by God? Or is it automated by the driving forces of the cosmos? By rules that have (thus far in our meager time here within it) proven themselves constant and immutable. We can even delve through history using our various dating methods, examining geological strata here on earth, and examining positions and light transmissions of far-more-than-ancient celestial bodies and conclude with a pretty high certainty that "the rules" were the same way way way back when also.

Which is why you point, specifically, to rocks formed by what you are absolutely sure was intelligence, and not to rocks in general... which you also suppose were crafted by some form of "intelligence", but don't accept as being special on their own. You're appealing to the human realm of knowledge, because God's supposed realm of knowledge isn't good enough.

I acknowledge my belief, faith as such, do you? I think God is the least improbable explanation yes.

Just as I can't be sure that HELP was not washed up by the waves, but if I am with the coast guard, I'm not going to make that my 'default assumption', simpler and easier as that may be

If I showed you a fully automated watch making factory, does that get you closer to, or further from, an ultimately self-automated explanation?

i.e. automated function ≠ automated origin, in fact the opposite argument can be made at least as well, far better I would argue.

 

[james bond]

nothing in the universe is ordered in such a way as to affirm intelligence was required in its formation.

This is just BS. Of course, there is intelligence and beauty in the universe.

It is one of the evidence, but since you do not know what can I say but too bad, so sad.

That said, your argument is moot because it's not just you but every non-believer has to be convinced. It was one of the greatest arguments put up by an atheist. Thus, it's not up to believers to provide the ultimate evidence, but to Jesus on Judgement Day.

 

[Mock Turtle]

This is just BS. Of course, there is intelligence and beauty in the universe.

That was not what was said. What was stated was that there is no evidence to suggest any intelligence was required in the formation of the universe. Something entirely different from what you seem to have taken as a meaning.

 

[PureX]

Interesting. So apparently truth is of secondary concern to you.

Truth is of little concern to any of us. What we seek is functional knowledge, and the advantage it gives us in controlling our environment and ourselves in relation to it, not truth.

You don't mind deluding yourself as long as you can see some positive value in doing so.

None of us do. The delusion is in thinking that we're pursuing "truth", when in fact we wouldn't know it if we had it. And wouldn't care, anyway.

Personally I prefer to face reality head on. I'd rather learn how to deal with my fears of the unknown instead of making up comforting fairy tales to ease my fears.

What you are calling "reality" IS a comforting fairy tale. In that it's an imaginary circumstance derived from your very limited experience and understanding of existence, intended to enable you to control and manipulate it to your own advantage.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If I showed you a fully automated watch making factory, does that get you closer to, or further from, an ultimately self-automated explanation?

Each part of a watch-making factory would also be MARKEDLY DIFFERENT FROM MOST OTHER CONFIGURATIONS OF MATTER YOU COULD FIND NATURALLY IN THE UNIVERSE. There's the difference. You could traverse the universe and see metal in billions of configurations, but when you stumble upon something like a symmetrical gear, it is different. Granted, we have only seen "life" on Earth as it stands now, however hear on Earth there are billions upon billions of life-forms also, that for all intents and purposes arrive at the state we call "life" via completely natural processes. Are we to rule out that life has arisen on other planets, when we have visited none of them? Does it seem like a perfectly logical thing to assume that life exists nowhere else in the universe, when we see it so abundantly on our own planet, and know that there are billions of planets out there? This is quite different from believing in God... because again, we have proof of life existing, we have proof of those billions of other planets being out there, and of stars that could power such planets as ours being out there in droves. Billions upon billions of chances - it is MUCH nearer a statistical certainty than is "God." To the point that even "life" might not be the rare symmetry that breaks all other molds of matter.

We're mere infants in our knowledge of the rest of the content of the universe... new-borns in fact. We have supposedly known God for millennia... and yet we've got a lot more hard-and-fast facts, backed by evidence, about the universe. Strange, isn't it?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

This is just BS. Of course, there is intelligence and beauty in the universe.

It is one of the evidence, but since you do not know what can I say but too bad, so sad.

That said, your argument is moot because it's not just you but every non-believer has to be convinced. It was one of the greatest arguments put up by an atheist. Thus, it's not up to believers to provide the ultimate evidence, but to Jesus on Judgement Day.

Did I say there wasn't beauty in the universe? Did I say that? Why do you theists just love putting words in nonbelievers' mouths? Can you tell me? I am genuinely curious. I mean, I may have made a small trespass in that area a few distinct times... but for Christian/Islamic believers they literally can't seem to help themselves but to read things that just aren't there. It seems you just love make-believe opinions... which is interesting considering some of the other make-believe things you have a penchant for.

But intelligence? I don't see it. I see matter in a bunch of precise configurations, sure... but those things are also seen to happen, on their own, with NOTHING CLOSE TO WHAT WE'D CALL INTELLIGENCE coming into play. For example, crystals grow by themselves by the trillions everywhere there are the the right conditions in the universe. Chemical reactions that have atoms and molecules coming together to form new configurations are happening all the time everywhere in the universe where there is matter coming together as well. Do those things require intelligence, do you think? Is there an intelligence active in their manifestations? Again, it is completely automated. And it doesn't make you special to slap a label of "God" on the automation. It is assumption, nothing more.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Each part of a watch-making factory would also be MARKEDLY DIFFERENT FROM MOST OTHER CONFIGURATIONS OF MATTER YOU COULD FIND NATURALLY IN THE UNIVERSE. There's the difference. You could traverse the universe and see metal in billions of configurations, but when you stumble upon something like a symmetrical gear, it is different. Granted, we have only seen "life" on Earth as it stands now, however hear on Earth there are billions upon billions of life-forms also, that for all intents and purposes

arrive at the state we call "life" via completely natural processes.

Well I disagree with the premise, unless 'natural processes' includes the work of an intelligent agent

Are we to rule out that life has arisen on other planets, when we have visited none of them? Does it seem like a perfectly logical thing to assume that life exists nowhere else in the universe, when we see it so abundantly on our own planet, and know that there are billions of planets out there?

I don't believe in ET if that's what you mean, unless the universe is much much larger than we currently estimate.

Let me ask you a hypothetical, if we could verify that we are in fact the only intelligent life in the universe, the only means by which it can contemplate it's own existence- would this shake your belief at at all? or could you happily write that off as yet one more bizarre coincidence?

This is quite different from believing in God... because again, we have proof of life existing, we have proof of those billions of other planets being out there, and of stars that could power such planets as ours being out there in droves. Billions upon billions of chances - it is MUCH nearer a statistical certainty than is "God." To the point that even "life" might not be the rare symmetry that breaks all other molds of matter.

Not at all, as I said, I think the math shows there simply are not enough stars to make another Earth probable. Unless you define earth-like as many click-bait astronomy articles do- something vaguely near a hypothetical habitable zone. By such a loose definition, a snowman may be called 'human-like'- but likewise- nothing we are going to strike up a conversation with!

We're mere infants in our knowledge of the rest of the content of the universe... new-borns in fact. We have supposedly known God for millennia... and yet we've got a lot more hard-and-fast facts, backed by evidence, about the universe. Strange, isn't it?

It is true, that many cosmologists have remarked on how extraordinary it is; that the universe so lends itself to our observation, exploration, understanding. - Pushing our curiosity and ingenuity to it's limits, drawing us up and out of ourselves to ponder something greater- how better to appreciate anything?

But I don't know how you see this as being somehow inconsistent with a creator?!

 

[oldbadger]

THREAD TITLE:- Why the low bar for evidence of gods?

Hi........ but the evidence is in every view, sound, touch, smell, thought or awareness within you.... you just don't want to accept that simple fact that there is a reason for the existence of everything, and that reason can easily be called God.
...but let'#s see hopw your OP stretches away from your title...........

Considering the importance that gods play in people's lives, why is the bar so low when we're talking about evidence for them?

...you mean, when is the bar low when you're talking about it all.

I can't count the number of times that I've seen a theist respond to an atheist with.......

See? You should have looked out for the Deists.

And the typical arguments for gods don't do much better.

Oh come on.......... Why is it that many extreme-atheists cannot answer simple questions such as 'Is there a reason for the existence of all?' ... or ....'Is there a reason why the Universe burst into existence?' Come to think of it, I've never had a straioght Yes or No answer to that.

But theistic-based religion is more than just the intellectual acceptance of the idea that a god exists; it's often full-blown devotion of a person's life to the existence of a god or gods and ideas that flow from it (e.g. living your life the way your god(s) want you to live it, or giving up significant time and money for worship of the god(s) and support of his/her/its/their church/clergy/etc.).

Off you go then, wandering off into theism, and suggesting that religion costs followers more than baseball, or football.......
Deism might cost its believers a penny here or there, but I can't see how.

For many theists, their devotion to their god is akin to the devotion of a marriage.

Now marriage does cost the couple in various delightful ways, but if you ever need to prove to yourself that there is a God, a Reason-for-all, or that you have a wife, just hold your wife's hand and you've answered both/all questions at the same time.

So what gives? Based on the level of discourse that I see around gods, even if I granted every one of the theists' arguments for the existence of their god(s), I'd only be at "okay - I can intellectually assent to the idea that God is possible"... or maybe with a really good argument get to "God is probable." I certainly wouldn't be anywhere near "I accept with my heart and soul that God exists, and that this is how he wants me to live my life, and I should give up a year of my life to go on a mission trip to convince other people that he exists."

There you go again.......... you must be terrified of us Deists.
There reason why everything exists is our Deity, but you can call it 'The Reason' and still join our togetherness. But I'm not selling God so don't tell me off.... I don't give a fig whether you actually believe or not, because your under God's thumb one way or the other.

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

There you go again, wandering away from your thread title into theistic religions.......
Evidence for God is a doddle....... just look at your hand, the table, your mouse (I don't mean pet mouse and I'm not being rude, I mean the little thingy that moves your pointy thing around....... Oh God, this is getting me deeper into trouble, I can feel it.)

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not at all, as I said, I think the math shows there simply are not enough stars to make another Earth probable. Unless you define earth-like as many click-bait astronomy articles do- something vaguely near a hypothetical habitable zone. By such a loose definition, a snowman may be called 'human-like'- but likewise- nothing we are going to strike up a conversation with!

And this is just another array of assumptions. Who says that life can only exist on a planet that is just like Earth. Is it any wonder that life intended to live on THIS planet is completely dependent on the conditions of THIS planet? Why would that be at all odd? We have no idea the true range of life's potential environs. There are bacteria that survive in strong acid here on Earth, for goodness sake. Who are we to say what the limits of life are? Who are we to determine what something like a "Goldilocks Zone" really is? Have we really got it all figured out, do you think? And because we don't know, it can't be ruled out. Just as you say that God can't be rules out... though observable reality strongly indicates otherwise, i admit that we simply can't "rule it out." But there are all sorts of things YOU HAVE rules out... by asserting and insisting on God.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And this is just another array of assumptions. Who says that life can only exist on a planet that is just like Earth. Is it any wonder that life intended to live on THIS planet is completely dependent on the conditions of THIS planet? Why would that be at all odd? We have no idea the true range of life's potential environs. There are bacteria that survive in strong acid here on Earth, for goodness sake. Who are we to say what the limits of life are? Who are we to determine what something like a "Goldilocks Zone" really is? Have we really got it all figured out, do you think? And because we don't know, it can't be ruled out. Just as you say that God can't be rules out... though observable reality strongly indicates otherwise, i admit that we simply can't "rule it out." But there are all sorts of things YOU HAVE rules out... by asserting and insisting on God.

'Life Jim, but not as we know it'? That's a very useful assumption if you are writing plots for science fiction TV ! But it doesn't work so well in reality.

In the days of Poe and Verne we wondered what sort of folks lived on the moon, because we took for granted that life and people were everywhere we looked. Today scientists would be blown away by a fossilized microbe on Mars..

The more we learn, the more we realize just how special Earth is- the universe is made of the same stuff, it all came from the same place, we have a pretty good cross section of possible environments right here in this solar system, and even on Earth, there are places where conditions are not quite right,- disallowing any complex life to survive- far less to have arisen there in the first place.


This also backs up the observation, or lack thereof - the 'great silence' of the galaxy as it is known

 

[james bond]

That was not what was said. What was stated was that there is no evidence to suggest any intelligence was required in the formation of the universe. Something entirely different from what you seem to have taken as a meaning.

Again, that is BS. Why do atheist scientists make up stuff to contradict creation scientists? It's easy to list their lies and being wrong. Remember creation scientists came first.

There is no low bar for creationism. To say that "there is no evidence to suggest any intelligence was required in the formation of the universe" is a low bar.

 

[james bond]

Did I say there wasn't beauty in the universe? Did I say that? Why do you theists just love putting words in nonbelievers' mouths? Can you tell me? I am genuinely curious. I mean, I may have made a small trespass in that area a few distinct times... but for Christian/Islamic believers they literally can't seem to help themselves but to read things that just aren't there. It seems you just love make-believe opinions... which is interesting considering some of the other make-believe things you have a penchant for.

But intelligence? I don't see it. I see matter in a bunch of precise configurations, sure... but those things are also seen to happen, on their own, with NOTHING CLOSE TO WHAT WE'D CALL INTELLIGENCE coming into play. For example, crystals grow by themselves by the trillions everywhere there are the the right conditions in the universe. Chemical reactions that have atoms and molecules coming together to form new configurations are happening all the time everywhere in the universe where there is matter coming together as well. Do those things require intelligence, do you think? Is there an intelligence active in their manifestations? Again, it is completely automated. And it doesn't make you special to slap a label of "God" on the automation. It is assumption, nothing more.

Just how does crystals form from nothing?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Again, that is BS. Why do atheist scientists make up stuff to contradict creation scientists? It's easy to list their lies and being wrong. Remember creation scientists came first.

In what kind of contest does the order tell as to the truthfulness?

There is no low bar for creationism. To say that "there is no evidence to suggest any intelligence was required in the formation of the universe" is a low bar.

Believe, and the gates of heaven will open - in a sudden downpour to dampen your irrational beliefs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hi........ but the evidence is in every view, sound, touch, smell, thought or awareness within you.... you just don't want to accept that simple fact that there is a reason for the existence of everything, and that reason can easily be called God.
...but let'#s see hopw your OP stretches away from your title...........

You're kind of illustrating my point: arguments for gods are never like "yeah, God exists - he's right over there;" it's always more like "here's a collection of indirect circumstantial evidence that we think points to God."

...you mean, when is the bar low when you're talking about it all.

No, I mean just about anyone I've ever encountered and any author I've ever read.

See? You should have looked out for the Deists.

I use the term "theist" to describe anyone who believes in any sort of god or gods.

The word is kinda like "hockey:" you can use it for the game on ice specifically, but you can also use it to describe ice hockey, field hockey, floor hockey, etc. collectively.

Oh come on.......... Why is it that many extreme-atheists cannot answer simple questions such as 'Is there a reason for the existence of all?' ... or ....'Is there a reason why the Universe burst into existence?' Come to think of it, I've never had a straioght Yes or No answer to that.

Again: this is the sort of low bar I'm talking about. This is like trying to establish that I'm married by the characteristics of my house ("no single guy would need this many mugs! And look - there's a jar of teabags. I don't even like tea!") instead of direct evidence ("my wife is upstairs. I'll bring her down and you can talk to her while I get our marriage certificate and our photo ID").

Off you go then, wandering off into theism, and suggesting that religion costs followers more than baseball, or football.......
Deism might cost its believers a penny here or there, but I can't see how.

Again: "theism" includes deism. But you may have been so focused on that that you missed when I said "often."

 

[Mock Turtle]

Just how does crystals form from nothing?

Why not Google it?

 

[atanu]

They don’t say this; that was my point: it’s not what any theist says about their own beliefs, but it’s the best that arguments for theism - e.g. Aquinas’s Five Ways - seem to be able to do.

Can you kindly show where that happens? I have not seen any scripture, interpretation, or belief which leads to "there's a god out there somewhere".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you kindly show where that happens? I have not seen any scripture, interpretation, or belief which leads to "there's a god out there somewhere".

I think you might be focusing a bit too much on that word. I didn't intend it as an exact quote of anyone; what I meant is that most "proofs" of gods only try to establish, say, a first cause of the universe without any particular reason to assume that this first cause interacts with humanity, is anywhere near humanity, or even still exists.

It only bears the slightest resemblance to the thing being proven. To use my analogy again, it would be like me proving the existence of my wife by arguing that the taste in the decor in my house is too good for me to have done it on my own. It isn't the way who actually has a spouse would try to establish the existence of their spouse because it's just not that compelling.

 

[Ponder This]

Why the disparity? If the existence of gods is really an open question - and the level of discourse that I see suggests it is - then how is devotion to a theistic religion ever justified?

I think you've confused arguments about gods with belief in gods.
If a person believes in a god or gods, then they expect you to disprove it... and if you can't, then they will continue believing what they believe.

People don't just change their minds because of clever arguments, they need to really feel strongly about something before they will change their minds. If you've already started the game on the 'wrong-side', then you are already discredited. Who wants to share your belief (or lack thereof) if we don't share your values?

And why is it so important to not believe in gods? To be precise: why is it so important that I stop believing in my gods?

For example, in Christianity, there's an important reason to believe in God. So not only have you failed to disprove the God I believe in, you have failed to provide a compelling reason I shouldn't.

So it doesn't matter if you think the bar is set "low" or "high". Is there any benefit to not believing except: o look, now I'm a social pariah?

And let's face it, these arguments against the existence of God, while clever, really lack punch to them. They don't convince:

God is an Evil tyrant? God doesn't interfere? God doesn't this, God doesn't that? Hmmm, you clearly aren't going to the same Church I go to, where none of those things are true. Do you even share any of my values?

But, but you will say, 'I don't pretend I have a wife because my cats got fed.' And there's no motivation in that argument. It's not a motive for believing or disbelieving in a wife. A person can have a reason to say it's his wife, even if he doesn't have a wife. This is why your arguments fail. People have a reason to believe in gods and you failed to provide them with a reason to not believe in them!

 

[QuestioningMind]

Truth is of little concern to any of us. What we seek is functional knowledge, and the advantage it gives us in controlling our environment and ourselves in relation to it, not truth.
None of us do. The delusion is in thinking that we're pursuing "truth", when in fact we wouldn't know it if we had it. And wouldn't care, anyway.
What you are calling "reality" IS a comforting fairy tale. In that it's an imaginary circumstance derived from your very limited experience and understanding of existence, intended to enable you to control and manipulate it to your own advantage.

You can choose to live in a world of nothing as opposed to a world of something... but personally I find that terribly sad.