Proof of God

[Sherlock Holmes]

Where does God do that? I see some books written by man that make a claim god said that, but that is different than what God said.

Numerous places, Romans 1:20 for example:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Life can be meaningless, only if you allow it to be.

Can you then tell me what meaning it has for you?

 

[RAMOSS]

Numerous places, Romans 1:20 for example:

That is a book written by a man. That is not God saying anything. That is Paul making claims about what God said.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That is a book written by a man. That is not God saying anything. That is Paul making claims about what God said.

Well I can only tell you what I think, if you disagree then so be it.

Since you have no reason to believe there is a "God" we won't make any progress discussing inspired documents will we.

 

[marke]

You seek to treat 'limitation' as a negative aspect of natural science, rather than closing your mind and being so cynical have you considered that rather than 'limitation' it may actually be 'structure' or a 'framework' which it builds for people. Why should it have to accept supernatural involvement?

But you cannot prove it either....

You don't have to accept the possibility of the supernatural but science does have to accept that possibility if it wants to be honored as real science not guided by opinions over facts.

 

[RAMOSS]

Well I can only tell you what I think, if you disagree then so be it.

Since you have no reason to believe there is a "God" we won't make any progress discussing inspired documents will we.

You can't show that what you think is the truth. You can only make an unsupported claim.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You can't show that what you think is the truth. You can only make an unsupported claim.

It's actually rather hard for anyone to show that anything is absolute truth Ramoss.

 

[RAMOSS]

It's actually rather hard for anyone to show that anything is absolute truth Ramoss.

But, there are things known as 'being able to test and verify'. I can verify that if I drop a brick, it will fall down.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

But, there are things known as 'being able to test and verify'. I can verify that if I drop a brick, it will fall down.

But you can't verify it will always fall down.

 

[RAMOSS]

But you can't verify it will always fall down.

No, that is where what is known as 'preponderance of evidence' comes in.. if you do it a million times, and it falls down as predicted a million times, and you can NEVER find a verifiable violation of that principle, then it's pretty damn sure that principle won't be violated.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, that is where what is known as 'preponderance of evidence' comes in.. if you do it a million times, and it falls down as predicted a million times, and you can NEVER find a verifiable violation of that principle, then it's pretty damn sure that principle won't be violated.

Yes and this is called scientific induction, it is assumption not verification, it is extrapolation not verification, it is hypothesis not verification.

How does doing something and getting the same result a million times in a row prove that you will always get the same result?

Like I said to you it's actually rather hard for anyone to show that anything is absolute truth Ramoss.

 

[RAMOSS]

Yes and this is called scientific induction, it is assumption not verification, it is extrapolation not verification, it is hypothesis not verification.

How does doing something and getting the same result a million times in a row prove that you will always get the same result?

Like I said to you it's actually rather hard for anyone to show that anything is absolute truth Ramoss.

And?? It's a very powerful tool. Without that, you wouldn't be typing on your computer.

What do you have that is an equivalent for your claims about God?

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Really...



Not at all, postulating "God did it" is a postulation, a rational, reasonable thing to consider (but not necessarily something concretely proven) given the available information, it may not be true but it is a reasonable thing to consider.

How do you know that the universe is not evidence of God? how did you establish this conclusion? You say it assuredly above so please share the deductions?

Sigh. Because there is no indication that it is evidence of any god. Nothing points to a supreme being other than your desire to have that be the case.

Again, how did you establish this is impossible?

Sorry, I don't play semantic games. One can posit that divine agency had a hand in all this; one cannot know that is the case, however.

I'm sorry to sound repetitive but once again how did you establish "no evidence of any supernatural power having been involved"? how could you prove that?

You show me that evidence, and I'll consider it. You seem to be conflated 'making a claim' with 'this is evidence'.

You have made several concrete assertions here that you regard as rational I assume, yet I cannot see how you can justify any of them.

I don't doubt that at all.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And?? It's a very powerful tool.

I never said it wasn't.

Without that, you wouldn't be typing on your computer.

Yes I know.

What do you have that is an equivalent for your claims about God?

I use the same reasoning, inductive reasoning, its a very powerful tool.

Everything I see in the universe indicates cause and effect, dropping the brick results in it falling, the gravitational field and the object's mass cause it to do that.

Planets exist and have a cause, the slowly accumulating mass of debris, dust etc cause it to accumulate and increase in density due to gravitation.

Therefore the universe exists and so like everything else that too has a cause, as you said based on the preponderance of data this is a reasonable thing to believe.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sigh. Because there is no indication that it is evidence of any god.

How do you know there's no indication of any evidence? How did you prove that the presence of the universe is not evidence for God?

It's rather obvious that God could have created the universe, not did but could, in which case it could be evidence couldn't it?

I personally see no way to prove that the universe is not evidence for God.

Nothing points to a supreme being other than your desire to have that be the case.

How do you know this?

Sorry, I don't play semantic games. One can posit that divine agency had a hand in all this; one cannot know that is the case, however.

I see so you want me to permit you the laxity of making assertions you insist are true without offering any evidence for them?

You show me that evidence, and I'll consider it. You seem to be conflated 'making a claim' with 'this is evidence'.[/b]

Now your changing your tune, initially you said there was no evidence and now your saying something different, that you haven't been shown any evidence.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

How do you know there's no indication of any evidence? How did you prove that the presence of the universe is not evidence for God?

That's not the point. I don't have to prove that in the universe isn't evidence for god. Those who claim that it is must do so.

It's rather obvious that God could have created the universe, not did but could, in which case it could be evidence couldn't it?

Sure, it could be, but that has yet to be demonstrated.

I personally see no way to prove that the universe is not evidence for God.

Oh. OK.

How do you know this?

It's an observation I have made based on available evidence.

I see so you want me to permit you the laxity of making assertions you insist are true without offering any evidence for them?

When the only evidence you have is a lack of evidence, then that lack of evidence is itself evidence that there is nothing to provide evidence. If I lack evidence that there is a cat on my head, then that lack of evidence is itself evidence that there is no cat on my head. The weight of this evidence depends on the likelihood of having evidence; if you don't search for evidence and don't observe any, that obviously carries much less weight than if you had searched.

Now your changing your tune, initially you said there was no evidence and now your saying something different, that you haven't been shown any evidence.

There still isn't any evidence, but you're welcome to try and demonstrate some.

 

[RAMOSS]

I never said it wasn't.



Yes I know.



I use the same reasoning, inductive reasoning, its a very powerful tool.

Everything I see in the universe indicates cause and effect, dropping the brick results in it falling, the gravitational field and the object's mass cause it to do that.

Planets exist and have a cause, the slowly accumulating mass of debris, dust etc cause it to accumulate and increase in density due to gravitation.

Therefore the universe exists and so like everything else that too has a cause, as you said based on the preponderance of data this is a reasonable thing to believe.

And?? How is that anykind of evidence for a supernatural deity? How does that confirm the claims in Romans? Show the model and show how that model can be tested.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

That's not the point. I don't have to prove that in the universe isn't evidence for god.

Well you do if you make assertions like this "The universe is only evidence of the universe, not of a magical being."

Sure, it could be, but that has yet to be demonstrated.

As I said I consider the presence of the universe to demonstrate this.

It's an observation I have made based on available evidence.

What evidence is there that "Nothing points to a supreme being"? This is what you said, that's what I questioned and now you say its an observation based on available evidence?

But there is no evidence that God did not create the universe, you may dispute that there's evidence he did create it that's fine but that's not what you wrote, you wrote "Nothing points to a supreme being".

When the only evidence you have is a lack of evidence, then that lack of evidence is itself evidence that there is nothing to provide evidence.

But you've not been able to show there's a true, demonstrated lack of evidence, you claiming this over and over does not make it true.

If I lack evidence that there is a cat on my head, then that lack of evidence is itself evidence that there is no cat on my head. The weight of this evidence depends on the likelihood of having evidence; if you don't search for evidence and don't observe any, that obviously carries much less weight than if you had searched.

You never said you lack evidence which a subjective claim but that "There is no evidence" which is an objective claim, so this analogy is misleading as I can only assume you intended it to be.

You are in no position to assert that not one thing in the universe (even things you've not yet seen) not even the universe itself, can serve as evidence for God, you cannot deduce that, you can only infer it using inductive reasoning, there's nothing wrong with such an inference but it must not be confused with a logical deduction.

I have no argument with you not believing that God exists or created the universe but you will be challenged when you attempt to mislead.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And?? How is that anykind of evidence for a supernatural deity? How does that confirm the claims in Romans? Show the model and show how that model can be tested.

I've said umpteen times, the presence of the universe is evidence for God, the universe cannot have had a material causes because the universe consists of everything material and cannot have caused itself just as you did not cause yourself to exist.

Since everything that exists seems to have a corresponding cause then by extension - inductive reasoning - the universe had a cause, since the cause cannot have been material it must have been something non material aka supernatural.

You agree that a thing cannot cause itself - this is established through scientific investigation already.

You advocate inductive reasoning (every time you drop a brick it falls - therefore - every time a brick is dropped it will fall) and I accept that as meaningful.

So why do you object to what I'm saying? there is nothing unreasonable here, it is a travesty of modern education that you object to such basic reasoning.

 

[RAMOSS]

I've said umpteen times, the presence of the universe is evidence for God, the universe cannot have had a material causes because the universe consists of everything material and cannot have caused itself just as you did not cause yourself to exist.

Since everything that exists seems to have a corresponding cause then by extension - inductive reasoning - the universe had a cause, since the cause cannot have been material it must have been something non material aka supernatural.

You agree that a thing cannot cause itself - this is established through scientific investigation already.

You advocate inductive reasoning (every time you drop a brick it falls - therefore - every time a brick is dropped it will fall) and I accept that as meaningful.

So why do you object to what I'm saying? there is nothing unreasonable here, it is a travesty of modern education that you object to such basic reasoning.

How is it evidence for God? You rationalize it with a nonsense claim, and then tell me something I never said and don't think is relevant. You ignore my response, and then claim God. How is that rational? How do you elminiate the idea that the conditions that gave rise to the big bang always existed, without their being an intelligence and intention behind it? I mean, if you use quantum equations for some of the conditions the GR proposes for the big bang around the time the GR equation breaks down, you get a model for an eternal univese. No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

Your entire argument is nothing but an argument from ignorance. , the specific one is classified as 'argument from personal belief'. "I don't know, therefore God'

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Well you do if you make assertions like this "The universe is only evidence of the universe, not of a magical being."[//quote]

Meh. Up until this point, no one has offered any such evidence. They've only made claims.

As I said I consider the presence of the universe to demonstrate this.

What evidence is there that "Nothing points to a supreme being"? This is what you said, that's what I questioned and now you say its an observation based on available evidence?

What evidence? The lack of evidence.

But there is no evidence that God did not create the universe, you may dispute that there's evidence he did create it that's fine but that's not what you wrote, you wrote "Nothing points to a supreme being".

And I stand by that assertion.

But you've not been able to show there's a true, demonstrated lack of evidence, you claiming this over and over does not make it true.

I don't need to. The lack of evidence does the talking for me.

You never said you lack evidence which a subjective claim but that "There is no evidence" which is an objective claim, so this analogy is misleading as I can only assume you intended it to be.

You are in no position to assert that not one thing in the universe (even things you've not yet seen) not even the universe itself, can serve as evidence for God, you cannot deduce that, you can only infer it using inductive reasoning, there's nothing wrong with such an inference but it must not be confused with a logical deduction.

I have no argument with you not believing that God exists or created the universe but you will be challenged when you attempt to mislead.

I'm not attempting any such thing, so spare me the strawman. Whether or no I can deduce that or not is utterly irrelevant to anything I've posted. I can observe that no such evidence is available, and move on from there.

You seem to be stuck in the rut of confusing claims with evidence.

 

[devildavid]

Well you do if you make assertions like this "The universe is only evidence of the universe, not of a magical being."



As I said I consider the presence of the universe to demonstrate this.



What evidence is there that "Nothing points to a supreme being"? This is what you said, that's what I questioned and now you say its an observation based on available evidence?

But there is no evidence that God did not create the universe, you may dispute that there's evidence he did create it that's fine but that's not what you wrote, you wrote "Nothing points to a supreme being".



But you've not been able to show there's a true, demonstrated lack of evidence, you claiming this over and over does not make it true.



You never said you lack evidence which a subjective claim but that "There is no evidence" which is an objective claim, so this analogy is misleading as I can only assume you intended it to be.

You are in no position to assert that not one thing in the universe (even things you've not yet seen) not even the universe itself, can serve as evidence for God, you cannot deduce that, you can only infer it using inductive reasoning, there's nothing wrong with such an inference but it must not be confused with a logical deduction.

I have no argument with you not believing that God exists or created the universe but you will be challenged when you attempt to mislead.

What exactly does evidence of anything not happening look like?

 

[Individual]

As you wish, its simply an ancient book that contains some interesting reflections on existence, why reading that is difficult for you is rather a mystery.

I would/could have agreed with your post. I've had others respond similarly with something I could agree to, with "why do you hate God?" added.

 

[Individual]

Can you then tell me what meaning it has for you?

I could, but I don't see how that would apply to the threads topic.

 

[Angel]

I've said umpteen times, the presence of the universe is evidence for God, the universe cannot have had a material causes because the universe consists of everything material and cannot have caused itself just as you did not cause yourself to exist.

Since everything that exists seems to have a corresponding cause then by extension - inductive reasoning - the universe had a cause, since the cause cannot have been material it must have been something non material aka supernatural.

You agree that a thing cannot cause itself - this is established through scientific investigation already.

You advocate inductive reasoning (every time you drop a brick it falls - therefore - every time a brick is dropped it will fall) and I accept that as meaningful.

So why do you object to what I'm saying? there is nothing unreasonable here, it is a travesty of modern education that you object to such basic reasoning.

Samson slays an army of Philistines with the jawbone of an ass.