Atheists, please present your evidence

[wanstronian]

You misunderstand. To deny that God exists is to believe that something else accounts for the existence of the universe (which, unless you’re on the real fringe, we can take as a given). So I’m asking how anyone who doesn’t believe that God accounts for the existence of the universe, to offer either a logical argument of necessity, or else a scientific explanation for the existence of the universe. No cop-out there, just a reasonable request to account for the existence of the universe.

No, I understand perfectly. You are not prepared to accept that there is a gap in human knowledge without trying to fill it with feel-good fantasy. You are too narrow-minded to see that “God made it” is not in any way a satisfactory explanation for the creation of the universe.

Whereas an atheist is content to understand that God is not only unnecessary but extremely unlikely, and wait to discover more as we improve our scientific method, you (theists collectively) clearly need to have something to make you feel that your life has a purpose other than what you choose to do with it. So you present fairy tales as fact, scripture as certainty, and dogma as definite.

I repeat, there is no burden on atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist, any more than there is a burden on them to prove that Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist.

 

[wanstronian]

Those who believe in God acknowledge that in the end their belief, while supported by evidence

WHAT EVIDENCE? WHAT EVIDENCE? WHAT EVIDENCE? See here

, is rooted in faith. I doubt that atheists would make a similar acknowledgement regarding their beliefs.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? It’s not a belief, it’s a lack thereof.

How about this as an analogy to your original question. You tell me you believe that Mike is eating a banana. Mike is in a sealed room hundreds of miles away, there’s no way of knowing what he’s doing. We can’t call him, or anybody else, to ascertain whether he is, indeed, eating a banana.

By what evidence do you claim he’s eating a banana? Because bananas exist?? Yet this is what you (theists) are doing. Moreover you, as an individual, are challenging me along the lines of, “Well, if Mike isn’t eating a banana, who is? Come on, prove to me who’s eating the banana if it isn’t Mike??”

Utter drivel. Total inanity. The mind boggles. In fact, you’re bananas (see what I did there…)

 

[VociMike]

No, I understand perfectly. You are not prepared to accept that there is a gap in human knowledge without trying to fill it with feel-good fantasy. You are too narrow-minded to see that “God made it” is not in any way a satisfactory explanation for the creation of the universe.

Whereas an atheist is content to understand that God is not only unnecessary but extremely unlikely, and wait to discover more as we improve our scientific method, you (theists collectively) clearly need to have something to make you feel that your life has a purpose other than what you choose to do with it. So you present fairy tales as fact, scripture as certainty, and dogma as definite.

I repeat, there is no burden on atheists to prove that God doesn’t exist, any more than there is a burden on them to prove that Russell’s teapot doesn’t exist.

Where did I ever ask anybody to prove that God doesn’t exist?

You seem unwilling or unable to address my actual questions. And you also lack charity in your replies.

 

[wanstronian]

Where did I ever ask anybody to prove that God doesn’t exist?

By dint of challenging people to provide an alternative.

You seem unwilling or unable to address my actual questions.

That’s not entirely unfair, so here goes:

1. If you believe that the universe had to exist of necessity, please present your logical argument for that belief.

I’ve never really considered it, but my initial response is that there is no real need for the universe to have existed. The caveat to this is that I don’t know what happened immediately before it was created. The real answer is, “I don’t know”

1. If you believe that the universe did not have to exist, but (obviously) exists nonetheless, please present your scientific evidence to account for the non-necessary existence of the universe.

I guess I’ve partially answered this, but here I have to repeat my previous posts, albeit in a slightly different way: This cannot be answered by scientific, or indeed any other, method. Nobody was there to observe.

And you also lack charity in your replies.

Apologies, driven by frustration at some of the responses I’ve received.

 

[Mersenne]

I’ve asked my question, now I’m waiting for answers. For your benefit I will even ask my question again. If you don’t believe that God accounts for the existence of the universe, please offer either a logical argument of necessity for the existence of the universe, or a scientific explanation for the existence of the universe.

Why is this so difficult? Surely those who don’t believe that God accounts for the existence of the universe must have some reason to believe what they believe does account for the existence of the universe. Right?

It’s difficult because the way you phrased it originally was odd. But you’re basically asking “if not god, what?” which is still not really valid, even if I, for example, don’t know what causes salmon to spawn in the same place every year, I can still say with confidence “it’s not primarily caused by the Eiffel tower.” You don’t have to know what caused something to know what didn’t cause it.

But that’s not the worst problem with the question. The worst problem with the question is that it’s just nonsensical when applied to the entire universe. Cause and explanation is about prediction. Using observations over a small set to make guesses as to what will predict certain occurrences in the future or in other places. “When you throw a fragile object against a wall it will break” that is a general statement, from observations of a small set of the universe, that tells you a lot about the behavior of a larger set of the universe.

The idea of explanation, causation, theory building, breaks down when you try to apply it to “the set of all things that exist” i.e. the universe. You have no greater set in which to predict, so theory building has no meaning. You can describe it, and using that description make theories within the universe, but asking someone to build theories outside the universe, is a loaded question, it already assumes an “outside the universe” and it is no surprise then that all answers to this question have ended up concluding there is an “outside the universe” either from some philosophically challenged scientists or the theologically inclined.

The question of whether something is “necessary” is a neat mental tool in some contexts, but it doesn’t reflect actual reality in any way. The question of necessity in a practical sense, is just asking “under these approximately same conditions, will this happen again” and is useful. In a more philosophic sense, it’s asking “under these exact conditions, will this happen again” that is, rewind the clock, play it again, are things deterministic? But we can’t rewind the clock. No time machines. The question has no value.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Sorry, I am going to clarify. I believe you use the term “first cause” to mean God if I am not mistaken?

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your terminology.

no first cause simply refers to causality. people conflate it with G-d

 

[grannymh]

Atheists (and agnostics) are big on demanding evidence for God. That is not a bad thing, of course. But I don’t see any evidence coming from their side. Who knows, maybe I just wasn’t paying attention. So now that I am paying attention I’d like to ask atheists for their evidence, as follows:

1. If you believe that the universe had to exist of necessity, please present your logical argument for that belief.
2. If you believe that the universe did not have to exist, but (obviously) exists nonetheless, please present your scientific evidence to account for the non-necessary existence of the universe.

I haven’t had my morning Pepsi and only one eye is open, but pardon me, it looks like you are asking for evidence of the physical phenomenon known as the surrounding universe. I’m not too sure about this; but, maybe the evidence for the atheistic position is elsewhere.

In essence, atheism denies the existence of all immaterial spiritual period. Since God is the most widely known immaterial spiritual being, denying God as Creator is atheism’s flag ship. Nonetheless, atheism also has to to give evidence that the immaterial spiritual found in the human species does not exist.

This is important evidence since if the immaterial spiritual, which is intimately united with the material human body, actually exists, then …