My proof for God. Critiques please

[Moonstruck888]

As a self-proclaimed atheist, by definition, you claim God does not exist. Where is your proof?

I don’t claim God does not exist. I do not believe that God exists because none of the arguments for the existence of God meet my criteria for belief.

Seems to me you are describing agnosticism, not atheism. Which are you?

I do not believe in God, ergo I am an atheist. a - without, theos - God.

So why do you expect a believer to prove their position with evidence?

Because they are making a positive claim for one thing, and worse, they are telling other people to come to their used car lot or suffer the consequences.

That’s true. It only becomes intellectually dishonest when you fail to hold your belief system to the same standard of evidence. And you have already acknowledged you have no proof.

In the absence of proof, I am basing my atheism on common sense.

What seems a more sensible approach to understanding the fundamentals of the Universe?

a) The proposition that God created the Universe in six days, found he’d made a big mistake when he did so and had to kill everyone but two people, whereupon he found that he still hadn’t quite managed to put things right and had to take human form for 33 years before sacrificing himself to himself.

b) The proposition that the Univerese has emergent physical properties that can be studied and learned from.

So, why are you atheist?

Because I lack belief in deities.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Am I reading this correctly?

Your post is logically inconsistent; it says there is both evidence, and there is not evidence. This defies the law of non contradiction. Something cannot be both a and not a.

In science, logic does not qualify as evidence. Even if the assumption that the Universe had to have a first cause is correct, that does not explain what the first cause was.

 

[JohnDamian]

In science, logic does not qualify as evidence. Even if the assumption that the Universe had to have a first cause is correct, that does not explain what the first cause was.

In the higher sciences, data is not required for something to be true.

Furthermore, I must say you are a good sport coming around saying it does not prove what the first cause was… I would not have the courage to say such nonsense on a science board that the earth was flat or gravity didn’t exist…

kudos

 

[Moonstruck888]

In the pseudosciences, data is not required for something to be true.

Furthermore, I must say you are a good sport coming around saying it does not prove what the first cause was… I would not have the courage to say such nonsense on a science board that the earth was flat or gravity didn’t exist…

kudos

I think it’s about time you put your money where your mouth is. You say that you can prove God exists. I challenge you to do so.

 

[momor]

I don’t claim God does not exist. I do not believe that God exists because none of the arguments for the existence of God meet my criteria for belief.

That is a distinction without a difference my friend.

You have no evidence for your belief that God does not exist yet you want evidence God exists before you would consider that belief to be valid. By logical deduction, using your own criteria for proof, that makes your belief invalid.

I do not believe in God, ergo I am an atheist. a - without, theos - God.

OK. But you have no evidence to support your belief.

Because they are making a positive claim for one thing, and worse, they are telling other people to come to their used car lot or suffer the consequences.

But you also make a positive claim, sans evidence - God does not exist.
It’s reasonable for me to assume, based on the fact that you are posting here, that you are attempting to change hearts and minds as well.

In the absence of proof, I am basing my atheism on common sense.

What seems a more sensible approach to understanding the fundamentals of the Universe?

a) The proposition that God created the Universe in six days, found he’d made a big mistake when he did so and had to kill everyone but two people, whereupon he found that he still hadn’t quite managed to put things right and had to take human form for 33 years before sacrificing himself to himself.

b) The proposition that the Univerese has emergent physical properties that can be studied and learned from.

OK.
So is logic and reason now the standard of proof instead of evidence?

Because I lack belief in deities.

Why?

 

[Moonstruck888]

That is a distinction without a difference my friend.

You have no evidence for your belief that God does not exist yet you want evidence God exists before you would consider that belief to be valid. By logical deduction, using your own criteria for proof, that makes your belief invalid.

My criteria of proof is that for a positive claim there must be positive evidence. If there is no evidence to support a contention, then you can be sure that contention is false.

To be skeptical of a claim, to say that it does not meet your criteria for belief, you have to demonstrate a lack of evidence. Since God cannot be objectively observed by any means, my skepticism is supported by lack of evidence.

I have no belief and require no belief. I simply reject the claim that God exists on the grounds of lack of evidence.

OK. But you have no evidence to support your belief.

The fact that no positive proof can be found to support the existence of God supports my lack of belief.

But you also make a positive claim, sans evidence - God does not exist.

No. I make no such claim. All I am saying is that I portion my belief in God directly to evidence that supports the claim that God exists. Since there is no evidence, I have no belief.

So is logic and reason now the standard of proof instead of evidence?

No it is not. My reasoning is contingent on the evidence available.

Why?

Why don’t you believe in the tooth fairy, or the Easter bunny?

 

[JohnDamian]

I think it’s about time you put your money where your mouth is. You say that you can prove God exists. I challenge you to do so.

An infinity of things ordered essentially is an impossibility; as if we take a totality of caused things that are caused essentially it is true that this totality of caused things is itself essentially caused; therein is so caused by some cause which is not predicated such to be a member of this totality; this cause therein must be uncaused; as else it would be part of the totality etc.; ergo a first cause exists.

For more information about the exact nature of this first cause;

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM

 

[coolduude]

An infinity of things ordered essentially is an impossibility; as if we take a totality of caused things that are caused essentially it is true that this totality of caused things is itself essentially caused; therein is so caused by some cause which is not predicated such to be a member of this totality; this cause therein must be uncaused; as else it would be part of the totality etc.; ergo a first cause exists.

For more information about the exact nature of this first cause;

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/GODASFIR.HTM

FYI- Moonstruck won’t accept logic. He’s into the empirical world.

 

[Moonstruck888]

An infinity of things ordered essentially is an impossibility; as if we take a totality of caused things that are caused essentially it is true that this totality of caused things is itself essentially caused; therein is so caused by some cause which is not predicated such to be a member of this totality; this cause therein must be uncaused; as else it would be part of the totality etc.; ergo a first cause exists.

For more information about the exact nature of this first cause;

Assuming this is true, all you have demonstrated is that there must be a first cause. The leap from that to knowing definitively that this first cause is the God of the Bible, I must confess, eludes me.

 

[JohnDamian]

FYI- Moonstruck won’t accept logic. He’s into the empirical world.

Evidently, right on queue he ignored the information I gave him elaborating on the nature of the first cause.

Assuming this is true, all you have demonstrated is that there must be a first cause. The leap from that to knowing definitively that this first cause is the God of the Bible, I must confess, eludes me.

You can safely assume that it’s all true, at least now you have to (logically) accept there is a first cause… Unless you can refute this?

Of course, then I shall have to elaborate further on exactly what that cause is (the link I provided would be a good starter).

 

[coolduude]

Assuming this is true, all you have demonstrated is that there must be a first cause. The leap from that to knowing definitively that this first cause is the God of the Bible, I must confess, eludes me.

Let’s keep things straight- we’re not trying to prove the Bible God. Just a necessary being, a higher being, our Creator.

We can work out organized religion later

 

[momor]

For Moonstruck,

I don’t understand the logic behind your apparent position that lack of evidence is particularly meaningful (I know this goes against your theorum ) for evaluating reality. Remember the DNA example?

Here is another one.

In a room is a table and on the table is a closed box 1 foot square and an apple. Your mission Jim, should you decide to accept it, is to determine if a second apple exists inside the room.

The position you have been taking is that looking at the scene as described you have no evidence that another apple exists, therefore you don’t believe there is a second apple in the room.

Would you consider that to be a reasonable conclusion?

 

[Moonstruck888]

You can safely assume that it’s all true, at least now you have to (logically) accept there is a first cause… Unless you can refute this?.

I can neither confirm nor refute it. I would have to suspend judgement on it. There simply isn’t enough data available for a meaningful analysis.

If I was forced to guess, I would have to say that it’s possible an event outside the observable spacetime continuum has to have occured to account for what we can observe.

 

[Moonstruck888]

For Moonstruck,

I don’t understand the logic behind your apparent position that lack of evidence is particularly meaningful (I know this goes against your theorum ) for evaluating reality. Remember the DNA example?

Here is another one.

In a room is a table and on the table is a closed box 1 foot square and an apple. Your mission Jim, should you decide to accept it, is to determine if a second apple exists inside the room.

The position you have been taking is that looking at the scene as described you have no evidence that another apple exists, therefore you don’t believe there is a second apple in the room.

Would you consider that to be a reasonable conclusion?

If I could break open the box I would confirm by observation how many apples were in the room. If not I would say that there is only one observable apple in the room.

 

[JohnDamian]

I can neither confirm nor refute it. I would have to suspend judgement on it. There simply isn’t enough data available for a meaningful analysis.

If I was forced to guess, I would have to say that it’s possible an event outside the observable spacetime continuum has to have occured to account for what we can observe.

That is progress at least! (at last)

Believing in an event outside spacetime is a sensible start, after all it could be some natural phenomenon instead of God - the only problem is that this event must have happened without a cause.

The only way most people can reconcile something like this happening, is if it had a consciousness, and chose to act – however it is entirely possible that it is a phenomenae that is not conscious; just not in our present understanding of reality.

Just like Mendeleev was able to predict other elements in the periodic table, we are able to predict that an uncaused cause must have been there through logic, we can try; and perhaps will in the future; be able to measure it or have some evidence – to me it seems more rational to suppose that it had a consciousness than that it was some phenomenae that just caused spontaneously.

 

[momor]

If I could break open the box I would confirm by observation how many apples were in the room.

But you can’t break open the box (pretend it represents all that we don’t yet know).

If not I would say that there is only one observable apple in the room.

But that doesn’t answer the question that was posed.
The question is whether a second apple (God if you will) exists inside the room.

The lack of evidence of a second apple is in no way meaningful as to the reality of whether a second apple exists.

 

[Moonstruck888]

But that doesn’t answer the question that was posed.
The question is whether a second apple (God if you will) exists inside the room.

The lack of evidence of a second apple is in no way meaningful as to the reality of whether a second apple exists.

So either no second apple exists, or a second apple exists that is forever beyond my knowledge?

Then I would say that any statements made about the second apple would be baseless fantasy.

 

[Moonstruck888]

That is progress at least! (at last)

Believing in an event outside spacetime is a sensible start, after all it could be some natural phenomenon instead of God - the only problem is that this event must have happened without a cause.

The only way most people can reconcile something like this happening, is if it had a consciousness, and chose to act – however it is entirely possible that it is a phenomenae that is not conscious; just not in our present understanding of reality.

Just like Mendeleev was able to predict other elements in the periodic table, we are able to predict that an uncaused cause must have been there through logic, we can try; and perhaps will in the future; be able to measure it or have some evidence – to me it seems more rational to suppose that it had a consciousness than that it was some phenomenae that just caused spontaneously.

It seems rational to me to admit that any talk of what this unproven uncaused cause might be would be wild surmise.

 

[JohnDamian]

It seems rational to me to admit that any talk of what this unproven uncaused cause might be would be wild surmise.

Was Mendeleev being silly when he predicted the characteristics of the undiscovered elements?

By looking at what is logically nessecary, we can infer what it must be, if it fits the position we apply to it. If we have an uncaused cause that created the universe, we can speculate why and how it does that; and by looking at the nature of the universe we can infer what characteristics it has from what it’s effects are.

If we saw the leftovers of an explosion, we could discern what type of explosive caused it by looking at what has happened - movement of particles, radiation, heat, other damage, leftovers and soforth.

 

[momor]

So either no second apple exists, or a second apple exists that is forever beyond my knowledge?

That’s extrapolating out beyond the limits of the experiment.

The question about whether a second apple exists cannot be answered with the available evidence (present day knowledge). But the lack of evidence in no way disproves the existance of the second apple which could easily exist inside the box.

Then I would say that any statements made about the second apple would be baseless fantasy.

Not so. There is nothing baseless about saying it could be in the box, which is the believer’s intellectually honest position.

To make atheism intellectually honest, you would have to prove the apple (God) is not inside the box.