Is There Evidence for a Creator of the Universe?

[Gokul43201]

So then magical beings defy well established principles of physical constraints, then those magical beings have copious amounts of evidence against them - all the evidence that goes into developing the physical constraints. Thats why calling them magic doesn't add anything to the discussion, its a trivial case.

If that is your argument (not that I agree with it), then a supernatural creator-being comes with the same drawbacks as any other supernatural being. Besides, making these beings magical has negated all of your so-called evidence based on atoms, reflection spectra and so forth.

This supports the notion that one should insist upon evidence before making a claim. If the tortoise you mention is magic, then its either the magic tortoise or the physical constraints - they are defined such that they can't each exist. If there is loads of evidence for the physical constraints then there is loads of evidence against magic. Easy, what's the problem? There is loads of evidence against the pink unicorn of superconductors, against the tortoise that holds up the earth, against all the magical beings you can list. There is loads of evidence against the celestial teapot, as well as the flying spaghetti monster.

You keep talking of loads of evidence without providing any! But nevertheless, by your argument, there also ought to be loads of evidence against god X, god Y or god Z.

Why should we pretend that we have an a priori knowledge that these things don't exist?

Who said we should? I merely said that we (as scientists) don't bother to waste any time or effort on pondering these things (be they monsters or angels) until the point that someone comes up with something testable. With a supernatural being or phenomenon, testability is typically not an option.

Are we not held to the same standards as the faithful when they make a claim? When a person of faith makes a bold claim to us we demand evidence. When we make a claim to them, we should expect the same demand for evidence. And there is no problem with that, the evidence is copious.

All these claims of copiousness are so far yet to be realized. But in any case, what claim is it that you are suggesting "we" have made to "them"?

 

[Gokul43201]

What is the difference between a magical creature, and a normal creature? What is "magic"? You are invoking terms that have no single meaning, or application here. By magical, do you mean that they defy physical laws through the use of some aetheral force, which also allows them to remain hidden, and defy other natural processes? I need more than just the moniker "magic" to see a difference between the description of the expected horned-horse, and something MORE.

What you've provided is a pretty good definition. Another term that I have interchangeably used for 'magical' is 'supernatural'.

I think Academic is completely correct here, and there is a bit of rhetorical dancing going on with the word "magic". Break that word down to how it applies in this discussion, and then you're going to be back at "copious evidence" as Academic puts it.

Given the definition above, let's see this copious evidence that has long been promised.

 

[nismaratwork]

What you've provided is a pretty good definition. Another term that I have interchangeably used for 'magical' is 'supernatural'.

Given the definition above, let's see this copious evidence that has long been promised.

There can be no copious evidence related to a god/creator, because that would be in a scale that we cannot observe accurately. That same grace cannot be extended to pink unicorns, or supportive pillars of Turtles, for which there is observational evidence showing that neither exist. This same argument cannot be used to argue with a Deist, or someone who believes that a god exists outside of, or as a part of the universe. That is beyond our ability to observe and verify. Leprechauns, Unicorns, and Lake (not sea, Lake) monsters are far easier to disprove to a reasonable degree.

Evo: I'm not talking about god, I was talking about pink unicorns. I hope my previous paragraph makes clear how I see this argument as being fundamentally limited to those things we can verify with empirical evidence. This thread was already off-topic, so I just ran with it on a point I disagreed with. I don't know what it means to be an FD, but I can guess that "F" is probably not complimentary in this setting[edited: I get it, Fluid Dynamics, as in I'm being fluid with my "logic", very funny.]. I think I was within the spirit of the thread, and I am drawing a line in the sand between the scale we CAN observe and deny (unicorns) and those we can't as of yet, and likely never will (gods).

 

[GeorginaS]

As Mr. SPoD and nismaratwork pointed out, we're now into a working definition of magic? I'd hazard saying that the porcelain has hit the fan, no?

 

[nismaratwork]

As Mr. SPoD and nismaratwork pointed out, we're now into a working definition of magic? I'd hazard saying that the porcelain has hit the fan, no?

Yes, this is what I am getting at; magic is supposed to defy definition, and therefore is not useful in a discussion about skepticism and debunking. There are dozens of valid definitions of magic, because it isn't a single concept; it is a catch-all.

 

[collinsmark]

(from URL http://www.funnyville.com/fv/pictures/kitten.shtml)

 

[Evo]

For those that do not have access to a dictionary

Main Entry: magic
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 : of or relating to magic
2 a : having seemingly supernatural qualities or powers b : giving a feeling of enchantment

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/magical

 

[GeorgCantor]

Mentioned, but as yet, not substantiated.

The fact that that the fundamental physical constants appear fine tuned for the emergence and possibility of life and the fact that life(observers) are able to comprehend the said universe is a VERY big red lamp to the UNbiased thinker. To me, it means that your belief may be unfounded(the belief that god, as a prime cause, doesn't exist and existence is meaningless).

 

[Evo]

The fact that that the fundamental physical constants appear fine tuned for the emergence and possibility of life and the fact that life(observers) are able to comprehend the said universe is a VERY big red lamp to the UNbiased thinker. To me, it means that your belief may be unfounded(the belief that god, as a prime cause, doesn't exist).

I think you have that a bit backward. An atheist has no belief. An atheist needs no belief. It is the ones that worship supernatural beings that have belief and hold to that belief with faith.

 

[GeorgCantor]

If this is a discussion about real life, one set of assumptions provides a system that repeatably and accurately models and predicts the behaviors of things that we interact with, and another set of assumptions produces no testable predictions or useful descriptions of how things are. There are yet other sets of assumptions that do produce testable predictions which have been falsified by careful investigation (though some of these are still very popular today). Depending on whether or not you wish to deal with the way things are in the world that we interact with, one or other set of assumptions will emerge as a preferred one, simply due to the ability of models based upon it to explain things.

Yet, NONE of the testable or untestable assumptions say anything about prime causes. Your premise that some of the assumptions are better is invalid, as they don't apply to beginnings and existence. If i said existence is supernatural, you wouldn't be able to provide any evidence that it's not, as you don't know how existence came to be or even what it is.

one or other set of assumptions will emerge as a preferred one, simply due to the ability of models based upon it to explain things.

A deity is consistent with all the evidence. That's why it will always take a leap of faith to 'refute' it. What seems like a reasoanble assumption to you might seem like an unreasonable one to others.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I think you have that a bit backward. An atheist has no belief. An atheist needs no belief. It is the ones that worship supernatural beings that have belief and hold to that belief with faith.

How would you answer the question - "Does god exist?"

 

[Evo]

How would you answer the question - "Does god exist?"

I see no evidence for it.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I see no evidence for it.

Some see clues that may be interpreted as evidence. It depends how rigorous you have to be. Conventional explanations(that includes the scientific method) run into a tower-of-turtle problem.

We didn't see evidence for gravity bending space and for the existence of matter that did not reflect light. We now know better than that.

Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.


BTW, "I see no evidence for it" is not how you come across in these types of discussions. "I see no evidence for it" speaks to me more of an agnostic, than of an atheist. If i were an atheist, I wouldn't be afraid to state that "God doesn't exist"

 

[n.karthick]

Whatever it may be, the existence of God is not going to bring any change in development of physics. Whatever has men learned and the knowledge obtained about Nature till now is without any help of Supreme being. There is no evidence that scientists had supernatural powers which was given to them by some Supreme being to enable them to discover laws of Nature.

If existence of something is not affecting us in anyway then we can very well assume that it is not existing.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

BTW, "I see no evidence for it" is not how you come across in these types of discussions. "I see no evidence for it" speaks to me more of an agnostic, than of an atheist. If i were an atheist, I wouldn't be afraid to state that "God doesn't exist"

Atheism implies not neccesarily "strong atheism", i.e. the conviction that God does not exist, but rather a predisposition to not believe in the supposed God. You can be agnostic and atheist at the same time.

 

[Gokul43201]

There can be no copious evidence related to a god/creator, because that would be in a scale that we cannot observe accurately. That same grace cannot be extended to pink unicorns, or supportive pillars of Turtles, for which there is observational evidence showing that neither exist.

This has got to be the gazillionth post here speaking of the existence of evidence that is yet to be cited. I suspect that all this supposedly copious evidence is about as real as your creator-being or my purple jellyfish.

 

[Gokul43201]

The fact that that the fundamental physical constants appear fine tuned for the emergence and possibility of life and the fact that life(observers) are able to comprehend the said universe is a VERY big red lamp to the UNbiased thinker. To me, it means that your belief may be unfounded(the belief that god, as a prime cause, doesn't exist and existence is meaningless).

1. Your post is a non-sequitur. The evidence we are talking about is supposedly "evidence against" the existence of supernatural creatures such as magical teapots, omnipotent jellyfish, etc.

2. But you make a good separate argument, aimed instead at the question posed in the OP - one about fine-tuning. I'll get to this in a later post, when I have a little more time.

3. It seems that your guesses about my beliefs are unfounded.

 

[Gokul43201]

As Mr. SPoD and nismaratwork pointed out, we're now into a working definition of magic? I'd hazard saying that the porcelain has hit the fan, no?

No, it hasn't, as were are not, nor ever were debating the definition of magic. The first person that raised this possibility provided a definition that I agreed with and found quite satisfactory (and admitted that it was essentially with this definition in mind that I had been using the term in this thread). So there really is no debate here about the definition, and I don't see what led you to believe that this was a major sticking point in the discussion.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yet, NONE of the testable or untestable assumptions say anything about prime causes. Your premise that some of the assumptions are better is invalid, as they don't apply to beginnings and existence.

So many problems within that brief span of text.

1. The sets of assumptions that produce no testable predictions are exactly those that posit the existence of a creator being. Therefore, they do say something about prime causes. It looks like you may have misunderstood my post.

2. The non-equivalence of different sets of assumptions, is not a premise of my argument, it is a conclusion.

3. Sets of assumptions, are not intended to answer questions. That is the role of models constructed upon those assumptions.

4. You have (as yet) provided no logical argument behind the implicit assertion that because models based on one set of assumptions have no answer for question Q, that there exists an equivalence between all sets of assumptions (and the models built upon them). [If this is not what you assert, please clarify what it is that you do assert.] And question Q need not be one about prime causes either. There are several more questions that are as yet unanswered by modern science. Positing the existence of a supernatural being to "answer" each unanswered question is exactly what mankind likes to do and has done for centuries.

Why does it rain? Because the creator-being is weeping at the ignorance of his creations!

A deity is consistent with all the evidence. That's why it will always take a leap of faith to 'refute' it. What seems like a reasoanble assumption to you might seem like an unreasonable one to others.

This is irrelevant, in no small part because I have no desire (nor have I made any attempt) to 'refute' a deity. And consistency is besides the point (since supernatural beings need not be constrained by logical reasoning) . A deity that continuously shapes everyday events can be constructed that is consistent with each separate natural or artificial event in history, yet the construction of such deity serves no explanatory role. Moreover, the entire set of questions Q* regarding the deity itself are now verboten.

 

[Gokul43201]

BTW, "I see no evidence for it" is not how you come across in these types of discussions. "I see no evidence for it" speaks to me more of an agnostic, than of an atheist. If i were an atheist, I wouldn't be afraid to state that "God doesn't exist"

You seem to not know what atheism is. In it's most general definition, it is an absence of belief, not a belief in an absence. You are picking a narrow subset within the broad set of atheists and imposing the properties of the subset on the entire set.

 

[nismaratwork]

Maybe this will help Georg, if you raised someone in a box without any knowledge of religion or notions of a god, and they never bothered to ponder their existence or its source, they would be... an ATHEIST! They need never consider the question of divinity at all to be atheists, they simply need to lack belief, as Gokul has said.

 

[DaveC426913]

"I see no evidence for it" speaks to me more of an agnostic, than of an atheist. If i were an atheist, I wouldn't be afraid to state that "God doesn't exist"

You'd be wrong on both counts.

Agnosticism:
Wrong: not sure about the existence of God
Right: God is unknowable in this life

Atheism:
Wrong: a conviction that God does not exist
Right: a lack of theism

 

[alt]

You seem to not know what atheism is. In it's most general definition, it is an absence of belief, not a belief in an absence. You are picking a narrow subset within the broad set of atheists and imposing the properties of the subset on the entire set.

Really ? I thought atheism was a disbelief in god, not just an absence of belief. In fact, general definitions from a couple of common dictionaries state;

Atheism; The doctrine or belief that there is no God

Atheist; Someone who denies the existence of god

.. which seems a lot stronger than mere absence of belief. In fact, breaking the word down to it's Greek components, I think we get;

'a' - in this case a negation
'theism' - belief in a god

ie, a negation in the belief of god.

Anyway, I hope this thread isn't locked anytime soon. I've been following it with great interest, and find the vast majority of posts informative, insightful, but above all, friendly and very interesting - a rare thing in debates concerning god.

 

[DaveC426913]

Atheist; Someone who denies the existence of god

Would you say this defintion was written with an unbiased hand (it contains a hidden assumption that there is something that needs denying)?

It's kind of like this definition:

Believer: someone who is under the delusion that God exists.

Hm?

'a' - in this case a negation

a- is not a negation; a- means without

i.e. without God

 

[alt]

Would you say this defintion was written with an unbiased hand (it contains a hidden assumption that there is something that needs denying)?

It's kind of like this definition:

Believer: someone who is under the delusion that God exists.

Hm?

Very true.

PS - do you know of any unbiased hands ?

a- is not a negation; a- means without

i.e. without God

OK - in which case the term 'agnostic' would be more suitable to describe 'absence of belief', ie, 'without belief.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

No, agnostic means "absence of knowledge".

 

[nismaratwork]

Remember, "ab" "ad"... and these are sometimes shortened to "a-".

Examples:

Abnormal - away from
Advent - "down" from
Agnosia - "nullifcation" or "non" knowledge (from gnosis)

This should prove useful here, and Atheist, is here. http://www.virtualsalt.com/roots.htm

"A-Theist" Not Theistic
"A-Gnostic" Not Knowing

Get it guys? DaveC is right here, period, end of story.

 

[alt]

'a', 'ab', 'ad'

Yes, away from, down, a nullification, without,

and, opposite in some cases,

and, I said a little earlier 'a negation', although I probably meant a nullification as nismaratwork pointed out above (unless I can find some word that 'a' negates, lol).

Anyhow, I certainly didn't intend to bog down the discussion. I was merely remarking that 'a lack of theism' was a little, er, soft for 'atheism' IMO, but I can certainly see the sense in what others have posted.

 

[nismaratwork]

I am so happy to have gotten a little wordplay in, I don't think you've bogged anything down.

 

[DaveC426913]

'a', 'ab', 'ad'

Yes, away from, down, a nullification, without,

and, opposite in some cases,

and, I said a little earlier 'a negation',

'without' and 'opposite' are not synonymous.

They are only synonymous when exactly two options are available.

If you assume the only two options are
belief in God
and
belief in no God
then sure, they might as well be synonymous.


But there is a third option:
no belief


So, 'without belief' as distinct from 'belief in the negative' is important here.

 

[Gokul43201]

Really ? I thought atheism was a disbelief in god, not just an absence of belief. In fact, general definitions from a couple of common dictionaries state;

Atheism; The doctrine or belief that there is no God

Atheist; Someone who denies the existence of god

.. which seems a lot stronger than mere absence of belief. In fact, breaking the word down to it's Greek components, I think we get;

Can you provide links to those definitions, or cite the sources? They both refer to the narrower definition, within the broader one.

See, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

To me, there is little difference between a disbelief and an absence of belief. (To simplify) If something passes a threshold for credibility, it is believable; else it is not. It's the same test I apply to all things in life, whether it be the purchase of a bridge across the East River from Manhattan, or the role of omnipotent magical beings.

'a' - in this case a negation
'theism' - belief in a god

ie, a negation in the belief of god.

Negation of a belief, is not a belief in a negation. Moreover, you are confusing the prefix 'a-' with the prefix 'anti-.

See, for instance: http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/2838/

a-, an- +
(Greek: a prefix meaning: no, absence of, without, lack of, not)

These prefixes are normally used with elements of Greek origin, a- is used before consonants and an- is used before vowels.

If I am without a belief in a god, then that's all one can say about that.

EDIT: I see now that some of this has been covered in posts above.

 

[nismaratwork]

'without' and 'opposite' are not synonymous.

They are only synonymous when exactly two options are available.

If you assume the only two options are
belief in God
and
belief in no God
then sure, they might as well be synonymous.


But there is a third option:
no belief


So, 'without belief' as distinct from 'belief in the negative' is important here.

To make your point clear in a non-relgious arena, let's consider "color".

Chromatic, meaning "colored"
Achromitic, meaning "without color" not a negation of the existence of color.

Atheism "without theism" not "against theism" which would be negation.

As I said, you are right right right here.

 

[nismaratwork]

Can you provide links to those definitions, or cite the sources? They both refer to the narrower definition, within the broader one.

See, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
To me, there is little difference between a disbelief and an absence of belief. (To simplify) If something passes a threshold for credibility, it is believable; else it is not. It's the same test I apply to all things in life, whether it be the purchase of a bridge across the East River from Manhattan, or the role of omnipotent magical beings.

Negation of a belief, is not a belief in a negation. Moreover, you are confusing the prefix 'a-' with the prefix 'anti-.

See, for instance: http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/2838/
If I am without a belief in a god, then that's all one can say about that.

Perhaps we need another option in the common lexicon:

Theism
Agnosticism
Atheism
Antitheism

Oh, and "abtheism" for lapsed Catholics.

 

[alt]

'without' and 'opposite' are not synonymous.

They are only synonymous when exactly two options are available.

If you assume the only two options are
belief in God
and
belief in no God
then sure, they might as well be synonymous.


But there is a third option:
no belief


So, 'without belief' as distinct from 'belief in the negative' is important here.

Yes, having explored it further as I / we have now done here, I accept the above.

 

[alt]

Can you provide links to those definitions, or cite the sources? They both refer to the narrower definition, within the broader one.

See, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism



To me, there is little difference between a disbelief and an absence of belief. (To simplify) If something passes a threshold for credibility, it is believable; else it is not. It's the same test I apply to all things in life, whether it be the purchase of a bridge across the East River from Manhattan, or the role of omnipotent magical beings.

Negation of a belief, is not a belief in a negation. Moreover, you are confusing the prefix 'a-' with the prefix 'anti-.

See, for instance: http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/2838/



If I am without a belief in a god, then that's all one can say about that.

EDIT: I see now that some of this has been covered in posts above.

My reference to the two definitions was;

http://wordweb.info/

.. a dictionary I have running on my pc.