Evidence of God

Religions > Atheism > Evidence of God

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 2 of 4

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"someone4"
Date:	13 Aug 2006 08:34:53 AM
Object:	Evidence of God

We are sentient beings, that experience the physical world. The
question is whether the physical is the primary reality, or being is
the primary reality. Some atheists (though not necessarily all) believe
that the physical is the primary reality, and that it is both the cause
of us being sentient, as well as the cause of what we experience as
sentient beings. They might even go so far as to suggest that science
backs up their perspective.
Firstly I will examine this perspective, and point out the 'leaps of
faith' that it requires.
Firstly it requires a belief that the universe is as it is, because
that just happened to be the physical reality of things, and of all of
the possible configurations physical reality could have been, the
universe just happens to support life (is within a very limited
configuration set). All possible configurations being equal (no reason
for it being one configuration rather than another), it is highly
improbable that the universe would support life.
There are a few common replies to this implication.
One is that unless that had been the case, we wouldn't be here to
experience the universe. This is simply a case of assuming their own
conclusions, and ignoring the improbability of it just happening to
support life. To this there is the counter argument that probability is
only applicable to future events, not past events, if it happened it
happened. For example one might say, well if a person won the lottery,
then they won it, you can't look back and view the probability, and say
that it is unlikely they did. The lottery example is a poor example and
designed to mislead when it is used as an analogy to the universe just
happening to support life. The lottery is played by millions of people
(millions of tickets are bought), the physical reality is the
equivalent of one ticket, and the improbability (all configurations
being equal) is far greater than winning the lottery. It is valid to
look at the probability of an explanation being true. To take an
extreme example to highlight the point, supposing a person was on trial
for murder, in which they were a prisoner in a cell which they shared
with the victim, and their explanation was that an alien giant ameoba
type creature came through the bars, picked up the paper weight, and
killed the victim, before disappearing again through the bars. Though
the truth is whatever the truth is, how would you evaluate whether they
are telling the truth if your life depended on getting the answer
right?
One might argue that just because we may never know the reason to why
the universe is like it is, doesn't mean that there couldn't be a
reason that we may forever be ignorant of, therefore it was wrong to
assume that all configurations were equally likely. The problem with
this criticism, is that it just takes the question back a step, why was
the reason the universe is like it is, like it is?
The next 'leap of faith' is that although there are scientific
indications of a 'Big Bang', a starting point, that there was in fact
no starting point (and that a theory will be found to explain the
seeming starting point, without requiring a starting point itself), and
that there is nothing outside of the event horizon of spacetime
expansion of the 'Big Bang'. Within the event horizon spacetime exists,
and outside is nothing, not even space.
One of the biggest leaps of faith, is that the physical causes our
sentience, our consciousness, our being. It may seem logical that the
brain causes us to experience, yet there is no known physical theory in
which interactions of the physical world can be self aware. Though this
is the greatest leap of faith, it also is one that seems intuitive,
that our brains cause us to be aware. We can be given drugs that cause
chemical reactions in the brain, and seemingly make us lose
consciousness. Many assume this to prove that the brain is therefore
the cause of our consciousness. There are problems with this though,
and I will try to highlight these below.
Skipping over the problem of a lack of any physical theory in which
chemical interactions cause awareness, let us simply look at what it
would mean if we were purely physical beings.
What we do would simply be the consequence of a series of chemical
reactions. There would be no mechanism for what you 'will' to happen,
instead, it would be a case of you simply doing whatever the chemical
reactions determined you would do. Therefore there can be no
evolutionary advantage to you being 'aware'. To highlight the point
further, image a digital watch, few would argue, that if you pressed a
button on the side to illuminate the display, that the watch was in
anyway aware that this had happened. That it illuminates is simply
determined by the laws that govern the physical world. Similarly, if I
programmed a computer to say "hello world" , it would have no awareness
that it was saying "hello world". Again, if I programmed a robot, that
appeared to respond in a similar way to humans, there is still no
reason to think it is aware, any more than the digital watch. To
respond, that we are simply organic computers is very tempting, but it
is simply assuming your own conclusions, and glossing over the total
lack of explanation for how chemical reactions can produce awareness.
Regardless, on the robot simulating human responses, we have no more
reason to think it is aware than the digital watch, because chemically,
there is no difference in the reaction. Even if you were to assume it
was aware, simply because it simulated human behaviour, there would be
no advantage to it being aware, it wouldn't act any differently to how
it was programmed.
Extrapolating this to humans, if we were simply physical beings, then
whether we were aware or not, would not effect the way we behaved, we
would simply do whatever the laws of physics determined we would do.
Therefore there can be no evolutionary advantage to our awareness. This
is accepted even on talk.origins, where our awareness is simply counted
as something that just happened to emerge through evolution, though no
explanation for why is given. It is just another leap of faith that is
required. It is also not explained why if awareness emerged, that our
experience was not similar to that of a passenger in a vehicle, we
could experience what happens, but we didn't feel like we could alter
the course of the vehicle, because we would be unable to, the course of
the vehicle being determined by the laws of physics. Instead you would
have to deny your own experience, that you can 'will' your hand to move
in say one minutes time, without any knowledge of whether the laws of
physics would in fact determine that your hand will move (assuming a
human with a functioning hand).
As this mail is getting rather long, I will cut it short now, and give
an alternative perspective, which fits in with science, and our
experience.
It is the perspective that all there is is 'being'. That reality could
only have been 'being' or 'not being'. We know that it wasn't 'not
being' because we are 'being', we experience, and we can through our
will, influence what happens in the physical expression that we all
experience, within the restrictions of the rules that govern our
physical experience. The brain being within the physical does not cause
our experience, but the state of it, has huge influence on what we
experience (including memory). It could be likened to being within a
'matrix', except that it is our being that is presented with the
experience, and within our lives (reflection period), this experience
is governed by rules.
The only leap of faith required is that there are rules because the
reflection period (the time we experience the presentation of the
physical world), is that it is to determine, which it is better to be,
selfless and loving, or selfish and hateful. That there are two
infinite beings presenting us with the physical world, one perfected,
selfless and loving (God), the other the flawed, selfish, and hateful
(the Devil). The Devils motivation is to cause us pain, and therefore
cause God pain through our suffering (the Devil unable to cause God
suffering directly, being met with only pity). God's motivation is to
enlighten the Devil (which remains flawed, because it has the love of
itself, and the love (if only in the form of pity) of God). This might
seem harsh for us, unconsulted pawns in the game, but that we will
eventually be presented with a 'reality' that we call heaven, is a
compensation, that once experienced, will make it all worthwhile. This
explanation also explains why we experience a presentation that is
unbiased, neither heaven nor hell, and why we don't simply experience
heaven, with a VIP section for the perfected beings.

From Isaiah 29:

15 Woe to those who go to great depths
to hide their plans from the LORD,
who do their work in darkness and think,
"Who sees us? Who will know?"
Given that the physical presentation, is presented by God (and the
Devil), and your interaction with it, is by communication of your will,
you can see the foolishness of those thinking "Who sees us? Who will
know?".
16 You turn things upside down,
as if the potter were thought to be like the clay!
Shall what is formed say to him who formed it,
"He did not make me"?
Can the pot say of the potter,
"He knows nothing"?
That you have turned things upside down, having the physical the
primary, causing being, rather than being presented with the physical
was predicted. As was the rise of atheism, which is surprising given
that at the time, the more likely thing would have been to suggest that
people would fall back into the worship of other gods.
And to the house of Jacob, there was a personal message:
22 Therefore this is what the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, says to the
house of Jacob:
"No longer will Jacob be ashamed;
no longer will their faces grow pale.
23 When they see among them their children,
the work of my hands,
they will keep my name holy;
they will acknowledge the holiness of the Holy One of Jacob,
and will stand in awe of the God of Israel.
Given that the physical is an illusion, and that there is only being,
all beings are produced by God, being the genetic, father or mother is
an illusion. It could be argued that from the explanation above the
children are a product of both God and the Devil, though the Devil
itself came from God, and so God was the beginning, and is the end, and
everything in between came from itself.
Anyway, in summary, some of the the evidence for God is:
The 'Big Bang'.
That the universe is designed in such a way to support life.
That the first cell was determined to come together as it did.
If true randomness were to be believed in, that the history of science
shows causes behind effects, and yet underlying, the root cause of
which event actually happened was not within the physical plane (from
the perspective of the physical plane it was random).
That we are aware.
That our will can influence the presentation of the physical world.
That humanity taking a selfless loving view, and working together for
the common good, would be better for humanity (emphasises that the
wisdom of a loving selfless God, is obviously wise).
That an explanation exists, that is easy to understand, and fits in
with all scientific evidence.
That there are non-local effects, Alain Aspect experiment, which fits
in with matter not being separate (point put forward by Bohm). Hardly
suprising given it is a presentation, and everything in the physical
presentation is within the mind of God.
There are other bits, such as:
The inability of neurons to account for our ability to reach the
conclusions that we do (see works of Roger Penrose,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose for summary). Should note
that it is his objections, not his attempt at an explanation that is
important.
No difference has been found between the neurons that are supposed to
(according to the atheist materialists) produce consciousness, and
those that definitely don't, nor is there any suggested binding
mechanism, where the state of these neurons could be mapped to our
awareness. See http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/Elsevier-NCC.html for
an explanation of the areas that they hope to make progress on and the
problems they face, but also note, that altering the state of the
brain, and noticing a correlation to a change in our awareness would
not prove anything, it is not contested that what we experience is
influenced by the state of the brain. Nor are their assumptions that
"it is known that the entire brain is sufficient to give rise to
consciousness" true, it is simply their working assumption, but as it
is said in Isaiah 29, they have it upside down. They would need to
explain a mechanism whereby the physical could produce experience, and
therefore a physical explanation of what experience is. Presumably they
should be able to show when you are going to move your hand, and that
there is nothing you could do to stop it (the laws of physics are
determining your hand will move).
The above experiment, being shown that your hand will move, and being
unable to stop it, will never occur. Another experiment might be,
wiping a persons memory by use of drugs, placing them in a maze (in a
certain position), recording their actions, then repeating the
experiment, and seeing if they act exactly the same. It won't happen,
nor will any experiment showing that you don't have a choice, while you
experience that you do.Though it does give the concept of a possibility
of a refutation that your being is separate from the physical, and that
it can influence the physical.
Given that it is your very soul at stake, it would be wise to reflect
upon how it is that you can (if you can), will your hand to move, and
how it is that you experience.
It also has implications for the future of humanity. Whether they will
be inspired to use God as a compass, to see us all as beings under God,
and unite, or whether they will be inspired to highlight the
differences in belief, and turn against each other.
.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	19 Aug 2006 02:02:51 PM

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 11:23:25 -0700, Frank Mayhar <frank@exit.com> wrote
in alt.atheism

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 16:23:15 +0000, Douglas Berry wrote:

What's so funny about peace, love and "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> posting the following on 13 Aug 2006
07:36:34 -0700 iin alt.atheism?

[]

We experience the same way any animal experiences. We enocunter a
stimulus (in this case, a skunk.) We sense the skunk, probably by
vision first,

I don't know about where you live, but around here vision is _not_ the
sense first stimulated by said critter. (This area has a floating
population of skunks which regularly make themselves apparent, and not by
sight, either. :-)

And tisn't a aromic delight.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.

User: "wcb"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	12 Aug 2006 12:27:25 PM

someone4 wrote:

I can hardly say well argued, but I'm curious, what is your explanation
for why we experience, or maybe how chemical reactions cause
experience? Surely these are just simply questions. Do you have an
answer, or just ignorant rhetoric?

Google emergent qualities.
Now, go study science books on this subject
of conciousness and brains, physical brains.
Creationist crap and ignorant religious
yarbling won't teach you anything worth knowing.
Why come here to blare cheapp religious rhetoric
when you have not availed your self of the world's
greatest experts waiting for you in libraries?
--
"The world holds two classes of men -- intelligent
men without religion, and religious men without
intelligence".
- Abu'l-Ala-Al-Ma'arri (973-1057; Syrian poet)
Cheerful Charlie
.

User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 02:03:49 PM

someone4 wrote:

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

... just a mass of equivocations, false dichotomies, arguments
from ignorance, etc.

--
rb

I can hardly say well argued, but I'm curious, what is your explanation
for why we experience, or maybe how chemical reactions cause
experience?

Ask a neuroscientist for the latest knowledge on this question. In the
meantime, give us any reason at all to think that there is something
other than material involved in the equation. Other than your personal
incredulity, that is.
.

User: "Pastor Kutchie"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 12:35:52 PM

someone4 wrote:

Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:

There is one. Find it yourself and don't make your dumbfuck ignorance
our problem.
.

User: "Greywolf"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 11:12:38 AM

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

'Improbable' doesn't quite cut it. If every single human on planet earth
were assigned a 'number', and a world-wide 'lotto' were held, it would be
highly *improbable* you, *personally* would win. But if *you* actually won
the aforementioned 'lotto'. You might shout out that you're winning was a
'miracle'; that you won with 'divine' help. But would you have? And was your
'win' all *that* impossible?

There are a few common replies to this implication.

One is that unless that had been the case, we wouldn't be here to
experience the universe. This is simply a case of assuming their own
conclusions, and ignoring the improbability of it just happening to
support life.

Here we go again. 'Improbabilty'. Try and guess what is the 'probability' of
a supernatural creature creating himself, endowing himself with the
capability with which to design and create the universe and keep it
'running'? No. Wait. A supernatural creature who just didn't create himself,
but was here *before* existence began proper and all 'ready-made'. Could you
calculate the odds of that being 'true', if you would, please? I'd like to
see how 'probable' *that* is.
To this there is the counter argument that probability is

only applicable to future events, not past events, if it happened it
happened. For example one might say, well if a person won the lottery,
then they won it, you can't look back and view the probability, and say
that it is unlikely they did. The lottery example is a poor example and
designed to mislead when it is used as an analogy to the universe just
happening to support life.

Really. And please, explain why that is.
The lottery is played by millions of people

(millions of tickets are bought), the physical reality is the
equivalent of one ticket, and the improbability (all configurations
being equal) is far greater than winning the lottery.

Could you translate that into English, please?
It is valid to

look at the probability of an explanation being true. To take an
extreme example to highlight the point, supposing a person was on trial
for murder, in which they were a prisoner in a cell which they shared
with the victim, and their explanation was that an alien giant ameoba
type creature came through the bars, picked up the paper weight, and
killed the victim, before disappearing again through the bars. Though
the truth is whatever the truth is, how would you evaluate whether they
are telling the truth if your life depended on getting the answer
right?

No my friend, it was the *butler* who did it. You falsely accused a morally
upright, damn decent alien giant ameoba of a crime 'it' didn't commit. I
think you owe our alien friend an apology.

One might argue that just because we may never know the reason to why
the universe is like it is,

Well we presently *do* have a great deal of information as to why the
universe is like it is. We also have a great deal of information which
points to the fact that some supernatural entity did *not* design and create
the universe -- and that's *beside* side the fact that the theists have
provided no irrefutable evidence to support their claims. 'Irreducible
complexity'. 'Improbability'. These are supposed to convince us that a 'God'
exists, and by way of extrapolation, that Jesus walked on water, raised
people from the dead, and fathered himself though non-consensual sex with a
mortal bethrothed to another mortal. Hah! And monkeys fly out my butt.
doesn't mean that there couldn't be a

reason that we may forever be ignorant of,

'Couldn't be a reason ... ' does not prove the existence of 'God'. Dang!
Just how far will these people cling to their delusions? How far? I'll tell
you. Some of them will kill in order to keep up their delusion. *That's* how
sick some of the Jesus/God people are. These are not rational people. They
have clearly been brainwashed. They just won't admit it.
therefore it was wrong to

assume that all configurations were equally likely. The problem with
this criticism, is that it just takes the question back a step, why was
the reason the universe is like it is, like it is?

It's sort of like saying: Why is a rock the way it is. Theists are fond of
using the pocket-watch in the desert illustration to imply that the universe
had to have been 'designed' and 'created' by a ID'er. Well let's switch
objects. Let's substitute a nice-sized rock in place of the pocket-watch.
Whoa! That idea of a brilliant ID'er loses a lot of 'steam' all of a sudden.
Doesn't it?

The next 'leap of faith' is that although there are scientific
indications of a 'Big Bang', a starting point, that there was in fact
no starting point (and that a theory will be found to explain the
seeming starting point, without requiring a starting point itself), and
that there is nothing outside of the event horizon of spacetime
expansion of the 'Big Bang'. Within the event horizon spacetime exists,
and outside is nothing, not even space.

Well, what lied on the other side of that 'singularity' is scientists are on
the verge of explaining. And guess what? Someone knocked on the door and
asked if 'God' was at home. They were greeted with a deafening silence. It
appears 'God' wasn't home, or he doesn't exist. In any event, no sign that
he even ever 'lived' there. And *that* fits in perfectly with the claim that
'God' is a product of man's imagination; that he is a make-believe 'God'.
That is what all the 'proofs' science has been able to accumulate points to,
does it not? Where is this 'overwhelming' proof that he *does* exist? Just
*where* is it?
Theists claim to talk to 'God', pray to 'God' -- and get their prayers
*answered*, etc., ect., etc. All without the *slightest* bit of 'proof' to
back any of it up. How does *that* work?

One of the biggest leaps of faith, is that the physical causes our
sentience, our consciousness, our being. It may seem logical that the
brain causes us to experience, yet there is no known physical theory in
which interactions of the physical world can be self aware. Though this
is the greatest leap of faith, it also is one that seems intuitive,
that our brains cause us to be aware. We can be given drugs that cause
chemical reactions in the brain, and seemingly make us lose
consciousness. Many assume this to prove that the brain is therefore
the cause of our consciousness. There are problems with this though,
and I will try to highlight these below.

I have to halt for now. I am going to return to this one later. This will
give you some time to rebut things I have stated.
(But remember this: The bible and 'faith' are not to be used as 'proofs' for
the existence of 'God'. They are both worthless as irrefutable proofs.)
Greywolf
<politely snipped.
.

User: "someone4"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 11:57:43 AM

Greywolf wrote:

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Here we go again. 'Improbabilty'. Try and guess what is the 'probability' of
a supernatural creature creating himself, endowing himself with the
capability with which to design and create the universe and keep it
'running'? No. Wait. A supernatural creature who just didn't create himself,
but was here *before* existence began proper and all 'ready-made'. Could you
calculate the odds of that being 'true', if you would, please? I'd like to
see how 'probable' *that* is.

To this there is the counter argument that probability is

Really. And please, explain why that is.

The lottery is played by millions of people

(millions of tickets are bought), the physical reality is the
equivalent of one ticket, and the improbability (all configurations
being equal) is far greater than winning the lottery.

Could you translate that into English, please?

It is valid to

No my friend, it was the *butler* who did it. You falsely accused a morally
upright, damn decent alien giant ameoba of a crime 'it' didn't commit. I
think you owe our alien friend an apology.

One might argue that just because we may never know the reason to why
the universe is like it is,

reason that we may forever be ignorant of,

assume that all configurations were equally likely. The problem with
this criticism, is that it just takes the question back a step, why was
the reason the universe is like it is, like it is?

I have to halt for now. I am going to return to this one later. This will
give you some time to rebut things I have stated.

(But remember this: The bible and 'faith' are not to be used as 'proofs' for
the existence of 'God'. They are both worthless as irrefutable proofs.)

Greywolf

<politely snipped.

Hi, thanks for the polite reply. I have answered at the bottom, because
on some of your comments, you seem to have started replying as you are
reading the mail, what I mean is that some of your comments were
answered directly below where you had inserted your questions. So I
have simply tried to answer the overall gist of your argument. If there
are any points that I have missed out, that you feel I ought to answer
in more depth, just let me know.
The analogy of the lottery, used in the first reply, and used by you
above, is a bad analogy, because you rely on the lottery being played
by many people, i.e. although it is improbable, it is played enough
times such that it becomes probable.
All configurations of the physical universe being equal though, it is
more improbable that it would support life, than there is of playing a
lottery where only one ticket is sold, and that person winning, and
that is why the analogy of the lottery is poor. In the lottery analogy,
it is the number of tickets sold that makes the probability of a winner
likely, whereas with the universe, it is similar to a single ticket.
For example as Stephen Hawkings pointed out "If the rate of expansion
one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a
hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed
before it ever reached its present size."
Therefore while it is not impossible that the universe just happened to
support life, it is highly improbable that it would have, all
configurations being equal. The improbability, makes the explanation
"that it just happened to be like that", implausible, if not
impossible.
With regards to the probability of their being 'being', well I guess
there could have been no being, so I guess 50/50, but since there is
being, that doesn't really make sense. That the universe supports life,
is no longer improbable, it was designed for that purpose.
Whether miracles that broke the laws of physics occurred or didn't
occur, or the immaculate conception, doesn't really have anything to do
with it. Obviously if they did occur, then that would be the end of the
argument, but if they didn't, it doesn't matter.
What information do we have that points to the 'fact' that the world is
not simply presented to our being by God? Just one shred of evidence
would do.
As for the proofs that God exists, well one is the point above, that
the explanation that the universe just happened to support life is
implausible (highly improbable), another is that there was a 'Big
Bang', and therefore it seems a start (though you can hope for a theory
which could offer some kind of explanation, a loop of some kind, though
it seems as if this will now have to be without the universe collapsing
again), another that we will be going onto next is that you can will
your hand to move, and that you are aware.
Glenn
.

User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 12:31:25 PM

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155488263.768095.41170@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Greywolf wrote:

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

For example as Stephen Hawkings pointed out "If the rate of expansion
one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a
hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed
before it ever reached its present size."

Therefore while it is not impossible that the universe just happened to
support life, it is highly improbable that it would have, all
configurations being equal. The improbability, makes the explanation
"that it just happened to be like that", implausible, if not
impossible.

With regards to the probability of their being 'being', well I guess
there could have been no being, so I guess 50/50, but since there is
being, that doesn't really make sense. That the universe supports life,
is no longer improbable, it was designed for that purpose.

So God made the universe just for us?
Then why didn't we appear in it until the last 0.007% of
all history, i.e. until after 14 billion years?
Why didn't God just do it in 6 days (or 6 nanoseconds)?
Did he have to allow for our galaxy to evolve and
then for us to evolve? Was he constrained by the
laws of physics?
<snip>
--
rb
.

User: "Greywolf"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 09:11:37 PM

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155488263.768095.41170@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Greywolf wrote:

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

'Improbable' doesn't quite cut it. If every single human on planet earth
were assigned a 'number', and a world-wide 'lotto' were held, it would be
highly *improbable* you, *personally* would win. But if *you* actually
won
the aforementioned 'lotto'. You might shout out that you're winning was a
'miracle'; that you won with 'divine' help. But would you have? And was
your
'win' all *that* impossible?

Here we go again. 'Improbabilty'. Try and guess what is the 'probability'
of
a supernatural creature creating himself, endowing himself with the
capability with which to design and create the universe and keep it
'running'? No. Wait. A supernatural creature who just didn't create
himself,
but was here *before* existence began proper and all 'ready-made'. Could
you
calculate the odds of that being 'true', if you would, please? I'd like
to
see how 'probable' *that* is.

To this there is the counter argument that probability is

Really. And please, explain why that is.

The lottery is played by millions of people

(millions of tickets are bought), the physical reality is the
equivalent of one ticket, and the improbability (all configurations
being equal) is far greater than winning the lottery.

Could you translate that into English, please?

It is valid to

No my friend, it was the *butler* who did it. With a candlestick in the
library. You falsely accused a morally
upright, damn decent alien giant ameoba of a crime 'it' didn't commit. I
think you owe our alien friend an apology.

One might argue that just because we may never know the reason to why
the universe is like it is,

Well we presently *do* have a great deal of information as to why the
universe is like it is. We also have a great deal of information which
points to the fact that some supernatural entity did *not* design and
create
the universe -- and that's *beside* side the fact that the theists have
provided no irrefutable evidence to support their claims. 'Irreducible
complexity'. 'Improbability'. These are supposed to convince us that a
'God'
exists, and by way of extrapolation, that Jesus walked on water, raised
people from the dead, and fathered himself though non-consensual sex with
a
mortal bethrothed to another mortal. Hah! And monkeys fly out my butt.

doesn't mean that there couldn't be a

reason that we may forever be ignorant of,

'Couldn't be a reason ... ' does not prove the existence of 'God'. Dang!
Just how far will these people cling to their delusions? How far? I'll
tell
you. Some of them will kill in order to keep up their delusion. *That's*
how
sick some of the Jesus/God people are. These are not rational people.
They
have clearly been brainwashed. They just won't admit it.

therefore it was wrong to

assume that all configurations were equally likely. The problem with
this criticism, is that it just takes the question back a step, why was
the reason the universe is like it is, like it is?

It's sort of like saying: Why is a rock the way it is. Theists are fond
of
using the pocket-watch in the desert illustration to imply that the
universe
had to have been 'designed' and 'created' by a ID'er. Well let's switch
objects. Let's substitute a nice-sized rock in place of the pocket-watch.
Whoa! That idea of a brilliant ID'er loses a lot of 'steam' all of a
sudden.
Doesn't it?

Well, what lied on the other side of that 'singularity' is scientists are
on
the verge of explaining. And guess what? Someone knocked on the door and
asked if 'God' was at home. They were greeted with a deafening silence.
It
appears 'God' wasn't home, or he doesn't exist. In any event, no sign
that
he even ever 'lived' there. And *that* fits in perfectly with the claim
that
'God' is a product of man's imagination; that he is a make-believe 'God'.
That is what all the 'proofs' science has been able to accumulate points
to,
does it not? Where is this 'overwhelming' proof that he *does* exist?
Just
*where* is it?
Theists claim to talk to 'God', pray to 'God' -- and get their prayers
*answered*, etc., ect., etc. All without the *slightest* bit of 'proof'
to
back any of it up. How does *that* work?

I have to halt for now. I am going to return to this one later. This will
give you some time to rebut things I have stated.

(But remember this: The bible and 'faith' are not to be used as 'proofs'
for
the existence of 'God'. They are both worthless as irrefutable proofs.)

Greywolf

<politely snipped.

Again. What's with the 'probability' thing? Why not grab 'God' by his ear
and pull him from out of the shadows and into the open. All you are doing,
it seems to me, is pointing to statistics. Where's some real 'hard' evidence
for the existence of 'God'. If you look around, there is none.

All configurations of the physical universe being equal though, it is
more improbable that it would support life,

Again. Relying on 'probability'. That is certainly no certain proof that a
'God' exists.
than there is of playing a

lottery where only one ticket is sold, and that person winning, and
that is why the analogy of the lottery is poor. In the lottery analogy,
it is the number of tickets sold that makes the probability of a winner
likely, whereas with the universe, it is similar to a single ticket.

I am in no way a mathametician. So I defer to other members of alt.atheism
to tackle that aspect of it. But so far, 'probability' doesn't 'prove'
anything. And remember: A theist sometime in the far past claimed that a
'God' exists and he and every subsequent theist has never been able to
'produce' one. Why is that? Because there is no 'God'. We would have
certainly discovered 'him' by now if he existed. And, hey! If he exists, why
hasn't he found *us* yet either?

For example as Stephen Hawkings pointed out

You mean the Steven J. Hawking who doesn't believe that a 'God' exists?
"If the rate of expansion

one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a
hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed
before it ever reached its present size."

'If', being the operative word here.

Therefore while it is not impossible that the universe just happened to
support life, it is highly improbable that it would have,

Do I hear 'special pleading' here?
all

configurations being equal. The improbability, makes the explanation
"that it just happened to be like that", implausible, if not
impossible.

That 'improbabilty' argument gets real tired real quick.

With regards to the probability of their being 'being', well I guess
there could have been no being, so I guess 50/50, but since there is
being, that doesn't really make sense. That the universe supports life,
is no longer improbable, it was designed for that purpose.

You never addressed the 'probability' of the ID'er existing. What are the
odds of 'him' existing? Re-read that part of my reply to you.

Whether miracles that broke the laws of physics occurred or didn't
occur, or the immaculate conception, doesn't really have anything to do
with it.

Yes it does. We're discussing the existence of a 'supernatural' creature who
is *supposed* to have created the universe through 'supernatural' means, not
'natural' ones.
Obviously if they did occur, then that would be the end of the

argument, but if they didn't, it doesn't matter.

Yes it does. Because positing a 'supernatural' being as the 'creator' of the
universe is a far different kettle of fish from the notion that the universe
is a by-product of 'natural' causation.

What information do we have that points to the 'fact' that the world is
not simply presented to our being by God? Just one shred of evidence
would do.

Yes it would. And there isn't any 'shred'. None at all. Case closed. The
very first human who claimed there was a 'God' more than likely saw 'Him'
via some sort of hallucinagenic. *That* makes far more sense than the
unproven claim that there actually is one.

As for the proofs that God exists, well one is the point above, that
the explanation that the universe just happened to support life is
implausible (highly improbable),

Boy, are you ever riding that one into the ground. A very, very weak
argument.
another is that there was a 'Big

Bang', and therefore it seems a start (though you can hope for a theory
which could offer some kind of explanation, a loop of some kind, though
it seems as if this will now have to be without the universe collapsing
again), another that we will be going onto next is that you can will
your hand to move, and that you are aware.

Glenn

Not very impressive. The whole 'improbable' argument you've presented would
hold a little more water if you would address the following. (Which I've
cut-and-pasted for your convenience.)
Try and guess what the 'probability' is of

a supernatural creature creating himself, endowing himself with the
capability with which to design and create the universe -- and keep it
'running'? No. Wait. A supernatural creature who just didn't create
himself,
but was here *before* existence began proper and was all 'ready-made'.
Could you
calculate the odds of that being 'true', if you would please? I'd like to
see how 'probable' *that* is.

Greywolf
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	14 Aug 2006 12:42:56 AM

On 13 Aug 2006 09:57:43 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1155488263.768095.41170@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
:

As for the proofs that God exists, well one is the point above, that
the explanation that the universe just happened to support life is
implausible (highly improbable), another is that there was a 'Big
Bang', and therefore it seems a start (though you can hope for a theory
which could offer some kind of explanation, a loop of some kind, though
it seems as if this will now have to be without the universe collapsing
again), another that we will be going onto next is that you can will
your hand to move, and that you are aware.

Glenn

What a remarkably childish, thoroughly illogical and ignorant claim
you have made.
Your use of the non-sequitur and straw man fallacies is transparent to
all but yourself.
This must be an outstanding example of just how theism destroys the
ability to think rationally.
It is the old canard:
You can't imagine how something came about, so therefore there MUST be
an old magician in the sky!!!
You really need to do both a LOT of learning and even more 'growing
up'.
--
.

User: "J Forbes"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 12:06:24 PM

someone4 wrote:

So....you offer as "proof" that God exists:
1. The fact that the universe supports life is implausible.
2. The Big Bang is unlikely.
3. I am aware, and I can will my hand to move.
How about telling us what this god-thingy is? and how it works? and
how we might observe it? if it exists, and can act on the physical
world, then it can be observed.
Jim
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 12:14:27 PM

On 13 Aug 2006 10:06:24 -0700, "J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm>
wrote:

someone4 wrote:

So....you offer as "proof" that God exists:

1. The fact that the universe supports life is implausible.

2. The Big Bang is unlikely.

3. I am aware, and I can will my hand to move.

How about telling us what this god-thingy is? and how it works? and
how we might observe it? if it exists, and can act on the physical
world, then it can be observed.

He has no grasp of logic - that he has to step aside from his theistic
presumptions and derive God without any preconceptions about it.
The only reason he's making the argument from ignorance to reach the
non-sequitur of "it must be God" is because he already believes.
And he hasn't the intelligence to grasp this, or that he is talking at
people who don't grant his god-presumption.

Jim

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 09:49:41 AM

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Please provide objective, verifiable evidence that your god exists or go
away and stop wasting our time.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.

User: "Lucifer"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 01:57:31 PM

Please provide objective, verifiable evidence that your god exists or go
away and stop wasting our time.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557

Something I have been saying to the christian who keeps emailing me all
the time, sadly I doubt they will.
Religions value faith, and as faith is belief without objective
evidence, they tend to criticise the search for evidence as lacking
faith. Possibly this is because looking at the evidence tells us a lot
about god/gods. Or rather it doesn't. There is no verifiable, testable,
or in any way valid evidence for the existence of any god, or any other
supernatural force or being.
Was Sussex County Fair good btw?
.

User: "someone4"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 10:14:18 AM

Robibnikoff wrote:

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Please provide objective, verifiable evidence that your god exists or go
away and stop wasting our time.
--
Robyn

If you had the post, you would see that I listed evidence, and
suggested experiments that could disprove the perspective I put
forward.
I hope you don't mind me offering advice, but it would be useful if you
read the post you were replying to, before you replied to it.
.

User: "Robibnikoff"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 12:19:49 PM

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155482058.734140.175830@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Robibnikoff wrote:

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Please provide objective, verifiable evidence that your god exists or go
away and stop wasting our time.
--
Robyn

If you had the post, you would see that I listed evidence, and
suggested experiments that could disprove the perspective I put
forward.

I hope you don't mind me offering advice, but it would be useful if you
read the post you were replying to, before you replied to it.

I read it - It contained the usual ***** that's been posted here
repeatedly.
Again, if you don't have objective, verifiable evidence, then don't bother.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Atheist ***** Extraordinaire
#1557
.

User: "Michael Gray"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	14 Aug 2006 12:33:22 AM

On 13 Aug 2006 08:14:18 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1155482058.734140.175830@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>

Robibnikoff wrote:

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Please provide objective, verifiable evidence that your god exists or go
away and stop wasting our time.
--
Robyn

If you had the post, you would see that I listed evidence, and

You listed zero 'evidence'.
Stop lying about it, please.
You listed solely your personal ignorance on the matter.

suggested experiments that could disprove the perspective I put
forward.

I hope you don't mind me offering advice, but it would be useful if you
read the post you were replying to, before you replied to it.

--
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 10:26:01 AM

On 13 Aug 2006 08:14:18 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:

Robibnikoff wrote:

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Please provide objective, verifiable evidence that your god exists or go
away and stop wasting our time.
--
Robyn

If you had the post, you would see that I listed evidence, and
suggested experiments that could disprove the perspective I put
forward.

You "offered" no evidence.
And we have nothing to disprove. Look up "shifting the burden" under
"fallacy".

I hope you don't mind me offering advice, but it would be useful if you
read the post you were replying to, before you replied to it.

It would be useful if you got an education and realised just how
irrelevant your baseless god-belief is in the real world.
.

User: "someone4"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 10:27:52 AM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 13 Aug 2006 08:14:18 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:

Robibnikoff wrote:

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Please provide objective, verifiable evidence that your god exists or go
away and stop wasting our time.
--
Robyn

If you had the post, you would see that I listed evidence, and
suggested experiments that could disprove the perspective I put
forward.

You "offered" no evidence.

And we have nothing to disprove. Look up "shifting the burden" under
"fallacy".

I hope you don't mind me offering advice, but it would be useful if you
read the post you were replying to, before you replied to it.

It would be useful if you got an education and realised just how
irrelevant your baseless god-belief is in the real world.

Hmm, and there I was thinking that there was a list in the original
post listing evidences.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 10:56:11 AM

On 13 Aug 2006 08:27:52 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 13 Aug 2006 08:14:18 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:

Robibnikoff wrote:

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Please provide objective, verifiable evidence that your god exists or go
away and stop wasting our time.
--
Robyn

If you had the post, you would see that I listed evidence, and
suggested experiments that could disprove the perspective I put
forward.

You "offered" no evidence.

And we have nothing to disprove. Look up "shifting the burden" under
"fallacy".

I hope you don't mind me offering advice, but it would be useful if you
read the post you were replying to, before you replied to it.

It would be useful if you got an education and realised just how
irrelevant your baseless god-belief is in the real world.

Hmm, and there I was thinking that there was a list in the original
post listing evidences.

You were deluding yourself. Ignorant rationalisation isn't evidence.
Learn some basic logic and apply it.
"God" is a presumption, a baseless religious belief not a conclusion
form evidence. If you step aside from all presumptions about it there
is nothing whatsoever that leads to it as a conclusion.
Everything you imagine is "evidence" is plucked out of thin air, and
attempts to generate information using various fallacies. Typically a
combination of argument from ignorance, begging the question and
circular argument.
Basically you don't know what it was therefore it was God. When the
only reason to come up with that three-letter word at all is that you
already presume it.
In the real world, it is merely somebody's religious belief. Just like
Osiris, Zeus, Odin, Mithras, Vishnu, and all the others.
But you don't know where your religion stops and reality takes over.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 11:28:34 AM

On Sun, 13 Aug 2006 08:14:18 -0700, someone4 wrote:

Robibnikoff wrote:

"someone4" <glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1155476092.967730.86030@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Please provide objective, verifiable evidence that your god exists or go
away and stop wasting our time.
--
Robyn

If you had the post, you would see that I listed evidence, and
suggested experiments that could disprove the perspective I put
forward.

I hope you don't mind me offering advice, but it would be useful if you
read the post you were replying to, before you replied to it.

No, you *think you did that. Nobody else seems to agree that you've done
anything of the sort.
That should tell you something.
I mean, other than your silly game of "I'm soooooo superior to them."
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.

User: "Josef Balluch"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 10:56:26 AM

In a message sent 'round the world, someone4 poured fuel on the fire
with the following:

We are sentient beings, that experience the physical world. The
question is whether the physical is the primary reality, or being is
the primary reality.

It may be a question in your mind but the matter has already been
resolved by philosophers. Primacy of Existence is correct, and your
alternative of Primacy of Consciousness is a fallacy.
http://tinyurl.com/qg1e
Regards,
Josef
Many men would have arrived at wisdom had they not believed
themselves to have arrived there already.
-- Seneca the Younger
.

User: "someone4"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 11:20:34 AM

Josef Balluch wrote:

In a message sent 'round the world, someone4 poured fuel on the fire
with the following:

We are sentient beings, that experience the physical world. The
question is whether the physical is the primary reality, or being is
the primary reality.

It seems that your whole argument depends upon the point of:
"The assertion that a primary consciousness exists would be a claim of
an objective fact, ie: a fact independent of the whim of the
consciousness. This independence contradicts the premise that existence
is dependent on the primary consciousness."
Is that correct?
Why can it not be that existence is consciousness?
.

User: "Josef Balluch"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 12:23:30 PM

In a message sent 'round the world, someone4 poured fuel on the fire
with the following:

Josef Balluch wrote:

In a message sent 'round the world, someone4 poured fuel on the fire
with the following:

We are sentient beings, that experience the physical world. The
question is whether the physical is the primary reality, or being is
the primary reality.

Yup.

Why can it not be that existence is consciousness?

This does not avoid the problem that the primary consciousness exists
independent of it's whim.
Regards,
Josef
The natural flights of the human mind are not from pleasure to pleasure,
but from hope to hope.
-- Samuel Johnson
.

User: "Pastor Kutchie"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 12:33:38 PM

someone4 wrote:

Josef Balluch wrote:

In a message sent 'round the world, someone4 poured fuel on the fire
with the following:

We are sentient beings, that experience the physical world. The
question is whether the physical is the primary reality, or being is
the primary reality.

It seems that your whole argument depends upon the point of:
"The assertion that a primary consciousness exists would be a claim of
an objective fact, ie: a fact independent of the whim of the
consciousness. This independence contradicts the premise that existence
is dependent on the primary consciousness."

Is that correct?

Why can it not be that existence is consciousness?

Assuming that to be the case for the sake of argument, with what does a
boulder recognise its own existence?
.

User: "Don Kresch"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 05:01:13 PM

In alt.atheism On 13 Aug 2006 06:34:53 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> let us all know that:
[snip argument from "wow, stuff exists and is cool!"]
Hmmmm....nothing left.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.

User: "John Baker"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 12:17:46 PM

On 13 Aug 2006 06:34:53 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
Evidence of God is conspicuous by its absence. Now, get back into my
killfile and stay there this time.
<re-PLONK!>
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 09:51:44 AM

On 13 Aug 2006 06:34:53 -0700, "someone4"
<glenn.spigel4@btinternet.com> wrote:
Why are so many believers so in-your-face stupid, and such deliberate
personal liars?

Stop pretending
You don't understand the difference between having zero reason even to
consider something, and believing your stupid dishonest straw man.

Firstly I will examine this perspective, and point out the 'leaps of
faith' that it requires.

Then you're arguing against your own straw man, deliberately stupid,
in-your-face liar.
[rest of this moron's stupidity and dishonesty deleted]
Here's a free clue for you: "One man's religion is another man's belly
laugh" - Robert Anson Heinlein.
Keep it to yourself and you won't give the rest of us a belly laugh.
Stop in-your-facing it, stop inventing positions others don't have,
etc, and nobody will realise just how stupid and dishonest you are.
Was that clear enough even for you?
.

User: "someone4"
Title: Re: Evidence of God	13 Aug 2006 10:16:39 AM