How to prove God.

[Link]

Love is an emotion. It is 'seen' by actions. Compassion is another emotion, also seen through actions. Justice is a convention: we use our sense of fairness (an intuition) to decide if we like the outcome.

Nothing beyond the physical is required for any of these. They are human emotions or conventions.


This is where I disagree. it would be true *and* subjective. But that's the nature of values.



True. other people get a vote as well. But it is ultimately the judgement of people that decides the answer.



OK, I did. I seem to have reached a different conclusion from you.

I'll make a thread in detail about it. I've done it before on other forums. Been a long time. I will do it again.

 

[Polymath257]

FT simply means that if the some of values (say the forcé of gravity) would have been slightly different, life would have been impossible. Which is not controversial scientists generally agree with this premise.

OK, but then how does that play into your argument?

For example, using the same definition, the universe is fine tuned to produce planets. You focus on life, when the argument works for *any* property of the universe that could be slightly different.

So, the universe is fine tuned (according to this definition) to produce iron atoms.

This is either design, chance, or necessity.

Hmm....what does this mean and is it a valid trichotomy? Design usually means 'an intelligent agent intended the event to happen as it did'. Necessity, on the other hand, says that it couldn't be other than it is. Chance, though, suggests a randomness that is not guaranteed by the exclusion of the previous two. So, if the laws of nature are not necessary and are also not the result of an intelligent agent, it is still possible they come about in an orderly way that is MOSTLY determined.

In this context, necessity would mean that it is impossible for the constants to be other than they are. Frankly, we do not know if this is the case or not. It is also possible that the values we see are the result of natural laws that we do not know about that 'push' the constants to the values we have. We simply do not know what determines the values of those constant, if anything.

But, let's turn your trichotomy around: is it clear that something is either necessary, happens according to chance (probabilities), or is designed? I don't think so. For example, an acorn falling from a tree with nobody around. The falling of the acorn would not be necessary. it would not be due to chance (since it is governed by natural laws), nor would it be by any design (since no intelligence is in the picture at all). All that is required is that there be variance in how the natural laws work from situation to situation and we get a fourth category of possibilities. The leap to design seems very premature in this argument.

Then, you claim that the values of the constants are not due to chance or to necessity. How do you know that? And, given those are NOT the only possibilities, how do you know they aren't the result of a combination of natural laws with some probabilistic flavor but also some law-like aspects?

Now, *if* you can show those are the only three possibilities (not done, and likely to be false), and if you can exclude two of the three (also not done and likely to be impossible), then you could make the conclusion you want.

But those are very big 'if' statements. And you still have to make an argument that gets past iron atoms.

 

[viole]

I believe there is a simple way to prove God. It may seem too simplistic at first, but that's not the intention.
Throughout my life, there have been times when I have called out to God whilst being in mortal danger, and He saved me. When I pray, He answers without fail and shows me that He is listening. When I was younger, I required evidence (Christian apologetics) to reinforce my faith in God. Now, I don't need that to know that my God is real, He has proven Himself to me.
To those who are skeptical of the idea of God, the way to prove God is this. Allow yourself to suspend your skepticism momentarily and ask God (however you understand God) to reveal Himself to you. My God answers without fail.
To both the skeptic and the believer, this methodology may seem silly. The believer might say "God has revealed Himself completely through the Bible! We are not to test Him, He does not reveal Himself in the present day."
If a skeptic is on the fence as to whether God is real or not, let them do this. Simply ask God to reveal Himself. God will prove Himself to you.

Can you please pray to Him so that it annihilates Covid atarting tomorrow? Or malaria. Or children cancer?

that would impress me. Anything short of that is as convincing as me declaring to have been visited by the emperor of the galaxy, and expect people to swallow that.

ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

see @TagliatelliMonster
That is exactly my point, this fanatic and extreme atheist decided that the universe is not FT despite the fact that he admittedly doesn’t know what I mean with FT………this is a text book example of confirmation bias, and this is the type of bias that you should avoid,+

Someone who is honestly and sincerely searching for the truth would have asked “what do you mean by FT” before deciding that the universe is not FT



--
FT simply means that if the some of values (say the forcé of gravity) would have been slightly different, life would have been impossible. Which is not controversial scientists generally agree with this premise.

And your definition does not change the fact that the universe is not fine tuned for life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I hadn’t drawn a sober breath for many years before becoming desperate enough to ask for God’s help. Bearing in mind that I had no faith in anything at all at that point in my life.

I haven’t had a drink or a drug since that time, nor have I wanted one despite facing many challenging situations that would previously have sent me straight to the bottle.

Drink and drugs had robbed me of pretty much everything, including my sanity and my soul. I could no more go an hour without a drink than most people can go an hour without drawing breath.

So you quite drinking. Ok.

That dependency was quite simply taken away from me, and this miracle of healing I credit entirely to a loving creator which I choose to call God.

Why?

A cousin of mine, on the muslim side of the family, was a long time junkie and petty criminal. He took it all. Coke, speed, xtc, heroine, mushrooms, lsd,... Then he found Allah and stopped doing drugs, smoking, drinking, partying,... and he did it cold turkey from one day to the next.

He too considers this a miracle of "allah".
You can't both be right.

But you can both be wrong.

And considering how mega mundane and common it is for people to quite drugs / drinking, I'ld say chances are rather mega huge that you indeed are both wrong.

I know folks who were inspired by Luke Skywalker to better their lives.

A story sure can motivate or inspire or give strength. That doesn't mean the stories are true.

And in your case, I'ld figure that the placebo effect comes into it as well.


Surely you understand how from my perspective, this doesn't mean anything?

Good for you that you quite drinking and bettered your life though. No matter where you found the strength and motivation to do so. All the more power to you.

But this, off course, isn't proof. It's not even evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Prayer is a short cut for God to reveal himself and if you ask him for miracles by the hands of the guide and won't accuse the guide of sorcery if he does such signs, then it will be shown to you in my faith, this is what I believe.

But if you looking for intellectual proofs, the fact that we are an idea type existence is a base point. You have to see that, we are generated idea either by brain or something else. I say it has to be a perfect judge who makes us who we are, because our brain can't assess all actions and give us the proper value objectively. That is why you have arrogant and low-self esteem people and some people between that.

When you realize what you are in who you are, you see that it's God who generates you by his word/vision/speaking you to life. It's easy to see, because only he can judge you for who you are in your current state and keep track of all your past states accountable for who you are.

Assumed conclusion.

 

[leroy]

And your definition does not change the fact that the universe is not fine tuned for life.

Irrelevant,

The point is that you concluded that the universe is not FT before knowing what I mean by FT, I am just using your post as an example of “confirmation bias” something that @TagliatelliMonster should avoid if he is honestly searching for the truth

 

[McBell]

Irrelevant,

The point is that you concluded that the universe is not FT before knowing what I mean by FT, I am just using your post as an example of “confirmation bias” something that @TagliatelliMonster should avoid if he is honestly searching for the truth

Unless you take a rather unique and not accepted by anyone other than you for the definition of "fine tuning"...

and then to further demonstrate you do not understand what conformational bias actually is, you falsely label my comment as such.

But hey, you have never let truth or facts get in your way before, why start now....?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is exactly what I mean, you already made your mind, you already have a barrier .

But I´ll give you the benefit of the doubt

What is wrong with say the FT argument?

p1:Science shows that the universe is fine tuned for life.

P2: its either due to chance, necessity or design.

p3 its not due to chance or necessity.

C: Therefore its due to design.

Formulating the Fine-Tuning Argument | Reasonable Faith

This is one of them arguments that have been done to death. Including on this very forum.
Let's not derail this thread by going down that rabbit hole again.

I told you to create a new thread for it if you really insist on discussing it.

You hit the nail in the coffin , that is exactly my point.

You are not supposed to be in “defensive mode” you are supposed to be open and with a genuine interest in finding the truth.

Avoiding the burden proof might be a good debate tactic, but is useless whent it comes to finding the truth.

The apologist is the one that presents the argument. He has the burden of proof.

All I have to do is point out the flaws. I have no burden of proof regarding an argument that I'm not making.

What you are supposed to do is look at all (or some) of the explanations that have been offered for the FT of the universe and determine the one that you consider the best based on criteria like explanatory power, explanatory scope, parsimony, consistency with previous}us knowledge etc.

No.

What I have to do is look at the argument presented by the apologist.
And if there are problems with it and / or if the apologist fails to meet his burden of proof, then I get to dismiss said argument.

I don't require any "alternative" explanations.
The merit of YOUR argument does not depend on other people having "alternative explanations". That would be an argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

just look at the evidence without presuposing theism nor atheism,

It's funny, because not presupposing theism, means "think like an atheist".

Not presupposing atheism... that's not even a thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

see @TagliatelliMonster
That is exactly my point, this fanatic and extreme atheist decided that the universe is not FT despite the fact that he admittedly doesn’t know what I mean with FT

Dude..... seriously.... you REALLY need to stop lying about what I did and didn't say.

Someone who is honestly and sincerely searching for the truth would have asked “what do you mean by FT” before deciding that the universe is not FT

I don't need to ask. I already know. You really are not the first one who copy-pasted this nonsense from William Lame Craig.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I find it typical of you to claim something and then change it up to something else during the course of the discussion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Irrelevant,

The point is that you concluded that the universe is not FT before knowing what I mean by FT, I am just using your post as an example of “confirmation bias” something that @TagliatelliMonster should avoid if he is honestly searching for the truth

Please.

As long as I don't simply agree with whatever you say, you will be accusing me of "not honestly searching the truth". As you do with everyone else that doesn't agree with your nonsense.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yet God never reveals itself to those who don't assume it exists first. This suggests God is imaginary.




And since you are a fallible mortal you could be in error in your beliefs.

This would mean God is dependent on us to exist, no?

If god exist before us, it wouldn't need our belief and experience for it to be real. It would also have traits that are not projected on by believers. Humans have desires and wants. If god exist in that one can pray to it, what aien characteristics does it have that humans find foreign?

If you need to experience it to know it, it's not an external being or thing but quite a human experience anyone can have per being human.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I believe there is a simple way to prove God. It may seem too simplistic at first, but that's not the intention.
Throughout my life, there have been times when I have called out to God whilst being in mortal danger, and He saved me. When I pray, He answers without fail and shows me that He is listening. When I was younger, I required evidence (Christian apologetics) to reinforce my faith in God. Now, I don't need that to know that my God is real, He has proven Himself to me.
To those who are skeptical of the idea of God, the way to prove God is this. Allow yourself to suspend your skepticism momentarily and ask God (however you understand God) to reveal Himself to you. My God answers without fail.
To both the skeptic and the believer, this methodology may seem silly. The believer might say "God has revealed Himself completely through the Bible! We are not to test Him, He does not reveal Himself in the present day."
If a skeptic is on the fence as to whether God is real or not, let them do this. Simply ask God to reveal Himself. God will prove Himself to you.

Same stuff happens when you don't call out to God.

My requests in life tend to get 'answered' either way with or without spiritual attributes being tacked on it.

It's paradolia of the mind essentially.

People see God when things work as much as not seeing God when things don't work conversely.

Inserting God into the picture actually dosent make any difference whatsoever.

 

[Justanatheist]

To those who are skeptical of the idea of God, the way to prove God is this. Allow yourself to suspend your skepticism momentarily and ask God (however you understand God) to reveal Himself to you. My God answers without fail.

Ask your God how tall I am and what weight, if your god answers without fail you should be able to tell me in 24 hours.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But I imagine God would answer your question for a sincere person who is prepared to wait for an answer.

All waiting does is looking for something to happen in hopes the odds eventually pan out in order to make a fit to validate whatever deity happens to be foremost in one's mind.

I find my magic 8 ball in the 70s works exactly the same way. Ask a question and wait for something to come along. Presto! It works!

 

[leroy]

Please.

As long as I don't simply agree with whatever you say, you will be accusing me of "not honestly searching the truth". As you do with everyone else that doesn't agree with your nonsense.

I am not accusing you of anything , I simply said that you should conclude that the universe is not FT if you don’t know what is meant by FT (which @Mestemia is what did)

I simply used that as an example of confirmation bias.,(something that you shouldn’t do)

As long as I don't simply agree with whatever you say, you will be accusing me of "not honestly searching the truth"

No, if you prove to me that you understand the argument and you provide direct and clear reasons for why you reject it, I would conclude that you are honestly searching the truth.

For example if you say hey I think that the multiverse explanation is a better explanation than design and provide arguments for such a claim I would conclude that you are being honest

If you adopt a position of “ I won’t affirm not deny anything I will keep my position vague an ambiguous “ I will conclude that you are not being honest.,

But my opinion shouldn’t be relevant; just do you best in trying to remove your biases and don’t fool yourself.

As an analogy, stop being the Lawyer of atheism and become part of the jury (someone who will honestly look at both sides and try to be as objective as possible)

 

[Polymath257]

As an analogy, stop being the Lawyer of atheism and become part of the jury (someone who will honestly look at both sides and try to be as objective as possible)

As a juror, I find that the theists have not proven their case to within a reasonable doubt. They have given, at best, circumstantial evidence with no clear connection to the defendant. In fact, many of the witnesses can't even identify the culprit at all: they all give different descriptions. I also find that they have the burden of proof (like the state in a court proceeding), so the only judgement can be not guilty (of existing).

 

[McBell]

I am not accusing you of anything , I simply said that you should conclude that the universe is not FT if you don’t know what is meant by FT (which @Mestemia is what did)

and as I pointed out (which you completely ignored) unless you are using a definition of "fine tuning" that you are the only one who accepts...

I simply used that as an example of confirmation bias.,(something that you shouldn’t do)

No matter how many times you repeat this falsehood, it is still not confirmation bias.