There is no evidence for the existence of God.

[guillaumeb]

A common assertion, and thinly dressed in the language of logic and science, but a meaningless assertion.

When anyone talks of evidence, what exactly do they mean?

If they are looking for evidence, what is the nature of the entity known as God?

What characteristics would God have, and how would they manifest in the observable universe?

And, how does the initial statement fit with the multiverse theory advanced by Stephen Hawking, among others?

In this physical Universe, it's important to observe all that we can, and to measure every bit of knowledge we can glean. Only from the full suite of data available can we hope to ever draw valid, scientific conclusions about the nature of our Universe. Some of those conclusions will have implications that we may not be able to measure: the existence of the multiverse arises from that.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/17/what-is-and-isnt-scientific-about-the-multiverse/#55332da925c4

Accepting for the moment the possibility that this observable universe is only one part of the multiverse, how would the initial assertion that there is no evidence play out?

Let us use a parable to consider the argument:

Think of this universe, the one we live in, as one room in a house. A room with no currently observable doors or windows. A room from which, at this point, we cannot leave.
What could we reasonably say about the other rooms?
What could we say about what exists in the other rooms? Or does not exist?
What could we say about how our universe is affected by other universes?

[msongs]

1. which god, there are so many to choose from. nt

[guillaumeb]

2. A thing can be observed by many people.

Each might describe the thing differently.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. I will say this, I find most of what you say and do on this website to be sincere.

I sincerely strongly disagree with a lot of it as to certain folks on what is called the "far left" (they arent far left, really, but that is a whole different conversation), but it all seems to come from a place of sincerity.

Now, having said that, and reminding myself I am not the center of the universe , belief in a god is something we taught children to make them behave.

Or, this one may be less insulting (not intending to be in the first place). Last night, DR WHO episode was about 18th century witch-hunts with of course a meaning for today and the traitor in the WH and the 50 million sick fucks who support him.

But watching the people killing other people because of Satan; if you sink you are innocent and if you dont you are guilty, both ways you are dead, etc.



At some point an intelligent person concludes that it is all made up, all of it. That the leprechaun analogy is quite apropos.

So saying there is no evidence or your point that it doesn't matter, when applied to any other human made up thing like leprechauns, makes no sense unless you have an emotional investment. Nobody has an emotional investment in leprechauns, but if they did...

[guillaumeb]

4. Thank you.

As to the far left, what constitutes the far left is a matter for debate.

But as to religion, and belief, if a person makes a declarative statement, a statement with no qualifiers, I will take exception to that and this thread is an attempt to point out the logical fallacy of making a statement like the title of this post.

We, meaning humans, simply cannot know enough to make the statement that there is no evidence...etc.

As to theists, we freely admit that our belief is faith based.



Were the witch hunts an attack on female healers and feminist centered earth religions?

[Eliot Rosewater]

7. Uh, not sure, you have to see the episode, I dont want to do spoilers.

I highly recommend. I am a new fan, my first season.

[guillaumeb]

8. Feel free to be a spoiler.

I never watch it.

[Eliot Rosewater]

10. It involves aliens like everything on that show, I am finding out.

But of course it is ONLY women who get "ducked" in the water, as it is called.

But the main person alleging witchcraft is a woman, who turns out is really an alien so it gets complicated

[guillaumeb]

12. Trump is an alien.

He hates humans.

Jerome Corsi forged Trump's birth certificate.

[Eliot Rosewater]

14. Giving him WAY too much credit

Rump belongs in a experimental setting where they can study narcissism. Seriously.

He has no human emotion.

[Ron Obvious]

5. There is no evidence for the existence of God.

A common assertion, and thinly dressed in the language of logic and science, but a meaningless assertion.

No, it's not a meaningless assertion. It's self-evidently correct, and IMO frankly all that needs to be said about the God hypothesis.

[guillaumeb]

6. It is an assertion.

And unprovable. As to self-evidently correct, that also is an unprovable assertion.

[DetlefK]

16. If God is unprovable, can unprovable things "exist"?

[guillaumeb]

19. Unprovable.

At this point.

[exboyfil]

51. Have any experiment in mind to test the hypothesis?

There are some potential observations that could be made to support the bubble multiverse hypothesis (potential prior collisions and rebounds).

If you believe in the Christian God there are lots of testable hypotheses in The Bible. I have yet to see a mountain move though. Also Jesus did not return in the lifetimes of the apostles. Also no secular reports reports from Jerusalem of darkening, earthquakes, or the dead rising from the tombs around 33 AD.

[guillaumeb]

70. None. And that is why I have faith.

The point is that making such unprovable statements for or against the existence of the Creator is sheer speculation.

[John Fante]

60. Prove that I don't have the power to teleport from one

corner of the universe to another.

[guillaumeb]

104. Another assertion.

[John Fante]

105. And improvable, no?

[guillaumeb]

106. By me.

[qazplm135]

102. lol if it's unprovable

then the scientific method says it's not even evidence...it's nothing. It's not even enough to qualify as wrong.

something has to be falsifiable to be subject to science. And if it isn't subject to even the scientific method i.e. "unprovable" then there is no evidence for it because there, logically, CANNOT be any evidence for it.

Evidence is a word with meaning. It's not hard. It's not mystical. It's pretty basic actually.

[Hav]

9. Your questions are valid and rational

I'd think that theists and atheists would both ask similar questions given the scenario. But we differ when we reason about which conclusions or assumptions are reasonable.
When we deal with the unknown, uncertainty or maybe even the unknowable, why end the debate and make up an entity/god as an answer for all questions when there is no evidence for it?

[guillaumeb]

11. Theists rely on faith.

And I freely admit that my faith and position are equally unprovable.

So perhaps statements such as "there is no evidence for the existence of God" should be avoided altogether. Given the unknowns, there are no reasonable assumptions, only positions.

[Cary]

27. Why is this such a big.deal?

There is nothing wrong with faith. It is not unethical, immoral, or illegal. You can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. So what?

[Red Raider 85]

34. There's everything wrong with "faith" in unverifiable nonsense

[Cary]

35. Like what?

[Hav]

37. Because it leads you to nowhere

Believing on faith doesn't get you closer to finding out the truth, it has the opposite effect. You could believe whatever you want, true or false things, and base it on faith but it offers no mechanisms to lead you to the actual truth.
When faced with the unknown, the reasonable answer isn't to believe in something for which there is no sufficient evidence and just believe it on faith. It's admitting that one doesn't know and then we do our best to find out the real answer.

[Cary]

38. I will have to think on that

There is good that comes from faith. I hear you but I am not going to lump all religionists.

[guillaumeb]

66. What is truth?

Is it only that which is provable?

[Cary]

74. That is a good point

Of course truth is not just that which can be proven.

The problem is that acknowledging that something cannot be proven, or disproven, is truth too. Therefore it is imparative to be honest and not represent something based on faith as being anything other than something based on faith.

At least that is my opinion, based on my logic.

[guillaumeb]

78. Agreed.

And I will generally state that I admit that my faith is unprovable. But some prefer certainty in their beliefs.

[Cary]

82. I think some are just plain old dishonest

And then too some are stupid and some are emotionally immature to be honest. Half the population has an IQ under 100.

[Hav]

86. No, not only what is provable by us

Regardless of our opinions, current knowledge or whether we'll ever be able to find out certain things, events actually happened that led to the state of the universe we are in now, for example. There are definitely correct answers to the big questions we have.

But my point wasn't really dependent on any definition of truth or what we are trying to find out. It was generally about our approach to how we tackle unknown territory when we don't know the answers. In pretty much all fields, it's recognizing where we lack knowledge and then we explore to find out what is really behind a phenomenon. We tend to choose an approach that doesn't depend on faith but one that we hope will advance our knowledge and will objectively bring us closer to the truth. The real answer in that case would then be backed by testable and reproducible evidence, not dependent on who performs the experiment.

[guillaumeb]

89. And the scientific approach, what you describe,

is, of course, a valid approach.

But theology is not science. Theology deals with, literally, the word of god. So it is based on faith that a god/gods exist, and it attempts to determine what it means to live as the god/gods wish us to live.

Welcome to DU, by the way.

[Hav]

93. Oh, DU has been a shelter since the dark Bush years for me

But I suppose I didn't post much in the religion forums before.

[guillaumeb]

65. Simply my comment about how things are ometimes framed. eom

[MineralMan]

13. You have stated a truth.

Then you spoiled it by trying to unstate it. Your initial statement is accurate. Stop there. Either that or show some evidence.

[guillaumeb]

17. Read the post.

And read the definition of truth.

You failed on logical grounds.

[MineralMan]

22. Why did you assume I did not.

No evidence exists. If it did, you would present it, I have no doubt. One cannot ever prove a negative like that. Such proof is not needed. If you have evidence of the existence of any deity, present it. It is as simple as that. Otherwise your titular statement is true, and remains true until evidence is presented that falsified it.

[Red Raider 85]

32. Spot on. The burden of proof is in the god proponent.

Provide the evidence for your deity or stfu, I say!

[guillaumeb]

63. Assuming and accepting that you read the post,

you missed the point.

[MineralMan]

68. Did I?

I think not.

[guillaumeb]

73. Clearly.

You hold an unprovable position. Accept that and move on.

[DetlefK]

15. Challenge accepted. That's a fairly simple philosophical riddle.

Think of this universe, the one we live in, as one room in a house. A room with no currently observable doors or windows. A room from which, at this point, we cannot leave.
What could we reasonably say about the other rooms?
What could we say about what exists in the other rooms? Or does not exist?
What could we say about how our universe is affected by other universes?

That's actually fairly easy: As we do not observe doors, doors do not exist with 100% certainty.

But, is it at least probable that the room has doors?
Yes.
But how probable?
For that we have math:
You take your experimental data (the observed room) and mix it with the prediction of a theoretical model (the hypothetical room containing doors) to calculate a Chi²-value that symbolizes how well they match to each other. The bigger the Chi²-value, the bigger the difference between experiment and theory. From the Chi²-value we can calculate without any further ado exactly how probable it is for the theory to be true. (There's Wikipedia and math-books if you want to go into details.)



We can do that for a room and for doors. We can not do that for God: What would this prediction of our theoretical model be? What is the theoretical prediction what a world with a God would be like?

Not only is there no evidence for God, we don't even know what COUNTS as evidence for God. Meaning: We are speculating about rooms and doors without knowing what a door is, what it looks like and what it's good for.

[guillaumeb]

18. You can see nothing in other universes.

And you cannot define what would constitute proof of the nature of God, or of the existence of God.

[marylandblue]

40. We can define what would constitute evidence of other universes, but not of God

There are two lines of evidence for other universes. One would be if the physical laws in this universe require that there be other universes. So verification of the appropriate laws would constitute the evidence, even if we cannot contact the other universes directly. The second line would be if there were in fact a way to contact the other universes that we don't yet know about. Since that would imply a connection between our universe and the others, we would have physical proof of them.

But if you can't define what constitutes proof of God, then all you have done is precluded the possibility of proof prior to your investigation. This is like the way creationists preclude the possibility of evolution by declaring in advance that nothing can contradict the Bible.

We should also note that prior to the twentieth century, nobody had any problem defining God or providing proofs for or against. So what have we forgotten about God?

[DetlefK]

41. All proofs for/against God are entirely logical/philosophical/mathematical.

They are removed from the constraints of having to deal with facts.

For example, the famous logician Kurt Goedel (a contemporary and friend of Albert Einstein) once wrote a purely mathematical proof that God must exist. (The proof became famous about 5 years ago, because it took that long to double-check it, because it's so complicated. They had to invent an entire new form of algebra for it.)

Goedel's proof rested on a few assumptions of the nature of the universe: First, that everything in the universe can be categorized as either good or bad. Second, good only begats good and evil only begats evil.

With that, he proved that there must be a highest good thing in the universe. Which he then interpreted to be God.

Goedel's proof is nice and all, but not applicable to reality, because in reality you cannot split the universe into clearly good things and clearly evil things. And sometimes good begats evil and sometimes evil begats good.
The whole proof has no connection to reality.

[guillaumeb]

69. But if we assume that the Creator is everywhere in creation,

and we assume that on faith, the fact is that we cannot see anywhere but in this universe. So statements that there is no evidence are purely speculative. At best.

[marylandblue]

87. If you don't have definition of the Creator

Then you can also assume covfefe is everywhere and that would make just as much sense as saying the Creator is everywhere.

[guillaumeb]

90. My guess is that the Creator embodies energy.

Energy is life. And there are forms of energy that we can measure, and forms we can indirectly see by its effects on things that we can see and measure.

[marylandblue]

91. This violates your assumption that we don't know what to look for

There is plenty of evidence for energy, and we understand it quite well. Everything is energy. But if we define the Creator as energy, we have done no more than made a synonym for energy.

[guillaumeb]

92. No, it is my guess. Defined as such.

And if the Creator is synonymous with a directed energy, a sentient energy, that still does not say where the search should be directed.

[marylandblue]

96. It's a guess, but what did you actually guess?

You could also say that covfefe is energy. Then what is covfefe but energy?

If the Creator is directed energy or sentience, then we could prove its existence by observing that energy is directed in some way not accounted for by physical laws.

[guillaumeb]

98. If the Creator is sentient energy,

which also describes us, in part, all we could know is that the Creator is a sentient being.


So where does one look?

[marylandblue]

101. We'd look for evidence of sentience

There are lots of places to look for sentience. We've even looked there and found. Many people thought life was evidence of intelligent design, but it turned out natural selection is a better explanation.

[trotsky]

120. "So where does one look?"

You need to tell us. You're the one postulating the existence of your god, remember?

[guillaumeb]

122. No, I am asking a question.

If I knew, there would be no question.

[DetlefK]

42. Then who can define it?

What would a universe without God be like?
What would a universe with God be like?

If we don't even know the difference, how are we supposed to notice that there is a difference?

[marylandblue]

44. I accepted the premise in the OP for the sake of argument

In reality, most believers have no trouble defining their gods. It's only when we get into high-falutin theology that God suddenly becomes elusive.

[gtar100]

20. Maybe it also it's because it has a lot to do with what's inside

and not about something that is outside, in the physical universe. So much about religion is experiential, not something that is measurable or detectable with the instruments of science. For example, how could anyone measure my sincerity. All you can do is observe my behavior and come to a judgment of whether you believe me or not.

[guillaumeb]

21. There is that factor.

And my view is that the Creator and creation are linked. What is created is a part of the Creator, and has a spark of the Creator.

[MineralMan]

24. Your "view" has no evidence to support it.

[guillaumeb]

64. Given that I have stated this many times before,

I wonder why you felt the need to respond.

[MineralMan]

67. I respond as I choose.

I'm doing something else right now. I'll get back to you later.

[Mariana]

81. Why do you feel the need to state anything many times?

Do the personal messages asking you to continue doing what you are doing, and praising your efforts in this group become more numerous when you repeat that particular line?

[guillaumeb]

83. Which avoids the point of why the post was made.

Are you the spokesperson?

[MineralMan]

23. Donald Trump is God. Prove he is not.

Same argument.

[Voltaire2]

25. It is up to the god botherers to both define

what they mean by god and what evidence there is for this god they claim exists.

[MineralMan]

26. The idea of the multiverse is a hypothesis.

Last edited Mon Nov 26, 2018, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)

There is some mathematical support for the idea. Unfortunately that math is a couple of levels beyond my comprehension. So, like most, I am waiting for further information about acceptance by those who understand that math. So far, that does not yet exist.

So, I don't yet accept that as a theory that is likely to explain anything. I'm reading about it though. It is interesting.

There is no scientific support for any hypothesis for the existence of deities. No math. No unexplained phenomena that require specific intervention.

Admitting that something remains unexplained is not evidence of a deity or deities.

[Lordquinton]

138. It's like he didn't read the article at all

It was a fascinating article, and broke the whole multiverse thing down in a way I think I understand what they actually mean by it. Not that there are literal parallel dimensions where I am in this exact spot, but a millionaire, but that way far out beyond where we can observe, farther than light has traveled to us, a portion of space has collapsed and expanded much like our portion has. Much like there are multiple galaxies in our universe, there are multiple universes in the multiverse.

that's what I took from it, will read it again.

[MineralMan]

142. The concept isn't too hard to visualize.

That article did a pretty good job with helping to do that. Really understanding it, though gets deep into esoteric math. Beyond my level.

As to whether the OP read the whole thing, I can't say.

[Lordquinton]

149. Given that the article specifically addresses his comment

That there is nothing to suggest that the fundamental rules would or should be any different, And Hawking says as much, we can only go on assumptions.

[edhopper]

28. The claims of almost all believers

is that God has had an impact on the physical Universe. Is so, there should be some evidence of it. And not the evidence that the Universe began and runs perfectly fine without any outside supernatural agency.

If God had no impact at all, why call him God.

[guillaumeb]

71. I believe in the Creator.

So there is that.

[edhopper]

75. for which there is no evidence

as I explained in my post.

What do you base you faith on if there is no evidence at all?

[guillaumeb]

79. Belief.

Faith requires a belief in something. It does not require evidence, or faith and belief would not enter the equation at all.

[edhopper]

85. And do you admit that

billions have had faith and belief in things that do not exist?

[guillaumeb]

88. I admit that billions have faith in unprovable things.

But unprovable does not mean the same thing as "do not exist".

[edhopper]

111. All those old Gods

Zues and Baal and Orsirus and Janus. They all could exists as described in the myths.

Jesus came to America as the Mormons believe?

Those unprovable things could exists?

[guillaumeb]

117. Many things exist.

We can "see" many of them. But that "seeing" does not limit what exists to what is "seen" by us on earth.

[edhopper]

129. Which has nothing to do with my question.

[Mariana]

84. Gil has already explained

that he doesn't believe The Creator™ has had an impact on the physical Universe. He says The Creator™ "figuratively lit the spark of creation that was the Big Bang." It didn't literally create, you see, so of course it has had no impact on the physical world.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218281252

Like you, I don't understand why anyone would bother with a god that can't even literally create stuff.

[Doodley]

29. As has been said on this thread, a God is open to many interpretations.

It does not have to be a man with a white beard,.or any other physical form. There is too much we do not understand about life and consciousness to be arrogant enough to be absolutely certain. Even Richard Dawkins admits he isn't certain there isn't a God.

I consider myself to be an atheist, but I cannot be absolutely certain. I have no evidence there is or isn't a God,any more than evidence of Bigfoot, but maybe I am the evidence. Maybe we all are. To be here, now thinking these thoughts, to have arrived here, only as a result of a chain of events of which the chances were so remote as to be nearly impossible, I have to think that it was a miracle, maybe not of a spiritual white beard kind, but still a miracle for all that has happened to happen as it did to be here.

We have some answers, but to use the OP analogy, there is so much we cannot see in this room, so much we cannot explain, that we don't have much chance in seeing what the next room looks like.

[Thunderbeast]

30. The problem comes when a book

written by bronze-aged nomads is used to force an entire moral code on others. Why should this book, full of justified murder, rape, and slavery STILL be used to explain things that were not understood over two thousand years ago?

If the "book" is seen as alegory and read in the context of it's time as fable, I am fine. If, however you scream it's contents as literal truth, and apply the many meaningless standards of behavior to 21st Century humankind, I can only view you as a delusional idiot! If you claim to talk to a personal, responsive GOD, I can not respect your intelect. You are living in a child's world, or suffering from psychosis.

Fundamental religions of all flavors are political tools used to send young armies to die for the preservation of monarchs. THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN THE 21ST CENTURY!

I am OK not knowing what happens after my last breath. Overwhelming evidence suggests that my acumulated memories will be lost permanently. If something else magical happens, GREAT! I refuse however to live my life based on eternal consequences dreamed up by spiritual hucksters over the centuries.

[Red Raider 85]

31. Belief in gods, or any belief not based on evidence, is irrational.

Theists are delusional, period. Sad, to be sure. Gods are as utter nonsense as leprechauns, unicorns or Paul Bunyan.

[uriel1972]

33. Totally agree...nt

[Major Nikon]

52. I believe I'll have another drink

[marylandblue]

36. If you leave God undefined, then it is in the same category as covfefe.

A word without meaning, nothing more. Can one even have faith in covfefe? If not, then how is it different from God?

[Eko]

39. No one can show evidence for the existance of god at this time.

Just like they cant show evidence for superman at this time.

[Act_of_Reparation]

43. Define god.

Then maybe we'll talk about proof.

[Voltaire2]

55. The op won't do that.

This latest effort appears to argue that it is incumbent on people who do not believe in abject idiocy and nonsense to define the nonsense and prove it is idiotic.

I can do that, but indeed it would be more appropriate for a believer like the op to state exactly what this “god” is that the op believes exists.

[ck4829]

45. I think it's interesting that one can say the same thing about dark matter

There is no evidence for it's existence... but it is needed for our laws of the universe to be true, laws which make sense until we take away the mass the dark matter adds which we can't find but must be there.

[marylandblue]

47. There is evidence for dark matter because we can measure it's mass

We just can't see it directly, so we don't know what it is.

[edhopper]

49. There is a lot of evidence

we see it's effect on the Universe. it is called dark matter because we have not found out exactly what it is yet.
It is like DNA, we had a good working model of evolution without knowing the chemical process. Then Watson, Crick and Franklin discovered DNA. But there was evidence for it before that.

There is no evidence that any God had an effect on the Universe.

[Voltaire2]

56. But it's the same see because it is entirely

not the same but ....

[edhopper]

61. It's like believing in thisng we can't see

because we only have data from radio telescopes. Same as faith.

[MineralMan]

46. Abour your "parable"

Why would anyone in that room suspect there were other rooms? What would be the thing that initiated the idea of their existence?

Unlike your blank room, the universe we inhabit has many windows. We have still not explored that universe fully. However, our long exploration of it has led to the hypothesis that there may well be other universes. That possibility is being looked at, at least mathematically. However, we still have unanswered questions about the one we inhabit that limit our ability to understand the multiverse, if it actually exists.

In the end, however, we are almost certainly restricted to the universe we inhabit. We may someday understand the multiverse concept, if it can be described, but we are unlikely to be able to actually observe anything beyond our own. It doesn't matter, though. The existence or non-existence of other universes does not have any impact on us. We're locked in our tiny little corner of the one we inhabit.

As for deities, there have been many of them invented by humans. They come and go. We don't even agree on the definitions for them. Like the multiverse hypothesis, it doesn't matter, though. Any deities that possibly exist seem to have no actual effect on our reality.

[Voltaire2]

57. The multi-verse hypothesis is just one

way of understanding quantum superposition. It currently has no good evidence that it is more than that. Instead it brings in a lot of its own problems. But it has become the current goto answer for purveyors of woo and other bullshit.

[MineralMan]

58. Well, the woo-sters, as usual, are distorting the little we

know and turning it into some sort of mystical spiritualistic thing. Frankly, it's no different from the purveyors of the "Matrix" idea. They hijacked quantum physics that way, too, and tried to tie it to superstitious beliefs.

There is science to it, but that's hard. Magic is easy. So, let's make it magical or something.

It's one line of cosmological thought that I'm following. Where it leads, I'll have to wait and see. As I said, the math is beyond my capability to follow.

[trotsky]

48. Horrible analogy.

Think of this universe, the one we live in, as one room in a house. A room with no currently observable doors or windows. A room from which, at this point, we cannot leave.

Because your analogy is so weak and limited, you aren't accounting for a tool we have in science: mathematics. That tool allows us to explore places we can't observe. Make predictions that may or may not be able to confirm. Imagine new worlds and just see what the consequences are. The math can tell us things.

Additionally, to illustrate how lame your analogy is, how do we receive food and water in this room? Surely we can observe how those things are presented to us, right? Draw some conclusions based on how that happens? Extend the thought to saying there must be space for these things to exist and become detectable?

I'd explain more, but you have conclusively proven you aren't interested in actual dialog, and instead are just trying to silence critics of religion by dehumanizing them (blasting them as being a mindless "choir", for example) and berating them for daring to disagree with you.

You are welcome to prove me wrong at any time, but I suspect you will just respond with another snide remark and/or insult.

[MineralMan]

50. Well, it wasn't all that well thought-out.

You raised some of the questions that were clearly omitted from the basic setup.

Our universe isn't some simple little room with four walls and no windows or doors. Humans have only recently explored it, with the capabilities accelerating fantastically in the past half century or so.

Not only do we have doors and windows, we have the ability to create tools and processes to extend and analyze what we observe. We're not locked into some room. Instead, we have complete visibility of the entire universe, which is almost 14 billion years old and expansive enough to hold almost endless things to examine.

The analogy of that bare room is not at all representative of our complicated and still unexplored universe. The two things are not comparable. But, simple ideas suit simple ways of thinking, even if they are a poor match for the comparison. It reminds me of the simple examples that religious apologists use to distract from real explanations.

We know far more than the person in that featureless room.

[guillaumeb]

72. We can speculate on what might be in other universes,

accepting, simply for the argument, that the multiverse theory is correct.

But as we know, speculation is only that. It is not evidence for anything.

So when anyone says that there is no evidence for the existence of God, they are really only saying that they cannot see any such evidence.

Assuming again for the sake of argument that there is a Creator, we can only speculate about the nature of that Creator.

Theists accept on faith the existence of the Creator. Atheists do not, or claim uncertainty.


So there is no proof to present here.

[trotsky]

94. Mathematics isn't entirely speculation, you know.

And we *have* observed phenomena that can be explained by multiverse theory.

But regardless, no scientist currently proposes multiverse theory with the same intensity and certainty that theists like yourself propose "god." It's just an interesting piece of speculation that answers some questions, introduces others, and could explain certain observations. Yes, observations.

Why don't you be the first to present evidence for your god on the meager level of multiverse evidence? That would be an amazing start.

Assuming again for the sake of argument that there is a Creator, we can only speculate about the nature of that Creator.

No, this is wrong. Entire religions (including yours) have been established based on precise *beliefs* about your god. You are a Christian. You are certain that a man named Jesus was the son of your god. You are certain that he was crucified and died in order to forgive you of your sins. This is what it means to be a Christian, is it not? If I got your beliefs wrong, then correct me. Explain exactly what it is you believe. You never have on this forum. Never.

And finally, for what must be at least the hundredth time, I must correct you - I am not aware of any atheists here who claim to PROVE there is no god. Once again, I state that this is a straw man of your creation. Stop arguing against straw men, and acknowledge what atheism (at least what MY atheism) really is: a simple disbelief of your claims. WILL YOU DO THIS AT LONG LAST???

[guillaumeb]

95. What part of the concept of faith is unclear?

Faith requires a belief in the unprovable.

[trotsky]

97. What makes you call yourself a Christian? n/t

[guillaumeb]

99. What makes you call yourself an atheist? eom

[trotsky]

100. Nope, not playing your game. Answer my question first.

You consider yourself a Christian. Explain why. You have done nothing but jerk EVERYONE around on this forum. Get on the record. Explain what you believe and why. Are you unable to? Are you afraid to?

[guillaumeb]

103. I already answered this one. More than once.

I believe in the essential message of Jesus to do to others as you would have them do to you.

[trotsky]

110. But that's not exclusively the "message of Jesus."

Others have espoused the golden rule - including many who came BEFORE your Jesus fellow.

Ergo, you are NOT a Christian.

[guillaumeb]

116. OK.

[trotsky]

118. So?

Do you still consider yourself a Christian? Why or why not?

[guillaumeb]

119. Just OK.

And that is all that the question deserves. You made a pronouncement in which you set yourself up as "the definer" of who is/is not a Christian. And you are the definer......for yourself.

[trotsky]

121. I asked you to state what makes you a Christian. YOU defined it, remember?

You stated that you claim to be a Christian because you think Jesus existed and came up with the Golden Rule. You're factually wrong - the notion did not originally arise in 1st century CE Palestine. Your only provided reason for being a Christian is not based in fact. So therefore, you cannot be a Christian if that's your reason.

Unless you have other reasons?

[guillaumeb]

123. Hello, definer.

Were you elected or appointed to this position?

Or, are you engaging in a logical fallacy?

[trotsky]

124. So you're giving up it seems.

You defined yourself as a Christian, providing the definition in post #103.

"I believe in the essential message of Jesus to do to others as you would have them do to you."

I challenged YOUR definition. Your pathetically desperate attempt to save face by calling me the "definer" when you yourself provided the definition is classic guillaumeb.

Don't you ever get tired of humiliating yourself?

[guillaumeb]

125. And now you revert to another logical fallacy, a much used one.

The ad hominem. At least you are consistent.

[trotsky]

128. Further self-humiliation, g? An interesting tactic.

Embrace what you're good at, I guess.

[Major Nikon]

53. Makes about as much sense as equating creationism to evolution

Which is also a frequent "argument" made by religionists.

Not all hypotheses are equally valid. Some are bounded by reason and logic and some demonstrate childlike absurdity. It's not hard to figure out which side of the spectrum belief in a metaphysical sky daddy falls under, especially when some are so invested in the idea they dedicate their lives working to destroy all forms of dissent.

[MineralMan]

59. Well, he got the thread title right, anyhow.

That's something.

[KPN]

54. Well, let's just agree that faith does not equal evidence.

The ability to show perfect evidence that God does not exist does not equal evidence that God does or must exist. It still relies on faith. A belief, not a fact or a proof.

[uriel1972]

62. we don't ask for 'Perfect' evidence...

we ask for some evidence... any evidence.

[at140]

76. We can not see where our Universe ends

There are zillion Suns in our universe, each with its own set of planets.
God must be humongously busy keeping track of every living creature on those multi-zillion planets.

Then there are probably zillions of universes beyond where our ends.
Either there are zillion Gods out there or just God keeping track of Zillion**Zillion creatures.

If there is one God, I truly empathize the impossible task he/she/it must execute.

[Doodley]

107. You are assuming that your perception is a reality. You say there are zillions of suns. Saying so

does not make it so. Believing does not make it so. A God that influences your perception isn't as overworked as a God that lords over zillions of beings. How do you know you aren't just an avatar playing a game?

[at140]

108. I have seen many maps of galaxies and some are so far away,

like 100's of light years away right here in our Universe. Our Milky Way galaxy is just a small galaxy. And Milky way itself contains zillions of sun like stars, most bigger than our Sun. No one knows where the end of Universe is. The light has not arrived from far away stars yet, and may not arrive for many centuries.

So if we can't even see end of our own universe, who is to say there are many more universes are out there? Like I said, no one God can keep track of all this humongous number of objects. Earth is so insignificant in the scheme of things.

[Doodley]

112. How do you know they are real maps, and not simply part of a world that only exists in mind?

[saidsimplesimon]

77. guill, I agree with the title.

If only you had stopped while you were ahead.

On a personal level, "I am what I am and that's all what I am." Cartoons are entertaining.

[guillaumeb]

80. Prove this position:

That there is no evidence for the existence of God.

And that was my entire point. Neither position, neither belief, is provable. If either were provable, faith or belief would not be a factor.

[trotsky]

113. There is no evidence for the existence of leprechauns.

Do I need to prove that?

Or would it be more appropriate for someone who HAS evidence of leprechauns to present it?

[marylandblue]

114. The position is true by inspection(as my math teachers used to call it)

"There is no evidence for 'X' " is true by inspection if no evidence has been presented. It does not require evidence to prove it, because it itself the proposition that evidence does not exist.

[bitterross]

109. It is not incumbent on me to prove god doesn't exist.

It is incumbent upon believers to prove god does exist.

[guillaumeb]

115. Not the point. eom

[malchickiwick]

126. There is plenty of evidence that god does not exist, however.

Beginning with the fact that both omniscience and omnipotence are self-annihilating concepts, and ending with Occam's Razor.

[Snackshack]

127. I think.

Rustin Cohle explains this phenomenon rather well.
☯️

[gibraltar72]

130. If he exists explain Dick Cheney.

[LongtimeAZDem]

131. Argument from Ignorance

Since nothing can be known of those "other rooms", to use them as possible sources of evidence is fallacious.

[guillaumeb]

133. That razor cuts both ways.

And I did not say that they were a source of evidence. I said we can only see one room.

[LongtimeAZDem]

143. And so you cannot assume any evidence beyond that (nt)

[guillaumeb]

145. Or assume that because there is no evidence here, there is no evidence. eom

[LongtimeAZDem]

146. One can assume that until the existence of other rooms is demonstrated. (nt)

[guillaumeb]

147. Or.... one can assume that the search is not conclusive of anything. eom

[LongtimeAZDem]

148. You're making invisible unicorn arguments, and wasting my time. (nt)

[billh58]

132. As is usually the case, you

present an interesting topic of conversation. Reading through this thread, I have observed that no one has mentioned philosophy (which has been around thousands of years wrestling with some of the positions and beliefs presented here).

In my opinion, the existence of "God" requires no proof, does not need to be observable, nor does it require explanation. The difference between Good and Evil is subjective, as is the existence of a Supreme Being, and requires only that a society agree upon a set of "moral values" in order to maintain a livable existence. The set of values chosen can manifest the necessity for an arbiter, who may be called God, Judge, or King.

Invisible and unknowable beings have been a part of civilization since its beginnings, and while the names and descriptions of the All Powerful change, the need for spiritual guidance has not.

[guillaumeb]

134. A welcome addition to this conversation.

We are speaking of the unknowable, so opinion is the only constant.

[billh58]

135. Thanks for the response, and just one more thing:

although the actual entity referred to as God is not observable by we mere mortals, society has filled that gap with priests, shamen, pastors, and preachers who act as intermediaries and tell us what God wants, needs, and demands. The promise of an afterlife is the reward for following their guidance, and supporting their causes.

On the other hand, many people deal directly with their vision of Spirituality in whatever form that may take, and attempt to make peace with the knowable universe.

[guillaumeb]

136. And many intermediaries are happy to side with the rulign class

for their own benefit.

[billh58]

137. As it always was... n/t

[Lordquinton]

139. What a train wreck

It's clear you just cherry-picked what you wanted from the article, and cut out the second part of the statement

But when people then contend that they can draw conclusions about fundamental constants, the laws of physics, or the values of string vacua, they're no longer doing science; they're speculating. Wishful thinking is no substitute for data, experiments, or observables.

Wishful thinking.

Furthermore it is not a quote from Hawking as you implied, nor does what you claim about your god have anything to do with the subject at hand.

And speaking of Hawking, a noted disciple of Russell, his thoughts on god are clear

"We have finally found something that doesn’t have a cause, because there was no time for a cause to exist in," Hawking wrote. "For me this means that there is no possibility of a creator, because there is no time for a creator to have existed in."

https://www.livescience.com/63854-stephen-hawking-says-no-god.html

The bit at the end falls apart under any amount of scrutiny as well, as has been shown by others.

[guillaumeb]

140. Yes, your response was.

It is clear that you cherry picked what you wanted, and ignored the rest.

Hawking was engaging in speculation. He could have no evidence, but you seized on his unprovable statement because you obviously feel that his speculation is proof of what you already believe.

[Lordquinton]

141. I backed up my claims

and appropriately attributed my quotes. You did not, and you attempted to deceive in your OP.

So I'll go with intellectual dishonesty to answer my question in the other thread.

[guillaumeb]

144. No, you interpreted speculation as proof of your position.

And there is a link to the article.

Perhaps you missed that link?

[Lordquinton]

150. Yes, I missed the link I quoted from

That has to be it.

[guillaumeb]

151. Your previous accusation:

Lordquinton (7,128 posts)
141. I backed up my claims

and appropriately attributed my quotes. You did not, and you attempted to deceive in your OP.

So I'll go with intellectual dishonesty to answer my question in the other thread.

I highlighted it for you. Now, look at my post and notice that it is a part of an article. The TOS for DU and copyright law does not permit posting an entire article, so that is why only short excerpts are posted.

So, if you went to the link and read the article, you would see the context.

Rather than call me a liar, you might want to read the entire article before making a false accusation.

[Lordquinton]

152. Need some more straw?

The TOS allows 4 paragraphs, you didn't even post half of one, I posted the part of the quote you intentionally left out. You also inplied that you were quoting Hawking when you were not.

I read the whole article, it specifically states that your claim in this thread is not a possibility.

[guillaumeb]

153. No, you supplied plenty of it. And now you are making up an implication and saying that I did it.

Sad that you have to back track from your previous claim that I lied.


And if you somehow arrived at your conclusion, I cannot see the logic there. But our beliefs, or philosophical positions if you will, do not have to be grounded in logic, and neither theism nor atheism can be grounded in logic.

Only one pretends to be.

[Lordquinton]

154. Speaking of lieing, I never said you did

Now for the quote you cherry picked:

n this physical Universe, it’s important to observe all that we can, and to measure every bit of knowledge we can glean. Only from the full suite of data available can we hope to ever draw valid, scientific conclusions about the nature of our Universe. Some of those conclusions will have implications that we may not be able to measure: the existence of the multiverse arises from that. But when people then contend that they can draw conclusions about fundamental constants, the laws of physics, or the values of string vacua, they’re no longer doing science; they’re speculating. Wishful thinking is no substitute for data, experiments, or observables. Until we have those, be aware that the multiverse is a consequence of the best science we have available today, but it doesn’t make any scientific predictions we can put to the test.

So you know I can still post 3 more paragraphs from this article and be within the TOS.

It says that the multiverse theory is a result of not being able to observe everything, but it's not supported because we can't yet observe it. It goes on to say that people who then claim that because of the multiverse theory there could be universes where physics are different are completely unbased and with absolutely zero support (this is where the author Ethan Siegel is speaking directly to you).

To your analogy, there is nothing to suggest that the rooms outside our own should be any different fundamentally than our own, the evidence that we have only gives a shadow of a suggestion that other rooms might exist.

There's evidence to support my thought that you didn't actually read the article.

Stop calling me a liar now.

[guillaumeb]

155. Your own words:

Lordquinton (7,130 posts)
141. I backed up my claims

and appropriately attributed my quotes. You did not, and you attempted to deceive in your OP.

So I'll go with intellectual dishonesty to answer my question in the other thread.

Backtracking again?

I attempted to deceive, according to you.

Your own words convict you.

I am not calling you a liar, your own contradictory answers are revealing something about you. And your tactics.

Edited to add: Perhaps you should read this one:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218298047

[Lordquinton]

156. Why are you not responding to any of the content in my posts?

You are only supporting what I said.

[guillaumeb]

157. Just admit that you called me a liar,

and imputed a motive to me by calling me intellectually dishonest.

I understand the need by some to personally attack people. I understand the apparent need to call people liars, as you did, and intellectually dishonest. As you did.

You are convicting yourself.

So no, I am responding by pointing out your personal attacks on me.

[Lordquinton]

158. So you can't respond to my actual comments?

Is that why you are going so hard on the attack?

The article you cherry picked and the scientists you named both say the exact opposite of what you claim.

[guillaumeb]

159. You attacked me, and called me a liar and dishonest.

And those were your comments.

Nice try at blaming the target of your insults.

[Lordquinton]

160. Never called you a liar

Never.

I did claim you either did not read the article, or we're being intellectually dishonest, and I backed those claims up. You for sure are coming in bad faith because you have not once addressed a thing I have said.

[guillaumeb]

162. Unfortunately for your claim,

we can all read what you said.

Speaking of bad faith and all, why deny what we can all read?

[Lordquinton]

178. I stand by my comment

And back them up with yours. Everyone can read what I said and what I backed them up with, and they can read you ignoring all that and lashing out.

[guillaumeb]

183. Yes, okay.

[marylandblue]

161. Imputing a motive is something you do and justify all the time

And frequently you impute bad faith or intellectual dishonesty by implication if not in so many words.

[guillaumeb]

163. And the poster is still denying what we can all read.

If someone mis-frames what I say, yes, I will assume either bad faith or misreading.

[MineralMan]

164. Lalalala - Can't hear you...

[marylandblue]

165. If someone called me a liar, I would demonstrate I am telling truth

I would not point out that it is a personal attack and accuse them of something else. Don't do that. Trump does that.

[guillaumeb]

166. The accusation stands,

and I pointed out why it is untrue.

Read the exchange.

[marylandblue]

167. I did. I don't agree with you.

[guillaumeb]

168. Specifically why?

[marylandblue]

169. The connection between the article and your premise is unclear

Which looks like sloppy thinking to me. Which is a defense against intellectual dishonesty or lying, but also not something most people would admit to.

[guillaumeb]

170. The accusation:

Lordquinton (7,134 posts)
141. I backed up my claims

and appropriately attributed my quotes. You did not, and you attempted to deceive in your OP.

So I'll go with intellectual dishonesty to answer my question in the other thread.
ᕕ ᐛ )ᕗ

Attempted to deceive is an accusation of lying.

And intellectual dishonesty is another accusation.

I provided an excerpt, and a link to the article. So anyone interested had the ability to read the entire article.


As to the rest, if you disagree with specifics in my post, my argument, feel free to discuss that. But when LQ accuses me of being a liar, and of being intellectually dishonest, that is attack speech, not dialogue.

[marylandblue]

171. Correct, it is an accusation. And this is a Trumpian response.

Focusing on the fact that you are being accused rather than the substance of the accusation.

I did comment on the substance of your OP upthread. Now I am just commenting on your response to an accusation.

[guillaumeb]

172. Attempted to deceive is synonymous with lying.

So LQ did call me a liar, and then denied it. Trumpian is making an accusation and then denying it in the face of the proof.

[MineralMan]

173. Are you OK, Guy?

[guillaumeb]

174. Thank you for asking.

Read the entire sub-thread for the "Trumpian" reference.

[marylandblue]

181. Sorry. I call them as I see them. Just like you do.

It's not an insult. It's just calling out bad behavior. It's okay, you are a human being with flaws. Just like all of us.

[marylandblue]

175. Well, technically, he is correct.

He said you "attempted to deceive," which is a behavior, rather than "you are a liar," which would be a character defect. Subtle difference, but do you really want to argue over technicalities? Maybe you do.

[guillaumeb]

176. I disagree.

Only a liar attempts to deceive, and only a deceiver is intellectually dishonest.

And the poster denied it. A weak denial at best.

And that concludes this sub thread. There is no point in going further.

[marylandblue]

179. Nobody is 100% honest. Nobody.

[guillaumeb]

182. Agreed.

But if we are interested in dialogue, and I know that you are, it helps to avoid some things.

[marylandblue]

186. Yes it does help to avoid some things

But I am not perfect either.

[Lordquinton]

185. Hey, so I never called you a liar

Never happened, but you have been saying that I did, which is not true, so like you are proving that true, so congrats on proving something true that was never claimed?

[saidsimplesimon]

177. guill, like myself,

do you suffer from Asperger's? Letting go is not my strong suite. just my opinon

[marylandblue]

188. Interesting idea. I have a close relative with Asperger's.

[FM123]

180. As an observer, I can say that all the dialogue back and forth is quite interesting!

[guillaumeb]

184. Much fire and fury,

and in the end, each side remains convinced.

[marylandblue]

187. That's normal, people don't change their minds easily