The stumbling block for atheists.

[PsychoSarah]

I still think this all comes back to the term "evidence", and what exactly you mean by that term. Exactly what type of physical "evidence" do you think there is for "gravity waves" at the moment, and how "convincing" would you say that evidence is at the moment?

I also think you're going to need to stop assuming that God must be 'supernatural' in origin in order to exist. That also seems to be a stumbling block for most conversations with atheists on the topic of God.

I'm not a physicist, and I don't even know what gravity waves are, so... I have no opinion on them.

If a deity is indistinguishable in existing vs not existing, how is anyone supposed to demonstrate it exists? Since deities have not been seen in nature yet, and thus are not an accepted part of nature, they are supernatural by definition.

 

[Freodin]

Why? We have plenty of examples of "natural intelligent designers" to be found in nature living right here on planet Earth. Why wouldn't we expect that to find an intelligent designer behind what we call "nature"?

Not "function" in what physical sense? The universe seems to 'function' pretty well, day in and day out. The sun seems to still be shining here today.

It doesn't function as a "conscious intelligent designer".
The sun shines. It seems to do that quite well. It wouldn't functions quite as well as a golf ball... and we do have plenty of examples of golf balls right here on planet Earth.

 

[Radrook]

Funny how the inability to see what is patently clear has now been equated with being smart or scientific.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Funny how the inability to see what is patently clear has now been equated with being smart or scientific.

Ever consider that what is patently clear to you can seem counterintuitive to someone else?

 

[Loudmouth]

Funny how the inability to see what is patently clear has now been equated with being smart or scientific.

You can't see it either.

 

[Radrook]

Ever consider that what is patently clear to you can seem counterintuitive to someone else?

Each person creates his own reality. Nevertheless, some things are expected to be obvious and in fact usually are.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Each person creates his own reality. Nevertheless, some things are expected to be obvious and in fact usually are.

Expecting the existence of a deity that never shows itself in any direct way to be obvious is... optimistic. I find it to be the opposite of obvious that something I have never been exposed to exists, especially when it is supposed to be this huge influence on the universe.

 

[Michael]

It doesn't function as a "conscious intelligent designer".

How did you subjectively decide that?

The sun shines.

Sustaining all living things on the planet.

It seems to do that quite well.

There are a lot suns with the potential to sustain life in a potentially infinite number of places.

It wouldn't functions quite as well as a golf ball... and we do have plenty of examples of golf balls right here on planet Earth.

Huh? Since when was a golf ball capable of sustaining life on a whole planet, let alone a whole universe?

 

[Michael]

I'm not a physicist, and I don't even know what gravity waves are, so... I have no opinion on them.

That's a safe bet.

If a deity is indistinguishable in existing vs not existing, how is anyone supposed to demonstrate it exists?

I suppose it depends on your own definition of "evidence". What kind of evidence would you accept to support the concept of a living universe, or even something like a gravity wave, or an exotic form of matter or energy?

Since deities have not been seen in nature yet, and thus are not an accepted part of nature, they are supernatural by definition.

Ya, but that really only applies if you *assume* you can intellectually rule out Pantheism and Panentheism, and frankly that's simply not possible.

Until you can scientifically rule out those ideas, you can't just "assume" that God is anything other than natural. We don't even need to deviate from the natural world to have a natural definition of God.

 

[Michael]

You can't see it either.

You can't see a gravitational wave either.

 

[Loudmouth]

Each person creates his own reality. Nevertheless, some things are expected to be obvious and in fact usually are.

When a person can't present evidence of anything in their little cocoon of a reality, then you get posts like yours.

 

[Michael]

Expecting the existence of a deity that never shows itself in any direct way to be obvious is... optimistic.

Can you even put yourself in my shoes for a moment and see how silly that statement sounds to me?

I find it to be the opposite of obvious that something I have never been exposed to exists, especially when it is supposed to be this huge influence on the universe.

Or perhaps it *is* the whole universe.

 

[gudz23]

Or perhaps it *is* the whole universe.

Sorry to just butt in, but in that case, the whole concept of God becomes redundant.

 

[Michael]

Sorry to just butt in, but in that case, the whole concept of God becomes redundant.

Ok, I'll bite. Why?

 

[gudz23]

Beats me (you're the one who brought it up), but if God is the universe, then what purpose does it serve to address (or hold on to) both problems?

Although, being so rash, I must consider the possibility that I miss something about your position.

 

[quatona]

My point was that we don't know what caused anything, so not having an explanation of what 'caused' God doesn't allow one to write off the concept, anymore than not knowing what "caused" inflation automatically disqualifies the concept.

Fortunately, nobody said that that´s how concepts are automatically disqualified or written off.

 

[quatona]

That's not really a valid argument however. Who or what made inflation? Who or what made "dark energy"? Who or what made 'dark matter'?

Zubodenquis did.

 

[Radrook]

Expecting the existence of a deity that never shows itself in any direct way to be obvious is... optimistic. I find it to be the opposite of obvious that something I have never been exposed to exists, especially when it is supposed to be this huge influence on the universe.

So now to believe in the existence of something the inference MUST suddenly be based on DIRECT observation?
Please note that such a requirement isn't scientific since many inferences are drawn in science based on indirect observation such as the gravitational effects on orbits and lensing of light. Your demand clearly demonstrates the inconsistency of policy which is routinely and illogically deployed whenever the subject of an intelligent designer arises. It also clearly demonstrates how science is casually and routinely sacrificed for the sake of supporting the atheist agenda at all costs.

 

[Radrook]

Isn't it a little hypocritical to claim that we don't need to know anything about "the creator" to assert that something has been created, while we must not say that we don't need to know anything about the natural process that cause something in order to know it has been caused by natural process?

After all, while "where did he/she/it come from?" would be an interesting fact to know about "the creator", this is not what is a stake here. The real question we are interested in is "how did he/she/it do it?"

And here we are told that this question is irrelevant, unnecessary. But it is basically the same question as to ask how "unintelligent chemicals did it".

The problem is that you prefer to attribute intelligent abilities, such as the creation of exceedingly complex organisms which includes the human brain, to the unintelligent mindless chemicals which somehow programmed themselves to do it instead of reaching the logical and sane conclusion that what you are observing is the effect of and intelligent source. Both sanity and common logic usually rebel against that idea for a reason which somehow appears to escape you or else doesn't escape you but you choose to feign an acceptance of it anyway because the alternative is simply too unacceptable. That my friend isn't science no matter how fancifully you might strive to dress it up as such. It's like the old Spanish saying:

El mono,
aunque lo vistan de seda-
mono se queda.

 

[Freodin]

How did you subjectively decide that?

I dare say, in a very similar way that you subjectively decide that it does.

Sustaining all living things on the planet.

Yes, in part. So what? Is that the sun's "function"?

There are a lot suns with the potential to sustain life in a potentially infinite number of places.

Yes, so what?
The assertion you made - repeatedly, like in the statement "Or perhaps it *is* the whole universe." or your repeated referring to pan- or panentheism - is that the whole universe is a conscious intelligent creator.
This is a rather different statement from "the sun's energy is what makes live on earth possible". Very different.
I do not see the logical connection between "the sun's energy is what makes live on earth possible" and "the universe consciously created live on earth".

Huh? Since when was a golf ball capable of sustaining life on a whole planet, let alone a whole universe?

Since when did a sun decide to shine on a planet in order to sustain life?

The sun "functions" as a source of heat and light, energy, radiation. This does not mean it also "functions" as either an intelligent conscious creator, or as a golf ball.