What type of "evidence" of God would an atheist accept?

[Michael]

So you're suggesting that a case can be made for the electromagnetic field (and so, presumably, the other quantum fields and spacetime) preceding God?

From my perspective that is a "possibility", but it's also possible that everything, every form of mass and energy that we experience now was "created" by God. Either way you look at it, the possibility of God remains scientifically viable.

We already know that, given a few tens of billions of years, intelligence can arise and manipulate the environment - life on Earth is a case in point!

True, but while the Earth is only a few billion years old, the universe could be eternal and infinite. We're likely to be a relatively "new" form of life in an 'eternal' universe.

Why propose some ill-defined, undemonstrable entity,

The physical universe is not undemonstratable in terms of physics, even if it is somewhat "ill defined' by mainstream astronomy at the moment.

when Earth is crawling with intelligent creatures, and we have a fairly good (although still incomplete) idea of how they came to be. Naturally, it's possible, even likely, that intelligent life has evolved elsewhere in the universe, but I don't see how the label 'God' is usefully applied to alien life.

You'd have to apply the concept of naturally forming forms of life to a cosmic scale version of consciousness, not just to various planetary forms of life.

 

[Non sequitur]

As a monotheist, I really don't care what you call "God". It's necessarily still the same God from my perspective, if not the same "religion".

Please don't make me have to post a link to who Thor is...

Thor, in the sense of what we know (of) him to be.

Not who he "really" is.

 

[Michael]

Please don't make me have to post a link to who Thor is...

Thor, in the sense of what we know (of) him to be.

Not who he "really" is.

IMO religion was simply a precursor to modern "science". Human beings have always tried to explain how they got here and understand how they came to exist on Earth. They've always been interested in learning about ways to maximize their survival potential and manipulate their surroundings for their benefit. Religion changes over time too, just like science changes over time. They are both ways to describe how we got here, and where we're going. It doesn't make sense to me to look back at early, now "unpopular" religious ideas to make predictions about the whole of religion anymore than it would make sense to look at the ancient failures of "science" as being indicated of the current value of science.

Current variation in religious ideas about God aren't any more unexpected than the variation we see in gravity theory today where some individuals prefer a MOND (Newtonian) explanation for some events, where others might apply GR, while a third group might prefer a QM description of gravity. It's still the same "gravity".

 

[Non sequitur]

IMO religion was simply a precursor to modern "science". Human beings have always tried to explain how they got here and understand how they came to exist on Earth. They've always been interested in learning about ways to maximize their survival potential and manipulate their surroundings for their benefit. Religion changes over time too, just like science changes over time. They are both ways to describe how we got here, and where we're going. It doesn't make sense to me to look back at early, now "unpopular" religious ideas to make predictions about the whole of religion anymore than it would make sense to look at the ancient failures of "science" as being indicated of the current value of science.

Current variation in religious ideas about God aren't any more unexpected than the variation we see in gravity theory today where some individuals prefer a MOND (Newtonian) explanation for some events, where others might apply GR, while a third group might prefer a QM description of gravity. It's still the same "gravity".

You just did the not-who-he-"really"-is.

Thor has different properties and characteristics than the Christian God, so they are two different concepts (not realities).

It seems you are stuck in circular reasoning, if you can't answer what type of "evidence" of Thor you would accept because all evidence leads to the same god.

Are you aware of that?

 

[Michael]

You just did the not-who-he-"really"-is.

No, not anymore than a physicist claiming that gravity isn't *ideally* expressed by Newton's concept of force, rather it's a feature related to 'geometry' (GR theory). They're completely *different* descriptions and conceptual variations of the very same thing that we call "gravity", just like their QM counterparts. None of them agree conceptually, and they can't *all* be correct. Does that somehow demonstrate that gravity doesn't exist, or that Newton's belief in the existence of gravity was incorrect?

Thor has different properties and characteristics than the Christian God, so they are two different concepts (not realities).

Geometric (GR) definitions of gravity are vastly different than Newton's concept of 'force'. They're two different concepts. Has gravity been the least bit affected by those conceptual differences? If QM definitions of gravity one day replace GR theory, will Einstein's belief in the existence of gravity be wrong, or just his math?

It seems you are stuck in circular reasoning, if you can't answer what type of "evidence" of Thor you would accept because all evidence leads to the same god.

Are you aware of that?

I'm aware that I believe in the existence of but one God, and many religions that attempt to imperfectly describe that one God. I don't try to conform to your personal belief system which equates differences between 'religions' as different "gods". Since when did I have to conform to your belief systems on the topic of God?

 

[stevil]

I'm just pointing out that over the whole of eternity, statistically speaking, a cosmological scale form of life would have time to form and take hold, and "design" things as they saw fit.

I'm not quite sure what is meant by "a cosmological scale form of life". A life form bigger than a planet?

It's really just a statistical look at the problem. If you look at it as a chicken or the egg proposition, even if you assume that energy came first, that would not preclude the existence of God today.

It just depends on the god claim. If they claim that god created all energy and matter, then...

It's also possible that God may simply have 'created' every form of mass and energy which we exist in, yet he may exist as a higher form of energy. No matter how you look it, it's pretty much impossible to rule out the possibility of God altogether, even if you look at the question from a purely empirical perspective.

Sure, it's impossible to falsify a claim which doesn't include falsifiable criteria.

From a purely philosophical standpoint, my issue with an intelligent creator that created all matter, is that of "knowledge". Without matter how do we have data, without data how do we have information, without information how do we have knowledge? How can something be intelligent without there first being matter? How can something know stuff before any stuff exists?

I know Christians generally insist that god always existed, and always knew everything, but as a non Christian I simply cannot allow myself to assume this as a starting point.

I would say the Christ was more Godly in the way that he treated others, and he was a clear reflection and demonstration of God's value system in physical form.

Not necessarily an immaculate conception of Mary?

 

[Michael]

I'm not quite sure what is meant by "a cosmological scale form of life". A life form bigger than a planet?

Potentially bigger than the visible universe.

Collected Knowledge: Dark Matter Filaments

It just depends on the god claim. If they claim that god created all energy and matter, then...

Ok.

Sure, it's impossible to falsify a claim which doesn't include falsifiable criteria.

Even the notion of falsification becomes 'iffy' when applied to cosmology theory, and even areas of particle physics. We might be able to falsify *some* particle physics concepts in the lab, but certainly not all of them.

From a purely philosophical standpoint, my issue with an intelligent creator that created all matter, is that of "knowledge". Without matter how do we have data, without data how do we have information, without information how do we have knowledge? How can something be intelligent without there first being matter? How can something know stuff before any stuff exists?

That ultimately depends on what *it* is actually made of. If it's composed of the ordinary things we find here on Earth, then your argument might have merit. Since however astronomers claim that the types of mass and energy that exist on Earth only make up 5 percent of the universe, you can't really make that assumption. If concepts like gravitons do exist, how would we know yet?

We essentially live inside of an energy spectrum that makes sense to us, but it may have all been "created" by an intelligence that formed from much finer forms of energy long before anyone said "let there be light".

I know Christians generally insist that god always existed, and always knew everything, but as a non Christian I simply cannot allow myself to assume this as a starting point.

Some ideas about God, like some mathematical models of gravity theories might be falsifiable, but not the basic concepts themselves.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Either way you look at it, the possibility of God remains scientifically viable.

How?

True, but while the Earth is only a few billion years old, the universe could be eternal and infinite. We're likely to be a relatively "new" form of life in an 'eternal' universe.

In this universe (or part of the multiverse) the big bang puts a time constraint on that. We may not be the first life since the BB, but the first few hundred thousand years were not conducive to life.

The physical universe is not undemonstratable in terms of physics, even if it is somewhat "ill defined' by mainstream astronomy at the moment.

Red-herring.

You'd have to apply the concept of naturally forming forms of life to a cosmic scale version of consciousness, not just to various planetary forms of life.

There's no reason to suppose such a consciousness might exist or could exist, and plenty of reasons to suppose otherwise (as explained elsewhere on these forums).

 

[Michael]

How?

In this universe (or part of the multiverse) the big bang puts a time constraint on that. We may not be the first life since the BB, but the first few hundred thousand years were not conducive to life.

Red-herring.

There's no reason to suppose such a consciousness might exist or could exist, and plenty of reasons to suppose otherwise (as explained elsewhere on these forums).

Your primary objection seems to be related to a time constraint that you think is caused by "space expansion", but even that belief you hold is "act of faith" in a claim that defies empirical cause/effect justification. I don't have to make any such "leaps of faith" to propose Panentheism and an eternal universe as an alternative to your redshift claims because *many* types of inelastic scattering are known to occur in plasma in the lab and are documented to have a tangible effect on photons in the lab. What need do I have for a space expansion 'miracle'?

 

[Strathos]

So have any atheists given any concrete responses to the question in the OP yet?

 

[quatona]

So have any atheists given any concrete responses to the question in the OP yet?

Yes. Even though the vague OP question doesn´t really allow for concrete responses, a couple of people tried to help Michael out.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your primary objection seems to be related to a time constraint that you think is caused by "space expansion", but even that belief you hold is "act of faith" in a claim that defies empirical cause/effect justification.

Nope, in my view (and others) it's the current best explanation for the observations. If new evidence convincingly shows it's incorrect, I'll accept a new provisional explanation. Do you still not understand how science works?

I don't have to make any such "leaps of faith" to propose Panentheism ...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Your primary objection seems to be related to a time constraint that you think is caused by "space expansion", but even that belief you hold is "act of faith" in a claim that defies empirical cause/effect justification.

Nope, in my view (and others) it's the current best explanation for the observations. If new evidence convincingly shows it's incorrect, I'll accept a new provisional explanation. Do you still not understand how science works?

I don't have to make any such "leaps of faith" to propose Panentheism ...

 

[Michael]

So have any atheists given any concrete responses to the question in the OP yet?

I would say that I got several "specific" responses to my questions, but in fairness it was an open ended question so I'm not sure that the concept of 'concrete' really applies.

 

[Michael]

Nope, in my view (and others) it's the current best explanation for the observations.

You can't be talking about the "best empirical" explanation for the phenomenon of photon redshift, so your "belief" begins and ends with an act of faith on your part in a cause/effect claim that defies empirical support. In short, you're living on faith like everyone else.

If new evidence convincingly shows it's incorrect, I'll accept a new provisional explanation. Do you still not understand how science works?

Empirical evidence from the lab convincingly shows that inelastic scattering has an empirical effect on photons in the lab. I don't think you understand just how much of "science" is based on "faith", affirming the consequent fallacies, and "trust" (misplaced or otherwise).

The real irony here is that there is more empirical laboratory evidence to support a static universe than there is to support 'expanding space' beliefs, and even 'awareness' shows up on Earth in a wide variety of different forms. Panentheism is actually 100 percent consistent with empirical physics, whereas LCMD requires faith in four different and unique metaphysical constructs. Compared to trusting in empirical physics to describe the universe or/as God, LCDM is akin to holding faith in a polytheistic religion! Irony indeed.

 

[stevil]

Potentially bigger than the visible universe.

Collected Knowledge: Dark Matter Filaments

In my opinion taking a superficial look and saying these two things look a-like (once you adjust the scale) isn't very compelling.

My immediate thought on a "brain" as big or bigger than a universe is that it takes time for information to travel vast distances. It takes 100,000 years for light to travel simply from one edge of our galaxy to the other edge. A "brain" would have massive difficulties in recognising and responding to events in this timescale.

Also, of course, we have never observed a brain anywhere near that big, this is somewhat special pleading, or false equivocation.

Anyway, just giving my thoughts, not trying to argue.

 

[lesliedellow]

In my opinion taking a superficial look and saying these two things look a-like (once you adjust the scale) isn't very compelling.

My immediate thought on a "brain" as big or bigger than a universe is that it takes time for information to travel vast distances. It takes 100,000 years for light to travel simply from one edge of our galaxy to the other edge. A "brain" would have massive difficulties in recognising and responding to events in this timescale.

Also, of course, we have never observed a brain anywhere near that big, this is somewhat special pleading, or false equivocation.

Anyway, just giving my thoughts, not trying to argue.

The human brain is toted as being the optimal size for maximum intelligence, precisely because, if it was any bigger, any advantage acruing from additional grey matter would be offset by longer signal paths.

How a brain the size of the universe would get on, I don't know, but spelling that brain G-o-d is probably why Michael is so keen on the Electric Universe nonsense.

 

[Michael]

In my opinion taking a superficial look and saying these two things look a-like (once you adjust the scale) isn't very compelling.

My immediate thought on a "brain" as big or bigger than a universe is that it takes time for information to travel vast distances. It takes 100,000 years for light to travel simply from one edge of our galaxy to the other edge. A "brain" would have massive difficulties in recognising and responding to events in this timescale.

Also, of course, we have never observed a brain anywhere near that big, this is somewhat special pleading, or false equivocation.

Anyway, just giving my thoughts, not trying to argue.

You might lookup quantum entanglement. In terms of passing information over vast distances, what we think of as "speed limits" may not apply to a form of intelligence that has been around 'forever'.

 

[Michael]

The human brain is toted as being the optimal size for maximum intelligence, precisely because, if it was any bigger, any advantage acruing from additional grey matter would be offset by longer signal paths.

How a brain the size of the universe would get on, I don't know, but spelling that brain G-o-d is probably why Michael is so keen on the Electric Universe nonsense.

My preference for electric universe concepts comes from the fact that they actually work in the lab. They explain things like that hot corona which the mainstream *still* struggles with to this day, and which they can't produce in the lab to this day.

I didn't even revisit Panentheism until *long after* I'd given up hope on LCDM. I just couldn't help but notice the similarities of the circuity layout of the universe and the circuitry layout of living organisms.

I'd prefer EU/PC theory over LCMD with or without any theistic/atheistic overtones.

 

[Non sequitur]

No, not anymore than a physicist claiming that gravity isn't *ideally* expressed by Newton's concept of force, rather it's a feature related to 'geometry' (GR theory). They're completely *different* descriptions and conceptual variations of the very same thing that we call "gravity", just like their QM counterparts. None of them agree conceptually, and they can't *all* be correct. Does that somehow demonstrate that gravity doesn't exist, or that Newton's belief in the existence of gravity was incorrect?



Geometric (GR) definitions of gravity are vastly different than Newton's concept of 'force'. They're two different concepts. Has gravity been the least bit affected by those conceptual differences? If QM definitions of gravity one day replace GR theory, will Einstein's belief in the existence of gravity be wrong, or just his math?



I'm aware that I believe in the existence of but one God, and many religions that attempt to imperfectly describe that one God. I don't try to conform to your personal belief system which equates differences between 'religions' as different "gods". Since when did I have to conform to your belief systems on the topic of God?

That's unfortunate that at the root of all your responses it's "same god, different definition"; I find it odd that people can't get out of this circular reasoning.