Prove me wrong: there is no God

[MikeNovack]

Nobody said they did know those things. But they had eyes in their heads, and could look around and see the complexity of nature, and the first hypothesis that seemed obvious to every single one of them was, "This must have been created."

And all those examples I actually did give are true. And they explain why the "spontaneous generation"-type theories were so hard to produce: they're not really plausible.

Yes, you are giving reasons to believe in a Creator. You have given reasons to believe God exists.

But how do you get from just that to all your other beliefs about God? In other words, couldn't a creator god be indifferent to what you perceive as suffering, what you perceive as evil in the natural world, indifferent to whether or not you do what you consider "sin", not interested in absolving you from sin, etc.

The argument based on "creationism" doesn't get you very far EXCEPT against the claim "No God exists". So it IS useful here. HOWEVER -- even here only to a certain extent. It can't even get you to "God created the inverse as separate".

[commonsense]

I’m agnostic. In my view, God must be benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. Children with cancer make me believe that God is not those things. Therefore He/She is not God. No?

God is not in his created finite things. Created finite things live and move and exist in him.

“For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen,” (Romans 1:25).

From beginning to end, the Bible presents us with a God who is distinct from creation and makes that central to our relationship to Him. This is not a tertiary fact, but rather a foundational biblical truth.

The human claim that cancer exists is evidence of the existence of cancer, but humans did not create cancer. Humans did not create humans. These things are simply creations of a creator that is not in his creation. Similarly, a man is not the car he built with his hands.

Just because I am in my office doesn’t mean that I am my office. To be at, with, in, or among something is not the same is to be that thing.

An author may write a story book but the author isn’t in the story book, the story is in the author, not the other way round.

Prove me wrong.

You have proved nothing but that you have a penchant for non sequitors.

[commonsense]

For from the creation of the world His invisible qualities, both His eternal power and divinity, are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, for them to be without excuse.

Disprove what is seen is not there, disprove there is no thing seen.

Look at the topic question again. The challenge was to prove wrong "there is no god". Posing that challenge does not make a claim able to disprove the existence of a god.

Note also, the challenge says NOTHING about the nature of this god. When you argue for the existence of God, and you have particular beliefs about the nature of God, you have to explain how you get from "existence" to "having property X". God exists and God created the universe (external* to God) does not in and of itself get you to "God cares about me and is interested in punishing me for/forgiving me of "sins"."

* as opposed say to a belief that God created the universe as an "emanation"

Perhaps my topic question would have been more direct, but less colorful if I had simply said, please prove that God exists.

[commonsense]

You believe in a hands-off God who started the machine and who lets it run.

Whether you believe that don't, the argument "creation implies a creator" gets you no farther than that.

Actually it does get you farther...much farther.

For the important question that it raises is WHAT ABOUT CREATION implies a Creator? And the answer is manifold.

Creation is marked by all kinds of irreducible complexities, from cosmic scale dependent complexity (like the size of our moon being perfect for producing the right gravitational effects on oceans, for example), to triadic symbiosis (like the interdependent relationship between parasites, snails and birds or cows) to the complexity of DNA strands. The idea that this irreducible complexity is nothing but the product of time and chance is so utterly implausible as to be, on the very surface, quite ridiculous, and the indicative evidence for design so strong that the Creator hypothesis has to be regarded, by any sane and informed individual, as the default hypothesis.

There's really not other reasonable place to start, actually. And it certainly explains why every ancient human society in history has started, not with a hypothesis of something like Atheism or spontaneous generation, but with the God or gods hypothesis. It's just far too obvious to miss. It takes all kinds of mental gymnastics and sophisticated re-explaining to convince oneself of anything else: which is why the whole no-God hypothesis has been such a late sell in civilizational history. Even if one opts for it, one has to admit that it's not at all plausible prima facie.

I agree that creation implies a creator, but that doesn’t mean that the agent of creation must be God. Ancient cultures established their belief in God because it was the only way they could think of a plausible explanation for natural events. I’m just saying that creation doesn’t prove that God exists. There’s a missing step in the logic.

[commonsense]

For from the creation of the world His invisible qualities, both His eternal power and divinity, are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, for them to be without excuse.

Disprove what is seen is not there, disprove there is no thing seen.

This is just high-level word salad.

[commonsense]

For from the creation of the world His invisible qualities, both His eternal power and divinity, are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, for them to be without excuse.

His qualities are both invisible and clearly seen.

That's religion.

Seen things are not the seeing. But are clear evidence of a seer.

That’s not religion.

Just convince me that the seer is God and you will have said something of importance.

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody said they did know those things. But they had eyes in their heads, and could look around and see the complexity of nature, and the first hypothesis that seemed obvious to every single one of them was, "This must have been created."

And all those examples I actually did give are true. And they explain why the "spontaneous generation"-type theories were so hard to produce: they're not really plausible.

Yes, you are giving reasons to believe in a Creator. You have given reasons to believe God exists.

Well, yes; but I have given examples that are not dependent on any theology. They're purely scientific. That means they're open for inspection to anybody, regardless of their theological inclinations.

But how do you get from just that to all your other beliefs about God?

That is a different question, of course. The existence of the Creator is the first question; the nature/identity of the Creator is the second. One cannot rationally even pose the second until the first has been established.

In other words, couldn't a creator god be indifferent to what you perceive as suffering, what you perceive as evil in the natural world, indifferent to whether or not you do what you consider "sin", not interested in absolving you from sin, etc.

Yes, that would be possible. Many things could be the case, theoretically. The question really is, what is the nature of this God we have established exists?

And we can tackle question 2, if you have interest. But for now, as you rightly point out, it provides a powerful answer to question 1, which is essentially the OP.

The argument based on "creationism"

It's not "based on" creationism. It's based on purely on science, but then, when we look at the science, we find it points our conclusion to the existence of a Creator. That's a significant difference. I'm not asking anybody to assume anything metaphysical. I'm just asking them to observe what's in front of us all.

...doesn't get you very far EXCEPT against the claim "No God exists".

Well, that is the topic of this thread. And that's the right starting point. So it's done its job. We don't need to ask it to do more.

As I said earlier, question 2 comes into play only after argument 1, and has a different line of reasoning. You're certainly right that we're not going to be able to deduce much more than a few basic facts about the nature of the Creator from the state of the creation itself. But we can certainly see the hand of some Creator.

And if that works for you, we've satisified the challenge of the OP.

[Immanuel Can]

Whether you believe that don't, the argument "creation implies a creator" gets you no farther than that.

Actually it does get you farther...much farther.

For the important question that it raises is WHAT ABOUT CREATION implies a Creator? And the answer is manifold.

Creation is marked by all kinds of irreducible complexities, from cosmic scale dependent complexity (like the size of our moon being perfect for producing the right gravitational effects on oceans, for example), to triadic symbiosis (like the interdependent relationship between parasites, snails and birds or cows) to the complexity of DNA strands. The idea that this irreducible complexity is nothing but the product of time and chance is so utterly implausible as to be, on the very surface, quite ridiculous, and the indicative evidence for design so strong that the Creator hypothesis has to be regarded, by any sane and informed individual, as the default hypothesis.

There's really not other reasonable place to start, actually. And it certainly explains why every ancient human society in history has started, not with a hypothesis of something like Atheism or spontaneous generation, but with the God or gods hypothesis. It's just far too obvious to miss. It takes all kinds of mental gymnastics and sophisticated re-explaining to convince oneself of anything else: which is why the whole no-God hypothesis has been such a late sell in civilizational history. Even if one opts for it, one has to admit that it's not at all plausible prima facie.

I agree that creation implies a creator, but that doesn’t mean that the agent of creation must be God.

Let's say that's so.

If it's so, you must have an alternate hypothesis in mind, right? I mean, we have in front of us an irreducibly complex world, manifesting strong evidence of design on multiple levels; so our next question is, is the design the product of intelligence and intention -- of planning, that is -- or of something else? We've already seen that the "mere chance" hypothesis has to be regarded as highly implausible; so...

What could that "something else" plausibly be? I'm open to your suggestions.

Ancient cultures established their belief in God because it was the only way they could think of a plausible explanation for natural events. I’m just saying that creation doesn’t prove that God exists. There’s a missing step in the logic.

The step isn't missing...but perhaps you missed it. In that event, I'll repeat it.

It's irreducible complexity. The irreducible complexity so manifest in nature renders any "chance" or "random" solution, or any "progressive" narrative highly implausible. The scientific evidence before us simply cannot be well-explained, or in many cases, explained at all, using those suppositions.

I'm not alone in saying this. There are multiple scientists who have puzzled over irreducible complexity, and today it presents a formidable problem for evolutionary narratives. There are some facts and relations that are simply astronomically improbable in those terms, such as the ideal cosmic balances to produce life; there are others that are impossible to describe in stages -- like the "evolution" of triadic symbiosis, which requires the simultaneous completion and coordination of three completely separate organisms in order for even one generation to exist. There are, to my current knowledge, no remotely credible breakdown of the evolutionary "stages" that could possibly lead to the existence of such things. (But if you have any, I'll happily look at them.)

And, we might add, the existence of some kind of Creator or creators has been the most obvious conclusion to the vast majority of mankind...and even today, not more than 4% of the world's population, the outright Atheists, is prepared to dismiss that evidence. Everybody else thinks it at least suggests the possibility (4% more, agnostics), or makes likely (92% of the world's population) that some sort of God exists.

[Fairy]

His qualities are both invisible and clearly seen.

That's religion.

Seen things are not the seeing. But are clear evidence of a seer.

That’s not religion.

Just convince me that the seer is God and you will have said something of importance.

Because you exist, that’s convincing enough, surely? How are you making yourself exist ? Something is.

How did biology arrange a bunch of materials to make the human seed that transforms into a conscious adult human being that can then ponder its creator? It’s not unbelievable that this whole process is created by something beyond the human itself. It’s too obvious to miss,actually.
The thing is, what’s so difficult to understand about something made the entire universe? And what does it matter what we call this creation’s creator…it’s like you don’t have any problem calling your parents mother and father the two things responsible for your existence, so what’s wrong with calling God the one responsible for making your mother and father?

You can push back on this and come up with all sorts of different labels for why anything is in the first place, and you won’t have any problem believing those labels exist, so what’s wrong with the God label, is what baffles me.

[Fairy]

For from the creation of the world His invisible qualities, both His eternal power and divinity, are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, for them to be without excuse.

Disprove what is seen is not there, disprove there is no thing seen.

Look at the topic question again. The challenge was to prove wrong "there is no god". Posing that challenge does not make a claim able to disprove the existence of a god.

Note also, the challenge says NOTHING about the nature of this god. When you argue for the existence of God, and you have particular beliefs about the nature of God, you have to explain how you get from "existence" to "having property X". God exists and God created the universe (external* to God) does not in and of itself get you to "God cares about me and is interested in punishing me for/forgiving me of "sins"."

* as opposed say to a belief that God created the universe as an "emanation"

Perhaps my topic question would have been more direct, but less colorful if I had simply said, please prove that God exists.

It’s unbelievable I know.

It’s definitely symbolic. Prism comes to mind.

[Fairy]

His qualities are both invisible and clearly seen.

That's religion.

Seen things are not the seeing. But are clear evidence of a seer.

That’s not religion.

Just convince me that the seer is God and you will have said something of importance.

Nothing is important to God, it’s only important to the ignorant.
It’s perfectly believable that you and me exist. But then it’s totally unbelievable that you and me exist don’t exist. So why can you exist but not God. You believe you exist, but who believes this, if not the same believer that believes God exists.

What does it matter what existence is named, maybe the name nameless would be preferred, maybe the nameless would suffice as existing? Think about the possibility of naming the nameless, it’s not too difficult now, is it.
Yeah, make that make sense, why don’t you.

[Janoah]

...there are no “miracles” in the form of violation of the Law of Nature.

Laws of nature are revisable.

The formulations of scientific laws are being refined, but the Regularity of nature remain unchanged, of course.
In ancient times, stories about breaking the natural order were considered as argument, but in our time, if someone tells us that they walked on water, it will more likely evoke a smile and a recommendation to see a doctor, rather than holy horror.
Do you really believe that the Apostle Peter walked on water until he got scared?

A miracle can be in the form of an amazing coincidence, but not one that violates the natural order.
So, before Israel crossed the Sea (Lake) of Reeds, a wind blew all night, driving the water away. There's a scientific term for this phenomenon, a seiche.
I think we've already discussed this, so we won't go into details again.

*** particularism and specialness, ***
Israel's unique feature was its more adequate worldview.
I hope that in our time too.
"For out of Zion shall go forth the Torah, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem". The Land of Israel is perhaps suitable for this task.
But this is "Limited Liability", Israel is destined to prove its truth.

[Impenitent]

what if it is in the nature of humans to try to find a cause to a perceived effect?

-Imp

[MikeNovack]

...doesn't get you very far EXCEPT against the claim "No God exists".

Well, that is the topic of this thread. And that's the right starting point. So it's done its job. We don't need to ask it to do more.

As I said earlier, question 2 comes into play only after argument 1, and has a different line of reasoning. You're certainly right that we're not going to be able to deduce much more than a few basic facts about the nature of the Creator from the state of the creation itself. But we can certainly see the hand of some Creator.

And if that works for you, we've satisified the challenge of the OP.

MAYBE ...... I know it is hard for you to see the (potential) problem. The fact that you use language like "we certainly see the hand of some Creator" shows how firmly committed to creation EXTERNAL to God. The problem is that many theists do not consider pantheists to be theists and some pantheists wouldn't self describe as theist precisely because they know most theists believe in an EXTERNAL deity.

Your take, IC? Do you consider Spinoza's "there is only one substance" referring to God in the sense you use the term? Notice that the secularist notion "creation just happened to become" and "God decided to become creation" aren't THAT far apart. You tell me. In your opinion are Pantheists theists?

[Fairy]

I’m agnostic. In my view, God must be benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. Children with cancer make me believe that God is not those things. Therefore He/She is not God. No?

God is not in his created finite things. Created finite things live and move and exist in him.

“For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen,” (Romans 1:25).

From beginning to end, the Bible presents us with a God who is distinct from creation and makes that central to our relationship to Him. This is not a tertiary fact, but rather a foundational biblical truth.

The human claim that cancer exists is evidence of the existence of cancer, but humans did not create cancer. Humans did not create humans. These things are simply creations of a creator that is not in his creation. Similarly, a man is not the car he built with his hands.

Just because I am in my office doesn’t mean that I am my office. To be at, with, in, or among something is not the same is to be that thing.

An author may write a story book but the author isn’t in the story book, the story is in the author, not the other way round.

Prove me wrong.

You have proved nothing but that you have a penchant for non sequitors.

Well that’s a new one on me..proving nothing. How is that even possible, when something is, and something doesn’t need proving, it’s totally your direct experience.