Is There Evidence for a Creator of the Universe?

[Academic]

Lets put this another way. Say you're investigating the Battle of Verdun as part of a gen-ed history class. The usual WW I players were the suspects -- Germans, French, etc, no supernatural events, just mundane war. Now I ask you: In your term paper, do you extol upon the possibility that hordes of ninja warriors slaughtered all the Germans, or do you discuss the key points of the battle, the reason for the battle, and the eventual outcome of the battle and its larger effect on the war? The point is, nothing suggests ninja warriors were present in the battle, just as there is nothing to suggest a sky fairy sits in heaven hitting ctrl-alt-smite on anyone who upsets him.

There is a big difference between nothing suggesting they are present, and evidence suggesting they arnt present. In the ninja warriors case there is copious amounts of evidence suggesting they were not present, and thats why we believe they were not present.

 

[Evo]

I agree believers are fearful/wishful thinkers, the point is that I don't find it a shame.

the God solution or whatever is called doesn't make any sense not because I want a goal for existence, but because it doesn't provide any additional explanation as you mentioned.

just thinking that there is a creator is not useful in science, our "what we see is what exists" science, we just keep building theories about his consciousness and existence, if we can reduce God's consciousness into brain waves or quantum functions it is not God, it can be any supernatural or advanced creature, but it remains a creature, it may have the ability to create, but that's not God at all.

That's why religions are for, to let God to speak about himself, but because there are so many religions the problem is doubled, we will have to compare to find which one provides the most ultimate and irreducible, it's areal test just as the whole life would be.

The big problem here that being atheist is the same as believing in a false God, which makes the idea of God look so fooling and deceiving, however, if one asked if only one true God exists why are there so many different beliefs ?
well, if God truly exists, it would be for the same reason he created all the non believers, and the same reasons he created all these opposites in the universe.

whatever, I have entered the discussion to point out to the difference between searching for real God, and fabricating a God theory, which doesn't provide science with anything.



well, because I believe there is an uncommon sense, which is beyond our language abilities.
you can ask whatever you want about God, where can=able, however, the answers you get from your own mind will probably be false (not totally, as some questions do have answers in our common sense).

like paradoxes, I can say them, I can understand them grammatically, but I can't deduce any results from thinking about them.

besides, when I criticized the question "who created God?" I was only pointing to that we didn't agree in assumption if he was created or not, most of these questions are made to cause paralysis.

Relena, you're getting too close to the edge with the religious aspect. We have rules against discussing religion. I suggest you refrain from getting too deep into a christian/Judeo/Muslim version of god, and stick with "dieties" and a generic "creator". You are pre-supposing a christian type god as being true and other religions don't count and that's a no-no.

The big problem here that being atheist is the same as believing in a false God, which makes the idea of God look so fooling and deceiving, however, if one asked if only one true God exists why are there so many different beliefs ?

The statement about atheists is false, and now you are starting to preach.

 

[Relena]

Relena, you're getting too close to the edge with the religious aspect. We have rules against discussing religion. I suggest you refrain from getting too deep into a christian/Judeo/Muslim version of god, and stick with "dieties" and a generic "creator". You are pre-supposing a christian type god as being true and other religions don't count and that's a no-no.

please !
I've been here for years and I do respect the forum rules (after being warned due to crack pottery), besides, I'm not christian.

I said

whatever, I have entered the discussion to point out to the difference between searching for real God, and fabricating a God theory, which doesn't provide science with anything.

I have no other hidden intentions.

The statement about atheists is false, and now you are starting to preach.

well yes it is false if based on "there is no evidence for God", however, it was a conclusion based on the correctness of my previous assumption that one true God exists, in that case, they will have the same destiny, not behavior or knowledge.

Again, I fully respect everyone here, and I expect the same.

 

[Evo]

Again, I fully respect everyone here, and I expect the same.

I expect you to follow the guidelines, which I kindly pointed out to you. Posting here is a privilege for those that follow the rules.

 

[Gokul43201]

From a scientific point of view, how do we know that there is no need for a creator? Given that we as yet are unable to provide a complete description of physics, how can the need for a creator be logically excluded?

Scientists have no need to exclude things, except when they are models that make falsified predictions. Science does not also waste it's time on trying to logically exclude the possibility that High Tc Superconductivity is the work of pink unicorns.

Hence why Margaret Atwood said (I'm paraphrasing) that the only supportable scientific position on this is agnosticism.

Does Margaret Atwood has much of an idea about what science is? Does she also propose that agnosticism is the only supportable scientific position on leprechauns, elves, centaurs, and invisible tortoises holding up the earth?

 

[pftest]

When talking about evidence of god, it is important to realize that conscious influences are invisible (unless from our first person perspective). This is the case for consciousness in the brain, but also for a hypothetical larger conscious entity aka god. If one is going to reject god on the basis of lack of visible evidence, and one is consistent, one would reject that other people are conscious aswell. But we don't do that.

We can infer conscious behaviour in others by comparing their behaviour to our own, but this also ultimately doesn't enable us to see where conscious behaviour starts and where it ends, since our human body isn't just similar to other humans, but also to apes, ducks, plants, rocks, electrons, space, etc. Where to stop inferring consciousness?

 

[Academic]

Does Margaret Atwood has much of an idea about what science is? Does she also propose that agnosticism is the only supportable scientific position on leprechauns, elves, centaurs, and invisible tortoises holding up the earth?

Why would she? There is evidence against the existence of all of those things. There is also evidence that pink unicorns do not cause high Tc superconductors. Dont fool yourself into thinking you have a default stance of atheism on these topics - the reason you (and I) don believe in invisible tortoises holding up the Earth is the copious amount of evidence against such a hypothesis.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I'd say the most scientific answer to the question "Does God exist?" would be "Who is God?"

 

[Evo]

When talking about evidence of god, it is important to realize that conscious influences are invisible (unless from our first person perspective). This is the case for consciousness in the brain, but also for a hypothetical larger conscious entity aka god. If one is going to reject god on the basis of lack of visible evidence, and one is consistent, one would reject that other people are conscious aswell. But we don't do that.

We can infer conscious behaviour in others by comparing their behaviour to our own, but this also ultimately doesn't enable us to see where conscious behaviour starts and where it ends, since our human body isn't just similar to other humans, but also to apes, ducks, plants, rocks, electrons, space, etc. Where to stop inferring consciousness?

What does anything you said have to do with creating and believing myths? We're in skepticism and debunking. We're looking at this from a straightforward, logical position.

The OP's question is

Ultimately my questioning comes down to, "what is junk about the junk science that follows a universal designer".

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Oh, like Intelligent Design? The most easy way to put it is that it works from faulty premises. A common example is "An eye doesn't function if you remove any component, such as the lens." They call this irreducible complexity. Of course, the truth (or scientific position, if you will) is that the components present do not neccesarily correspond to the components that existed during evolution; In fact the eye has become a common example of how evolution of organs can occur.

 

[pftest]

What does anything you said have to do with creating and believing myths? We're in skepticism and debunking. We're looking at this from a straightforward, logical position.

The OP's question is

In the last 2 or 3 pages there was talk about "lack of evidence for god". My post is directly related to that.

 

[Gokul43201]

Why would she? There is evidence against the existence of all of those things. There is also evidence that pink unicorns do not cause high Tc superconductors. Dont fool yourself into thinking you have a default stance of atheism on these topics - the reason you (and I) don believe in invisible tortoises holding up the Earth is the copious amount of evidence against such a hypothesis.

Please cite the "evidence against" all of the above things.

 

[Evo]

In the last 2 or 3 pages there was talk about "lack of evidence for god". My post is directly related to that.

Which is why I don't get what your post on conciousness has to do with lack of evidence.

If one is going to reject god on the basis of lack of visible evidence, and one is consistent, one would reject that other people are conscious aswell. But we don't do that.

What? Sorry, I can reject the idea of a supernatural being based solely on lack of evidence. If someone makes the claim that there *is* such a creature, the onus is on them to prove it. In other words, "nothing to see here, move along". Until they come back with proof, there is nothing factual to discuss. It's faith on the part of those that choose to believe.

 

[pftest]

Which is why I don't get what your post on conciousness has to do with lack of evidence.

Like i said, consciousness is invisible unless from the first person perspective. This is true for consciousness in humans, apes, snakes, or any hypothetical larger conscious entity aka god.

What? Sorry, I can reject the idea of a supernatural being based solely on lack of evidence. If someone makes the claim that there *is* such a creature, the onus is on them to prove it. In other words, "nothing to see here, move along". Until they come back with proof, there is nothing factual to discuss. It's faith on the part of those that choose to believe.

What evidence do you have that other humans beside yourself are conscious?

 

[Evo]

What evidence do you have that other humans beside yourself are conscious?

We have a philosophy sub forum if you aren't sure things exist. Please do not drag this thread off topic, and I mean that in the nicest way possible.

 

[Gokul43201]

What evidence do you have that other humans beside yourself are conscious?

As opposed to being unconscious? Maybe if you provide a definition, someone can provide a test?

 

[Academic]

Please cite the "evidence against" all of the above things.

Seriously dude? I think you are being deliberately obtuse. But Ill play along for one of the examples, pink unicorns are not responsible for high Tc superconductors.

The first piece of evidence is biological, many species have been categorized and studied and no unicorn has even been scientifically observed. This is suggestive because large mammals are not easy to hide, thus this is evidence that unicorns likely do not exist. Furthermore, there is evidence that if unicorns did exist they would not be pink. Most mammals are not pink, and no horses are pink. If unicorns did exist then they would presumably be related to horses and thus also not be pink. Being pink could hardly be considered an advantageous trait so even in the unlikely case that unicorns did exist the fact that they would be pink would be very unlikely. Its pretty clear that there is copious amounts of evidence that pink unicorns do not exist (its still possible, but not at all probable). Even if they do exist, we then need to consider their effect on high Tc superconductors. In a broad sense no mammal on Earth has even been shown to be responsible for basic microscopic phenomenon. In fact, you may need to adopt some sort of top down causality where the macroscopic influences the microscopic - something that is common in biology but notably absent in physics. More specifically, the answer to low Tc superconductors comes from a unique and specific interaction between the lattice and the electrons. Though this description does not entirely work for high Tc superconductors, it is suggestive that the way to describe high Tc superconductors is also using novel interactions between the lattice and electrons (and not large mammals that have not yet been found).

All this is evidence. Its not absolutely conclusive, but no evidence ever is (in science). It may seem just like 'common sense' because it is basic evidence that we all take for granted, but it remains evidence nonetheless. And all this evidence is what we consciously or subconsciously use when we dismiss a claim that pink unicorns are the cause of high Tc superconductors.

The orbiting teapot is the example I like to use. Its often claimed that we don't assume a teapot is orbiting Mars simply because it is ridiculous and there is no evidence for it. But why is it ridiculous? Because there is evidence against it. We know what tea is, we know what a teapot is and we know who makes teapots. We know what it takes to put one in orbit and we know the history of mankind's (aka, tea drinker's) space exploration. This is all evidence against a teapot orbiting mars. If we didnt have this evidence, I would have to say there is a 50/50 chance of a teapot orbiting mars.

 

[nismaratwork]

Seriously dude? I think you are being deliberately obtuse. But Ill play along for one of the examples, pink unicorns are not responsible for high Tc superconductors.

The first piece of evidence is biological, many species have been categorized and studied and no unicorn has even been scientifically observed. This is suggestive because large mammals are not easy to hide, thus this is evidence that unicorns likely do not exist. Furthermore, there is evidence that if unicorns did exist they would not be pink. Most mammals are not pink, and no horses are pink. If unicorns did exist then they would presumably be related to horses and thus also not be pink. Being pink could hardly be considered an advantageous trait so even in the unlikely case that unicorns did exist the fact that they would be pink would be very unlikely. Its pretty clear that there is copious amounts of evidence that pink unicorns do not exist (its still possible, but not at all probable). Even if they do exist, we then need to consider their effect on high Tc superconductors. In a broad sense no mammal on Earth has even been shown to be responsible for basic microscopic phenomenon. In fact, you may need to adopt some sort of top down causality where the macroscopic influences the microscopic - something that is common in biology but notably absent in physics. More specifically, the answer to low Tc superconductors comes from a unique and specific interaction between the lattice and the electrons. Though this description does not entirely work for high Tc superconductors, it is suggestive that the way to describe high Tc superconductors is also using novel interactions between the lattice and electrons (and not large mammals that have not yet been found).

All this is evidence. Its not absolutely conclusive, but no evidence ever is (in science). It may seem just like 'common sense' because it is basic evidence that we all take for granted, but it remains evidence nonetheless. And all this evidence is what we consciously or subconsciously use when we dismiss a claim that pink unicorns are the cause of high Tc superconductors.

The orbiting teapot is the example I like to use. Its often claimed that we don't assume a teapot is orbiting Mars simply because it is ridiculous and there is no evidence for it. But why is it ridiculous? Because there is evidence against it. We know what tea is, we know what a teapot is and we know who makes teapots. We know what it takes to put one in orbit and we know the history of mankind's (aka, tea drinker's) space exploration. This is all evidence against a teapot orbiting mars. If we didnt have this evidence, I would have to say there is a 50/50 chance of a teapot orbiting mars.

I find this rather compelling, except that your 50/50 odds seem contrived. I suspect that you're going to get the short end of this stick, based on forum guidelines and culture, but you make a basic and reasonable case for a priori evidence that is implicit in many beliefs.

 

[Evo]

Seriously dude? I think you are being deliberately obtuse. But Ill play along for one of the examples, pink unicorns are not responsible for high Tc superconductors.

The first piece of evidence is biological, many species have been categorized and studied and no unicorn has even been scientifically observed. This is suggestive because large mammals are not easy to hide, thus this is evidence that unicorns likely do not exist. Furthermore, there is evidence that if unicorns did exist they would not be pink. Most mammals are not pink, and no horses are pink. If unicorns did exist then they would presumably be related to horses and thus also not be pink. Being pink could hardly be considered an advantageous trait so even in the unlikely case that unicorns did exist the fact that they would be pink would be very unlikely. Its pretty clear that there is copious amounts of evidence that pink unicorns do not exist (its still possible, but not at all probable). Even if they do exist, we then need to consider their effect on high Tc superconductors. In a broad sense no mammal on Earth has even been shown to be responsible for basic microscopic phenomenon. In fact, you may need to adopt some sort of top down causality where the macroscopic influences the microscopic - something that is common in biology but notably absent in physics. More specifically, the answer to low Tc superconductors comes from a unique and specific interaction between the lattice and the electrons. Though this description does not entirely work for high Tc superconductors, it is suggestive that the way to describe high Tc superconductors is also using novel interactions between the lattice and electrons (and not large mammals that have not yet been found).

All this is evidence. Its not absolutely conclusive, but no evidence ever is (in science). It may seem just like 'common sense' because it is basic evidence that we all take for granted, but it remains evidence nonetheless. And all this evidence is what we consciously or subconsciously use when we dismiss a claim that pink unicorns are the cause of high Tc superconductors.

The orbiting teapot is the example I like to use. Its often claimed that we don't assume a teapot is orbiting Mars simply because it is ridiculous and there is no evidence for it. But why is it ridiculous? Because there is evidence against it. We know what tea is, we know what a teapot is and we know who makes teapots. We know what it takes to put one in orbit and we know the history of mankind's (aka, tea drinker's) space exploration. This is all evidence against a teapot orbiting mars. If we didnt have this evidence, I would have to say there is a 50/50 chance of a teapot orbiting mars.

Academic, you've made a serious error. gokul only referred to mythological creatures, you are the one that brought up a pink unicorn. Perhaps you would like to start over and actually address his post?

Does Margaret Atwood has much of an idea about what science is? Does she also propose that agnosticism is the only supportable scientific position on leprechauns, elves, centaurs, and invisible tortoises holding up the earth?

Why would she? There is evidence against the existence of all of those things.

 

[Academic]

Error? He brought it up in post #95. A similar analysis applies to any of the other mythological creatures he mentioned.

I find this rather compelling, except that your 50/50 odds seem contrived. I suspect that you're going to get the short end of this stick, based on forum guidelines and culture, but you make a basic and reasonable case for a priori evidence that is implicit in many beliefs.

I don't see how 50/50 is contrived. That is the default probability for any two state system without any evidence. You can only get a non 50/50 probability by having evidence (or by changing it from two possible states).

For many of the gods man has defined there is evidence that changes the default 50/50 probability. The more specifically you define god the more you open up to the evidence and the less likely such a god exists. You can however carefully define a god for which there is no evidence for or against and thus the probability is 50/50. (of course, this is not the god that most humans have believed in)

 

[Gokul43201]

Seriously dude? I think you are being deliberately obtuse. But Ill play along for one of the examples, pink unicorns are not responsible for high Tc superconductors.

The first piece of evidence is biological, many species have been categorized and studied and no unicorn has even been scientifically observed.

No creator has been scientifically observed either.

This is suggestive because large mammals are not easy to hide, thus this is evidence that unicorns likely do not exist.

This assumes the pink unicorn is a mammal. It is not. It's a magical creature outside of the binomial classification system.

Furthermore, there is evidence that if unicorns did exist they would not be pink. Most mammals are not pink, and no horses are pink.

Not only is it not a mammal, it is not a horse

If unicorns did exist then they would presumably be related to horses and thus also not be pink. Being pink could hardly be considered an advantageous trait so even in the unlikely case that unicorns did exist the fact that they would be pink would be very unlikely.

Magical creatures do not need advantageous traits.

Its pretty clear that there is copious amounts of evidence that pink unicorns do not exist (its still possible, but not at all probable).

That's an empty assertion, unless you are speaking of the "evidence" cited above, which has been shown to be irrelevant.

Even if they do exist, we then need to consider their effect on high Tc superconductors. In a broad sense no mammal on Earth has even been shown to be responsible for basic microscopic phenomenon.

Same false mammal assumption.

In fact, you may need to adopt some sort of top down causality where the macroscopic influences the microscopic - something that is common in biology but notably absent in physics.

If a god is a macroscopic being capable of influencing the microscopic world, then whatever top-down causality works there, works here.

More specifically, the answer to low Tc superconductors comes from a unique and specific interaction between the lattice and the electrons. Though this description does not entirely work for high Tc superconductors, it is suggestive that the way to describe high Tc superconductors is also using novel interactions between the lattice and electrons (and not large mammals that have not yet been found).

That is a reasonable, scientific guess. However, it does not rule out the role of magical unicorns ... in about the same way that all of the natural explanations for all other observed phenomena do not rule out the role of a magical god.

All this is evidence. Its not absolutely conclusive, but no evidence ever is (in science). It may seem just like 'common sense' because it is basic evidence that we all take for granted, but it remains evidence nonetheless. And all this evidence is what we consciously or subconsciously use when we dismiss a claim that pink unicorns are the cause of high Tc superconductors.

The "evidence" makes no concession for the magical abilities of pink unicorns, and is therefore faulty.

But you may now take this into consideration and give it another shot, if you'd like.

The orbiting teapot is the example I like to use. Its often claimed that we don't assume a teapot is orbiting Mars simply because it is ridiculous and there is no evidence for it. But why is it ridiculous? Because there is evidence against it. We know what tea is, we know what a teapot is and we know who makes teapots. We know what it takes to put one in orbit and we know the history of mankind's (aka, tea drinker's) space exploration. This is all evidence against a teapot orbiting mars. If we didnt have this evidence, I would have to say there is a 50/50 chance of a teapot orbiting mars.

Different matter if it were an orbiting supernatural teapot. One that appears in my dreams, answers some of my prayers, and is waiting to pour me tea after my death.

 

[Academic]

Now you are just redefining a unicorn to wiggle out of all the evidence. The evidence is there, take it or not.

The fact that you believe things with no evidence to support it should be raising flags in your bullsh!t detectors.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Oolon Colluphid had it right.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you are talking about a different kind of "needing", then please clarify. Does the universe need the sun? Any planets? Does it need 99% of its space? Or 99% of its matter?

One could argue that the universe doesn't need the sun for example. But then where would the rest of the planets in our "solar" system be? Maybe there would be a different planet with giant aliens that have colonised the whole milky way? We end up with a hypothetical fictional universe. I prefer to stick with the universe we are actually in.

Again, this is just meaningless word play. It goes back to this statement, which is completely unfounded:

If by "us" you mean conscious influences, then we don't know if it needed them back then. But our current universe does need them.

Without making this case, all that follows is not worth addressing. So I'm going to move on to the other, more productive avenues of thought.

[EDIT: Heh. Evo beat me to it! https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2779207&postcount=64]

 

[DaveC426913]

When talking about evidence of god, it is important to realize that conscious influences are invisible (unless from our first person perspective). This is the case for consciousness in the brain, but also for a hypothetical larger conscious entity aka god. If one is going to reject god on the basis of lack of visible evidence, and one is consistent, one would reject that other people are conscious aswell. But we don't do that.

We have 6 billion people who all act as if they have consciousness, in the same way I act like I have consciousness.

It is far more likely that I am typical than that I am unique. Same holds true for outer space. We choose to believe tha the laws of physics hold in galaxies a billion light years away because we assume typicality.

We can infer conscious behaviour in others by comparing their behaviour to our own, but this also ultimately doesn't enable us to see where conscious behaviour starts and where it ends, since our human body isn't just similar to other humans, but also to apes, ducks, plants, rocks, electrons, space, etc. Where to stop inferring consciousness?

We stop inferring it when we have no precedent, such as plants, rocks, electrons, space ...

... and supernatural, omnipotent universe-creators.

 

[Gokul43201]

Now you are just redefining a unicorn to wiggle out of all the evidence. The evidence is there, take it or not.

Am I redefining what a unicorn is by claiming it is a magical creature? If so, then please allow me to rephrase my previous statement to say that scientists do not also bother to exclude the possibility that High Tc Superconductivity is caused by pink, magical unicorns.

The fact that you believe things with no evidence to support it should be raising flags in your bullsh!t detectors.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[Academic]

Im talking about having a belief with no evidence to support it. When somebody professes a belief but has no evidence to support it that is faith at best, and bullsh!t at worst.

I don't know about your belief system, you claim to believe things even though there is no evidence - that is your prerogative. Personally, I don't believe pink unicorns (magical or otherwise) cause high Tc superconductivity because of all the evidence I have observed in my life. Without my catalog of evidence I would not dismiss the idea outright, but with the evidence I do dismiss it as highly improbable.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't know about your belief system, you claim to believe things even though there is no evidence - that is your prerogative.

What things have I claimed to believe? Please quote the exact lines of my posts where I made these claims.

 

[Academic]

Excuse me if I am being presumptuous. I assumed from the context that you believe magical pink unicorns are not the cause of high Tc superconductivity. I also assumed that you believe you have no evidence that magical pink unicorns are not the cause of high Tc superconductivity.

Ill reiterate the first part of my quote, I don't know about your belief system. In any case, believe something without evidence is a foolish thing to do.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Somebody's assumptions vs somebody else's assumptions.



This isn't going to be resolved. Period.

There is no basis on which to claim 'preferred assumptions', so this thread is childish and meaningless.