Atheists claim that I have no evidence of God, why?

Question

Because from what I know, there are 47 evidences of the order in the universe. Please NOT ONLY explain to me why this evidence is somehow nullified of being evidence, but ALSO explain why they should be nullified...BTW these are only 47 among many others...

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html

Refer back to the question so that I may respond to your concerns.

Also, if you counter with, "the order of the universe is not evidence of Creation." Then you must also provide reasons why. However, any reasons you have will be easily refuted over my reasoning. Trust me.

Also, if you counter with, "why MUST I provide reason in my belief that order in the universe is not evidence of creation?"

I will then say, because in order to have a reasonable belief, you must provide reasonable reasons to back up that belief, in order for your belief to be reasonable.

Matt J, as I said earlier in my comments, you must provide reasons to back up your claim, in order for that claim to be reasonable.

Bunny, as I just said with Matt J, to claim your belief is not enough, give me reasons why?

Maria S: That is why evidence in one's belief is so important...

John Wayne: Obviously I am talking about a Creator.

You said, "Prove that Zeus does not send thunder and lightening....come one, I DARE YOU.

(1) You're using very illogical reasoning. I do not have to prove anything I do not claim to know. (2) Why would I believe Zeus created lightning, when there is no evidence in this claim?

Ronald, I've given you a source of the evidence. Trust me, there are millions who know the evidences of a belief in God.

Brenda, I don't even know how to respond to the fact that you cannot understand simple concepts. Your response has given me evidence to believe no matter what I say to you, you wouldn't be able to comprehend it. And seriously, I do not mean to offend you. I believe I cannot attempt to explain anything to you.

Archy, what is your point, continue. I'm listening.

Demitri, you've claimed what I expected people to claim. If you don't believe it is evidence of God, than you must give reason why. Simply stating it is not evidence, is not reason enough. The "author" reasoning is flawed. Sources don't matter if whatever in the source is objective. I'll use an analogy. Say I found 2+2=4 at www.nonsense.com, does that mean I should question whether or not the answer is 4? No.

Maria S.- Your reasoning is flawed again, here is the reason:

You said: "But we don't want to convert you ... we couldn't care less whether you're a theist or not.

What if you thought apples were oranges. And I said no, they are apples. And you said, well I don't care if you think they're apples. Does this change the reasoning behind apples being apples? No.

John Wayne: Like I said, I don't have to PROVE anything I do not KNOW or BELIEVE. I can only give proof of the things I know, and I can only give evidence to the things I reasonably believe. How is this not getting through?

Maria BTW, you said, "we couldn't care less whether you're a theist or not. Religion, of course, is a different thing."

That is your fair belief. However, it doesn't imply that you've made any point.

Ronald: Define solid evidence? Does your definition of solid evidence go beyond reasonable? If so, why do we need evidence beyond reason? Also, explain why the 47 evidences are unreasonable to be considered order in the universe?

lazarus: You claim, "-i just dont buy it--"

At the beginning of this question, I proved against this type of reasoning. You simply gave your claim that you don't buy it. I ask you, logically thinking, would that be reasonable? To just state a claim without a reason? I'm listening.

Elliot: You say: "And most of them are fallacious anyway."

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, in #10, simply because I haven't looked far into this claim. However stating that "most of them are fallacious anyway," is not a reasonable claim to make, UNTIL you can prove most of them fallacious. I'll give you #10. 23+ more to go.

Elliot: You said, "...because life on Earth evolved in the presence of those atmospheric conditions."

You do realize you're stating a belief as fact, right? Let's just say you cannot prove this claim, (unless you can, I'd be willing to hear it)

So until you can prove it, I'll say your belief is that we evolved. Since this is your belief, you must give reasonable evidence of how evolution came about? Who created this system of evolution? Who gave living things the ability to evolutionize? Please explain. Who gave us brains to give us reason that me must evolve in order to survive? Who created this system of reason? Please explain.

Maria: You said, "We do not believe there is no god (well, most of us don't, anyway). We do not believe (in a god). No evidence needed for "not believing"; there never was."

No offense but, LOL.

You just stated that you don't believe there is no God? Wouldn't that mean you believe in God? What other alternatives are there, besides God or no God?

You said, "We do not believe (in a god)."

Therefore you believe in not believing in a God. It's still a belief. Therefore you must give reason to this belief. Is this the only logical way of evaluating beliefs? I'm listening.

Maria: You're digging yourself in a hole. You said: "I don't claim to be right, that is what you do."

Really? That's news to me.

I don't claim to be right. If I did, I would have said I know God exists. However, I claim to be reasonable in my beliefs. Why? Because I can back up this reasonable belief by supporting through (1) showing the opposition's unreasonableness, as I have proven already, and (2) to give evidence to my claims.

Answer 1

Wow, you really haven't learned the "Logic" thing yet, have you?

We don't know exactly why everything is the way it is = we don't know exactly why everything is the way it is.

It does NOT equal "therefore, god(s) made it". Of course it alos doesn't mean god(s) didn't make it, but then it doesn't mean Santa/fearies/Spaghettimonster didn't make it, either.

You're one funny guy: read books on evolution to find out about evolution. This isn't the evolution section.

We do not believe there is no god (well, most of us don't, anyway). We do not believe (in a god). No evidence needed for "not believing"; there never was.

What's your evidence then, that you believe faeries didn't create this world?

By the way, you ask something of us that we don't even want to give: you say, in order for you to believe us, we must have evidence to convert you. But we don't want to convert you ... we couldn't care less whether you're a theist or not. Religion, of course, is a different thing.

I can't help it that you contradict yourself, as others pointed out :-)
I don't claim to be right, that is what you do. Yet you want proof that we are right - nope, not gonna happen. All we have is evidence, which is plentiful, but still not proof. Apart from saying "Look at this, it's amazing, therefore it's evidence" you haven't made any point. And that last point isn't even a valid one.

We don't need to make points in this conversation; YOU started it, YOU make points.

Hon, you're making it worse for yourself: there is not only believing in god or no god, there is simply also not believing.

Not believing does NOT equal believing in not believing. Lack of belief is lack of belief, eventhough you seem to not get that. Though I don't know why. It is completely clear: a lack of belief can, by definition, not be a belief in a lack of a belief.

Luckily in my country it is pretty late, so I get to leave you ... I rarely say it, but do grow up and learn what logic is. It's crucial for debates.

The funny thing for me: you don't even see where you're wrong.

Answer 2

None of these does anything to prove creation.

Lets be clear here though. The fact that things exist proves they were created - what you are arguing is that this creation was planned by an intelligent entity.

Now order cannot ever be evidence of this, because without order the universe could not exist. In other words, it is only possible for stable, ordered systems to be created and have longevity. Other forms of systems would cease to exist as soon as they began. This is all these points prove, and we know from observation that this universe does exist and hence satisfies stability criteria.

Now of course you could argue that other universes lacking this stability could have been created and ceased to exist. But there are two issues that mitigate against this being evidence of a creator. The first is that we have no evidence and no reason to believe that another set of stable criteria exist. In other words, it may be that there simply is no choice about the value of the constants listed. The fact is that we simply do not know whether this is the case, but it is at least as likely as the notion that there is choice.

Secondly, if there is choice once again this does not indicate a creator. In this case we do not know how many times creation occured and aborted. It could be an almost infinite number. Only one of these needed to produce a stable universe for us to live in and observe.

For these things to be evidence of a creator you need some observation that clearly points to intervention when multiple outcomes were possible, and these do not.

BTW I have PhD in physics too, so your source quoting credentials impresses me not at all. He just highlights his own scientific ignorance.

Answer 3

Those are not evidence of 'order' in any objectively defined sense of the word. And most of them are fallacious anyway. For example number 10, 'age of the universe' makes no sense because the age of the universe changes (at a rate of sixty minutes per hour) and therefore cannot be related to the creation of the universe. The universe formed with an age of 0. Many others relate to atmospheric conditions which are only necessary for life on Earth because life on Earth evolved in the presence of those atmospheric conditions. Basically it's like saying "It's a good thing we built paved roads, because I don't use off-road tyres".

And finally, even if life couldn't exist if any conditions of the universe were different, that wouldn't be evidence of design and certainly wouldn't be evidence for the god of any modern religion.

That's your problem? My usage of the word 'most'? Well, let's see how bored I really am. Numbers 8 and 9 have exactly the same problem as 10. Numbers 5, 6 and 7 all result from numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4. Number 12 is the result of 1-4 as well as 9. So if we keep 1, 2, 3 and 4 (but take out all the factors that are based on them) that leaves number 11 (my understanding of the uniformity of radiation isn't great, and I can't be bothered looking into it now) for a total of up to five valid points from the first twelve in the list. I'm really can't be bothered going through all 47 right now, especially since my initial answer explained why it wouldn't matter if all 47 were valid.


"So until you can prove it, I'll say your belief is that we evolved. Since this is your belief, you must give reasonable evidence of how evolution came about? Who created this system of evolution? Who gave living things the ability to evolutionize? Please explain. Who gave us brains to give us reason that me must evolve in order to survive? Who created this system of reason? Please explain."

Dude, are you just trying to make this discussion impractically slow? Evolution is far more scientifically valid than your application of the fine structure constant. So either we spend weeks proving every concept we mention based on logical axioms and direct measurements, or you just accept evolution, along with every respected biologist in the world.
As for who created the system of evolution, obviously I'm not claiming that anyone did. It's the logical result of lifeforms that reproduce and die. For such beings not to evolve would make no sense, unless they only reproduced by cloning.
And certainly the theory of evolution does not require that organisms intend to evolve.


"There is too much denial and irrational thinking amongst non-believers"
At least half a dozen people, as well as myself, provided clear explanations of why your 'evidences' are invalid. The only denial and irrationality came from yourself, in the form of ignoring those explanations. Even when you replied, as you did to me, your counterarguments were nothing more than pedantic nonsense, and you completely skipped over the first and last points in my original answer which were the parts that directly addressed your question.
If you wish to stop this 'debate' that's fine. I can't say I blame you, this wouldn't be a particularly suitable medium for a debate even if both sides had evidence, and when you're relying on repeating old logical fallacies I'm sure it must get pretty tiring. But to say that the reason is because your opponents have been unable to produce rational points, when you have made no attempt to counter many of those points, is intellectually dishonest, and it's offensive to everyone who took the time to give you a thoughtful answer

Answer 4

mistake 1. god, why your god why not one of the hundreds of thousands of the other gods?
mistake 2. why anything supernatural; why not a paradoxical time loop, where humans or some other being in the far future travel back in time and create, or modify the creation of this universe. this is no sillier than the argument that god has always existed. why not natural beings from outside this universe. when the super hadron collider is finally working one of the possible results of it is the creation of baby universes. i bet if they do they will find a way to control their development.
mistake 3. assuming that a large number of coincidences mean there is a designer. if universe creation is the norm in extra-universal space then an almost infinite number of them have come into existence; so the number of coincidences needed for this universe to exist are small in comparison, therefore, this universe is not only possible, but also probable. you cannot prove that universe creation is not the norm any more than it can be proven that it is the norm. therefore, you cannot prove the universe was designed.

Answer 5

Your argument goes something like: everything has to be exactly the way it is or else it would be different? That seems a little circular. The order in the universe is not evidence for creation.

Order does not equal intelligence. The creationist makes that link backwards. IE: I understand things better when they are ordered, therefor there is a link between my intelligence and the state of order. Therefor things which are ordered must have been created by an intelligent mind.

If there is any causation in the relationship between order and understanding, it is that order facilitates understanding, not the other way around.

Answer 6

Ok.....Infinite universe, infinite probability. Everything has to happen somewhere. Why not here? We may just be at the far end of the probability curve. Also, if you go by the alternate reality/multiverse theory, then in other universes boy are there problems.
With infinite space and potential every possibility has to be realised somewhere. That it is realised here, whilst convenient and rather interesting, is not evidence that any agent had a part in realizing it.

Or, if you removed the universe you would have a space of infinite potential upon which the universe could occur. So once again, chance is in our favour. The chances of manifestation of these particular laws change from negligable to inevitable.
Or, we have no idea of this is the first, second, three thousand and fourty fourth incarnation of the universe or not. Once one ends, there is no reason why another shouldn't begin. Eventually life was bound to hit paydirt.
Or, we haven't got proof that these physical laws extend across the whole universe. So there may be far more chaotic parts, and we exist in a chance conjunction of physical laws conducive to our kind of life. The laws may be different elsewhere, there may be other weird forms of life elsewhere.


"Since this is your belief, you must give reasonable evidence of how evolution came about? Who created this system of evolution? Who gave living things the ability to evolutionize? Please explain. Who gave us brains to give us reason that me must evolve in order to survive? Who created this system of reason? Please explain."

So.......a list of the physical parameters of the universe and their permutations counts as more evidence of an external agent then, say, a few hundred thousand papers of research and carbon dating disproves it?
The above statement is once again presuming an intelligent creator through simple order. Geological stone formations in Ireland were thought to be evidence of a civilization.....untill geologists proved they got there naturally. Once again, a slim chance does not require an agent to realize it.

"Therefore you believe in not believing in a God. It's still a belief. Therefore you must give reason to this belief. Is this the only logical way of evaluating beliefs? I'm listening."

Umm.....refusal to believe either way due to a distinct lack of proof on both sides is simply a belief in not making a claim untill it is proven. And yes, it is far more logical then asserting something as truth without sufficient proof. That is what we call an assumption, or belief, or faith, or lie, or fallacy, or......need I go on?




Even if the universe is not infinite, if you removed it you would still have infinite potential, and the point still stands. Any particular event could be manifest, and indeed by laws of probability any one would.

Incidentally, I did the research, and the issue of infinity is yet to be decided, though the majority of scientists are sticking to it. Also, there are current theories for both parralell, multiple, and branching universes spawned from our own supported by both string and chaos theory. And the point still stands.
End result: It is a reasonable to disbelieve God as it is to believe in him. Thank you science.

Answer 7

The "order of the universe" is not evidence of Creation.

Quite simply, there has to be this "order in the universe" for us to exist. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the physical constants were different.

Does that mean a Creator had to create a universe with such constants? Absolutely not. There could quite easily be infinite universes, most of which do not have the proper physical constants for life to exist, and we inhabit one with the proper conditions.

It's certainly possible that a Creator created our universe with such physical properties. However, your evidence does not prove that this is the case.

I would also ask if the universe was created by the Creator, what created the Creator?

Answer 8

Explain how any one of these points to a god or even a design? This is presumption on the part of the author and a lack of critical thought and skepticism on your part.

""the order of the universe is not evidence of Creation." Then you must also provide reasons why."

I'm embarrassed for you for that statement. I'm not the one making any claims the author of the website is so the burden is on him. I'm simply pointing out that he hasn't met even a very low standard of evidence.

I might say the burden is on you if you were the author however I suspect you simply fell for his argument because you had the same preconceived notions and presumptions.

This is why proponents of "creationism as science" fall on their face every time they attempt this argument. They scramble about grabbing the results of science throwing it into a bowl then smashing their faces into and declaring they see god in everything.


----

"Demitri, you've claimed what I expected people to claim. If you don't believe it is evidence of God, than you must give reason why"

And that's why you made the pathetic attempt to head off the obvious and best argument against your claim. Because even you know that it proves nothing and is evidence of nothing but the stability of the current universe.

Prove to me that every point did not happen the other way billions of times before we arrived at stability. You're starting from assumptions then attempting to use this as evidence your assumption. You've proved only the play on the famous quote. "I wouldn't have seen it if I didn't believe it."

I will admit that a lot of other people foolishly did exactly what you wanted but that also proves nothing about your claim.

The single best answer to your question is, prove any one or all point to god. You haven't and you wont because you can't.

----
"Demetri, your whole argument lies on this one flaw"

Actually the biggest mistake I made was assuming you might be rational. You've presented nothing that could even loosely be considered evidence of a deity. You nullified your own question by saying "answer this but without answering to it." You know it, I know it and everyone here knows it. Otherwise you wouldn't have said "don't use the one argument against my claim that I have no ability to refute."

The answer is - atheists say you have no evidence for the same reason any rational person should. Because you have yet to present any. Done, answered but you will simply continue clinging to your assumptions, presumptions and bias. If you hadn't believed it you wouldn't have seen it because it isn't there.

Answer 9

You are attempting to give credence to a set of coincidences in justification for a particular result. This is also known as the anthropic principle (that the universe is "tuned just right on purpose so that sentient beings like us can be here"). Such arguments have indeed boggled lesser minds.
Reconsider the various constants again: let's accept that the coincidence is spectacular (I do). Is that a sufficient justification to leap to the "obviously there is a supernatural intelligence" conclusion? Hardly. It is merely a spectacular, and perhaps rare, coincidence. One that you should feel so lucky to perceive.

It is NOT a good argument for God, and is NOT sustainable. But keep trying! I gotta give you credit for at least doing some thinking.

Answer 10

I think the problem is requesting evidence of God. Evidence usually implies something physical or something which may be observed. It usually falls under the empirical category of science. The problem here is categorical. In other words, we are seeking evidence for that which exists outside of this universe. Science tells us what agents operate in nature, not what, if any, operate outside of it. God can never be put "under a microscope" if you will.

Perhaps the evidence for God's existence isn't one particular thing IN creation at all, but the creation as a whole. The mere fact that we exist, that this universe exists with all of its beauty and mystery. That is perhaps the strongest "evidence" we have. We know this universe had a beginning, it is fact. We may then proceed to ask, what initiated the beginning of this universe. That question inevitably will lead us "outside" of this universe.

Its rather like this universe being a painting. The Painter is not themselves IN the painting, but the painting as a whole attests to the Painter.