What evidence will convince you?

timbobwaay's picture

IF you've ever watched William Lane Craig debate atheists you will realize that the only valid argument against God's existence is that there is not enough evidence. Now I want to ask atheists a question, what type of evience would you need to convince you that God is real?

No. Most atheists don't say

No. Most atheists don't say that the lack of evidence is an argument against god. Lack of evidence means lack of reason to believe, therefore no belief. Strong atheism holds there are arguments against god's existence though. For some good ones, check [url=http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/]this[/url] out.

I don't speak for any other members here when I say that I have come to deny the possibility, not just the existence, of any personal god. I'm not going to go into the details of this for now; I still think a deistic god is slightly possible though. I would believe in that god if science conclusively proved that a deistic god existed. Like, if we find some sort of radiation that clearly comes from an intelligent mind or something like that, and it turns out to be a god, then that'd do fine.

timbobwaay's picture

God is logical

If you don't mind me asking why would you consider a deistic god over a personal one? Why would a god make the universe for no reason?

Also does not the information stored in DNA account for intelligence? The four letters are organized in patterns that shape what our nose, eyes, ect. will look like. There is about a foot of DNA in every cell. If you were to take the entire DNA in your body and stretch it out it would reach the sun and back here 67 times! One teaspoon of DNA contains more than enough information to write all the books ever written!

Also I know I've talked to you about this before but since the Universe has a cause and a beginning it can't be explained using natural things such as space, time, nature, or black holes. I know you said the big bang was chaotic but that has been disproved by cosmology. Cosmologists speculate that there was first a second of chaotic ness than it slowed down in order to get away from the fact that the universe expansion rate is so fine tuned, but this speculation has no evidence. I remember you also talked about a quantum vacuum that could suck things into being. There are three problems with that. First it has no evidence backing it up, second it would be extremely unlikely for it to put even objects the size of molecules into existence, and third it must have had a cause. The atheist is forced to now say that the complex universe came from nothing. That is why I think atheism is illogical even without my personal experiences and convictions.

The cosmological constant is so fine tuned that in order to get it by random it would be like tossing a dart at random from the middle of space and hitting a target the size of a molecule on earth! That’s just one piece of fine-tuning but its mind boggling.

As for arguements against God I looked at that page and they are precisely the arguemnts the William Lane Craig has tackeled. The problem of evil, the cause and effect article, ect. I never said there was no arguments I said that none of them really carry any plausability in my eye and in peoples like William Lane Craig's. Check out this website noor http://www.theopedia.com/William_Lane_Craig
Craig touches on things such as the absurdity of life without God and the historical fact of the ressurection.

As for turning a blind eye to God noor I wouldn't encourage this. If you really want an intellectually fufilling time I would check out books such as A Skeptics Search For God or a book by Ravi Zacharius. I know I sound like a broken record but your life will be so much better if you search for Him. But this is your own decision so I'll leave you to decide. Don't let yourself get in the way if you know what I mean.

I would consider a deistic

I would consider a deistic god because the gods of religions are so absurd and contradictory that they cannot exist. Strong atheism holds that there are proofs against a more personal god, but we can't really disprove a deist god as of now.

The question, "why would a deist god create the world for no reason?" is exactly why I am not a deist. I don't see any proof for a deist god, and I don't see any disproof of one, so I'm an agnostic atheist on that god.

The information stored in DNA does have a designer - evolution. It took hundreds of millions of years for life to very slowly and gradually evolve into complex beings. DNA has also gradually evolved over millions of years over billions and billions of generations. There's no need for an intelligent designer.

I never said that the big bang was chaotic. It wasn't even a bang - it was the expansion of a singularity that compressed gravity, matter, space-time into one. Some astrophysics believe the singularity came from nothing (this hypothesis does not violate the laws of physics), some believe matter has always existed in some form or the other, while some have alternate theories. Right now the basic answer as to what caused the big bang is: we don't know yet. We're still looking at all the evidence and coming up with hypotheses that can be tested, etc. I'm not going to flat-out deny a god created it though, there could have been one but I don't see any reason to believe until we've found evidence of an intelligence that created the singularity.

The universe isn't fine-tuned. Read [url=http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/woolsey_teller/atheism_of_astronomy.html]The Atheism of Astronomy[/url]:

[quote]From the viewpoint of utility, the motions of heavenly bodies are empty and meaningless. No one in his proper senses can discern the slightest trace of design in stellar gyrations and the ceaseless spinning of globes. Of what use is it to the human race (the so-called "end-all" of existence) to be hurled through the heavens at 18 miles a second? What good does it do any of us to be catapulted through the skies and whirled at the same time? What good does it do God's lesser masterpieces -- the toads, tarantulas and typhus germs -- to participate in these celestial rides? Why the silly goose-chase, the merry-go-round of the spheres over such protracted periods of time?

To ascribe these attributes to intelligence is to insult intelligence.[/quote]

[quote]God-believers have assumed that because they see "order" in the universe, an intelligence must have "ordained" this "order," or "planned" things the way we see them. Our idea of "order" is necessarily derived from the existing conditions, whatever these happen to be; and no matter what arrangement might prevail, we would be sure to observe "order." It is in the nature of the case impossible for a thing, or even a group of things, not to bear relationship to all other things, and whatever relationship exists constitutes the "established order." No one can think of a thing which would not stand, in all of its parts, in "orderly" relationship to the whole. It is impossible to imagine a sequence of events which would not constitute "order" or which would not appear to us as "properly connected." If the sun revolved around the earth, instead of the earth around the sun, or if the earth were a disk spinning like a cart-wheel through space, instead of a globe rotating on its axis, we would recognize this as the "established order" of motion, even though it were the precise opposite of what we observe now. In brief, any combination of conditions or circumstances in which we might find ourselves would appear "orderly" to our perception, because it is the existing conditions which establish the "order."[/quote]

I've read some of WL Craig's stuff, didn't convince me. He's pretty irrational if you ask me and basically plugs in "God" when talking about cosmology.

If you're saying that God will reveal himself to me if I search for him, doesn't that imply that it's simply a personal experience? I mean, why does God make it so hard to find evidence of his existing? Perhaps atheism is what he wants. :P And my life is going great, I don't need a skydaddy for happiness.

timbobwaay's picture

Fine Tuning of the Universe

Examples of Fine Tuning in the Universe:
1.strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
2.weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
3.gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
4.electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
5.ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
6.ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
7.ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
8.expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
9.entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
10.mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
11.velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
12.age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
13.initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
14.average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
15.density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
16.average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
17.fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
18.decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
19.12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
20.ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
21.decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
22.ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
23.initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
24.polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
25.supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
26.white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
27.ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
28.number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
29.number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
30.mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
31.big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
32.size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
33.uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable

timbobwaay's picture

How could this be from accident?

So you can see the three permises of this argument. 1)The Universe looks exactally like a God designed it. 2)It does not appear at all like a generation of chance. So it follows that 3)God exists.
It is hard to believe that these equations came about by chance. In fact, one atheist on youtube analyzed the probabilities of this Universe coming up by chance to be zero.
It takes more faith to be an atheist (faith as in trust not the religious connotation of course)
Also take into account that this Universe needs to be this large to permit life. We are also in an awesome place to learn and to discover in the universe. Its almost if someone put us here with one of the purposes of finding things out. Take a look at our atmosphere. It has the right amount of qualities to allow for us to gaze at the stars. The moon is in the right place so as to generate how the earth spins. This also generates our orbit around the sun, which in turn, keeps us safe. The moon also effects the tide. My question to you, how can you be an atheist?

I've seen that stuff before.

I've seen that stuff before. First off, do you have an idea of how vast the universe is? There are trillions and trillions of galaxies. The ENORMOUS majority of those galaxies are barren and empty. Laws of probability would say that at least a few planets out of those googol planets out there would have the right combination of climate, chemicals, etc. to support life.

Here's how it works: when the solar system was young, there WAS total chaos, with asteroids and planets colliding into each other and destroying each other. Those planets that were thrown into an orbit that made them collide with others, got destroyed. What remains is the harmony that we have today.

Chaos will naturally destroy itself. A solar system where planets' orbits intersect will cause the planets to collide and naturally destroy them. A solar system where planets' orbits don't intersect will cause the planets to survive without crashing into each other.

How do you know it was a

How do you know it was a god? It could have been a tooth fairy as well. We can't say it was the tooth fairy, or a god, because we don't have clear, direct evidence of one.

Atheism does not take faith in any way. It's the lack of a belief, and lack of belief does not lead to a positive position such as taking on faith. Also there's a difference between non-contingent faith (a leap of faith, theistic faith) and contingent faith (trust based on experience, memories, etc.).

If you could travel back in time to see the solar system (or the universe overall) when it was young, you'd see complete chaos everywhere. A group of galaxies that kept crashing into each other eventually destroys itself - which happens/ed far more often.

And the moon was actually a part of the Earth. It was thrown off very violently into orbit when the solar system was young. What sort of a god would rip out a piece of the Earth and send it into motion? What sort of a god would allow millions of galaxies, stars, planets, asteroids, etc. to crash into each other and get destroyed? How can you attribute this to an intelligence guiding the stars?

Quote:So you can see the

[quote]So you can see the three permises of this argument. 1)The Universe looks exactally like a God designed it. 2)It does not appear at all like a generation of chance. So it follows that 3)God exists.[/quote]

Points to the Moons of Jupiter and Saturn. [i]What about Titan?[/i] The planet with sand dunes like Death Valley, CA? [i]Forgot Europa?[/i] The Moon covered in Ice? Their might be liquidified water under the ice, which leads to bacteria. Mars? Had liquid water [b]AND[/b] bacteria. Life is possible. First, no one can make the odds of illteingent life in the universe. Why? Because accroding to the Scientific Theory you have to collect data. Well, lets expolre the universe... We dont know how many planets are in our solar system ratherless search the universe.

AgnosticAtheist1's picture

First off, William Lane

First off, William Lane Craig is NOT that fascinating. Read the book 'God?' and you will see somebody destroys his arguments quite efficiently. Especially his counters to the arguments against evil, which are just absurd.

Secondly, even if life would be absurd , that wouldn't require God. Some philosophies are based off of the idea that, hey, life is absurd. The resurrection is by no means a historical fact.

The order has NOTHING to do with the universal expansion rate, and it also has nothing to do witht he cosmological constant.

What happens is that the maximum entropy possible in a system is quadratically related to the amount of SPACE in the ssytem. For example, if I am dumping my trash just in my trash can, it first has little order, fills with chaos quickly, and then has no order at all. I can then proceed to fill my house, which has more potential order, and so on... The universe started completely chaotically, and as it expanded at the rate of the expansion of the universe squared, the actual amount of entropy has always been increasing. Just not quite as quickly.

Finally for your point about the quantum vacuum having no evidence. I haven't actually heard it, however, some evidence is simply inference. For example, quarks have never been seen, however, the fact that they work perfectly with our existing equations, as well as explain more things is a good reason to infer they exist. Same with black holes(as we obviously don't aaaactually see them). I fail to see why quantum vacuums should be different. As I haven't looked into them, I dunno if there is any, however, evidence for their existence.

Quote:8.expansion rate of

[quote]8.expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed[/quote]

The universe is a ever constant expaning mass. Why does the bible say God created the "stars" and not gaxalies or the universe? Didnt he tell Moses what to put in the First OT books in the Bible?

Why do you post this mile long infomation? This donest prove your God. Here is an example of proving God... Bring him to Earth. He needs to fix things while down here. Africa is straving and commiting genoicide and his followers there are making it worse. His chosen people are attacking the Arabs, again. Americans are starting riots at the funerals of dead soliders. South America is rioting and Eastern Europe is broke.

Methane (CH) Ammoina (NH) Water (HO) Hydrogen Sulfide (HS) Carbon Dioxide (CO) and Phospate (PO) added together make the building blocks for life. I didnt put the numbers necause I dont feel like researching it, too lazy. Anyway, my point, saying the sun is the right size doesnt proove nothing. Your data is like Al Gore. Boring, irrational, and waste of your time.