Originally Posted By: terrytnewzealand
After 30 pages of contributions to this thread the best evidence for God anyone has come up with is to merely point out that we are here. They consider this proves there is a God. This is not sufficient evidence to convince me.


I don?t expect people to plough through this so you may want to skip to the next poster.

The universe leads only to an agnostic position. When I say this I am actually saying, ?The scientific method simply does not have enough evidence to come to a decision one way or another?.

For our understanding and interpretation of the makeup of the universe is achieved through scientific methods. All else is philosophy, emotion and wishful thinking. It seems to me that theist and atheist alike use the last three to come to a conclusion and then view the scientific evidence in the light of that. Correct me if I am wrong, but is there an ?if a then not b? argument connected to the nature of the universe and god. ?If the speed of light = 299,792,458 m/s then God does not exist??

There appears to be nothing that would allow science to adjudicate on the question. So if the most rational process of decision making available to humanity is unable to answer the question, then what are we left with?

Subjective opinion.

The problem with subjective opinion is that it will use the facts available in any way it wants. An example being that in the UK we often see politicians arguing over a particular societal problem or incident. The Conservative will see it one way; the Labourite will see it differently. In fact, they will see the same thing and will describe it differently, attribute opposing causes and then want to apply wildly different solutions. Each supremely confident in their understanding of the issue. More than that, they will each see the issue as vindicating their political dogmas and will trace the cause of the problem back to the dogmas of their opponents.

Similar things can be said of the Global Warming debate. Both advocates and sceptics are viewing the same planet, the same effect, and have access to the same data. But in some cases their conclusions could not be further apart. An example being that I always thought there was going to be a price to pay for the rubbish we have been putting into the atmosphere ? so GW hits the scene and I grab onto it happily because it fits my preconceptions and then seems to be fairly robust when I examine it further. Others - anyone connected with Oil ? will view it differently.
Now something may come up that will make the GW position incontrovertible, but my point about subjective perception informing our view of the evidence is illustrated.

So in the end, theists will look at the universe?s fine tuning and say that it is exactly what they would expect to see in a universe resulting from design by a prior intelligence. Atheists will see the same thing and say, it could have been no other way, it simply occurred and does not need a prior intelligence to explain it, or it is explained neatly by the Multiverse, or even Peter Lynds ideas will lead us to an entirely naturalistic explanation.

The theist will say that God has revealed himself and is available for you to experience if you make yourself open to him. The atheist will say that of course I could experience God if I opened myself up to him, just as I experienced an imaginary childhood friend. The theist will say that it is a fallacious argument, because children grow out of experiencing imaginary friends but experience of God seems different, and also just because something can be explained in terms of one phenomena it does not necessarily follow that it is actually the same phenomena. The atheist will say that we don?t need to go any further than understanding the psychological mechanisms involved with producing dreams and other imaginary experiences.

And so on?

In my opinion, there can be no conclusive proof. All of the philosophical proofs such as Anselm?s and Plantinga?s ontological arguments are unconvincing. The Cosmological Arguments are better, and I find them more convincing especially the Kalam Cosmological Argument framed by William Lane Craig, but they obviously do not convince sceptics and are certainly not therefore incontrovertible proofs.

Likewise with disproofs, they will not convince the believer. Dan has posited the fact that ?this universe is exactly what we would expect to see if there was no creator? or something along those lines.
Again this is not convincing for two reasons:

1. There are no control universes to compare against that would allow us to define exactly what we should expect to see in a designed universe and an entirely naturalistic universe. The question could be asked, how do you know that a universe can actually occur at all without a first intelligent cause ? especially a universe so adept at producing consciousness from chemicals?

2. It is again a subjective belief. How can it be proved that any of the assumptions that are made to come to that conclusion are valid?

I find this particular argument interesting and would be happy to debate it further.

CONCLUSION

The reason there are no serious proofs after 30 pages is that there are no proofs that would be universally accepted ? there are no proofs for God?s existence, empirical or logical. The only proofs are experiential and have no value for anyone but the individual who experiences them for they cannot reliably be conveyed from one person to another.