Explain how it is that the universe "proof" there is a god. — 180 Proof

Not only one. Where else does it come from? I don't mean I don't understand because of lack of knowledge. In fact, that knowledge left nothing else to conclude. When all gaps are closed, it becomes clear.

Hoe gaat het met je? We hebben je gemist.

Expecting a het is goed om thuis te zijn from @EugeneW, who denkt dat atheïsme een fart is ?

The fact that the universe, in its eternal infinity, exists. — EugeneW

It would be a proof of god's existence if that were the only valid explanation. But other valid explanations exist, and they are not any less or more valid than the other. Therefore the only thing you can claim is that the infinite space and matter in it have existed forever; but the cause of their existence is not necessarily god, AND it is not necessarily the lack of god. Either beliefs are possible, therefore either beliefs are valid AS BELEIFS but not as knowledge.

Have you considered the atheist objection that the deities of popular religions are not plausible (for ethical reasons among others) ?

Are you more concerned with proving the existence of an otherwise indeterminate creator (a demiurge who no longer tinkers with his dirtmonkeys) or with some particular conception?

Is the main thing that bothers you just a hole in the story ? You never got back to me on my last post which suggests that our human ignorance is the rule and not the exception. We just don't bother much with that which is disorderly (our deep learning models are picking up some slack for us lately though.) Is it the hubris or complacency of some atheists that puts you off?

Ik dacht, dat hij was een 'oude vriend'... niet belangrijk. :wink:

for the benefit of III:

God belief is completely valid. IT'S A BELIEF. It purports no knowledge. Atheism, ditto, but the opposite.

Any arguments against beliefs that they should be supported by evidence is invalid. You can't demand evidence for something that is not knowledge.

This goes for both theists and atheists. It is futile to try to convince someone to discontinue his or her BELIEF. — god must be atheist

Do you have evidence of anything that is not natural? I thought not... — Tom Storm

I hear two birds outside chirping. A dove has started cooring. "Morning has broken, like the first morning". The dog yawns and cries at the bed like a small child. The bed squeeks and love calls. "Love, you make some coffee?" That's proof enough for me.

As I predicted, you've got nothing but an appeal to ignorance (i.e. woo-of-the-gaps) fallacy that is only "proof" of you barking at shadows like a rabid mutt. Attaboy, lil D-Ker! :clap:

I hear two birds outside chirping. A dove has started cooring. "Morning has broken, like the first morning". The dog yawns and cries at the bed like a small child. The bed squeeks and love calls. "Love, you make some coffee?" That's proof enough for me. — EugeneW

It's CONVINCING enough for you, but philosophically it's not proof. Proof on the philosophical level is universal. If it's proof for you, then it's not proof for everyone. Therefore it's not universal. Therefore it's not philosophical. So I would humbly like to ask you to not use the word proof when in conversation about philosophy unless you mean a philosophical proof. Thanks.

Nicely put.

As I predicted, you've got nothing but an appeal to ignorance — 180 Proof

Read my words booze. The appeal is to gnorance...

It's CONVINCING enough for you, but philosophically it's not proof. Proof on the philosophical level is universal. If it's proof for you, then it's not proof for everyone — god must be atheist

For me, gods exist for everyone. If they don't wanna belief it it's up to them. They can say with equal force that they don't exist universally. Now who's right? Both are.

The philosophical proof, for me, is the existence of the universe. Im writing a short story on it. Thanks to Tom Storm.

أنا أحسب. في الغالب أردت أن ألعب ببرمجيات الترجمة

In translating that back to English, I noticed that 'figured' became 'count.' Otherwise it's the same.
https://context.reverso.net/translation/

Nicely put. — Tom Storm

thanks.

You apparently figured it out.

Hofstadter is wrong and right.

You apparently figured it out. — EugeneW

So your view is that some kind of intelligence had to make this shit, but you don't know/care exactly what kind? And you aren't religious? I really just want to know. Irreligious theism is somewhat exceptional around here. I remember arguing on that side once long ago with a Spanish exchange student on a school bus. Oh those decadent Europeans! Trying to corrupt my innocent vaguely Catholic mind. (As I said, long long ago when dragons roamed our planet.)

Gott genießt den Geschmack seines eigenen Samens

I used the same! Did you reverse back again?

I used the same! Did you reverse back again? — EugeneW

I only retranslated the one I wrote. I don't see any that you've written so far.

It becomes "guess"

Hofstadter is wrong and right. — EugeneW

How so?

It becomes "guess" — EugeneW

Oh, I missed what you're referring to it seems.

Figure becomes count becomes guess. I didn't go further.

I don't care about atheists. As long as they don't wanna establish an atheocracy. But they did, goddamnit! — EugeneW

Logic, reasoning power and the general education of most people in the Westernized cultures have helped a bit, don't you think?

Whereas religion was spread with terror, fear, torture and the threat of death. At least the Christian religion was spread that way in Europe back 2000-1500 years ago.

Please also consider that no apostates exist because they were forced at knife point to leave their religion. As per the inner conviction of belief in god nobody abandons their belief unless they can't but abandon it.

What I am saying is that atheocracy is getting established for at this point in history that is the sensible thing to do. People go for evidence; while there is no evidence that there is no god, there is plenty of evidence that the universe can and does function without any interference by any god or gods. THIS is the reason that atheocracy is gaining popularity, not some perverse, diabolical or else personal vendetta against god or against religious people.

Logic, reasoning power and the general education of most people in the Westernized cultures have helped a bit, don't you think? — god must be atheist

Indeed! To fuck up the planet, society, and personal relations.

Oh, yes, that's correct.

The software is pretty impressive, especially considering that it's just a mountain of statistics in its guts. That's how orderly our linguistic ejaculate tends to be. We are 'whirlpools in the traces,' a 'rose in iron dust.' And the motor of the World Spirit is Gott schnuppert die Unterwäsche von Mädchen.

THIS is the reason that atheocracy is gaining popularity, not some perverse, diabolical or else personal vendetta against god or against religious people — god must be atheist

Almost all natural so-called primitive societies have been wiped out of existence.

Indeed! To fuck up the planet, society, and personal relations. — EugeneW

You think the religious wars, the Autodafe, the impending torture of Galileo, the child mortality, the birth mortality of mothers, the starvation, the plague, was not fucking up the planet and personal relationships?

Hey, the Great Flood, was that not due to fucking up the planet and the breakdown of personal relationships?

What you say is the fault of atheism, is actually not, if you think about it. It is the fault of human nature, and not atheism nor theism.

Almost all natural so-called primitive societies have been wiped out of existence. — EugeneW

By the missionaries, and by the industrialists of the nineteenth century.

Your point is???

And the motor of the World Spirit is Gott schnuppert die Unterwäsche von Mädchen. — lll

:rofl:

Where can you buy that motor?

Gott schnuppert die Unterwäsche von Mädchen — lll

I think EugeneW used Dutch, not Deutsch.