The existence of God

Accepted Evidence I'd probably consider it a hallucination unless everyone else was also experiencing it too. What would it take for you to disbelieve in God? If they recreated natural creation in a lab? Or found an eternal, natural first cause? Cosmological Pro says the following about my alternative Quantum Fluctuation explanation: “Where would the vaccum come from? You can come up with 'what ifs' all day long.” Even he surely must realise that the creator hypothesis has zero actual empirical evidence so it is simply a 'what if', a 'what if' in which the creator is given enough superpowers (eternality, timelessness, existed before laws of the universe) that he ticks all of the necessary boxes. Pro then concludes that he is the only reasonable explanation. Well I'm going to go out on a whim here and say that the explanation I gave last round, is just as likely. I'll repeat it: The universe is simply the product of a giant quantum fluctuation. Pro dismissed it because he asked where the vacuum it came from would've come from. Well how about this... It's eternal. An eternal vacuum which existed before the universe and in which the virtual particle which created the universe was formed... Is just as possible as a creator. This eternal vacuum is timeless (existed before the universe, so it can be, according to Pro), a quantum fluctuation occurred in it (we know these things actually happen so the theory already has more evidential support than a creator) and the universe was a product of this fluctuation. Remember that this theory actually has backing by scientists, as I quoted last post. Let's remember that the creator theory may fit, but it is not evidentially backed, certainly no more likely than my alternative, if not less so. Due to the fact that my theory fits, the creator hypothesis is redundant. It no longer becomes the 'only possible answer' and is now just another baseless, unsubstantiated attempt at an explanation. I would continue to argue for the something from nothing nature of quantum fluctuations but it no longer suits the arguments needs. God of the Gaps I'm not sure Pro is aware of the difference between a straw man and condensing an argument for the conservation of character space, he uses his straw man accusation as a diversion. As to avoid the recurrence of this diversion, I will waste character space by quoting. “To say that God is unscientific is to beg the question that God doesn't exist or act.” I strongly believe that given proof, scientists would happily include a God into the scientific world-view. Why wouldn't they? They've include every other new discovery... Evolution, atoms, quantum mechanics... Even when doing so creates so many more questions. The reason it is unscientific to give a God explanation is because, from the scientific perspective, there is no evidence. Science works on the basis of empirical evidence, not philosophical assumptions, therefore, there is no proof for a God. That is not my opinion, but that of the scientific community. “This is only your opinion. Since you cannot know all evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves God's existence, or at least His existence.” Actually it's not only my opinion but that of the scientific community. Science obviously doesn't work on the basis of 'despite the fact that there is no evidence for this, maybe there is evidence we don't know about.' If this was their way of reasoning then there'd be a tooth fairy/Santa Claus explanation lurking around every corner. I'm going to shoot back at you with: Don't rule out Leprechauns! Since you don't know all the evidence, it is possible that evidence exists that proves Leprechaun's existence. “God is as much of an explanation as explaining the existence of a watch by saying it was made by a watch-maker. Neither is a complete explanation, but they are both starting points.” You are suggesting here that baseless assumptions are good starting points, the scientific community clearly disagrees, an unsubstantiated theory stays that way until it is proved, then it is expanded upon. Imagine if we'd said: “How are we breathing? Well the oxygen fairies are a good starting point, then this can be expanded upon... With the evil oxygen fairies which must be suppressed, the nature of the oxygen fairy... etc.” When the creator hypothesis is proven, then it could be used as a starting point. “I said the longer that these gaps are unfulfilled then the more likely a natural creation did not occur and that the gaps are permanent.” As I said last round, which you ignored. The light-bulb was invented by Thomas Edison only 140 years ago, science is still in its absolute infancy. It is unfair to say that just because natural creation has not yet been recreated, that it will not. TAG This argument seems to rest on whether or not Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature. This means 'Whether or not they are based on mental concepts, by nature.' My response is that of course they are not mental concepts, they and the Logical Absolutes would exist even if there were no minds around. A rock would still be a rock even if no one had ever seen a rock, it would not have the English name “rock” but it would still be a rock. It would not suddenly change its identity and be a stick. Therefore, I submit that Logical Absolutes are Not conceptual by nature. Existence is the basis for these logical absolutes, they are inherent within existence and would still be inherent even if there were no minds to consider them. A triangle would still be a triangle, it would still have three sides, it would not contradict itself by have four and three. Pro writes: “If someone were to say to me that a 'flursist' (made up) is by nature hard, how then can I rationally deny such a claim by saying 'I don't know what a flursist is, but I know it isn't hard?' The response would be, 'since you don't know what it is, how do you know what it is not?' Is the response correct or not correct?” Surely we don't know whether or not it is correct because we do not now a “flursist's” nature. It is unknown to us, but even though no living could have ever seen a “flursist” because it resides in a remote region of Antarctica, the flursist still has an unchanging identity. It is still either hard or not. It's being hard or not is not contingent on us knowing it, no mind may have ever considered its nature but it would still have one. It's nature and identity are inherent in the facts of its existence, it exists therefore it has X and Y attributes. A similar comparison is that of mathematics. Similarly to Logical Absolutes mathematics is still a completely abstract thing which you may say is conceptual by nature, but it too is not. Even if there were no minds in the universe, one object and another object would still make two objects. A square would still have four sides and a circle would still have none.