Talk:Scientific evidence for God's existence

• Archives

Abraha's death

This Islamic historical event, recorded by pre-Islam Arabs AND not challenged by the anti-Muhammad Quraish tribe, was a miraculous Divine punishment. The invading army was struck by illness (carried by birds). The official intention of the campaign was to destroy the Ka'ba. The Arab tribe was too weak to defend the holy building, so they left Makkah empty and ran. The timing of the punishment was too perfect to be a coincidences. Msalama (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

@Msalama That is literally the definition of a coincidence. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 20:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A "meaningful" coincidence at least. The tribe leader clearly said to Abraha: "You stole my sheep, I'm the owner of those.. give them back. As for the Ka'ba, It has a Lord who will protect it". Hours later it was protected. ^{— Unsigned, by: Msalama / talk / contribs}

Coincidences both large and small happen constantly. Even if we take everything above as true, it's still just a coincidence - and another coincidence is only evidence of the indisputable fact that coincidences happen continuously.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 13:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I can think of a scientific reason to believe in God

God's handiwork is pretty evident in the fact that intelligent, interactive life exists. What's the probability that randomly jumbling a collection of pieces of a watch in a box would form a watch? The likelihood is that we all live in a simulation, therefore, there is an intelligence behind us.--Anotherbeliever (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Your comparison is unreasonable, and the idea behind it is covered on this wiki under Hoyle's fallacy. You appear to be arguing against evolution, but your comparison to random jumbling is a strawman. Evolution is largely driven by natural selection, which is non-random environmental pressure. Certainly, random mutation is necessary to provide a variety of phenotypes for natural selection to act on, but to claim that mutations don't occur in the first place is clearly absurd. The idea of natural selection itself is quite straightforward. 68.56.144.8 (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Your arguments are not very coherent or or even linked. But I will try to help you out:

1. "God's handiwork is pretty evident in the fact that intelligent, interactive life exists." I disagree. Please provide evidence that a god is the only or best explanation for the existence of life. Please read God of the gaps before responding.

2. "What's the probability that randomly jumbling a collection of pieces of a watch in a box would form a watch?" The likelihood is low. So what? Presumably this is part of a larger argument you have not provided. If you provided it it could be responded to. Also please read Argument from design before responding as you are probably going to wander down this path.

3. '"The likelihood is that we all live in a simulation, therefore, there is an intelligence behind us. This is merely an assertion. Remember that a good skeptical principle is: ""That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." In any event, if you could back up your simulation proposal that would not necessarily lead you to "God". (Though you may have your own unique definition of "God".)

So if you could read what we have already written on these subjects and then come back with a good response that would be great.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

As noted now, the OP was a sock account. I will say that evolution is not necessarily incompatible with religion particularly if one is not stringent with literalism, and less fundamentalist theologies do attempt to update doctrine with various blends of scientific knowledge. This leads to ideas like old earth creationism and theistic evolution. I kind of see any God argument as neither provable or unprovable, so from my perspective, if you want to go down that path, fine. The science end doesn't care one way or another. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Lots of religions people and Christians understand and accept the facts of evolution.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Your argument is the classic Appeal to Ignorance. Just because you can't believe it, does not make your argument scientific. Also, the assertion that it is likely that we are living in a simulation is no more demonstrable than is the existence of God, so you still have all of your work before you.UncleKrampus (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe one can demonstrate that all of the laws of maths being as they are in the real world, the probability is at least greater than 0.5 that we live in a simulation. The idea everything happened to be the way it was by chance as opposed to design is too low to seriously entertain the chance hypothesis. Maths being instantiated in the world, the world following logical rules, matter/energy emerging from nothing, surely this is all ultimately evidence for God's existence. I define "God" as a "supranatural reality", btw.--Anotherbeliever (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If your particular version of god god is supernatural why do you think that you can use naturalistic explanations to justify its existence? And you have not responded to all the other issues people have raised about your opinions on this page.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 14:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Think of what you are saying: "I believe one can demonstrate..." If that is so, then you should be able to provide such a demonstration. However, as far as I know, no such demonstration exists. For example, we have no idea how to simulate reality in a digital format. Indeed, quantum mechanical effects cannot be digitally reproduced. I would be appealing to ignorance to conclude that it would therefore be impossible using some other technology. It cannot be denied that such things may be possible. You are pulling p>.5 from out of your hat. UncleKrampus (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Stupid question

Shouldn't this be on Funspace? Or the fact that it's on the Main space is also part of the joke? GeeJayK (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No. Why?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 20:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, because there's no evidence for God's existence, so it's pretty much an empty article just to spite people who believe in God. GeeJayK (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is minimal down to idiot level. More could be said. I understand that the believers who peruse our wiki are not likely to be persuaded of the unsoundness of their religious proclivity. It may be useful to point out that it is incoherent to assume the coexistence of an active deity with any truly scientific epistemology: that it is scientifically unsound to do so.UncleKrampus (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

[1] watch this video, UncleKrampus.--Anotherbeliever (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I have watched the video and it basically says: "Well it could have been god that made the difference". True, but nowhere does he say that it definitely was god and nowhere does he say that it needed god and nowhere does it show any proof of the existence of god or of its input. It's just a load of words strung together as if by a ten year old. Scream!! (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

My boy, my boy, the video you recommend begins with a biased ( incorrect) definition of naturalism as an atheist ideology. However it is: the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. Naturalism is compatible with deism. Evolution does not prove God does not exist, of course. It proves that up until the origin of the first form of life, God is an unnecessary assumption. Be sure to eat your vegetables.UncleKrampus (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Merge to Fun:Arguments for the existence of God

1. There's no reason to keep these two article separate, as they should overlap.
2. To keep this in the same style as Arguments against the existence of God, most of which are not scientific, but philosophical.

YXTQWF_climbThe^Stairs 06:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't we move this to funspace?

Almost all of the other challenge pages are there. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

That is not a really good argument for such a move. You would need to explain why it would be better there.

Meanwhile look at the talk page for this article. We have had various interesting (not to mention amusing) debates with theists as a consequence of the challenge. This would almost certainly not have happened had it been banished to fun space.

It also fits well with our mission statements.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, yeah, but an article that's practically just empty doesn't feel like it fits in mainspace, you get me? I always thought of mainspace as being where the articles with meat on their bones go, and funspace as being the place where we just fuck around. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It really says all there is to say about the subject. And so yes, it's short - because it says all that can be said. If you feel it is factually incorrect then no doubt you will present your case.

I note that, no doubt purely coincidentally, you also started and AFD on the article. Perhaps - instead of looking for ways to delete or divert the article - it might be better if you responded to the challenge posed.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't seem to be arguing in good faith with this message. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean I'm not arguing in good faith!? I explained why the article should be here and invited you to present your case. And your case seems to be "It's what I think". Make a clear case and people will consider it. I'm baffled that you claim to be offended by being asked to make a case.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not because you asked me to make a case, it's because, given the way you phrased your message, to me it reads as you assuming that I'm only doing this as a sneaky way to try and take down a page because I don't like its contents, not too dissimilar from what Ken might do given what I know of him; From my perspective, you were comparing me to a fundie, so of course I was gonna get offended by it. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

So you think I have misconstrued you motives. Clarify them. Tell me again exactly why do you want the page deleted or sent to fun?

You claim that you are "pretty sure" that all the other challenge articles are in fun. This is not true, and is something you could have verified in 30 seconds. So why this particular article?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I've already explained my motives for wanting this page moved in the message directly below us, and have done so in what I think is sufficient clarity, so I feel no need to restate it; As for the 'all the other challenge articles are in fun' part, I eant that as hyperbole; I probably could've just said most, but oh well, too late for that.

I decided to do a recount of the amount of challenge pages that are in Funspace, and only 10 of the 22 challenge articles are in Funspace; Odd, I could've sworn there were more, but I probably just overguesstimated the amount. Oh well. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Like, I make the AfD thing because I figured, oh, this would make more sense to have in Funspace alongside every other challenge article whose content is just the tumbleweeds GIF varying only in theming, but Funspace already had a page like this; The consensus was to delete the Funspace duplicate and keep this one, which is fair enough.

Then, I figured that maybe I should move this article to Funspace, for pretty much the same reason why I made the AfD thing earlier (minus the 'Funspace already has a duplicate' part), but it got reverted; Also fair, after all I didn't really explain my case, didn't ask anyone else prior to doing so, and the moving also broke a template for some reason.

After that, I decided to make this thread, not only to explain my point, but also to see what others thought of moving the page, then you come along, look at all this and assume (In a way that is very easily read as being done in bad faith, mind you) that I'm doing this because I dislike the message of the page itself, when no, I'm only trying to keep the pattern of challenge pages whose only content is the tumbleweeds GIF (Which I'm pretty sure is all of them) being part of Funspace regardless of the theming.

Honestly, I'm kind of offended. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

You've already lost an AfD on this topic. Accept your loss and move on, at least for now. Carthage (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I already did; I think I did, at least. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 21:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was to keep the mainspace article. You're going against consensus here. Carthage (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought moving still counted as keeping the mainspace article, but fair enough. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)