Religion
In reply to the discussion: Can You Prove It Didn't Happen? [View all]AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Post 11: Asked you to point out evidence for your imaginary friend.
Post 12: You responded "Point out what type of evidence you think fits."
Post 18: I accept your response, and suggest a starting place; evidence that a creator is required at all.
Post 19: You jump the shark located most conveniently near you, and respond with a bunch of shit that doesn't have anything to do with evidence that a god is required to create the universe.
Post 25: I try to haul you back to the request; is there evidence that a creator is required to create the universe.
Post 27: You find a couple more sharks to leap about.
Post 37: I explain the purpose of my starting point.
Post 41: You accuse me of moving goalposts, which is total horseshit. Typical bullshit deflection from you.
I asked you to provide evidence that a creator is required for the universe to exist. You've claimed variously that
"What type of evidence do you propose works to test the existence of an infinite god?"
Correct. That is why I asked the revised question about evidence that shows a creator is required. We may not be able to test the existence of a god directly, due to the "The claims, or beliefs, about a super-natural, infinite, ineffable god who can neither be described nor understood are sui generis." assertion, which I tentatively accept as possible limitation in examining the existence of an alleged god.
God, if it exists, may be 'infinite, ineffable, incomprehensible, indescribable', but the universe is material, and is not infinite, ineffable, incomprehensible, or indescribable. Everything about the material universe is discoverable to us. We've already demonstrated considerable capability in discovering even the origins of the universe, which we did not yet exist to observe.
Therefore, it should be possible to examine the universe and it's origin to identify evidence that requires a supernatural creator, to create the universe. Indirectly showing that A creator of some sort exists, without delving into whether it's got XYZ powers, XYZ doctrines, whether it's a semi-transparent old man in a beard, or a recursive pile of turtles. None of that needs to be examined, we can infer whether a creator exists from examining the natural universe to see if it needs a creator at all.
That doesn't rule out a creator, if one doesn't find any evidence that the universe requires a creator, but if one DOES find evidence that it DOES require a creator, then bob's your uncle, you've proven the existence of SOME sort of god-thingy.
So hop to it, or pick some other thing we CAN test that we both agree upon. Because you sure seemed to agree to the request in 19 (or rather, made up some straw aspect of the question to disregard.)
Asking you for evidence that the universe requires a creator is not a premise. It's a request. Whether the evidence can be supplied provides a foundation to form a premise.
Quit fucking with me.