The Atom is Very Plainly Evidence of God

[u/heelspider]

This post is in response to people who claim there is no evidence of God.

Because a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed by a God than a universe without an atom, the atom is evidence that God exists.

Part 1 - What is evidence?

Evidence is any fact which tends to make a proposition more likely true. Evidence does not need to constitute proof itself. It doesn't not need to be completely reliable to be evidence. An alternative explanation for the evidence does not necessarily render it non-evidence. Only if those listed problems are in extreme is it rendered non-evidence (for example, if we know the proposition is false for other reasons, the source is completely unreliable, the alternative explanation is clearly preferred, etc.)

For example, let's say Ace claims Zed was seen fleeing a crime scene. This is a very traditional example of evidence. Yet, not everyone fleeing crime scene is necessarily guilty, eye witnesses can be wrong, and there could be other reasons to flee a crime scene. Evidence doesn't have to be proof, it doesn't have to be perfectly reliable, and it can potentially have other explanations and still be evidence.

Part 2 - The atom is evidence of God.

Consider the strong atomic force, for example. This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible. If we considered a universe with atoms and a universe without any such thing, the former appears more likely designed than the latter. Thus, the atom is evidence of design.

Consider if we had a supercomputer which allowed users to completely design rules of a hypothetical universe from scratch. Now we draft two teams, one is a thousand of humanity's greatest thinkers, scientists, and engineers, and the other is a team of a thousand cats which presumably will walk on the keyboards on occasion.

Now we come back a year later and look at the two universes. One universe has substantial bodies similar to matter, and the other is gibberish with nothing happening in it. I contend that anyone could guess correctly which one was made by the engineers and which one the cats. Thus, we see a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed than one without it.

Thus the atom is objectively evidence of God.

[u/AutoModerator]

Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.

Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Vossenoren]

Because a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed by a God than a universe without an atom, the atom is evidence that God exists.

The whole thing has fallen to pieces already here, I'm sorry to say. There is no reason to accept this claim, since it's completely baseless. Why would a universe with an atom be more likely to be designed by a god than one without? Might as well say "a universe with Keanu Reeves in it is more likely to be designed by a thirsty greek goddess who likes hot dad energy." The claim is pointless.

Consider the strong atomic force, for example. This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible. If we considered a universe with atoms and a universe without any such thing, the former appears more likely designed than the latter. Thus, the atom is evidence of design.

No no no no no no no. So many mistakes in so few words.

A) You attribute a goal to a force of nature. It doesn't exist for any purpose, it simply exists, just like gravity and all the rest

B) You can't use words like "seems" and "appears", followed by "thus x is y without a shred of a doubt". That's not how evidence building works. "Janet seems to have puffier eyelids than normal. If we considered a universe in which Janet has been crying, and one in which she hasn't, it appears more likely that her eyes would be puffy in the crying one. Thus, Janet's dog was shot to death in front of her by a man in clown make-up with no pants on."

C) The appearance of design and actually being designed are two entirely different things. Many things seem to be more organized than they really are when you look at them closely. It's human nature to seek patterns in things and find explanations for them.

Consider if we had a supercomputer which allowed users to completely design rules of a hypothetical universe from scratch. Now we draft two teams, one is a thousand of humanity's greatest thinkers, scientists, and engineers, and the other is a team of a thousand cats which presumably will walk on the keyboards on occasion.

Now we come back a year later and look at the two universes. One universe has substantial bodies similar to matter, and the other is gibberish with nothing happening in it. I contend that anyone could guess correctly which one was made by the engineers and which one the cats. Thus, we see a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed than one without it.

Thus the atom is objectively evidence of God.

Oof. Repeat this experiment, without the human team, just have cats walk across keyboards for approximately 10 billion years. Somewhere in the chaos, there will undoubtedly be some order, something you can point to and be like "omg this is clearly designed". Even if the rest of the thing is nothing but abject chaos or indifferent empty space, at least some part of it is bound to look like it has a purpose.

The main error you make is you're assuming the answer (there is god) and you're working your way backwards to a question that proves your point. That's not how evidence works, that's not how science works, that's a great way to never expand your thinking because you already think you know the answer.

The question you've failed to ask is: is it possible for an atom to exist without it having been designed by someone. The answer is: yes, it is possible, even if you prefer to think that it was designed, the possibility exists.

Thus, the atom is objectively evidence that atoms exist, but nothing else.

[u/soilbuilder → u/Vossenoren]

ngl, if I was a thirsty greek goddess with a vibe for hot dad energy I would make more than one Keanu Reeves. Not for nefarious purposes, but because the world could do with more his kind of hot dad energy.

So only having (as far as we know) ONE Keanu Reeves suggest a lack of intelligent design...

[u/Vossenoren → u/soilbuilder]

Also, are we sure it's not at least a little bit for nefarious purposes?

[u/soilbuilder → u/Vossenoren]

well...... perhaps consensual nefarious purposes. mainly of the "gazing adoringly at someone who seems to be consistently nice while also attractively packaged" purposes. While also respecting privacy. Because Blessed Me, healthy and appropriate boundaries would be one of my main guidelines.

turns out it could be hard to be a thirsty greek goddess while maintaining a sense of ethics rofl

[u/Vossenoren → u/soilbuilder]

it's certainly a struggle. Greek goddesses were not particularly well known for their sense of ethics, in general, if I remember my mythology at all well

[u/Vossenoren → u/soilbuilder]

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

Shut down the sub! ;)

[u/heelspider → u/Vossenoren]

There is no reason to accept this claim, since it's completely baseless

I provided support in the OP. I am getting really frustrated by the number of people who ignore this entirely.

B) You can't use words like "seems" and "appears", followed by "thus x is y without a shred of a doubt". That's not how evidence building works

Where did I do that? Quite the opposite, I painstakingly describe how evidence is not necessarily proof. You seem to be arguing with what you wish i said instead of what I actually said.

C) The appearance of design and actually being designed are two entirely different things. Many things seem to be more organized than they really are when you look at them closely. It's human nature to seek patterns in things and find explanations for them

Things that appear designed are more likely to be designed than things that don't.

"omg this is clearly designed

Case in point. Your version of the monkeys with typewriters doesn't prove that A Tale of Two Cities doesn't appear likely designed. As I point out in the OP, the mere possibility of an alternative explanation does not render something non-evidenced. A Tale of Two Cities appears more designed than random letters even if infinite monkeys hypothetically could write it.

The main error you make is you're assuming the answer (there is god) and you're working your way backwards to a question that proves your point

Quote where in the OP I assume God exists.

[u/Vossenoren → u/heelspider]

I provided support in the OP. I am getting really frustrated by the number of people who ignore this entirely.

You've done nothing of the sort, which is why people are giving you the answers that you're getting

Where did I do that?

Literally in the sentence I quoted. LITERALLY in the sentence I quoted. Just because you wrote a paragraph incorrectly describing what you think evidence is doesn't change what you wrote.

Things that appear designed are more likely to be designed than things that don't.

OK?

the mere possibility of an alternative explanation does not render something non-evidenced.

OK but just because it's "non non-evidenced" doesn't automatically make it true. Being that your post claims to have "objective proof", you're falling well short of what it takes to provide same.

Quote where in the OP I assume God exists.

Oh I don't know...

The Atom is Very Plainly Evidence of God

Here

the atom is evidence that God exists.

Here

Part 2 - The atom is evidence of God.

Here

Thus the atom is objectively evidence of God.

Here

If you're actually looking for a debate, try reading what the other person says, rather than trying to find imaginary fallacies in the responses. I replied exactly to what you wrote, with quotations and everything. Nothing in your post supports your initial faulty claim, therefore it remains completely baseless, as your entire explanation is "I think that atoms are more likely to be designed than not, therefore it is proof".

[u/the2bears → u/heelspider]

I provided support in the OP. I am getting really frustrated by the number of people who ignore this entirely.

How can you not see this as a "you" problem? Or at least potentially your issue.

[u/dperry324 → u/heelspider]

Possibilities are not evidence. They are more claims. You can't cite another claim as evidence to support a claim. That's being dishonest.

[u/Nordenfeldt]

>Consider the strong atomic force, for example. This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible. If we considered a universe with atoms and a universe without any such thing, the former appears more likely designed than the latter. Thus, the atom is evidence of design.

That is exactly backwards.

Its like saying the gravest ‘only exists’ for stars to exist.

No, one is a byproduct of the other, but that doesn’t mean they were magically designed that way On purpose.

Who knows what a universe with slightly different atomic forces would look like? Different, to be certain, but that’s all we can know. This is just another really clumsy version of the fine tuning argument, which essentially boils down to ‘stuff is, ergo god.’

The existence of atoms is evidence of the existence of atoms, nothing more.

And by the way, I always find it so telling the lengths of desperate dishonest spin and deliberate misrepresentation theists need to go through to try and provide even the vaguest hint of a shred of maybe-evidence for their god.

You wouldnt need to bend over backwards with these absurd illogical-extreme fallacies to find evidence if your god actually existed, you could just provide real direct evidence.

But your god doesn’t exist, so you spend your time spamming either excuses why evidence can’t be found, or these incredibly desperate illogical reaches into obscure nonsense to try and spin out some ‘evidence’ where none exists.

Maybe one day you will wake up and realise that the REASON it is so utterly impossible to evidence your fairy tale, is because it is a fairy tale.

[u/Burillo]

The framing of this argument is dishonest, because you are relying on equivocation. It's basically a variant of Motte and Bailey.

You start by (correctly) pointing out that evidence in and of itself doesn't "prove" anything, and any single piece of evidence can point to a number of possible explanations. That is, by itself, we can't conclude anything based on a single piece of evidence alone: you can just, you know, say stuff, and as long as it's not contradictory to something else we know, it could be evidence, or it could not be evidence (and instead be evidence for something else) - you can draw no conclusions either way. (EDIT: or rather, a single fact will simultaneously be evidence for infinite number of conclusions)

You then claim that an atom is "evidence for God". Okay, and?

I mean, you literally just said that a single piece of evidence doesn't prove or demonstrate anything, so saying "atom is evidence of god" according to the definition of the term "evidence" you just gave in and of itself is meaningless - yes, it is "evidence for god" in the sense that "god" is one of the possible explanations, but, as you correctly noted, it is also simultaneously evidence for "not god" (i.e. other explanations).

So, you didn't demonstrate that "god" proposition is more likely, you basically just said "an argument could be made that this is evidence for god", with no possible conclusions to draw from it. However, because you did draw a conclusion from your argument (otherwise why would you be making it?), the only way to reconcile these two facts is by suggesting that you are relying on other usages of the term "evidence", i.e. "evidence" not as in "X could lead us to Y", but "evidence" as in "X does lead us to Y".

So, when you say "atom is evidence for god", you've defined "evidence" to be very broad, rendering your claim meaningless tautology. However, because you made the argument, the implied conclusion is that this is your argument for god, and the only way to get to that conclusion is to rely on implications of other usages of the term "evidence".

[u/heelspider → u/Burillo]

I did nothing dishonest. Retract that or quote me saying something I don't believe and I will consider the rest of your response. I did nothing to you to warrant insults.

[u/OlClownDic → u/heelspider]

Let go of your pearls and answer this dude. If they are wrong about your dishonesty… ignore it and answer what is relevant.

If I post the same response but without the “dishonest” part you will respond?

[u/Burillo → u/heelspider]

The rest of my response explains why I believe that, so take your time to read and understand what I meant.

[u/heelspider → u/Burillo]

Feel free to cut and paste the answer. I have no desire to debate with people who first thing out of their mouths is a baseless insult.

[u/Reasonable_Rub6337 → u/heelspider]

I am begging you to stop doing the wounded puppy routine.

[u/CorbinSeabass]

Consider the strong atomic force, for example. This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible.

Thus the atom is objectively evidence of God.

These two statements are at odds. Your argument hinges on how the strong atomic force "seems" to you, which is subjective. Therefore your evidence isn't objective.

[u/joeydendron2]

This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible

I think this is an example of the "teleological fallacy" which stems from a human psychological tendency to see purpose and intention in the world where none actually exists.

You're saying there's a "strong atomic force" which was intended to hold atoms together. But how can you demonstrate that the intention you suspect, is actually real?

Personally, I think "the strong nuclear force" and "atoms" are both features of human descriptions of nature. So objective, "out-there-in-the-world" nature just is; and the properties (including "forces") that we ascribe to nature are just our descriptions they're how we say nature works. The "strong nuclear force" is an explanation of how what we call atoms seem to stay together; but I reject the claim that there's any sign that the strong nuclear force was "created" for the purpose of binding atoms together.

[u/Autodidact2 → u/joeydendron2]

Thank you for telling me the name of this common theist argument.

[u/OlClownDic]

Evidence is any fact which tends to make a proposition more likely true.

Just want to clear this up. Evidence does not make a proposition true or likely true… a proposition is either true or it’s not true. Evidence is simply our best at figuring out which propositions are true and which aren’t.

But not any old thing can be reasonably called evidence, right?

I say it should 1. Be consistent with the proposition. 2. Reasonably exclude other propositions.

Now that said, let’s look your evidence.

Consider the strong atomic force, for example. This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible.

Interesting wording. You are already appealing to things existing for a purpose.

I would say “the strong atomic force allows for the formation of atoms” but to say “ the strong atomic force exists so atoms can form” smuggles in purpose and possibly god. Was this your intention?

If we considered a universe with atoms and a universe without any such thing, the former appears more likely designed than the latter. Thus, the atom is evidence of design.

Well…. speak for yourself. I do not follow this reasoning. Do you mind going into why you think a universe with atoms is evidence of design? Perhaps I am just missing some line of reasoning and you can show it to me.

Consider if we had a supercomputer which allowed users to completely design rules of a hypothetical universe from scratch….

Now we come back a year later and look at the two universes.…

So in that hypothetical, don’t we know conclusively that both simuniverses are designed? Don’t we know conclusively the general identity of each designer? Don’t we, as animals that have spent all their lives on this planet, know that human engineers are quite proficient at mouse and keyboard use, whereas cats not so much?

These factors definitely suggest that the cats might not create the most active universe. However I am failing to see how to link this back to our universe/situation, our situation seems nothing similar, I dare say that your hypothetical is laughable compared to our situation.

TLDR: not seeing how an atom is evidence of anything other than “atoms exist”.

[u/heelspider → u/OlClownDic]

Just want to clear this up. Evidence does not make a proposition true or likely true

I said tends to.

Interesting wording. You are already appealing to things existing for a purpose

I said seems to be for a purpose, and that's not smuggling anything it very directly is expressing an opinion on the matter.

Do you mind going into why you think a universe with atoms is evidence of design?

The analogy in the OP was my best effort.

So in that hypothetical, don’t we know conclusively that both simuniverses are designed

No, I don't think cats are capable of design in this situation.

However I am failing to see how to link this back to our universe/situation, our situation seems nothing similar,

Let's say you just get one universe to look at, and it has atoms. Do you think that came from the humans (designers) or the cats (not designed)?

[u/Autodidact2 → u/heelspider]

I wouldn't start by assuming that there ever was not (the matter and energy that make up) the universe.

[u/heelspider → u/Autodidact2]

Ok. I am fine with that stipulation. Proceed.

[u/Autodidact2 → u/heelspider]

Therefore you analogy is inapposite, as it is about creating something from scratch.

[u/OlClownDic → u/heelspider]

Yes you did. Evidence doesn’t tend to make propositions true either. A proposition is either true or it is not. Evidence can simply support the truth of a proposition.

The analogy in the OP was my best effort.

Sure, so can you plainly illustrate the parallels in your analogy and the situation you are trying to represent?

Let’s say you just get one universe to look at, and it has atoms. Do you think that came from the humans (designers) or the cats (not designed)?

So in the first hypo: You hand a person two simuniverses and say “These simuniverses are the results of two independent teams; one composed of scientists, engineers, great minds, the other, an assortment of cats. Please note which team “produced” which simuniverse”

The second hypo: You hand a person one simuniverse and say “This simuniverse with atoms is the result of one of these two independent teams; one composed of scientists, engineers, great minds, the other, an assortment of cats. Please note which team “produced” this simuniverse”.

In both hypos, I agree that the human team is the likely origin of the simuniverse with atoms, not because the simuniverse contains atoms, like you seem to be suggesting, but because I know the capabilities of both teams. I know humans can interact quite well with tools made by humans, for humans, and have the capacity to design simulations, whereas cats can’t do any of those things.

This is how I see our situation: “I am in a universe that is the result of…. Well not sure.. not sure it is even a result.” This is where your hypothetical breaks down. In your hypo, you can conclusively tell the one looking at the resultant simuniverse that it is the result of either Team human or Team cat. This is not the case in our universe.
We have no idea what our universe is resultant from, or if it is a result at all.

So if these hypotheticals are your best reasoning for atoms being evidence for design/god, it falls short due to its inconsistency with the situation we are in.

[u/heelspider → u/OlClownDic]

Yes you did. Evidence doesn’t tend to make propositions true either. A proposition is either true or it is not. Evidence can simply support the truth of a proposition

Have you considered trying out for the Pedantic Olympics? I would love to hear what you thought this sack of nonsense contributed to anything. You for real, swear to whatever it is you swear to, you don't understand what the phrase "tends to make more likely" means? Next time I'm not reading the rest of the comment. This was clearly designed to do nothing but worsen the quality of the conversation.

In both hypos, I agree that the human team is the likely origin of the simuniverse with atoms, not because the simuniverse contains atoms, like you seem to be suggesting, but because I know the capabilities of both teams. I know humans can interact quite well with tools made by humans, for humans, and have the capacity to design simulations, whereas cats can’t do any of those things

Right. So you know one was designed, the other wasn't. That was very much the intent.

This is not the case in our universe. We have no idea what our universe is resultant from, or if it is a result at all.

Why is that a problem. If I have nine dishes by famous chefs and they all have x quality that not all dishes have, next time I see a dish with x quality I am justified in thinking it is more likely from a famous chef than the average dish.

You don't have to know what evidence indicates before you can consider evidence. That's nonsensical.

We know a lot of killers flee the scene so a suspect fleeing the scene is evidence. We don't have to know they are the killer beforehand. We are merely noting they have characteristics associated with killers.

Again, one more time. You don't have to know the answer prior to considering evidence.

[u/onomatamono → u/heelspider]

You need to add arbitrary references to "quantum" to your theistic argument. Sprinkle in concepts like "quantum entanglement" to give your statements more gravitas, whatever that means. /s

[u/upvote-button]

The flaw in this theory is that if the forces holding atoms together were anything other than that they are the big bang would have collapsed on itself and happened again. This may have happened a near infinite number of times to create the universe we're in. Atoms don't work the way they do because of any god. They work they way they do because it's the only possible way our universe would exist

[u/heelspider → u/upvote-button]

Atoms don't work the way they do because of any god.

Next sentence.

They work they way they do because it's the only possible way our universe would exist

I mean, come on. We ended up with the only possible way we could exist and that's to you less likely designed?

[u/upvote-button → u/heelspider]

Correct. Because the billions and billions of impossible configurations would have immediately collapsed on themselves with no one to observe them then giving the big bang another shot.

The probability of reality existing how it does is insanely low but it doesn't matter because the universe can just try again an infinite number of times until a stable configuration occurs. No designer necessary

[u/heelspider → u/upvote-button]

You have provided an alternative explanation for the evidence, but see part 1. Merely providing an alternative doesn't render evidence non-evidence. You need to provide support your alternative is a vastly superior explanation.

[u/upvote-button → u/heelspider]

I didn't say I proved this was true. My point was to disprove that your post is conclusive evidence which was your claim. This comment right here you just made us you admitting that your theory is not in fact evidence

[u/Ranorak → u/heelspider]

That's your take?!

It works, so obviously a sentient being somehow meticulously designed it, created it ex nihilo with undefinable skills and powers, who himself is not part of the universe.

Not only is that an insane leap of logic, but what created your creator?

[u/Ok_Ad_9188]

That's not evidence, that's just you saying something. To be evidence, it needs to be a piece of information that indicates a particular statement or explanation for a phenomenon to be true. But you haven't demonstrated anything about the thing you're claiming is responsible for atoms other than just stating that it seems like it to you. You could just as easily say that atoms exist is evidence that magical giraffes with broccoli for legs that create atoms must exist because there's atoms.

[u/heelspider → u/Ok_Ad_9188]

To be evidence, it needs to be a piece of information that indicates a particular statement or explanation for a phenomenon to be true

"Atoms exist".

But you haven't demonstrated anything about the thing you're claiming is responsible for atoms other than just stating that it seems like it to you. Y

Incorrect. I provided a hypothetical to show how that view is not just personal opinion.

You could just as easily say that atoms exist is evidence that magical giraffes with broccoli for legs that create atoms must exist because there's atoms

A rose by any other name is just as sweet. If you agree the universe is created, I don't give a rat's behind what words you use for that.

[u/DeltaBlues82 → u/heelspider]

If you agree the universe is created

When did the universe ever not-exist?

[u/heelspider → u/DeltaBlues82]

"When" is a question asking for a temporal answer. I obviously can't give you the time for something where there was no time. It's like asking me where was New York before the Earth was formed.

[u/DeltaBlues82 → u/heelspider]

Really? I have to reword a concept that you clearly already understand so that it perfectly expresses the concept you already understand?

Fine. Answer this then.

We know the universe can exist, but do we know that it cannot?

No. We don’t. The universe was never created. It’s always existed. There is no cause to speculate 1/ it can’t and that 2/ it can behave as you can imagine it. The infinity of possible outcomes is much larger than the infinity of bubble verses able to be created by inflation, thus, there are not infinite verses with infinite outcomes.

[u/Ok_Ad_9188 → u/heelspider]

"Atoms exist".

Yes, atoms do exist. That is a statement, and that atoms exist is very solid evidence that atoms exist. But you're trying to say why atoms exist. You're trying to introduce the fact that atoms exist as evidence for something, but there isn't anything connecting those two things.

Incorrect. I provided a hypothetical to show how that view is not just personal opinion.

That you were able to formulate a hypothetical about a claim you were making that you understand doesn't exclude the claim from being personal opinion. It's not an explanation for anything, it's a display of how thinking about it in this particular way helps it make sense to you.

If you agree the universe is created, I don't give a rat's behind what words you use for that.

But that's the problem, this argument tries to use the fact that something existing is evidence for something that created it existing, which is fine, and then immediately make the jump to that thing fitting some other descriptors of at least one of the many, many gods humans have worshipped. I'll grant that "since atoms exist, whatever creates atoms exists" is a true statement, but that doesn't tell you anything about what creates atoms other than that it creates atoms which is definitive. It could be some god, it could be aliens, it could be a magical giraffe with broccoli for legs, it could be random chance, it could be an inherent set of physical laws that we don't have the mental capabilities to describe, it could be me, you, or an infinite number of other things, and not one of them is more likely than another because the only descriptor you have is the one definitive.

[u/RexRatio]

Because a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed by a God than a universe without an atom, the atom is evidence that God exists.

That's as absurd as claiming:

"Because a universe with a chair is more likely to be designed by a carpenter than a universe without a chair, the chair is evidence that the carpenter deity exists."

"Because a forest with trees is more likely to be designed by a lumberjack than a forest without trees, the trees are evidence that the lumberjack deity exists."

"Because a book with pages is more likely to be written by an author than a book without pages, the pages are evidence that the papermaker deity exists."

"Because a car with wheels is more likely to be designed by an engineer than a car without wheels, the wheels are evidence that the engineer deity exists."

"Because a pizza with toppings is more likely to be made by a chef than a pizza without toppings, the toppings are evidence that the chef deity exists."

These claims are clearly absurd because they take an everyday object or phenomenon and use the same flawed reasoning to suggest it must point to a designer, regardless of natural explanations. The point is that the presence of things in the universe doesn't automatically prove intentional design—many features of the universe (including the dormation of atoms) can be explained through natural processes without invoking a creator.

[u/heelspider → u/RexRatio]

"Because a universe with a chair is more likely to be designed by a carpenter than a universe without a chair, the chair is evidence that the carpenter deity exists."

We are aware that carpenters don't have universe creating powers because they are human.

I could do this with all of them. If you can do it to mine, try that approach instead of this failed one.

[u/ODDESSY-Q → u/heelspider]

Need satisfactory evidence of the existence of god before you can assume something was designed by it.

We are aware that carpenters don’t have universe creating powers because they are human.

No no no, you’re jumping the gun! For this analogy to relate to yours we have to have no idea what a carpenter is or whether it exists. Some people just believe in the carpenter and have made assumptions about its properties and desires. Some people claim that a carpenter makes chairs. So when they see a chair they think:

“Because a universe with a chair is more likely to be designed by a carpenter than a universe without a chair, the chair is evidence that the carpenter exists.”

But they actually have nothing to link the chair to the carpenter other than their unsupported beliefs.

I hope you can relate this analogy to your original position and see the problem?

[u/heelspider → u/ODDESSY-Q]

Need satisfactory evidence of the existence of god before you can assume something was designed by it.

So my argument for evidence of God fails because I need to have evidence of God before I can have evidence of God?

No no no, you’re jumping the gun! For this analogy to relate to yours we have to have no idea what a carpenter is or whether it exists. Some people just believe in the carpenter and have made assumptions about its properties and desires. Some people claim that a carpenter makes chairs. So when they see a chair they think:

If a carpenter isn't a human who works on wood why did you use that word?

But they actually have nothing to link the chair to the carpenter other than their unsupported beliefs.

Carpenters are better at woodworking than most people. I don't think it's unsupported one might venture into making furniture.

hope you can relate this analogy to your original position and see the problem?

No, I understand your position even less unfortunately.

[u/ODDESSY-Q → u/heelspider]

So my argument for evidence of God fails because I need to have evidence of God before I can have evidence of God?

Sorry I made a mistake. If you were able to demonstrate that god designed atoms then it would necessarily include proof that god exists. However, you already believed that a god existed before you made this argument about atoms. What was the very first thing ever that made you switch from whatever you believed before your current belief, to your current belief? This question is off track and you don’t have to answer it but I’m curious.

If a carpenter isn’t a human who works on wood why did you use that word?

Because this is an analogy, do you know how they work? In an analogy you can change concepts to things that do not match with reality in order to make it analogous to the original argument. The original commenter mentioned the carpenter, I’m piggybacking off that analogy. Carpenter is analogous to god and chair is analogous to atom. In real life we have no idea what a god is or whether it exists. Therefore for this analogy to work we must pretend we have no idea what a carpenter is or whether they exist. Can you work in the abstract and imagine that? If yes, go back and read my previous comment with that in mind.

Carpenters are better at woodworking than most people. I don’t think it’s unsupported one might venture into making furniture.

Remember, in this analogy carpenters are an unknown and a chair is (as far as we know) naturally occurring… like the atom. So again, go back to my first comment with this in mind.

[u/heelspider → u/ODDESSY-Q]

What was the very first thing ever that made you switch from whatever you believed before your current belief, to your current belief? This question is off track and you don’t have to answer it but I’m curious.

There's no a Eureka moment but reading Moby Dick was probably as close to a pivotal moment as any. Please note I will expect you to be as open to saying your beliefs if you insist on asking about mine.

Because this is an analogy, do you know how they work? In an analogy you can change concepts to things that do not match with reality in order to make it analogous to the original argument. The original commenter mentioned the carpenter, I’m piggybacking off that analogy. Carpenter is analogous to god and chair is analogous to atom

Fair enough. But hopefully you can understand why I'm suspicious of considering a carpenter that I can't consider is a carpenter.

Carpenter is analogous to god and chair is analogous to atom

Right, you took away the aspects that make one a carpenter, gave them aspects that made them a God, and wanted me to say it was silly thing to say about a carpenter.

It's like proving boats don't float by considering an anvil except we don't know it's an anvil...holy crap you don't really think anvils float?!?!?

Hey if the world's smartest person got dumber and had instead took my exact personality, wouldn't you agree the world's smartest person would agree with me?

[u/ODDESSY-Q → u/heelspider]

There’s no a Eureka moment but reading Moby Dick was probably as close to a pivotal moment as any.

Hmm I’ve never read that.

Please note I will expect you to be as open to saying your beliefs if you insist on asking about mine.

Sure.

Fair enough. But hopefully you can understand why I’m suspicious of considering a carpenter that I can’t consider is a carpenter.

You’re suspicious by not being able to consider a carpenter is a carpenter because we have lots of examples of carpenters doing carpenter things. We don’t have any examples of god doing god things, you just assume a god and consider all things created by god. Your beliefs are analogous to finding a pine cone and saying it’s evidence of a carpenter/wood worker.

[u/heelspider → u/ODDESSY-Q]

People keep accusing me of assuming God but no one can quote the passage of the OP where I commit that error.

Let's say there is no prior assumption either way on God's existence. Why does that stipulation cause the OP to fail in your opinion?

[u/Visible_Ticket_3313 → u/heelspider]

So you're just defining God as the one who creates atoms.

Why not just define yourself as right and save us all the time?

[u/LukXD99]

“Consider Plants. They seem to exist solely to provide food and oxygen for other animals. If we consider a planet without plants, the former appears much more likely than the latter”

This claim can be made about anything that is needed for something else to exist. Truth is, no, it’s not designed. But we simply wouldn’t be around to witness a universe where the laws of nature don’t allow for complex life to exist.

Going back to the plants example, plants are green because they use chlorophyll for photosynthesis. Now what seems more likely? That plants evolved to be green because it’s the best color for photosynthesis using the light from our sun, or that the sun was created specifically to feed plants who were already green to begin with?

[u/MagicMusicMan0]

Part 2 - The atom is evidence of God.

Consider the strong atomic force, for example. This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible. 

Yes, atoms exists due to the strong nuclear force. Molecules exist because of electromagnetism.  Planets exist because of gravity. Every attractive force is going aggregate to aggregate matter to be a certain size. It seems like you're saying the atom had to exist in its exact state in order for life to exist. Which I don't buy. If the atom was bigger or smaller, everything else would just be bigger or smaller in relation.

If we considered a universe with atoms and a universe without any such thing, the former appears more likely designed than the latter.

It's extremely likely if not inevitable to have a universe with some sort of atom. Whatever is the strongest, most local force is going to aggregate material without interference from the weaker forces. Whatever size that is becomes the atom.

Consider if we had a supercomputer which allowed users to completely design rules of a hypothetical universe from scratch. Now we draft two teams, one is a thousand of humanity's greatest thinkers, scientists, and engineers, and the other is a team of a thousand cats which presumably will walk on the keyboards on occasion.

I think this post just clarified for me the hang up religious folks have when they refer to random process. You all feel there's some code that needs to be solved. The universe doesn't need to be interpreted and compiled from a code. It just exists and shit happens. The simple stuff is mostly uniform. As more components are compiled and interact with other ot creates structures that are more and more unique. And then eventually a self-replicating structure can emerge. And that's life.

[u/Chocodrinker]

An awful lot of your 'argument' seems to be based on 'it appears to me that X, so it must be so'. And regarding design, design usually is considered when a purpose is involved, so you can't just say something looks designed because it's more complex or that it isn't because it's too simple. For instance, if I were an extremely oversized extra dimensional alien and I wanted to vacuum seal something, maybe an empty universe is what I'd need and I'd have it... Designed. Yeah, it's stupid but not more than fine tuning arguments are.

I'm sorry, but you don't really have anything worth considering here.

[u/smbell]

In order to make the proposition more likely, you have to have some reason to think a god would create atoms. You need to know it's even possible for a god to exist and create atoms. That atoms are more often created by gods than naturally occurring.

You don't have any of that. All you have is a raw assertion. That is not evidence.

I can just as validly say the existence of atoms is evidence against the universe being created by a god. Gods don't need atoms to create. Gods don't need to rely on natural forces for their creations. Gods are not limited by such things. So the fact that we exist in a universe governed by natural forces is evidence it is a naturally existing universe.

That is just as valid is your assertion.

[u/heelspider → u/smbell]

some reason to think a god would create atoms. You need to know it's even possible

This is one of this subs worst arguments and I see it all the time. No you do not have to prove something possible before providing evidence of it. That is just a rule atheists made up.

If you prove something impossible then it no longer is evidence. You have it backwards.

How could one possibly prove God possible if evidence isn't allowed before proving God possible? You've just made up a nonsensical catch-22.

There are no preliminary goalposts to considering evidence.

[u/Paleone123 → u/heelspider]

Your actual problem is that atoms existing isn't evidence. It's a fact. In order for a fact to become evidence, it needs to be support for a candidate explanation.

You propose a candidate explanation, and see if the fact supports it. Then you propose a different candidate explanation and see if the fact supports that. Again. Again. Again.

In this case, your fact could support an infinite number of possible explanations. So how do we tell which one is right? Well, we need to compare those candidate explanations using some other method. Since we can't actually use your fact to narrow down the field of explanations, it's not evidence.

There's a way out of this though. All you have to do is propose a candidate explanation we can agree really exists. Unfortunately, a creator isn't in this category. We can't assign a higher probability to "a creator" than we can "not a creator".

This is what people are talking about when they say you need to prove a god exists before you can apply evidence to it in this way.

[u/heelspider → u/Paleone123]

In this case, your fact could support an infinite number of possible explanations

1) It was designed 2) It was luck 3) Many worlds theory

I got three. How did you get infinity?

All you have to do is propose a candidate explanation we can agree really exists

We agree on something prior to determining evidence? That's backwards.

This is what people are talking about when they say you need to prove a god exists before you can apply evidence to it in this way.

It doesn't make any sense. You prove things before evidence? What do you prove it with then and what good does evidence do you?

Should courts rule someone guilty before the trial?

[u/Paleone123 → u/heelspider]

1) It was designed

This is an infinite number of possibilities right here. Infinite possible creators, both intentionally and unintentionally.

2) It was luck

This isn't a thing. Either it was the result of some natural process or not. That has nothing to do with luck. We have no way of calculating a probability that it could happen by natural means because we have an insufficient understanding of what physics might be involved. There could be an infinite number of possible physical processes that might result in a universe with atoms.

3) Many worlds theory

If this is correct, then there are literally an infinite number of universes with whatever features you want, including atoms.

That's three entire categories of infinite possibilities.

We agree on something prior to determining evidence? That's backwards.

We agree on a possibility we want to test. We don't agree it's correct. We have to agree it's a real possibility, though.

Should courts rule someone guilty before the trial?

No, but before they have a trial, they have to agree it was a crime, not an accident or natural occurrence. Once they determine it's a crime, they have to select a suspect. Only then can they determine if the facts they have actually support that specific suspect of being guilty of that specific crime.

Having the fact that "a person was injured" is sort of like your atom example. We don't know how they got injured or who (if anyone) was involved or what level of responsibility they have. The fact that they got injured tells us nothing by itself.

[u/smbell → u/heelspider]

This is one of this subs worst arguments and I see it all the time. No you do not have to prove something possible before providing evidence of it. That is just a rule atheists made up.

Let's ignore that then. Let's say we don't need to show a god is possible.

The rest of my argument still stands. You have to standing to say the existence of atoms makes a god more likely.

[u/SectorVector]

I'm willing to concede it's roughly as powerful evidence as ice cream in my fridge is for the ice cream goblin.

1.There is ice cream in my fridge.

1. I do not buy ice cream.

2. Ice cream in my fridge is extremely likely if goblinism is true (the theory that there exists a magical goblin putting ice cream in specifically my fridge)

3. Ice cream in my fridge is evidence in favor of goblinism.

[u/BedOtherwise2289 → u/SectorVector]

they prefer to be called kelpie, racist!

[u/SamuraiGoblin]

What is God made of? What kind of metabolism does he have? He must have something akin to neurones that store/propagate/process information, and he must have manipulators with which to create and implement and materialise his designs. What are they like? He may exist in ten, or twenty-seven, or a billion dimensional space, but whatever there is there, he must be comprised of 'stuff' and there must be energy flow and change. So where did that stuff come from?

Is it evidence of an uber-deity?

Also, what process formed God in the first place? What unfathomable forces created a deity that is capable of creating a universe, filling it with life, and storing in its unfathomably vast mind the state of every particle for all time? Theists assert that a simple self-replicating strand of RNA is too improbable to have formed naturally, so they posit the existence of an infinitely complex entity to explain it.

That's the problem of trying to explain the existence of something by positing something far far far far more complex than the thing you are trying to explain.

The likelihood of atoms existing is infinitely greater than the likelihood of a deity.

[u/heelspider → u/SamuraiGoblin]

What is God made of? What kind of metabolism does he have? He must have something akin to neurones that store/propagate/process information, and he must have manipulators with which to create and implement and materialise his designs. What are they like? He may exist in ten, or twenty-seven, or a billion dimensional space, but whatever there is there, he must be comprised of 'stuff' and there must be energy flow and change. So where did that stuff come from?

I fail to see the relevancy of any of these questions.

Is it evidence of an uber-deity?

No, I do not think questions alone constitute evidence. I believe I defined evidence as "facts" in the OP didn't i?

The likelihood of atoms existing is infinitely greater than the likelihood of a deity

Well the likelihood of atoms existing is nearly 100% so that's not saying much.

[u/Vossenoren → u/heelspider]

No, I do not think questions alone constitute evidence. I believe I defined evidence as "facts" in the OP didn't i?

You did not, actually. I mean, you did use the word fact, if we want to be literal, but your definition of evidence, which I'll quote below, is basically "any claim, regardless of whether it's likely or not, backed by anything or not, or of any value, as long as it could remotely explain or help to explain something is evidence"

Evidence is any fact which tends to make a proposition more likely true. Evidence does not need to constitute proof itself. It doesn't not need to be completely reliable to be evidence. An alternative explanation for the evidence does not necessarily render it non-evidence. Only if those listed problems are in extreme is it rendered non-evidence (for example, if we know the proposition is false for other reasons, the source is completely unreliable, the alternative explanation is clearly preferred, etc.)

For example, let's say Ace claims Zed was seen fleeing a crime scene. This is a very traditional example of evidence. Yet, not everyone fleeing crime scene is necessarily guilty, eye witnesses can be wrong, and there could be other reasons to flee a crime scene. Evidence doesn't have to be proof, it doesn't have to be perfectly reliable, and it can potentially have other explanations and still be evidence.

[u/heelspider → u/Vossenoren]

False. Read this part again.

Only if those listed problems are in extreme is it rendered non-evidence (for example, if we know the proposition is false for other reasons, the source is completely unreliable, the alternative explanation is clearly preferred, etc

[u/SamuraiGoblin → u/heelspider]

"I fail to see the relevancy of any of these questions."

LOL, doesn't surprise me

[u/DeltaBlues82]

Because a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed by a God than a universe without an atom, the atom is evidence that God exists.

To say this you need to know what a universe without an atom looks like. How it behaves, what its properties and constants are, etc… Have you done that? Studied other universes like this?

No? No you haven’t at all?

So this is all based exclusively on the personal speculation of just another ordinary, semi-intelligent ape? And has no foundation in scientific methodology? It’s just like… Your opinion man?

Cool story.

[u/zzmej1987]

Part 1 - What is evidence?

Evidence is any fact which tends to make a proposition more likely true.

Not quite. Evidence is any observation, conditioning on which makes proposition more likely to be true than conditioning on the opposite observation.

In case of atoms we have P(G|A) is the probability of God given that we observe atoms to exist and P(G|~A) probability that God exists given that we - atom based life observe atoms not to exist. The latter situation makes our existence supernatural and thus requiring God to sustain its existence by his grace, which makes P(G|~A)=1, while the former allows for life to exist naturally and this be not created by God. Which means P(G|A) < 1. And that makes existence of atoms to be evidence against Gods existence.

[u/heelspider → u/zzmej1987]

You lost me at the need for supernatural.

[u/zzmej1987 → u/heelspider]

Think about it like a form of argument from a soul. Consciousness exists and violates fundamental laws of physics (behavior of the conscious body violates determinism, i.e. we have free will). This nessecitates introduction of the supernatural entity - soul which allows and explains such a violation.

[u/heelspider → u/zzmej1987]

I don't think consciousness violates physics but regardless the OP doesn't discuss souls.

[u/zzmej1987 → u/heelspider]

I don't think consciousness violates physics

That's a common theistic argument. It doesn't matter whether you use it or not. Read it, and extend it's logic to other forms of violations of physical laws.

but regardless the OP doesn't discuss souls.

Yes. And that's exactly the mistake.

[u/heelspider → u/zzmej1987]

Look if you are going to say something cryptic from left field, please try to explain yourself without me having to ask. It will save everyone time.

[u/zzmej1987 → u/heelspider]

Eli5 version: Life being natural is predicted by atheism, not theism. Saying that life being natural has low probability just makes prediction more precise.

[u/heelspider → u/zzmej1987]

Theist do not hold that life is unnatural as a requirement of theism. I don't think I've ever heard a theist say that.

[u/zzmej1987 → u/heelspider]

Argument from irreducible complexity and watchmaker argument assert exactly that. But even without considering those, theism, at best, does not make any commitment on the topic, while atheism strongly predicts naturality of the world order, regardless of how unlikely said naturality may be.

[u/heelspider → u/zzmej1987]

It would be helpful if you could cite a proponent of those things saying life is unnatural because I remain skeptical anyone is saying that.

[u/General_Classroom164]

"Atoms exist."

Okay, we're on the same page.

"BECAUSE OF MAGIC!"

Right, you lost me there Gandalf.

[u/Hoaxshmoax]

“a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed by a God”

or universe farting pixies.

“Yet, not everyone fleeing crime scene is necessarily guilty, eye witnesses can be wrong, and there could be other reasons to flee a crime scene. Evidence doesn't have to be proof, it doesn't have to be perfectly reliable, and it can potentially have other explanations and still be evidence.”

This is why eyewitness testimony must be accompanied by actual evidence.

“If we considered a universe with atoms and a universe without any such thing, the former appears more likely designed than the latter.”

Do you have another universe without atoms? If not, we are supposed to go along with what it looks like to you?

”Now we come back a year later and look at the two universes. One universe has substantial bodies similar to matter, and the other is gibberish with nothing happening in it.”

Unless you have another universe, do you intend for us to go along with whatever is in your head?

[u/flying_fox86 → u/Hoaxshmoax]

This is why eyewitness testimony must be accompanied by actual evidence.

It may be one of the weakest forms of evidence, but eyewitness testimony is definitely actual evidence.

[u/Vossenoren → u/flying_fox86]

It's been shown to be so incredibly unreliable that there are a large number of people who don't think it should be counted as evidence.

[u/tipoima]

There is only one Universe, and as a whole it doesn't look designed for human (or any) life at all.
You can't say that having one set of laws of physics is more likely than any other, because we've never seen any other.

Besides, current consensus is that we probably live in a false vacuum, so atoms existing may just be a temporary thing.

[u/shiftysquid]

Consider the strong atomic force, for example. This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible.

It's the opposite. Atoms exist because that force exists. There's no reason atoms had to exist at all, and they wouldn't if the conditions weren't right for them to do so. This is not evidence of "design."

[u/Antimutt]

To regard the atom as designed and not natural, you need to point out some aspect that is arbitrary. This because Nature is that which is not arbitrary.

To offer God as a hypothesis, you need to describe it. You have only offered the label "God", with the implicit suggestion a definition can be found somewhere else - just not here.

[u/heelspider → u/Antimutt]

What? Arbitrary features tend to make something seem less designed, not more.

You have only offered the label "God", with the implicit suggestion a definition can be found somewhere else - just not here

For the purposes of this OP, any universal designer is suffice.

[u/Antimutt → u/heelspider]

Arbitrary features cannot be explained by natural consequence. They reveal and require the intent of a designer.

Is there a universal designer concept that can avoid discarding the default definition of Universe - all that exists? I know of none, so ask you what you mean by Universe.

[u/MajesticFxxkingEagle]

In a very weak and technical sense, yes. Quite literally any and everything, including atoms, can be evidence for God.

Finding an atom slightly increases the probability that an atom-desiring God exists. It also increases the probability that an atom-desiring unicorn exists. It also increases the probability that there’s a Cartesian demon implanted false memories of atoms in our minds last Thursday. It also increases the probability that subatomic fairy atom factories exist. And on and on ad infinitum.

This is called the problem of underdetermination: quite literally all of the data we see is compatible with infinitely many hypotheses. Anyone can make up an ad hoc story to explain the stuff we already see. Stipulating that a being exists with fine tuned desires and infinite power isn’t the slam dunk you think it is.

Instead, what’s impressive in science is being able to make novel testable predictions and get them right before everyone else.

As an example: making a theory based on “Sun will rise tomorrow” is bad because it’s something we already know in our background data, and it can be made consistent with whatever silly story you make up. On the other hand, Einstein making precise predictions about new things called gravitational waves and then being proven right a century later is very impressive evidence.

[u/heelspider → u/MajesticFxxkingEagle]

It also increases the probability that an atom-desiring unicorn exists. It also increases the probability that there’s a Cartesian demon implanted false memories of atoms in our minds last Thursday.

But here the incredible part has nothing to do with the atom. Unicorns and demons don't exist, so you just tacking on atoms is not the substantive factor.

On the other hand, Einstein making precise predictions about new things called gravitational waves and then being proven right a century later is very impressive evidence.

Am I supposed to disagree with this or think it undermines anything I've said?

[u/MajesticFxxkingEagle → u/heelspider]

But here the incredible part has nothing to do with the atom.

One thing at a time.

I’m isolating the part of your post where you claim the atom is evidence for God.

What I’m showing is that you’re technically correct, but in a way that is unimpressive and applicable to infinitely many hypotheses, no matter how ridiculous. Something existing, like an atom, does indeed raise the probability of a proposition being true if the proposition in question is stipulated to be able to explain that thing.

Unicorns and demons don’t exist, so you just tacking on atoms is not the substantive factor.

Yes, I added on “atom-desiring” post hoc to highlight the absurdity. I agree it’s a bad explanation.

Yet it’s still true that an atom existing rather than not raises the probability of those made up ideas being true.

Also, you’re stating that unicorns and demons don’t exist because of your background a posteriori knowledge. In other words, you already have independent defeaters and inductive/abductive reasons to believe that these things are fictional. However, if you take that away and isolate just the existence of the atom, then that raises the probability of God equally as much as any other hypothesis that isn’t contradicted by atoms—supernatural or not, agential or not, ad hoc or not.

Am I supposed to disagree with this or think it undermines anything I’ve said?

My point was that something like making novel testable predictions, like what Einstein did, is what would count as meaningful evidence for a hypothesis. Simply making something up and stipulating it as the EverythingExplainer^TM Does not automatically transform mundane observations into meaningful evidence that favors your view over competing views.

[u/heelspider → u/MajesticFxxkingEagle]

What I’m showing is that you’re technically correct, but in a way that is unimpressive and applicable to infinitely many hypotheses, no matter how ridiculous. Something existing, like an atom, does indeed raise the probability of a proposition being true if the proposition in question is stipulated to be able to explain that thing.

The latter hypothetical in the OP intends to demonstrate in the case being argued, this is not a mere triviality. That an atom considerably more likely to be from design than an atomless alternative.

Also, you’re stating that unicorns and demons don’t exist because of your background a posteriori knowledge. In other words, you already have independent defeaters and inductive/abductive reasons to believe that these things are fictional. However, if you take that away and isolate just the existence of the atom, then that raises the probability of God equally as much as any other hypothesis that isn’t contradicted by atoms—supernatural or not, agential or not, ad hoc or not.

You can't have it both ways. You handpicked unicorn and demon because you knew it was a posteriori absurd.

The point here is an atom technically is evidence for an atom desiring unicorn, but only the atom desiring part when the unicorn part is what people are interested in. It's not evidence of unicorns or demons, it's evidence that things which do exist are more likely to have a specific relationship to it.

My point was that something like making novel testable predictions, like what Einstein did, is what would count as meaningful evidence for a hypothesis

The question of God is likely not testable either pro or con so we have to use other methods.

Simply making something up and stipulating it as the EverythingExplainer^TM Does not automatically transform mundane observations into meaningful evidence that favors your view over competing views

If my view is that the EverythingExplainer^TM is real, then yes it does. Why wouldn't it?

[u/JCCoolbreeze77]

Are you talking about Zeus, Jupiter, or one of the 18,000 other gods humans have worshipped.

Why Do Humans Keep Inventing Gods to Worship? | Psychology Today

"How thoughtful of god to arrange matters so that wherever you happen to be born, the local religion turns out to be the true one." -Richard Dawkins

[u/heelspider → u/JCCoolbreeze77]

Does it matter? Aren't you an atheist for all of them?

[u/JCCoolbreeze77 → u/heelspider]

And aren't you a theist for all of them?

[u/heelspider → u/JCCoolbreeze77]

Roughly maybe. But that makes asking me to distinguish even less relevant.

[u/JCCoolbreeze77 → u/heelspider]

Who is the author of confusion?

[u/Purgii]

Consider the strong atomic force, for example. This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible. If we considered a universe with atoms and a universe without any such thing, the former appears more likely designed than the latter. Thus, the atom is evidence of design.

Why would an omnipotent, omniscient God need to design a universe that contained atoms? Is God constrained in how it creates things?

[u/heelspider → u/Purgii]

I didn't say God needed to do anything.

[u/Purgii → u/heelspider]

Then how are you using it as evidence God exists?!

[u/heelspider → u/Purgii]

Read the OP. I make an entire argument without saying God needed to do anything.

[u/Purgii → u/heelspider]

I'm not seeing an argument for how the atom is plainly evidence for God, let alone objective evidence for God. Hence my follow-up question. If that's the best you've got, it's no wonder I'm an atheist.

[u/heelspider → u/Purgii]

Well I laid it out in plain English.

[u/Purgii → u/heelspider]

Is it not your first language?

[u/heelspider → u/Purgii]

It is. And I laid my argument out plainly so that any English reader should be able to comprehend. Perhaps it would be fruitful for you to articulate which portion(s) specifically that the language was beyond your comfortable levels and I will try to use simpler words for that part?

[u/Purgii → u/heelspider]

Oh.

Well, you'd have to articulate all of it, into another argument, one that actually establishes what it is you're claiming.

[u/SeventhDayWasted]

This argument just boils down to; we exist, there must be a god. If atoms didn't exist, nothing would exist and you wouldn't be here to ponder these questions. Atoms are evidence of a structure stable enough to lead to matter.

The god part is unrelated and just being thrown in as a possible explanation without any correlating reason as to why that must be the answer, or even a candidate answer. To prove that a god is the only way for an atom to exist, you need to look at a universe with a god that created atoms and a universe without a god or atoms, at the bare minimum, to even begin to hypothesize about a god being the cause of atoms.

"There are atoms; maybe this is why" isn't evidence. It's conjecture.

[u/Venit_Exitium]

   *This post is in response to people who claim there is no evidence of God.*

There is evidence for god, belief in god is evidence for god, pretty much everything can be evidence for anything its more wether its good evidence.

      *Because a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed by a God than a universe without an atom, the atom is evidence that God exists.*

How many universes did you compare to figure this out? How many atoms made by gods and not made by gods?

 *Part 1 - What is evidence*

Everything said here is mostly fine, no comments

   *Part 2 - The atom is evidence of God.

Consider the strong atomic force, for example. This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible.*

Things cannot exist without boundries, for something to be, not be something else, there must be either structure, rules, systems, math, something that allows a thing to either be or not be something else. Is the strong nuclear force made for atoms to exist or are atoms a consequence of the strong nuclear force existing. If i describe any number of a infinite list of math equations, every single one of them as a shape, was the equation made to describe the shape, or is the shape the consequence of the math existing?

  *If we considered a universe with atoms and a universe without any such thing, the former appears more likely designed than the latter. Thus, the atom is evidence of design.*

The only way for designed things to exist is for things to exist in the first place, if i dont exist, then i cannot design sonething, only by thibgs existing can there be things designed. ie a universe that has stuff is deffinitionally more likly designed the one that has nothing because it exists, the first requirement of design. Also nothing vs something, something exists so in the theme of design is more likely designed than nothing because you cannot design nothing. But how do you show that our universe is in fact more likely designed than not? How many non-designed universes did you compare ours too? How many designed ones?

This gets into the fine tuning arguement and its failings, how do we tell the difference between something that cannot vary and one that is designed to be such a way? Gravity has an equation, is it deisgned to be this way or is it not free to vary? Unless we fine a way to answer this then there is no way to tell wether this is more or less likly designed.

     *Consider if we had a supercomputer which allowed users to completely design rules of a hypothetical universe from scratch. Now we draft two teams, one is a thousand of humanity's greatest thinkers, scientists, and engineers, and the other is a team of a thousand cats which presumably will walk on the keyboards on occasion.*

Im unsure the cats would even give back something that is comprehensible as a universe. But heres a question what about the cats have an infinite number of tries? Do we know the parameters of our universes creation? What if the cats could only take steps that led to our universe?

      *Now we come back a year later and look at the two universes. One universe has substantial bodies similar to matter,  and the other is gibberish with nothing happening in it. I contend that anyone could guess correctly which one was made by the engineers and which one the cats. Thus, we see a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed than one without it.

    Thus the atom is objectively evidence of God.*

I mean yeah gibberish vs designed thing, the thing designed will appaer designed, now have the humans make gibberish along with cats making gibberish, which one is designed? This doesnt even touch the most important thing, show what universe you are comparing ours too to nake this conparison valid? We only have one option, what can vary? what cant vary? If it can vary by how much, how many attempts were there? How many universes?

What you are saying is evidence for god anyone who says otherwise doesnt understand what evidence is. However it is flawed fundementally and leads us no closer to actually knowing anything.

[u/heelspider → u/Venit_Exitium]

Things cannot exist without boundries

The atmosphere. The universe potentially. The justice system. Communism. The set of all real numbers. Need I continue?

. But how do you show that our universe is in fact more likely designed than not

That isn't necessary for there to be some evidence.

But heres a question what about the cats have an infinite number of tries? Do we know the parameters of our universes creation? What if the cats could only take steps that led to our universe?

I can acknowledge "many worlds" to be an alternative explanation and it still be evidence of a designer. See part 1.

[u/Venit_Exitium → u/heelspider]

Sorry boundries is a bad word, i am unsure of the best word so I'll go with set conditions. A cube with no defining area cannot exist because cubes are shapes with some amount of area, to have no defining area is to not exist or to be everything that could be defined as a cube. This is true for everything ny existance is a very very very long list of conditions that define my size energy structure chemicals the like, these are why I am not you and why you are not me, but these also make you not a table, and a table not the universe. To be a thing you must first restrict down from everything to something. The strong nuclear force and the atom.

Whats the point of using the atom as evidence when belief in god is stronger evidence than the atom. You seem to imply that your only point is that there is infact evidence for god, yet choose an example that not only is worse than other options but is built on faulty logic if used for literally everything else. It may be evidence, its however bad evidence.

[u/Zamboniman]

The Atom is Very Plainly Evidence of God

Sorry, but I see no way the atom can be considered evidence for deities. I can't accept that statement, because there's no connection there.

Because a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed by a God than a universe without an atom, the atom is evidence that God exists.

Completely unsupported, and wildly problematic, statement. One I find I cannot accept at all.

Evidence is any fact which tends to make a proposition more likely true.

Right. Even ignoring the wide chasm between 'lousy, circumstantial, problematic evidence' (which doesn't lend useful support towards a claim) and 'good, useful, compelling evidence' (which does lend useful support to a claim), you haven't done that.

An alternative explanation for the evidence does not necessarily render it non-evidence.

Right, but it results in that evidence not being useful in showing a conclusion is accurate. Thanks for the lesson, but I'm already well aware of the problematic nature of the word 'evidence' and how it can be and often is used for both things that do, and things that don't, usefully support a claim, leading to no end of equivocation and confusion.

The atom is evidence of God.

You said that. It isn't in any way useful evidence for deities. So dismissed.

This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible.

The thinking error behind this is that you have it backwards. You are starting with an unsupported and nonsensical assumption that atoms were some kind of intentional goal that somebody wanted to be possible. Instead, you have it backwards. Atoms are simply a result of how the universe operates. In order for what you are saying to be useful, you must rule that out. You haven't, and can't.

If we considered a universe with atoms and a universe without any such thing, the former appears more likely designed than the latter.

No, it doesn't. Your thinking error makes it appear this way to you, but as it is erroneous thinking, this isn't true.

Consider if we had a supercomputer which allowed users to completely design rules of a hypothetical universe from scratch. Now we draft two teams, one is a thousand of humanity's greatest thinkers, scientists, and engineers, and the other is a team of a thousand cats which presumably will walk on the keyboards on occasion.

Now we come back a year later and look at the two universes. One universe has substantial bodies similar to matter, and the other is gibberish with nothing happening in it. I contend that anyone could guess correctly which one was made by the engineers and which one the cats. Thus, we see a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed than one without it.

Again, you proceed with unsupported and problematic assumptions, leading you to an analogy that fails to apply since you have utterly ignored other possibilities.

Thus the atom is objectively evidence of God.

This statement is incorrect.

[u/dperry324]

The only possible conclusion to your argument is that atoms ARE God. Is that what you want? Because that's how you destroy the image of god that you hold in your imagination.

[u/heelspider → u/dperry324]

How did you reach that conclusion?

[u/dperry324 → u/heelspider]

The same way you reached yours.

[u/heelspider → u/dperry324]

Please explain.

[u/dperry324 → u/heelspider]

It's really quite simple. Explain how you reached your conclusion, then apply that to how I reached mine.

[u/rustyseapants]

This is the wrong subreddit

Goto

• /r/DebateEvolution
• /r/DebateAbiogenesis
• /r/bigbangtheory

You are making an argument:

1. From Ignorance
2. Gish Gallop

[u/DBCrumpets]

I can also imagine a psychic bear who can shoot lasers from his eyes, that doesn’t make it plausible or worth seriously considering. We have no reason whatsoever to believe that different laws of physics are even possible, this is just magical thinking.

[u/Haikouden]

Part 1 - I can agree with this.

Part 2 - I agree, but also it’s kind of useless/it’s not very good or strong evidence.

You seem to be somewhat presupposing/showing heavy bias in your description of the strong atomic force, specifically the part where you’re describing it as having some kind of purpose for its existence.

As for designed vs not designed, this is very much a matter relevant to the Douglas Adams puddle quote.

“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’”

We associate order with design because that’s how we design things, generally speaking. A hypothetical designer, if we aren’t applying that presumption to them, might not see things the same way.

And then on the flip side, again generally speaking efficiency and simplicity are design traits that we use. If we’re presupposing that God designs things the way we do then why is the universe so bloated? Why is so much wasted? Why is there no clear purpose to it?

Atoms are evidence that God is a cosmic scientist, and black holes chewing up and spitting out bits of solar systems is evidence of a cosmic cat deity.

Neither are particularly good, useful, or strong pieces of evidence in my view. They’re about on par with someone telling me they saw God while high on DMT.

[u/heelspider → u/Haikouden]

The reason I included part 1 was to neutralize stuff like the puddle argument. I csn agree that multiple worlds is a possible alternative explanation without it harming the OP, as I have already pointed out that alternative explanations don't render something non-evidence. In order for it to make the atom extremely weak evidence to the point it was inconsequential, you would have to prove many worlds to be substantially more likely than God, which I don't think can be done.

[u/Haikouden → u/heelspider]

Right, but that’s not my argument. I brought up the puddle quote because of its relevance to arguments about design not because it’s the basis of my argument.

I don’t think I brought up multiple worlds anywhere in my comment, so I’m really not sure why you mentioned that. I guess it’s at least related to the puddle even if it’s not related to my argument.

I’m also confused why you’re bringing up a defence to rendering things as non evidence, as I agree that your conclusion is correct, but disagree on how meaningful that is.

You’ve again brought up many worlds which again has nothing to do with my argument.

Did you actually read my comment before responding? Because you’ve presented far stronger evidence for not having done so than your presented evidence for God.

You’ve responded to absolutely nothing in my argument.

[u/Biggleswort]

Consider the strong atomic force, for example. This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible. If we considered a universe with atoms and a universe without any such thing, the former appears more likely designed than the latter. Thus, the atom is evidence of design.

I don’t see how you have a qualifier to say it is more likely. In your analogy you assume a design. Often to make an accurate statement of likelihood you need a comparison. Your analogy basically goes a rational being creates object we can see a rational order to. A being that doesn’t demonstrate rational thinking (car) could not create a rational ordered object. At best your analogy says if there is a creator it is most likely rational. Your analogy fails to show a no creator scenario.

I’ll agree a thousand humans are more likely going to be able to create watch than a thousand cats. Where is the leap to ta da I proved the universe is most likely created? Order doesn’t imply the likely hood of intelligent intervention. You have failed to even meet your standard of definition of evidence.

[u/BogMod]

Consider the strong atomic force, for example. This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible.

I disagree it seems to exist for that reason though. It does exist and for that reason but I am not willing to ascribe intent and purpose to it so quickly. In fact this is basically asserting that any kind of structure only can happen and is only likely to happen if there is intent and design behind it.

Now we come back a year later and look at the two universes. One universe has substantial bodies similar to matter, and the other is gibberish with nothing happening in it.

That humanity copied how they understood things to work doesn't mean it was designed. It makes sense they would invent a universe similar to our own. There is also here an unspoken premise that all this stuff could have been different. That it could have been gibberish. A claim I see no reason to accept either.

[u/heelspider → u/BogMod]

I disagree it seems to exist for that reason though. It does exist and for that reason but I am not willing to ascribe intent and purpose to it so quickly. In fact this is basically asserting that any kind of structure only can happen and is only likely to happen if there is intent and design behind it.

Question, if I had stated directly that the force was created with intent, how would your answer be different? I feel like you just ignored the word "seems."

There is also here an unspoken premise that all this stuff could have been different. That it could have been gibberish. A claim I see no reason to accept either.

This is empty. We can consider what if humans had only one leg and conclude two is better without showing it could have been possible. As human beings we are blessed with the ability to consider abstractions and not just real life things.

[u/BogMod → u/heelspider]

I feel like you just ignored the word "seems."

I directly addressed it. It does exist and that is what it does but I wouldn't just ascribe intent to it without reason. Or would you prefer that I just said that it 'seems' to me to not exist for a purpose and now both our claims are on equal footing?

As human beings we are blessed with the ability to consider abstractions and not just real life things.

My ability to imagine something doesn't mean it is actually possible. For any event I can imagine any magical explanation behind it. None of which makes it more likely or even possible. Your idea about us thinking about humans with one leg is a false analogy as we are working within the bounds and rules of how we understand physics and biology to work. We know there is variation already in life. It is working within established systems. That the systems themselves could be different? We don't know that and possibility must be demonstrated instead of assumed.

[u/heelspider → u/BogMod]

You don't have to ascribe to a theory to understand how it could come across. I understand how the answer to the Monty Hall question seems wrong, for example.

Like you swear to me you absolutely do not understand how someone could look at this force that holds subatomic particles together and apparently nothing else and think holding particles together was the purpose of the force? You seriously just cannot comprehend how it might look that way to people?

That the systems themselves could be different? We don't know that and possibility must be demonstrated instead of assumed

Do you have support for this bold statement? I say possibility is nonsensical and does not have to be considered in the slightest.

[u/BogMod → u/heelspider]

You seriously just cannot comprehend how it might look that way to people?

There is a difference between 'it seems' and 'it seems to me' that has been missed here. Of course I can comprehend how some people would find it looks that way. That doesn't mean it 'seems' like that to me, or that it is even a proper piece of evidence indicative of some position.

Do you have support for this bold statement? I say possibility is nonsensical and does not have to be considered in the slightest.

Okay? I think we might just be on two very different perspectives and some vital piece of understanding on what we are trying to convey is getting missed here.

[u/heelspider → u/BogMod]

But the OP doesn't say "seems to you", and I agree, I see no reason why abstractions have to be "possible" and think that word in fact is worthless jibberish in cosmological discussions.

Basically any time an atheist has no leg to stand on they can blurt "prove it's possible" knowing there is no criteria to meet that question which isn't even a meaningful thing to ask.

[u/Decent_Cow]

If this was the case, then God would be incorporated into school physics lessons. But he's not, so obviously this is not clear to most people.

[u/RidesThe7]

Question for you—is there any sort of universe you could see that you would not consider evidence for “a god exists, and wanted things to be this way”?

[u/heelspider → u/RidesThe7]

Yeah one analogous to the cats or to static on tv.

[u/RidesThe7 → u/heelspider]

Those wouldn’t be more likely to exist if a god wanted them that way? Given that we know there is another way reality can be, they wouldn’t be made more likely to be seen if there was such a god? Edit: I’ll note than when we imagine any other world than our own, we have the added knowledge that some other type of world (the world you and I live in, that is) is possible, which is knowledge we don’t actually have when we ponder our own world, since we have never encountered any other kind than this.

[u/heelspider → u/RidesThe7]

If God is true, then by definition anything God wanted would be 100% likely. I don't see how that changes that atoms are more likely designed than gibberish universe.

[u/RidesThe7 → u/heelspider]

I guess I just find it interesting, in regards to this discussion, that you think a world with atoms is evidence for God, and a world without atoms is also evidence for God. But you focus on the world with atoms, presumably because that seems to you to be stronger evidence for God than the existence of a world without atoms. So while you have made a point of stating in comments here that you're not claiming to have "conclusive" evidence, I infer that you still care about the strength of evidence, that just literally "being evidence" isn't meaningful enough to want to have this discussion in the first place---to you the existence of atoms are strong enough evidence to be worth talking about, they are meaningful evidence that one should be sure to throw into one's personal scale when reaching a belief. There is some kind of threshold you think they pass as far as weight goes.

Now, I'm not a mind reader, so of course chime in and correct the above---but that's how it seems to me reading this thread, and considering your answers to my questions.

Anyway, because of the above, I think you're maybe being overly dismissive of folks who are responding to you by showing that atoms are perfectly explainable in the absence of any God existing---and even that this is what we'd actually expect to see, both us specifically for anthropic reasons, and that such a universe would be expected to eventually come about as a general matter (regardless of whether we're there to observe it) if other types of universes are not stable. [That's just my very quick and dirty summary, mind you, folks have better stated and fleshed out such arguments throughout this thread]. Because what such arguments are designed to do--and succeed at, in my opinion---is reduce any weight you might attribute to atoms as evidence for God, and to reduce it below a threshold where it meaningfully shifts the scale towards the existence of God. Can you still argue that it counts in some sense as "evidence" of a god, based on the definition you've given? Maybe yes---but as under your definition literally ANYTHING counts as evidence for a god, I'm not sure how meaningful granting you that "yes" would be. I think the conversation about whether we actually need God as an explanation for atoms, and whether we have good reason to attribute the existence of atoms to God over other possibilities raised, is the more important conversation.

But you're allowed to feel differently!

[u/heelspider → u/RidesThe7]

nd a world without atoms is also evidence for God

Remind me again why you get to make up out of thin air what I think?

just literally "being evidence" isn't meaningful enough to want to have this discussion in the first place---

Tell that to all the athiests here who say there is no evidence of God. They are the ones who deemed it important.

Now, I'm not a mind reader, s

Really? Why did you just claim to read my mind the previous paragraph?

I think you're maybe being overly dismissive of folks who are responding to you by showing that atoms are perfectly explainable in the absence of any God existing---and

There is a good reason for me to be dismissive, I explain in the OP why this is an insufficient argument. (There may e perfectly good reasons to flee a crime scene too.)

[That's just my very quick and dirty summary, mind you, folks have better stated and fleshed out such arguments throughout this thread].

There was one person who claims the Big Bang resets until it gets conditions for life, but they didn't flesh it out so much. Just because someone says weird shit doesn't make me a slave to their nonsense.

I don't know what definition I've given you think has caused my to abandon my own argument.

think the conversation about whether we actually need God as an explanation for atoms, and whether we have good reason to attribute the existence of atoms to God over other possibilities raised, is the more important conversation.

I think "need" is a loaded and unnecessary term, but until an alternative is proven, God remains viable.

[u/RidesThe7 → u/heelspider]

Remind me again why you get to make up out of thin air what I think?

My dude, take a chill pill. Our back and forth shows how I got to my conclusions, plus my comment explains how I'm drawing inferences, plus it acknowledges my imperfect knowledge, plus it invites you to correct me. So seriously, work on that blood pressure or whatever.

[u/heelspider → u/RidesThe7]

I said nothing in the ballpark of what you claimed to have read from my mind.

[u/United-Palpitation28]

This is nothing more than a word salad. Atoms and the strong force arise from basic quantum principles. There is absolutely nothing about quantum physics that suggests a creator

[u/SIangor]

The redefining of evidence is a new one, but not one that makes a whole lot of sense.

If you hear the person behind you sneeze then feel a warm mist on the back of your neck, would you not come to the logical conclusion you were sneezed on? Now imagine you turn around and the guy behind you wiping his nose says “Uh that wasn’t me. It was the invisible guy in front of me.” Using physics and logic, wouldn’t you assume he was completely full of shit? Could you prove it wasn’t the invisible guy he blamed it on? No. But it wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense to believe him, would it?

[u/heelspider → u/SIangor]

I didn't redefine it. I paraphrased the Federal Rules of Evidence. But please articulate any problems you have with it.

If you hear the person behind you sneeze then feel a warm mist on the back of your neck, would you not come to the logical conclusion you were sneezed on? Now imagine you turn around and the guy behind you wiping his nose says “Uh that wasn’t me. It was the invisible guy in front of me.” Using physics and logic, wouldn’t you assume he was completely full of shit? Could you prove it wasn’t the invisible guy he blamed it on? No. But it wouldn’t make a whole lot of sense to believe him, would it?

Yep. And?

[u/SIangor → u/heelspider]

And.. you’re the guy claiming it was the invisible man. You’re making a ridiculous claim and telling US to prove it wrong. That part is unnecessary until there is proof of the claim you’re making. Simply saying it was the invisible man who sneezed holds no merit and is not an honorable position to hold.

One does not have to prove a negative. Is it possible that everytime you leave your house, a stranger comes in and sleeps in your bed then remakes it and leaves without you ever knowing? Sure. Would it be logical to believe that? No. The same goes for your god. Could there be an invisible man in the sky that goes against all the law of physics? Sure. Is it logical or probable? No it’s not.

[u/wooowoootrain]

Evidence is any fact which tends to make a proposition more likely true.

So you are declaring it is a fact that God exists because his existence explains other observations.

Okay, it is a fact that invisible quark pushing fairies exist because that explains how quarks hold together in clusters that form atoms.

Neat!

Oh, and it's a fact that Zeus exists because that explains how electric charges build up in the atmosphere to create lighting.

I like this game! It's a fact that quantum pixies exist that can cause electrons to exhibit particle or wave behavior because that explains our observations.

This is great! I can make anything become a fact just by arbitrarily asserting it has causal force that explains an observed phenomenon.

You should get a freaking Nobel Prize for this breakthrough!

[u/heelspider → u/wooowoootrain]

So you are declaring it is a fact that God exists because his existence explains other observations.

No, that is not a plausible reading of what I wrote.

[u/wooowoootrain → u/heelspider]

It's a perfectly plausible reading. If you're intending some other meaning, you'll have to do some redactions of your argument.

[u/runfayfun]

Givne enough iterations, a gibberish universe could be created by engineers due to a bug, and a universe with matter could be made by the cats.

[u/Davidutul2004]

Yo u are using the lack of knowledge for the source of what actually causes the forces that hold the atom as evidence for god? To me it just seems like a classic "god of the gaps" situation because you use our lack of knowledge of something as evidence for god, just how in other cases,the lack of knowledge for what caused the big bang would be considered evidence for god by a theist.

From the Cambridge dictionary, evidence is:facts, information, documents, etc. that give reason to believe that something is true

While this might be evidence for you to a god, to others,like an agnsotic or atheist might not be sufficient evidence

[u/heelspider → u/Davidutul2004]

From the Cambridge dictionary, evidence is:facts, information, documents, etc. that give reason to believe that something is true

That's almost identical to what i said.

Yo u are using the lack of knowledge for the source of what actually causes the forces that hold the atom as evidence for god

If we knew the answer we wouldn't be discussing what counted as evidence...ao?

[u/Davidutul2004 → u/heelspider]

Hm Perhaps. But then I'm not sure what point you try to raise

[u/heelspider → u/[deleted]]

What an incredibly stupid argument.

Ok, well thanks for your opinion.

[u/pipMcDohl → u/heelspider]

yeah that was a bit harsh so i removed it.

[u/NoOneOfConsequence26]

The existence of the atom is evidence only for the existence of the atom. That it is even more likely for it to arise by design than by natural processes would require demonstration. Until then, any link between an atom and any god is a baseless assertion.

[u/Appropriate-Shoe-545]

My question is why does a universe with atoms in it appear designed compared to one without? The analogy of cats and scientists is even stranger to me. Most of the universe is indeed "gibberish with nothing in it", most of it is vacuum, and the point mass of atoms or subatomic particles are tiny compared to the space between them. Is your argument really that any universe with any massive particles in it is intelligently designed?

[u/Autodidact2]

*sigh* Second time today I've had to point out that a theist is assuming the outcome was a goal, which is to say, assuming your conclusion. You're assuming that someone wanted a universe with substantial bodies similar to matter. This assumption is unjustified, and is an elaborate example of circular logic.

It's true that matter is made up of atoms. It doesn't follow that someone wanted matter, so invented atoms. It just doesn't.

[u/heelspider → u/Autodidact2]

Quote where I make that assumption. I'm not seeing it.

[u/Autodidact2 → u/heelspider]

Atoms exist, therefore a Being must have made them. Assumes that having atoms was a goal.

[u/heelspider → u/Autodidact2]

Atoms exist, therefore a Being must have made them

But I don't assert that.

[u/Autodidact2 → u/heelspider]

Isn't that your argument?

[u/Zeno33]

I don’t think nature works like the cats, which I assume you’re suggesting are randomly pressing keys. There are different mechanics at play in nature like laws and scale that aren’t applicable to the cats. So I don’t think this is really that strong.

[u/heelspider → u/Zeno33]

The OP is about how we got the mechanics at play like laws and scale that led to the atom. So how did we get them then if neither God nor random? And please don't say some other set of mechanics or laws, as that is a dodge.

[u/Zeno33 → u/heelspider]

I am saying that is how nature works, so nature doesn’t “get” them. 

[u/heelspider → u/Zeno33]

No one doubts that having the atom is HOW nature works, the question is WHY nature works that way. Was it happenstance, design or a third category?

If a third category what it is.

[u/Zeno33 → u/heelspider]

I wasn’t talking about the atom. I was referring to the mechanics we were discussing.

Ultimately, we obviously don’t know why nature works exactly the way it does, otherwise this post would be pointless. But I don’t think something like happenstance would tell the complete story.

[u/heelspider → u/Zeno33]

The frustration I have is that if happenstance doesn't tell the complete story you should be a theist, or at the very least, fairly open to theism.

[u/Zeno33 → u/heelspider]

Why?

[u/heelspider → u/Zeno33]

Because, again, what other choices are there?

[u/Zeno33 → u/heelspider]

Necessity, for one. I also just think it’s probably something that fits nicely into a human category. 

[u/heelspider → u/Zeno33]

I can't say I entirely understand you, but if you are suggesting that God is a somewhat anthropomorphic answer I don't really dispute that.

[u/medicinecat88]

If it wasn't for science, would you even know the atom existed? No, you would not. If Jesus was god in human form as you claim, he would have certainly known atoms existed...right? Why did he not say so? Why did he not inform the masses about atoms? It took science, not Jesus or religion to reveal the facts. So since you acknowledge the evidence that science is the real determining factor of reality, I want to be the first to welcome you to atheism. Glad to have you aboard.

By the way, Jesus would have known about the western hemisphere, the earth revolving around the sun, the laws of physics, and a multitude of other knowledge....correct? Yet not a peep out of him. Strange.

[u/TheFeshy]

Because a universe with an atom is more likely to be designed by a God than a universe without an atom

Okay, I'll bite: show me the math. Atoms, in this case, are a proxy for complex life like us I'm guessing. So: Show me all the possible universes where life - not just life as we know it, but any complex life - evolves, all the possible universes where life doesn't. Then show me how universes are chosen from among this set; how our universe was chosen. Once we have that we can calculate the odds, and say factually that a universe with life, or atoms, is unlikely to have come about without a God.

I don't feel like I'm putting words in your mouth when I say you don't have any of that. If you did, it would have re-written cosmology.

So you've basically got a gut feel. You'll pardon me if I don't take that as evidence worth giving any real weight to.

[u/Comfortable-Dare-307]

Argument from ignorance. You've provided no evidence. You've only made claims and have not supported your claims.

[u/heelspider → u/Comfortable-Dare-307]

Argument from ignorance.

Litteraly zero support for this whatsoever. Then next sentence

You've provided no evidence

Well gee we can't all live up to your immaculate example.

[u/the_1st_inductionist]

Evidence is any fact which tends to make a proposition more likely true.

If by fact, you mean some aspect of reality. And man knows reality fundamentally through the evidence of the senses.

Consider the strong atomic force, for example. This seems to exists almost solely for atoms to be possible.

The strong atomic force doesn’t exist for anything. It’s doesn’t have an inherent purpose. Do you mean the only effect that it’s known to have is to hold together atoms?

If we considered a universe with atoms and a universe without any such thing, the former appears more likely designed than the latter.

There’s no evidence of such a universe without atoms. There’s no evidence that such a universe is possible. There’s lots of evidence that it’s impossible. I don’t think it’s humanly possible to seriously consider a universe without the strong atomic force.

Consider if we had a supercomputer which allowed users to completely design rules of a hypothetical universe from scratch. Now we draft two teams, one is a thousand of humanity’s greatest thinkers, scientists, and engineers, and the other is a team of a thousand cats which presumably will walk on the keyboards on occasion.

Now we come back a year later and look at the two universes. One universe has substantial bodies similar to matter, and the other is gibberish with nothing happening in it.

The thought experiment doesn’t mean anything because it occurs in the universe with real things, like super computers and beings that evolved in the universe. And the universe wasn’t created by anything, let alone a thousand cats that evolved in the universe, so created computer models are irrelevant. The fact that programs need to be programmed correctly to model the universe says nothing about the universe itself.

One of the things theists do is propose the false dichotomy of purpose vs. random chance. Saying stuff like the universe isn’t designed then it’s the result of random chance, or comparing computer models created by people vs one by random chance. That’s mistaken. There’s causality, cause and effect.

[u/heelspider → u/the_1st_inductionist]

And the universe wasn’t created by anything,

Proof?

One of the things theists do is propose the false dichotomy of purpose vs. random chance

Feel free to describe the other possibilities.

Bonus: Show the other possibilities so likely true that purpose is not rendered more likely.

[u/Antimutt → u/heelspider]

Create the Universe has a contradiction, preventing it from being true.

The other possibility is no chance + no purpose.

[u/heelspider → u/Antimutt]

Create the Universe* has a contradiction, preventing it from being true.

Which is?

The other possibility is no chance + no purpose.

And is instead __________. (fill in the blank).

[u/Antimutt → u/heelspider]

Which is something I gave in another reply - I'm not short changing you.

Paste no chance + no purpose in that blank.

[u/heelspider → u/Antimutt]

So there totally is another option, you just can't say what it is.

And you can totally support your argument, you just already did it some unspecified place.

Wonderful response!

[u/Antimutt → u/heelspider]

Everybody wants sauce.

So there's 1. Purpose 2. No purpose, but Chance 3. No purpose, and no Chance

What could be clearer?

[u/heelspider → u/Antimutt]

Three and infinity seem to be different. That part is not clear.

[u/Antimutt → u/heelspider]

Relativistic Simultaneity eliminates chance and refines choice.

[u/the_1st_inductionist → u/heelspider]

Proof?

To know the universe wasn’t created, you have to know that there’s no evidence that the universe was created and that there’s evidence that contradicts the universe being created. Do you know that there’s no evidence that the universe was created? This is based on the fact that your only means of knowledge is inference from the senses and that’s why proof is so important to you.

Feel free to describe the other possibilities.

I did. You can check out what I said at the end of that paragraph.

[u/Astreja]

It's pointless to single out some aspect of the physical universe, and then jump to "...therefore, God." Totally unconvincing, just an argument from incredulity.

Show me an actual god if you want me to believe in gods. That is my minimum evidentiary standard, and it is not negotiable.

[u/pyker42]

So, essentially you have an argument of incredulity with no real substance supporting your position that atoms are evidence of God.

And how many universes did you examine to know if a universe without atoms is plausible?

[u/true_unbeliever]

Actually the atom and the sub-atomic is evidence against anything supernatural. According to physicist Brian Cox, there is no way for the supernatural to interact with the natural at that level otherwise it would have been observed at CERN.

[u/anewleaf1234]

No.

You just want that to be the case.

Your god is just a story. Nothing more. Nothing less. You can attribute anything else to your story, but that's just you making claims you can't support.

You haven't support your claim. You just proposed an idea you wish is true.

Your god is just a story in your head. Nothing more. Nothing less.

[u/onomatamono]

I think most know the distinction between empirical evidence and mathematical proof. When somebody says "prove it" they are usually speaking colloquially, or they are misspeaking. One should avoid fetishizing words.

Your cat analogy is a twist on the monkeys with typewriters meme where in fact the works of some great author would be randomly produced given a sufficient number of trials, on the order of trillions to one, presumably.

You defeated your own argument because it's not the case that you always get mindless gibberish using random events. All it takes is a single self-replicating molecule to kick thinks off. I don't even get the point of substituting a group of talented humans for cats. That does not demonstrate the need for supernatural wizards.

BTW, the atom is not objectively evidence of God. Oh look! I just asserted away your baseless assertion. Assertions aren't facts.

[u/noodlyman]

Its plain to me that a universe containing merely atoms is infinitely more probable than the existence of something as complex and precisely designed as a creator god.

Everything in your argument proves that a god can't just exist, because it must have been made by something else.

God seems specifically designed to cause universes. Does that prove that gods were made by super gods?

Something as exquisitely designed to design universes as a god is must surely be proof of a god maker.

God is objectively evidence of a god-maker.

[u/sj070707]

I believe what you needed to show is the likelihood of atoms being in universes with and without god not god with and without atoms. In any case, you didn't really show any likelihood at all

[u/palparepa]

The Carbon atom in particular, the basis of life, has 6 protons, 6 neutrons and 6 electrons. Evidence that Satan created life.