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/Antimutt]

Universe: all time & space and what is within. Exist: present in time. Therefore, at any time, the Universe has existed.

Create: to go from a time of not having, to a time of having, by any number of processes. Create the Universe is self-contradictory, as it presumes to have what it is creating - time.

[u/heelspider → u/Antimutt]

My apologies. I read "always" to mean "for infinite time."

You just meant it as a truism? The universe always exists because always is defined as the length of the universe?

I agree, the timespan of the universe is in fact the timespan of the universe, but I disagree that is a meaningful thing to say.

[u/Antimutt → u/heelspider]

Whether the deck of cards marked Time is finite, infinite without beginning or infinite only without an end, each card has the Universe's logo on it, by definition.

Attempts to frame questions where there is time before the Universe require a new definition of Universe. Discussion of matters outside of time can lead to notions of two dimensional time - another redefinition.

But before we start redefining common words, we should ask if the curiosity that drives such enquiry will be satisfied by the consideration of only a subset of the-sum-of-all-that-exists, regardless of what grand name we give it.

[u/heelspider → u/Antimutt]

If time is finite, "always" isn't possible. But can we come back to a point?

[u/Antimutt → u/heelspider]

I take always to mean forever that it exists or something like that.

[u/heelspider → u/Antimutt]

That makes "the universe always existed" to be a trivial statement.

[u/Antimutt → u/heelspider]

Even as for ever that time exists, the Universe exists, as time is an aspect of the Universe, it is simple, yet eludes some petitioners.

[u/heelspider → u/Antimutt]

That's because it looks like you are misspelling "forever" which is not finite.

[u/Antimutt → u/heelspider]

I'm breaking down forever to it's original construction, to show how the meaning I use is built.

[u/heelspider → u/Antimutt]

Definitions are descriptive not prescriptive. If everyone misunderstands you the same way, they basically can't be wrong.