Hey Ender, welcome back after a nice hiatus. I hope you've been well. I gladly accept your invitation to a friendly discussion.
Last time we talked, a problem frequently occurred, and I think solving it now is a good idea. If one of us wants to know what the other thinks, knows, or believes, let's ask one another. Let's avoid assumptions to avoid strawmanning eachother. And, to add to it, let's try to read, understand, and consider eachother's messages in full when we respond. We can agree, or disagree, and we can do it honourably.
So,
One of my biggest mistakes, looking back at all this, is that I was too focused on trying to prove something with a combination of empirical/theoretical evidence (and attempting to demonstrate it as purely empirical) without considering the logical loophole I was digging myself into. A lot of what I posted wasn't really meaningful without the necessary context, and even then, I don't think I had the right approach altogether.
I actually read most of this old thread the other day when Gerrit reminded me of it. Your mistake, in my view, wasn't trying to prove something with evidence (that's exactly what you should be doing), it was that you were often trying to disprove unrelated, often erroneously cited concepts that had no bearing on the conversation. For pages and pages you set out to disprove (an incorrect version of) the Big Bang theory, but it didn't matter. It had essentially nothing to do with what you claimed to have evidence of; your god.
As for digging yourself into logical loopholes? Yes, I'd call them logical fallacies, and they create eternal conversation loops until they are corrected, unfortunately. It's sometimes hard for someone to recognize when they're stuck in a logical fallacy, but when discovered, it should be helpful for everyone to fix it. As for your approach not being the right one altogether? I suppose I'll just simply agree, and I appreciate your self reflection on that.
In retrospect, a lot of pages in this thread could have very easily not needed to exist, as I do believe you're correct in saying that we can't broadly and indisputably come to the conclusion that God (or any niche deity someone might happen to believe in) exists through empirical evidence alone (which is what I think I had initially been trying to do all those years back). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no supposed empirical evidence compounded within a few thousand years of written history will be able to sufficiently match what logically is a very bold claim.
I just want to be clear here. I think once you define a god specifically, it may be possible to prove or disprove it. Empirical evidence can be used, of course - if something can be observed and tested, we should take it into consideration. I'm not sure what "theoretical evidence" (mentioned in your first paragraph) is referring to, but using established scientific theories is perfectly acceptable if that's what you mean.
So, it's best if you define your god specifically, so we can both be on the same page with what we're talking about when we use that term.
With that said, I don't think that rules out the existence of God whatsoever. As much as you can look at a combination of sources that prove/disprove something, a key thing to also consider is the overall likelihood of all the events in the history of the universe sequentially leading up to us having that messy foodfight of a debate in the first place (mainly just human existence in general). I think the odds of the universe very coincidentally having had the perfect conditions to initially expand, the solar system forming the way it did, and life on Earth eventually coming have to evolve/develop the way it did until the modern definition of a human came around are extremely slim to none. Does this empirically prove the existence of God? Nah. Does it imply that some supernatural design went into it, given how the entire environment of the universe and life on Earth came to develop and that the odds of everything lining up by what essentially boils down to perfect chance, due to the very precise conditions needed to sustain life on Earth (and perhaps elsewhere that we don't know of)? I believe it does. From a statistical standpoint, I don't think the sequence of events that led up to the conditions of the present day occurring merely through chance is very likely, as there are quite a couple of variables all at stake.
Bear in mind that this is by no means a perfect and impartial rationale. However, based on what I described, I'm inclined to believe that this is more likely to suggest the existence, rather than lack thereof, of a higher force with input/influence of the design and occurrence of everything. I'm down to have an actually friendly discussion over this. What do you think, Ako?
Playing the incomplete odds to make a solid determination in a universe where we know so little is a problematic game. One could argue the circumstances that allowed for life on Earth are seemingly so slim to have actually worked out that some sort of outside intervention must have taken place. Yet, another could argue the sheer number of solar systems and planets in the universe mean the chances of life popping up somewhere is actually fairly high. At its most base form, life is made up of little chemical protein reactions, and it's conceivable that they can occur in many places in the cosmos.
But it doesn't matter. Just because something appears statistically unlikely doesn't mean we can suddenly say some other claim is somehow true; in this case a god / supernatural force intervening to make Earth habitable.
"A is unlikely, therefore B is true." It doesn't work that way. B has to stand on its own merits, otherwise C or D or L could be just as true. We need to operate on a better basis. Let's try "A appears unlikely, perhaps B is true. Let's investigate."
So, before we move on, let's settle some definitions.
You used the word "supernatural". As far as I can tell, this means "not natural", as in not of the natural world, not observable, and beyond scientific understanding, observation and testing. I don't know what this even means, then. If something isn't natural, then surely it doesn't exist? If it is natural, and does exist, and does influence the natural universe, then we should be able to observe it and test it, right? If I'm misunderstanding "supernatural", then let's fix that now.
The other word is "God" as you use it. Please define it so I know what you mean.
Welcome back, and cheers!
