How to recognize evidence for God

He’s still at it. Equating his assertions for god with the observable, empirical. verifiable, practices of science. Dishonest, obfuscations, and a complete refusal to recognize facts. After are there are no real facts because we can’t really know anything therefore the God assumption is just as valid as a fact. Unbelievably ignorant assertion.


Oh dear …

This is complete tosh.

Oh wait, physicists KNOW what to look for when instances of symmetry are violated. As a corollary, it isn’t an “assumption”, it’s a testable postulate.

Indeed, one symmetry that is known to be violated, is the balance of matter versus antimatter in the universe, and physicists are busy looking for reasons why this is the case.

And, oh look, it took me precisely three seconds to find this peer reviewed scientific paper:

Direct Terrestrial Test Of Lorentz Symmetry In Electrodynamics to 10−18 by Moritz Nagel, Stephen R. Parker, Evgeny V. Kovalchuk, Paul L. Stanwix, John G. Hartnett, Eugene N. Ivanov, Achim Peters and Michael E. Tobar, Nature Communications, 6: Article number: 8174 (1st September 2015) [Full paper downloadable from here]

The authors continue with this:

After an extensive dissertation on the experimental setup, the authors present their findings thus:

After some technical details, the authors continue with:

That’s just one paper devoted to this topic. I’m pretty sure my search will turn up numerous other papers in the same vein.

The above paper says your assertions are horseshit. No doubt I’ll find more in the same vein once I start searching in earnest.

More bullshit. First of all, merely asserted entities can be rejected as summarily and effortlessly as they were presented. Second, we know that pre-scientific mythologies contain farcical errors of a sort that no genuinely existing god type entity would allow itself to be associated with, certainly not an entity in this class possessing perfect foreknowledge of the future, and thus able to know in advance that those assertions would be destroyed.

Complete crap. A statement purporting to be an axiom about the natural world is treated as a hypothesis to be tested in proper scientific circles.

Already dealt with this repeatedly in the past. Oh, and if you think the willingness of science to correct its postulates when the DATA tells us this is warranted, is some sort of “weakness”, then it’s no wonder you’re a mythology fanboy.

Oh, and the fact that Einstein found reasons why Newtonian postulates appeared to be so successful, is another point you’re going to pretend doesn’t exist?

Poppycock. When a hypothesis is found to be in accord with a large body of observational data, it isn’t an “assumption”. Do learn the elementary concepts applicable here.

I’m sure there’s more to feed into the shredder, but this should suffice for now.


Although I am disinclined to continue engaging with semantical and definitional ambiguities, the following may perhaps, be of interest.

From Sherlock’s references


“The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement:”

(The link provided was to a review of the book)

“The Evolution of Atheism” is marred by significant historical, analytic, and conceptual errors, to say nothing of a ponderous postmodern style all too familiar in the social sciences today. Try this turgid passage on for size: “The analysis in this book offers a picture of a movement confounded in its attempts to define itself by a complex and sometimes self-contradictory set of discourses, and of groups of people united only by their lack of faith struggling to maintain cohesion in the face of deep divisions in their politics.”

“As for the errors, they permeate LeDrew’s book. They include an incorrect definition of atheism, a contradictory view of the New Atheism, a disturbing lack of historical understanding, and an underlying hubris that encourages the author to jump to conclusions instead of admitting when he lacks information.”


“Growing criticism by atheists of the New Atheism movement”

“Can Science Explain Religion? : The Cognitive Science Debate”

(this is a rant by a professor of religion which attempts to define “New Atheists” as militants with an ideological movement responsible for increases in Islamophobia. It refers heavily to the prior book, “The Evolution of Atheism” but rather than recognizing the flaws in the book, this diatribe paints a picture of a militant movement with a social and political agenda, harkening to the conspiracy craziness rampant on the internet.)

(from the book)

“Stephen LeDrew’s The Evolution of Atheism shows that atheism is not just the denial of belief in God but is itself a system of belief in a “secular ideology” with a particular cultural and political agenda, an agenda powered by a simplistic view of science and a rationalistic utopianism that “exhibits some totalitarian tendencies with respect to the use of power.”


“Is Atheism a cult?”

“While we noted that a cult doesn’t have to be religious, atheism isn’t a unified movement of non-religious people. While all atheists agree that there are no gods, most atheists come to that conclusion independently. There are also many different kinds of atheists: implicit atheists, Christian atheists, weak atheists and strong atheists to name a few. This lack of ideological purity or unified structure runs counter to the idea that atheism is a cult.”

From “Why there is an atheist movement”

“But how can there be a movement around not believing in gods? Easily. It happens when people who do not believe in gods face discrimination and bigotry because they do not believe in gods. The atheist movement is about promoting atheism and celebrating the atheist part of one’s identity. It is about protecting atheist civil rights. It is about combating anti-atheist bigotry.”

The fifth reference requires a signup

Then from “finally”

This is a Wikipedia article concerning secular movements , making no mention of atheism as a movement.

None of the references identify atheism as a movement, even the ones which do identify an atheist movement


This poor sod gets owned each and every time he makes a move… one needs to seriously wonder if he is falling for the ole Christian ploy - “The more you suffer, the closer you are to God.”

1 Peter 4:1 1 Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because whoever suffers in the body is done with sin.

2 Corinthians 4:17 For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all.

2 Timothy 3:12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,

Luke 14:27 And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

Romans 8:18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.

James 1, 2-4
2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds,

3 because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance.

4 Let perseverance finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.

Each time his pearls of faith are dashed on the rocks of atheism, it is only evidence that the bible was correct. Matthew 5:10–12 Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.*

After all… Any and all disagreement with his reviled claims of truth, are simply persecuting as predicted by the Bible. Such persecution is often carried out by those with whom God has not revealed his truth. We, Atheists, are simply acting in accordance with God’s good plan.

1 Like

I think it might be useful to ask @Sherlock-Holmes to define assumption at this point, and the word fact, as his assertions about both words seems dubious next to the dictionary. For instance his assertion that a fact can never change seems laughably wrong, since our knowledge can and has done precisely that, and a fact is something that is “known or proven to be true.” The idea that what we know cannot change seems more like a tenet of religions than science to me, irrefutable and immutable are two very different concepts, the former based on current and overwhelming reliable evidence, but tentative in the light of new evidence as all scientific ideas must remain, the latter represents the erroneous hubris of religions, that we see creationists and their ilk embarrass themselves with.

If I am wrong here of course it would be useful for someone to help me out, plodding duffer as I am, it would be appreciated.

It was another of his broad sweeping assertions, as we have seen if he wants to be vague you won’t torture any detail out of him, I think he was wrong, but it still gets a who cares, as he simply fishing to get a reaction by trying to pretend a lack of belief is epistemologically little different to holding a belief, an absurd position to take.


Semantic equestrian manure. When an axiom or a hypothesis is corroborated with quality empirical data to such a degree that there can be no question about it, it receives the status of fact. By your very own argumentation, whatever observation, generalisation and rule you might make can never make the starting assumption come out of the start pit, and will forever remain an assumption. Thus, you effectively make the word “fact” meaningless, making one wonder why well-known and respected dictionaries define “fact” as a thing that is known to be true, especially when it can be proved (sense 1), something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information, and a piece of information presented as having objective reality (sense 2). Given the choice between trusting well-known dictionaries and a random internet guy for a definition of a word, I by far prefer the dictionaries. In short, you are engaging in semantic wankery.

No? Just watch: Science deals with the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, while religion deals with the belief in the existence of a god or gods, and the activities that are connected with the worship of them, or in the teachings of a spiritual leader. In short, science deals with facts about the real world, while religion deals with beliefs that do not have an empirical basis. There, I just compared(*) them.

(*) to examine people or things to see how they are similar and how they are different

Edit: added link


@Sherlock-Holmes also asserted that a fact can never change, now I’m not scientifically trained, as he claims to be, but surely things we once knew to be true have changed, in light of new evidence.

He seems to be using facile definitions when it suits, and absolute definitions that negate the actual meaning of words when it suits, in short I can only view his assertions as dishonest semantics, as you seem to.

1 Like

You must be thinking of someone else. Conservation laws are assumed, the fact that these can be represented as the outcome of symmetry doesn’t alter that fact. You can complain about me saying this all you like, I don’t care because it is true.

Rather than attacking me for questioning the atheist fairytale, why not just state your argument - prove to me, show me that the conservation laws are not assumptions.

17 Mind-Blowing Facts About Conservation Laws

If you truly want to argue with me about physics you’d better get some better books.

Yes we do “regard” them as true that’s what the word “assume” means which is why I’ve been telling you all that conservation laws are assumed, they are, regarding something a true is not proof it is assumption.

Any science experts here want to disagree? then disagree without demeaning me or insulting me or being disparaging.

Nope, again I seriously suggest you speak to a grown up with a degree in theoretical physics, they’ll make it clearer to you, but you could start here:

then we also have this…

Energy and Momentum Conservation Q/A

and the answer…

Therefore the option (A) and (C) are correct statements.

You’d have failed that basic science comprehension test Callialsealaliaella if you’d said C was not correct, wouldn’t you…

There are an awful lot of physics sites and professors you need to notify urgently Callialsealaliaella, explain to them that conservation laws are proved , they are not assumed, the world of science will be eternally indebted to you.

The evidence (remember that word?) supports me it does not support you, there are umpteen reputable sites that discuss physics that agree with me that the conservation laws are assumed to be true. If anyone here is beginning to feel they’ve been misled by the self-appointed “science essayist” here then you can always reach out to me for clarification, never blindly trust atheist pseudo-scientists on questions like this, you can see what happens if you do.

It’s side splitting too how not a single atheist so far has the testicular rectitude to just say “OK guys he does have a point, let’s not be petty here, technically he is being borne out by reputable science sites so lets at least admit that”.

No, no such post is forthcoming because these discussions are all about attacking theists, whether they make false statements or true, they must be attacked, that’s all this is, what a load of fuss atheists make about what is to all intents and purposes simple bullying and bigotry and intolerance.

1 Like

Conservation laws are “Observed” A “LAW” is an observation. Science follows the observations. Because science follows the observable world, LAWS are challenged all the time. Einstein challenged Newton’s Laws, and now we have two beneficial ideas about Gravity. Here is an excerpt about LAWS for you. However, three of the evidences presented in this paper cannot be explained by the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why is the magnetic potential energy gone when the magnet is antimatter annihilated Why can the steady direct current (DC) be produced when coils are cutting magnetic lines without any obstruction Why can’t the induced current hinder the change of temperature and magnetic flux All of these just suggest that the total amount of energy in an isolated system is not conserved over time—the law of conservation of energy can be broken. ( Applied Mechanics and Materials (Volume 192)

Pages: 420-424
DOI: Can Law of Conservation of Energy Be Broken? | Scientific.Net

When the information changes, so does our science. Laws are not “assumed,” they are observed, empirically verified, and validated. They are held to be true, in specific times, places, and ways.

There you go again with your “Absolute sense” bullshit. In an absolute sense, you can not know that you can not float. Yeah, everyone who has jumped off the roof of a 10-story building has suffered some sort of injury or death, but not everyone. You can’t possibly know for sure that you can’t float to the ground uninjured. Why don’t you give it a try and get back to me. Your argument is asinine.


This is really starting to piss me off. There is no atheist fairytail!

In other words, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Care to answer this basic physics comprehension test? anyone? anyone else here feel they can handle these questions about the foundations of physics?

Here’s the page with the answers too, you’ll be needing those, care to tell me whether C is true or false?

Look, no dogma there, what was I thinking, questioning an atheist of all things, silly me.

It’s making me smile each time he says it, I mean have you ever seen such a desperate lie? It’s the same as saying “the not believing in mermaids fairytale”. it’s hilarious…

He’s failed to offer a shred of objective evidence for any deity, can’t say where it came form or what caused it, can’t demonstrate a deity or anything supernatural is even possible, and his arguments contain multiple contradictions, and he simply ignored posts asking he addressed these, and his arguments have been relentlessly irrational. All he seems to have left now is to lie by implying atheism is a claim, with this juvenile attempt to bait us. Seriously just point and laugh, that’s all anything this ridiculous deserves.


Sigh….what-the-actual-fuck? Do you know what the common usage is of the word dogma?

@CyberLN posts contained no dogma, you haven’t questioned any atheist, just made a rather silly insult up to try and bait them, I can’t argue with the last part.



Which is precisely what you did when you just said “There is no atheist fairytale”. Your opinion is not to be questioned, your interpretation is not to be questioned, your word on this theme is not to be questioned, I get it, I fully expect this so shouldn’t be surprised really.

If someone can say “theism is a fairytale” then they have a right to say that, they have a right to draw that parallel if it’s how they see the subject.

When I say “atheism is a fairytale” I can explain why I say that, happy to justify the analogy if asked, but no, nobody will ask because they don’t want to hear and besides if I question atheists I am obviously wrong, a fool.


  1. a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

That’s a lie. I also don’t think you know what a fairytale means, or atheism come to that, but that was a given.