Difference between revisions of "User:Woozle/Google+/unGodlyChallenge"

Revision as of 02:37, 2 December 2014

Original Posts

2014-09-02 The Challenge
2014-09-02 Response #1: "The universe exists, scientific laws exist and people have faith in him."

The Challenge

Theists often claim that science can't objectively disprove the existence of God; I disagree -- if God is defined in some way that is actually meaningful.

In other words:

For any definition of God in which God actually affects the universe in some specific way, I can disprove the existence of that being.

Taking the Challenge

There are two parts to the challenge.

For anyone who wishes to take it, first 'you must define God in terms which specify in what observable ways God affects the universe.
Once you have done that, I will attempt to disprove that God's existence.

Just saying "the [Judeo-]Christian God", for example, is much too vague, since even Protestant Christians (to pick a popular example) disagree about the exact nature of God -- which, in my view, is part of the smokescreen: it's impossible to discuss something rationally when one side can change what they're talking about anytime they find themselves in an inconvenient corner.

If God never actually does anything, then I don't particularly care whether anyone believes in it or not -- though I have to ask: why would anyone care?

Caveats

Caveat #1: There are no "proofs" in empirical science, at least not in the mathematical sense; science is a process of successive approximation towards an accurate understanding of reality. You never actually get there; you just get closer and closer.

What I mean here by "proof" is "evidence overwhelmingly favoring a particular conclusion". I can't absolutely prove that God doesn't exist because you can't absolutely prove that anything exists or doesn't exist -- but I can demonstrate that the evidence is overwhelmingly against it.

Caveat #2: Any God whose definition is objectively indistinguishable from the operation of one or more natural phenomena isn't really "affecting the universe", since those natural phenomena operate according to rules that do not require sentient (much less omnipotent) intervention.

The universe and its laws behave exactly as if there is no God, even if (in your view) they could not exist without God. God therefore has not had any effect on the universe that we are aware of.

Responses

1

Theist Response: God affects the universe in that _"The universe exists, scientific laws exist and people have faith in him."_

This doesn't really satisfy the first part of the challenge -- i.e. none of these statements really specify the effect that God has on the universe -- but since these are among the more popular arguments for God, I'll go ahead and address them.

1a. "The universe exists..."

The unanswered question is this: How would the universe be different if God had not existed?

You can't say it wouldn't have existed, because that would be presuming your conclusion (that God created it) -- i.e. circular logic.

An entirely natural universe would have to be somehow different from one created by a conscious entity, in order to say that some entity had had an effect on it -- and yet the universe as it is is best explained as the result of the operation of mechanical laws. Not only isn't there any need for a supernatural entity; there is increasingly little room for one.

God has not affected the universe in any way that we can discern, so this statement does not meet the challenge requirements.

1b. "...scientific laws exist..."

The same question applies: How would scientific laws be different if God had not existed?

It seems to me that divine intervention would be necessary in order for most technology to work. It would be necessary, for example, to pray while doing chemistry. Mathematical proofs would be insoluble without citation of appropriate scripture. Inexplicable things would happen in ways that clearly benefited those who followed God's wishes, and punished those who didn't. There would be _some_ kind of indication that the laws of nature were not automatic but were in fact maintained by a being outside of those laws.

And yet again, what we see is a universe whose operation leaves less and less room for the exercise of arbitrary will on the part of some supernatural being.

God has not affected the laws of nature. This statement does not meet the challenge requirements.

1c. "...and people have faith in [God]".

That is evidence for belief in God, not the existence of an actual physical God. People have historically believed in -- and even had faith in -- many things that turned out not to exist.

Since people can have faith in things whether they exist or not, the fact that people have faith in God does not imply (or require) God's existence, and therefore does not show that an actual God has had any effect on the universe.

This statement does not meet the challenge requirements.

Notes

/discarded

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==Posts==
+==Original Posts==
 * '''2014-09-02''' [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/C5Ks3xh5Lng The Challenge]
 * '''2014-09-02''' [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/9qbSNHr8zr1 Response #1]: "The universe exists, scientific laws exist and people have faith in him."
-==Text Not Used==
+==The Challenge==
+Theists often claim that science can't objectively disprove the existence of God; I disagree -- if God is defined in some way that is actually meaningful.
+In other words:
+'''For any definition of God in which God actually affects the universe in some specific way, I can disprove the existence of that being.'''
+===Taking the Challenge===
+There are two parts to the challenge.
+* For anyone who wishes to take it, first '''you must define God'' in terms which specify in what observable ways God affects the universe.
+* Once you have done that, I will attempt to disprove that God's existence.
+Just saying "the [Judeo-]Christian God", for example, is much too vague, since even Protestant Christians (to pick a popular example) disagree about the exact nature of God -- which, in my view, is part of the smokescreen: it's impossible to discuss something rationally when one side can change what they're talking about anytime they find themselves in an inconvenient corner.
+If God never actually ''does'' anything, then I don't particularly care whether anyone believes in it or not -- though I have to ask: why would ''anyone'' care?
+===Caveats===
+'''Caveat #1''': There are no "proofs" in empirical science, at least not in the mathematical sense; science is a process of successive approximation towards an accurate understanding of reality. You never actually get there; you just get closer and closer.
+What I mean here by "proof" is "evidence overwhelmingly favoring a particular conclusion". I can't absolutely prove that God doesn't exist because you can't absolutely prove that ''anything'' exists or doesn't exist -- but I ''can'' demonstrate that the evidence is overwhelmingly against it.
+'''Caveat #2''': Any God whose definition is objectively indistinguishable from the operation of one or more natural phenomena isn't really "affecting the universe", since those natural phenomena operate according to rules that do not require sentient (much less omnipotent) intervention.
+The universe and its laws behave exactly as if there is no God, even if (in your view) they could not exist without God. God therefore has not had any effect on the universe that we are aware of.
+==Responses==
 ===1===
-#1: God affects the universe in that "The universe exists, scientific laws exist and people have faith in him."
+'''Theist Response''': God affects the universe in that _"The universe exists, scientific laws exist and people have faith in him."_
+This doesn't really satisfy the first part of the challenge -- i.e. none of these statements really ''specify the effect that God has on the universe'' -- but since these are among the more popular arguments for God, I'll go ahead and address them.
-_"The universe exists..."_
+'''1a.''' ''"The universe exists..."''
-First of all, this isn't even really an argument for God. "X exists, therefore God made X" does not follow logically -- any more than "X exists, therefore you made X" or "X exists, therefore my friend George the Invisible 10-foot-tall Pumpkin Pie made X" or "X exists, therefore The Flying Spaghetti Monster made X".
+The unanswered question is this: '''How would the universe be different if God had ''not'' existed?'''
-Even if I grant you a pass on that and allow it as an argument, though, it falls apart.
+You can't say it ''wouldn't'' have existed, because that would be presuming your conclusion (that God created it) -- i.e. [[circular logic]].
-The universe existing argues _against_ the existence of a creator-God, because if everything in existence has to be created by something else, then that "something else" had to have a creator too. There must therefore have been a creator-creator, who must in turn have been created by a creator-creator-creator, and so on ad infinitum.
+An entirely natural universe would have to be somehow ''different'' from one created by a conscious entity, in order to say that some entity had had an effect on it -- and yet the universe ''as it is'' is best explained as the result of the operation of mechanical laws. Not only isn't there any ''need'' for a supernatural entity; there is increasingly little ''room'' for one.
-In other words, if you suppose that the universe was created by a being, you further imply an indefinite chain of creator-beings necessary in order to get to that point. Why has nobody argued for the existence of these beings at all, much less argued with a conviction equal to that of their belief in the existence of God? Why presuppose one creator, but not the rest?
+God has not affected the universe in any way that we can discern, so this statement does not meet the challenge requirements.
-Even if you make a special pleading that _this_ God is so fabulous that the universe needed him in order to be created but he himself didn't need to be created by anything, it still adds a completely unnecessary layer of explanation. Why does the universe have to have been created by a conscious entity, anymore than the sun, the galaxy, or waterfalls or rainbows, needed to be created by a conscious entity?
+'''1b.''' ''"...scientific laws exist..."''
-We know how each of these things were created. All the evidence points to the operation of simple natural laws not subject to control by any outside entity, much less a conscious one. Similarly, we are gradually learning how the universe came to be, and there is no evidence of any conscious interference or design in that creation.
+The same question applies: '''How would scientific laws be different if God had not existed?'''
-A more likely explanation is that "God did it" is both a _curiosity-stopper_ -- a kind of cognitive divide-by-zero error -- combined with a massive power-grab:
+It seems to me that divine intervention would be necessary in order for most technology to work. It would be necessary, for example, to pray while doing chemistry. Mathematical proofs would be insoluble without citation of appropriate scripture. Inexplicable things would happen in ways that clearly benefited those who followed God's wishes, and punished those who didn't. There would be _some_ kind of indication that the laws of nature were not automatic but were in fact maintained by a being outside of those laws.
-God can do anything, including conceal all the evidence of his own existence, therefore you can answer any question with "God did it" until you figure out the real reason -- and every time you do that, the young children to whom you are teaching this anti-information become more and more awed about how amazingly powerful this nonexistent entity must be.
+And yet again, what we see is a universe whose operation leaves less and less room for the exercise of arbitrary will on the part of some supernatural being.
-And since you are now an authoritative source of information on this nonexistent being -- who will never show up in person to contradict your interpretation of his wishes -- you can make any damn claim you want about what God wants, and a large number of gullible souls will believe you -- and in their awe at the stunning awesomeness of this imaginary being you have described, they will do pretty much anything you tell them that God wants them to do.
+God has not affected the laws of nature. This statement does not meet the challenge requirements.
-And that's the answer to your third question, of why people believe in God.
+'''1c.''' ''"...and people have faith in [God]"''.
-As for your second question -- it's basically the "X exists, therefore God created X" claim again, which I've already answered.
+That is evidence for ''belief'' in God, not the existence of an actual physical God. People have historically believed in -- and even had faith in -- many things that turned out not to exist.
-And finally: if you are defining God as "that which causes things to be how they already are", then that God isn't having any detectable effect on the universe -- since things would have gotten that way through the unaided operation of natural laws in the first place.
+Since people can have faith in things whether they exist or not, the fact that people have faith in God does not imply (or require) God's existence, and therefore does not show that an actual God has had any effect on the universe.
-I suggest you read up on God of the Gaps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
+This statement does not meet the challenge requirements.
-===2 - God of the Gaps===
+==Notes==
-Because science is not absolute, the gaps in which one can credibly insert "God did it" -- because we don't yet have enough evidence to understand what actually happened -- will never completely disappear; there can never be perfect and complete understanding of the universe. What is the value of saying "God did it" about anything, though, when every time we learn how something _actually_ works, there never seem to be any supernatural beings or forces involved?
+* [[/discarded]]