Can science disprove the existence of God?

[Shadow Wolf]

You have absolutely no rational basis for your morality.

How would you know if you never bother to even ask? And clearly you've missed some of my examples, such as being a good friend and neighbor. I don't need a god, religion, or holy book to tell me why I should help me friends, it's just something that should be done if you consider yourself a friend to someone in need. I also do not need such things to tell me things such as murder, rape, and theft are wrong because they are acts of violence that violate the rights of others.

You assume that your feelings are some sort of axioms that nobody can question. You are wrong.

And you are assuming (incorrectly) things about me.

 

[viole]

Just because God's existence is advantageous that does not mean that God exists. I'll grant you that. I didn't write the preceding posts to prove that God exists, but to familiarize you, the atheists, with the ultimate consequences of your stance. What you said about God being a byproduct of natural selection does not prove that God does not exist. Even if our belief in God stemmed from evolution, there would be no reason to believe that God couldn't have used evolution to infuse into us the need for the divine.

True, but that hypothesis is not required. All you need is belief, not the object of the belief. The object of the belief is superfluous. Which is obvious; people might have found comfort in Zeus, which, we bot agree (I hope), never existed.

After all, evolution is not at odds with creation.

It is not at odds with blue fairies manipulating genetic code either. All science is not at odd with anything supernatural. I could make a theory of planetary orbits being driven by invisible angels with an obsession for conic sections.

Yet, all these metaphysical mechanisms are superfluous to account for what we see. They just serve the purpose of salvaging a certain a priori belief system. Which is not difficult, if we consider that they are mostly unfalsifiable.

Furthermore, just as a curiosity, it is worth noting that if evolution resulted in our need for the divine, it follows that this need is advantageous and important for the survival of our species. Since most atheists base their morality on what is advantageous for our species, if they were consistent with their own set of beliefs, they would be forced to conclude that atheism is immoral.

Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. That does not carry any moral payload. And if I strongly disbelieve in gods, as I do, what do you expect from me? That I lie?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Crypto2015]

How would you know if you never bother to even ask? And clearly you've missed some of my examples, such as being a good friend and neighbor. I don't need a god, religion, or holy book to tell me why I should help me friends, it's just something that should be done if you consider yourself a friend to someone in need. I also do not need such things to tell me things such as murder, rape, and theft are wrong because they are acts of violence that violate the rights of others.

And you are assuming (incorrectly) things about me.

You have never bothered to explain what these rational reasons for behaving well are? Could you please do it?

 

[Crypto2015]

True, but that hypothesis is not required. All you need is belief, not the object of the belief. The object of the belief is superfluous. Which is obvious; people might have found comfort in Zeus, which, we bot agree (I hope), never existed.



It is not at odds with blue fairies manipulating genetic code either. All science is not at odd with anything supernatural. I could make a theory of planetary orbits being driven by invisible angels with an obsession for conic sections.

Yet, all these metaphysical mechanisms are superfluous to account for what we see. They just serve the purpose of salvaging a certain a priori belief system. Which is not difficult, if we consider that they are mostly unfalsifiable.



Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. That does not carry any moral payload. And if I strongly disbelieve in gods, as I do, what do you expect from me? That I lie?

Ciao

- viole

Even if God did not exist, belief in the Christian God would exert beneficial effects on a population. I think that is true. I wouldn't say that belief in Allah could bring beneficial effects to anyone, though. Islam has had a detrimental effect on almost all of the communities in which it has been the predominant religion. Why is that? Because Allah does not exist and its teachings are the teachings of evil men. The Christian God, on the other hand, does exist. That's why its teachings have beneficial effects on the societies in which Christianity is predominant. So, in a way, the beneficial effects of believing in the Christian God are an indirect proof of the Christian God's existence.

It's true that we don't need God in order to understand how evolution works. However, have you ever thought about what is the origin of evolution itself? And not only of evolution, but of all of the other natural laws as well. Don't you think that it's weird for a universe to be ruled by rational and even mathematical laws? How can these laws have evolved from complete chaos? Believing that the law of gravity appeared out of nothing is like believing that a Mozart's symphony or Fermat's theorem can appear out of nothing. It seems obvious to me that a universe ruled by rational laws can only be the product of a rational mind.

Atheism does not assert any moral values. It just denies their existence (this is not my position, but that of well-known philosopher). However, denying the existence of moral values has dire moral consequences. Regarding your personal faith in God, why do you think that it is impossible for you to believe?

 

[viole]

Even if God did not exist, belief in the Christian God would exert beneficial effects on a population. I think that is true. I wouldn't say that belief in Allah could bring beneficial effects to anyone, though. Islam has had a detrimental effect on almost all of the communities in which it has been the predominant religion. Why is that? Because Allah does not exist and its teachings are the teachings of evil men. The Christian God, on the other hand, does exist. That's why its teachings have beneficial effects on the societies in which Christianity is predominant. So, in a way, the beneficial effects of believing in the Christian God are an indirect proof of the Christian God's existence.

I think belief in God is a very effective meme. It solves a lot of human needs at once: extension of life, quest for ultimate justice, an external source of morality, need for purpose, hope against a bleak present, an explanation for the apparent lack of rhyme and reason in the Universe, a patient and benevolent listener, etc. And that is why it has been probably naturally selected. An optimal solution to a wiring problem.

And no, I don't believe the Christian God provided more survival advantages than other religions. But even if it did, that does not provide any evidence whatsoever about the actual existence of the object of said belief. It would just show that among other belief systems, it is the fittest.

It's true that we don't need God in order to understand how evolution works. However, have you ever thought about what is the origin of evolution itself? And not only of evolution, but of all of the other natural laws as well. Don't you think that it's weird for a universe to be ruled by rational and even mathematical laws? How can these laws have evolved from complete chaos? Believing that the law of gravity appeared out of nothing is like believing that a Mozart's symphony or Fermat's theorem can appear out of nothing. It seems obvious to me that a universe ruled by rational laws can only be the product of a rational mind.

You make the assumption that natural laws can evolve and evolved from absolute chaos. I don't even understand what it means. However, I think natural laws are eternal and immutable. Obviously, since they also describe things like time, and it is difficult to conceive an evolution of time, if we consider that the word "evolution" requires it as a premise. And we know today that time is not something metaphysical, external and absolute which provides a stage for things to unfold, being itself a physical thing.

So, it is plausible that the character of natural laws does not require creation, given its eternal property. In other words, it does not require a creator more than God requires one.

"Chaos" is also described by mathematics, by the way. The same with probability. And our Universe is, at fundamental level, inherently probabilistic. What appears to us as order, is just the mathematical average of many random things. In the same way an object consisting of zillions of tiny particles flipping randomly between black or white, appears to be consistently and orderly grey and does not flip randomly between black and white, as a whole.

Atheism does not assert any moral values. It just denies their existence (this is not my position, but that of well-known philosopher). However, denying the existence of moral values has dire moral consequences.

Some atheists are moral realists, ergo they believe in the existence of objective moral values. I do not, being a naturalist. I don't think that morality makes sense when stripped form a certain biological context.

I do not believe in the existence of universal moral value, in the same way I do not believe there is a universal and objective thing like pain. Nevertheless, even if I ultimately believe that pain is the result of a computation of some biological matter, I still suffer. In the same way, not believing in absolute morality does not entail that I reject what I think can improve our quality of life and what rules of engagements are more appropriate for this species of social primates.

Regarding your personal faith in God, why do you think that it is impossible for you to believe?

I never said it is impossible for me to believe. I actually was a Christian Young Earth Creationist some time ago. So, I cannot exclude that what is inside my skull will compute a new solution in the future. At present, I see no logical reason to do that.

Hoever, if I will ever become a Christian again, I will probably be a YEC again, Adam and Eve from dust and all. I think it is rationally untenable to be both a Christian and and an "evolutionist".

Ciao

- viole

 

[Crypto2015]

I think belief in God is a very effective meme. It solves a lot of human needs at once: extension of life, quest for ultimate justice, an external source of morality, need for purpose, hope against a bleak present, an explanation for the apparent lack of rhyme and reason in the Universe, a patient and benevolent listener, etc. And that is why it has been probably naturally selected. An optimal solution to a wiring problem.

And no, I don't believe the Christian God provided more survival advantages than other religions. But even if it did, that does not provide any evidence whatsoever about the actual existence of the object of said belief. It would just show that among other belief systems, it is the fittest.



You make the assumption that natural laws can evolve and evolved from absolute chaos. I don't even understand what it means. However, I think natural laws are eternal and immutable. Obviously, since they also describe things like time, and it is difficult to conceive an evolution of time, if we consider that the word "evolution" requires it as a premise. And we know today that time is not something metaphysical, external and absolute which provides a stage for things to unfold, being itself a physical thing.

So, it is plausible that the character of natural laws does not require creation, given its eternal property. In other words, it does not require a creator more than God requires one.

"Chaos" is also described by mathematics, by the way. The same with probability. And our Universe is, at fundamental level, inherently probabilistic. What appears to us as order, is just the mathematical average of many random things. In the same way an object consisting of zillions of tiny particles flipping randomly between black or white, appears to be consistently and orderly grey and does not flip randomly between black and white, as a whole.



Some atheists are moral realists, ergo they believe in the existence of objective moral values. I do not, being a naturalist. I don't think that morality makes sense when stripped form a certain biological context.

I do not believe in the existence of universal moral value, in the same way I do not believe there is a universal and objective thing like pain. Nevertheless, even if I ultimately believe that pain is the result of a computation of some biological matter, I still suffer. In the same way, not believing in absolute morality does not entail that I reject what I think can improve our quality of life and what rules of engagements are more appropriate for this species of social primates.



I never said it is impossible for me to believe. I actually was a Christian Young Earth Creationist some time ago. So, I cannot exclude that what is inside my skull will compute a new solution in the future. At present, I see no logical reason to do that.

Hoever, if I will ever become a Christian again, I will probably be a YEC again, Adam and Eve from dust and all. I think it is rationally untenable to be both a Christian and and an "evolutionist".

Ciao

- viole

Yes, you are right when you say that the benefits of Christianity are not a proof of God's existence. They just prove that Christianity is the fittest world view.

I don't see how natural laws can be considered to be eternal. It seems to me that they are a property of the universe. If mass doesn't exist, has the law of gravity any sense at all? Hence, no universe, no natural laws. Both philosophers and scientists agree on the fact that the universe had a beginning. Hence, natural laws must have had a beginning as well. If they had a beginning, where did they come from? Can they have arisen out of nothing? I don't think so. Also, if natural laws are a property of the universe they cannot explain the creation of the universe. In other words, natural laws cannot explain their own existence.

Why is YEC the only possible interpretation for Genesis 1?

 

[viole]

I don't see how natural laws can be considered to be eternal. It seems to me that they are a property of the universe. If mass doesn't exist, has the law of gravity any sense at all? Hence, no universe, no natural laws. Both philosophers and scientists agree on the fact that the universe had a beginning. Hence, natural laws must have had a beginning as well. If they had a beginning, where did they come from? Can they have arisen out of nothing? I don't think so. Also, if natural laws are a property of the universe they cannot explain the creation of the universe. In other words, natural laws cannot explain their own existence.

Not necessarily. Eternalism, aka the block Universe, is perfectly compatible with observations without entailing a beginning of anything. It is actually the only logical conclusion if we take relativity at face value.

Why is YEC the only possible interpretation for Genesis 1?

I think it is easier to believe in Adam and Eve than in a competent and benevolent God that goes through evolution to achieve His goals.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You have never bothered to explain what these rational reasons for behaving well are? Could you please do it?

Does being a good friend really need explaining?

 

[Crypto2015]

Not necessarily. Eternalism, aka the block Universe, is perfectly compatible with observations without entailing a beginning of anything. It is actually the only logical conclusion if we take relativity at face value.



I think it is easier to believe in Adam and Eve than in a competent and benevolent God that goes through evolution to achieve His goals.

Ciao

- viole

Both Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas believed in a Block Universe. Hence, a Block Universe is compatible with the creation of the universe. Otherwise these authors wouldn't have embraced the notion of a Block Universe. For instance, if you assumed that creation is the dependence of the universe on God, you would have a timeless God timelessly supporting the existence of an eternal universe within which time is just an entropy-driven mirage. Alternatively, you could assume that time came into being when God created the universe and that as long as the universe exists, God will exist within time. However, I am not so sure if the latter view is compatible with the notion of a Block Universe (I have to think about this more carefully).

I still don't understand why you prefer YEC to other interpretations of Genesis. Perhaps you believe that YEC would have saved God some time and that therefore it is more logical to assume that God would have preferred YEC to any other means of creation. However, God is eternal. So, he doesn't need to save time or energy. He has endless time and endless energy.

 

[Crypto2015]

Does being a good friend really need explaining?

Yes. Why should you be a good friend?

 

[viole]

Both Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas believed in a Block Universe. Hence, a Block Universe is compatible with the creation of the universe. Otherwise these authors wouldn't have embraced the notion of a Block Universe. I guess that they believed that time was created exactly when God created the universe, which makes sense and is consistent with the relevant Scriptures. Alternatively, notice that if the act of creation is understood as the dependence of the universe on God, creation itself can be understood as an eternal action. Consequently, a timeless Creator and a Block Universe are completely compatible with each other.

True, but the latter does not require the former, it stands on its own feet, so to speak. Once you rid of time (flow), all arguments about origins, beginning, first causes, etc. become moot.

I still don't understand why you prefer YEC to other interpretations of Genesis. Perhaps you believe that YEC would have saved God some time and that therefore it is more logical to assume that God would have preferred YEC to any other means of creation. However, God is eternal. So, he doesn't need to save time or energy. He has endless time and endless energy.

My critique is merely ethical (under the assumption that God exists and is the source of morality). If you want to create a being in your image, the very reason you created the whole Universe for, I find it inefficient and amoral to get through the wasteful process of evolution. It is not only biology, it is also moving asteroids, among other calamities, in such a way to collide on earth at the right moment so that a tiny mouse looking creature could evolve to man by wiping out the competition after several million years. And everything while walking on the bodies of a huge amount of other extinct species.

Nope. I could never believe in such a God. I would say that amoral naturalism explains much better evolution. Therefore, I would reject evolution completely, if I were a Christian. But, of course, that would require me throwing everything I know about science in the garbage bin. And that is why it is probably unlikely that I will become a Christian again.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes. Why should you be a good friend?

Because the person is a friend.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wouldn't say that belief in Allah could bring beneficial effects to anyone, though. Islam has had a detrimental effect on almost all of the communities in which it has been the predominant religion. Why is that? Because Allah does not exist and its teachings are the teachings of evil men.

The Islamic world was a bastion of learning while Christian Europe was going through the Dark Ages. Much of what the West knows now of Greek and Roman thinkers is thanks to their works being preserved by Muslim scholars.

 

[Crypto2015]

Because the person is a friend.

That's not enough. Why should you requite his kindness?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's true that we don't need God in order to understand how evolution works. However, have you ever thought about what is the origin of evolution itself? And not only of evolution, but of all of the other natural laws as well.

This is what we call "the God of the Gaps".

Don't you think that it's weird for a universe to be ruled by rational and even mathematical laws? How can these laws have evolved from complete chaos? Believing that the law of gravity appeared out of nothing is like believing that a Mozart's symphony or Fermat's theorem can appear out of nothing. It seems obvious to me that a universe ruled by rational laws can only be the product of a rational mind.

I agree: it's astounding. The only thing I can think of that would be even more astounding is a creator-god appearing out of nothing and then designing and creating all that according to some design.

It's always struck me as strange - and short-sighted - that believers would insist that a universe would require a god to exist, but then not realize that their arguments apply just as strongly to the god they're invoking.

 

[Crypto2015]

True, but the latter does not require the former, it stands on its own feet, so to speak. Once you rid of time (flow), all arguments about origins, beginning, first causes, etc. become moot.



My critique is merely ethical (under the assumption that God exists and is the source of morality). If you want to create a being in your image, the very reason you created the whole Universe for, I find it inefficient and amoral to get through the wasteful process of evolution. It is not only biology, it is also moving asteroids, among other calamities, in such a way to collide on earth at the right moment so that a tiny mouse looking creature could evolve to man by wiping out the competition after several million years. And everything while walking on the bodies of a huge amount of other extinct species.

Nope. I could never believe in such a God. I would say that amoral naturalism explains much better evolution. Therefore, I would reject evolution completely, if I were a Christian. But, of course, that would require me throwing everything I know about science in the garbage bin. And that is why it is probably unlikely that I will become a Christian again.

Ciao

- viole

Let me think about the Block Universe a little bit more because to be honest with you my brain is in pain already. It is a difficult topic. Regarding evolution, you are assuming that God thinks the way we do. We would have preferred a more straightforward method of creation. However, he may have his reasons to choose the method of creation that he actually chose. The extinction of countless species is not a problem as far as I am concerned because perhaps animals also benefit from some sort of afterlife. Who knows? Also, mankind is not so insignificant as it may seem. We are made in the image of God because we are capable of moral reasoning. This makes us extremely valuable and justifies the creation of the universe. If you were God you would have created the world in a different way. OK. However, is this a strong enough objection to stop believing in God? Considering our limited intelligence and limited knowledge, it seems like a very extreme measure to me. I mean, it is as if I denied the existence of mathematics just because I can't understand how differential equations work.

 

[Crypto2015]

This is what we call "the God of the Gaps".


I agree: it's astounding. The only thing I can think of that would be even more astounding is a creator-god appearing out of nothing and then designing and creating all that according to some design.

It's always struck me as strange - and short-sighted - that believers would insist that a universe would require a god to exist, but then not realize that their arguments apply just as strongly to the god they're invoking.

Your portrayal of what I said and what I believe is an oversimplified straw man.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's not enough. Why should you requite his kindness?

How is being a friend not enough? If a friend needs help and I can help them, because I am there friend, I'll help.

 

[Crypto2015]

How is being a friend not enough? If a friend needs help and I can help them, because I am there friend, I'll help.

You feel that you need to be a good friend, but can you prove why this feeling is "good"? I may feel that I need to eat a hamburger. Does that make eating a hamburger good? No. So, feeling that you need to do something (i.e., being a good friend) does not prove that that something is the right thing to do.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You feel that you need to be a good friend, but can you prove why this feeling is "good"? I may feel that I need to eat a hamburger. Does that make eating a hamburger good? No. So, feeling that you need to do something (i.e., being a good friend) does not prove that that something is the right thing to do.

I have Asperger's, and I don't even have that hard of a time realizing why it's good to have friends and to be good to your friends.