Why "God does not exist" is a positive claim

[ratiocinator]

The sample size is massive. Astronomers have modeled the evolution of literally thousands of universes, putting the equations of General Relativity and particle physics onto computer and watching systems evolve at random, generating huge diversity of outcomes.

Which is all a bit pointless since we don't have a 'theory of everything' to use. We can plug different values into our current models but we don't know whether that would actually be possible or if there is some underlying reason why they are as they are.

We also don't know how large all of reality is, and if these things can vary, maybe they do, and we are just in a place amenable to our kind of life, which would be stunningly unsurprising.

And you're still ignoring the fact that a creator necessarily gives us even more improbability to explain than we started with. It's a giant leap in the wrong direction if you want to explain reality

One of the authors you quoted was Brain Cox. He doesn't like to be called an atheist but has no belief in God (he's a humanist), and he is on record as saying science doesn't know nearly enough to draw a conclusion about any God claim.

Science is no more good to the theist than it is to the atheist (except to rule out a small number of God claims, like YEC).

Right back at you, as the young people say.

But I'm not saying I 'see' something else 'in' the list of stuff you mentioned. False equivalence.

 

[shunyadragon]

Which is all a bit pointless since we don't have a 'theory of everything' to use. We can plug different values into our current models but we don't know whether that would actually be possible or if there is some underlying reason why they are as they are.

Not having a theory of everything (possibly we may never find it) does not negate the development of scientific knowledge of the underlying reasons why things are the way they are "physically" such as Quantum Mechanics.

We also don't know how large all of reality is, and if these things can vary, maybe they do, and we are just in a place amenable to our kind of life, which would be stunningly unsurprising.

"arguing from ignorance" how large and diversity of reality does not negate the the evolving knowledge of science based on a firm foundation.

And you're still ignoring the fact that a creator necessarily gives us even more improbability to explain than we started with. It's a giant leap in the wrong direction if you want to explain reality.

Your belief in a Creator is necessarily separate from science simply because of the diverse contradictory subjective beliefs in religion. Belief in one of these many diverse religious beliefs negates the "arguing from ignorance and the foolish notion that probability has any role in the nature of the course of cause and effect events in our physical existence. Beyond the scientific knowledge of "how started" in our evolution is demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt naturally. Religious conjecture as to explain how "we started" lacks any consistency or objective basis.

One of the authors you quoted was Brain Cox. He doesn't like to be called an atheist but has no belief in God (he's a humanist), and he is on record as saying science doesn't know nearly enough to draw a conclusion about any God claim.

Which is true, based on the principles of Methodological Naturalism.

Science is no more good to the theist than it is to the atheist (except to rule out a small number of God claims, like YEC).

Fundamentally false based on the lack of objective consistent basis in Theism for science.

YEC God claims represents between 40-50% of Americans, and by far the majority view among Muslims.

Reading the Polls on Evolution and Creationism

This week in federal district court, a group of parents is challenging the Dover, Pa. school board's decision to require the teaching of "intelligent

www.pewresearch.org

Surveys are also fairly consistent in their estimates of how many Americans believe in evolution or creationism. Approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life, while comparable numbers accept the idea that humans evolved over time.

The bottom line is the authors of the Pentateuch, authors of the NT and the Church Fathers believed in some version of literal Genesis.

 

[PureX]

Example...?

Sure.

Choosing to trust that justice will be done when someone does us harm, even though we may never see it done, ourselves, and living accordingly (faith). By trusting in this hoped for truth about reality, we are then relieved of the burden of exactling justice for ourselves when it is not otherwise forthcoming. We can let go of the hurt and embarrassment and resentment caused us by the abuse of someone else, and be at peace in the idea that the offender(s) will be held accountable. Thus, this example of faith "works" for the person that chooses to engage in it.

Different theists, who believe different ideas about God and "the truth of reality", as well as faith positions without a God, tell us that they are right and it 'works'.

Different people need and want different ideas of God, and truth, to help them address different problems in their lives. So they view God and truth as the objective of their faith in whatever ways make the most sense for them. And if they engage in the act of faith properly, the odds are strong that they will obtain the results they sought. And of course these will be different results for different people, because they needed and sought different resolutions.

The contradictions between the different versions of "the truth of reality" mean that, at the very least, most of them do not have the correct "truth of reality"....

There are no "contradictions". There are just different people engaging in faith in whatever various ways they need to, to address the various problems in life that they have to deal with. And there is no logical reason for you to have expected otherwise.

 

[shunyadragon]

Sure.

Choosing to trust that justice will be done when someone does us harm, even though we may never see it done, ourselves, and living accordingly (faith). By trusting in this hoped for truth about reality, we are then relieved of the burden of exactling justice for ourselves when it is not otherwise forthcoming. We can let go of the hurt and embarrassment and resentment caused us by the abuse of someone else, and be at peace in the idea that the offender(s) will be held accountable. Thus, this example of faith "works" for the person that chooses to engage in it.

This is based on subjective faith or belief without any evidence. The problem remains as to consequences at the justice after death id too variable among the different religions that demonstrates the lack of objective.

Different people need and want different ideas of God, and truth, to help them address different problems in their lives. So they view God and truth as the objective of their faith in whatever ways make the most sense for them. And if they engage in the act of faith properly, the odds are strong that they will obtain the results they sought. And of course these will be different results for different people, because they needed and sought different resolutions.

This reflects the expectations of subjective inconsistency between religious beliefs that lack a consistent basis for justice.

There are no "contradictions". There are just different people engaging in faith in whatever various ways they need to, to address the various problems in life that they have to deal with. And there is no logical reason for you to have expected otherwise.

Thes problems most definitely represent contradictions between different faiths or beliefs concerning the expectations of Justice.

 

[PureX]

This is based on subjective faith or belief without any evidence. The problem remains as to consequences at the justice after death id too variable among the different religions that demonstrates the lack of objective.

Wow, that's an absurdly nonsensical and irrelevant comment.

This reflects the expectations of subjective inconsistency between religious beliefs that lack a consistent basis for justice.

There is nothing "inconsistent" about it. Anyone that engages in this particular act of faith will find that it "works" for them be relieving them of the burden of seeking justice/vengeance/retribution/etc.,. Which makes it logical that others would then choose to engage in it, as well.

These problems most definitely represent contradictions between different faiths or beliefs concerning the expectations of Justice.

There are no contradictions. Just diffetent ways and reasons that people choose to engage in various acts of faith.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Which is all a bit pointless since we don't have a 'theory of everything' to use. We can plug different values into our current models but we don't know whether that would actually be possible or if there is some underlying reason why they are as they are.

We also don't know how large all of reality is, and if these things can vary, maybe they do, and we are just in a place amenable to our kind of life, which would be stunningly unsurprising.

And you're still ignoring the fact that a creator necessarily gives us even more improbability to explain than we started with. It's a giant leap in the wrong direction if you want to explain reality

One of the authors you quoted was Brain Cox. He doesn't like to be called an atheist but has no belief in God (he's a humanist), and he is on record as saying science doesn't know nearly enough to draw a conclusion about any God claim.

Science is no more good to the theist than it is to the atheist (except to rule out a small number of God claims, like YEC).


But I'm not saying I 'see' something else 'in' the list of stuff you mentioned. False equivalence.

Yes, I was surprised to find that summary of the Fine Tuning problem articulated in quite the manner it was, in the concluding chapter of a book co-authored by Brian Cox. Especially since Cox has publicly stated that he doesn’t personally believe in any ‘supernatural being’. But there it was, so when I saw a challenge from another poster to present a rational scientific argument for God, I quoted the passage.

You can find similar musings in Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, and Hawking on at least one occasion went further than Cox, and declared himself an atheist (though I suspect his position on God was quite fluid. I mean, he spoke about God a lot).

The point really is that the Fine Tuning issue continues to point the minds of philosophically inclined astronomers in a direction where consideration of the possibility of a creator is unavoidable. Of course, any conclusion one way of the other is likely to remain outside the remit of science.

I absolutely disagree that the probability of the universe being instigated by some divine will or agency, is less than the probability of the very special conditions which the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics dictates must have pertained at it’s inception, having occurred randomly. The latter has been calculated (very speculatively) by Roger Penrose to be one in 10^10^123

I apologise for assuming you were one of those atheists who sees, in the progress of scientific enquiry, evidence for the absence of God.

 

[shunyadragon]

Wow, that's an absurdly nonsensical and irrelevant comment.

This is based on subjective faith or belief without any evidence. The problem remains as to consequences at the justice after death is too variable among the different religions that demonstrates the lack of objective.

There is nothing "inconsistent" about it. Anyone that engages in this particular act of faith will find that it "works" for them be relieving them of the burden of seeking justice/vengeance/retribution/etc.,. Which makes it logical that others would then choose to engage in it, as well.

No

There are no contradictions. Just differtent ways and reasons that people choose to engage in various acts of faith.

The different religions, faiths or beliefs, are indeed in contradiction as to what they believe concerning life after death, justification of justice, and of course contradiction in claims of "knowing God," or not knowing God,

 

[ratiocinator]

Not having a theory of everything (possibly we may never find it) does not negate the development of scientific knowledge of the underlying reasons why things are the way they are "physically" such as Quantum Mechanics.

I didn't say it did.

"arguing from ignorance" how large and diversity of reality does not negate the the evolving knowledge of science based on a firm foundation.

I didn't say it did.

Your belief in a Creator is necessarily separate from science...

I'm an atheist. I don't have a belief in a creator. I was arguing against the idea that we could infer a creator from the supposed improbability of the universe.

Please try to pay some attention, and read what has been said, before replying.

Fundamentally false based on the lack of objective consistent basis in Theism for science.

I have no idea what you are even claiming is false here. You seem to have totally misinterpreted what I was saying.

 

[ratiocinator]

Choosing to trust that justice will be done when someone does us harm, even though we may never see it done, ourselves, and living accordingly (faith). By trusting in this hoped for truth about reality, we are then relieved of the burden of exactling justice for ourselves when it is not otherwise forthcoming. We can let go of the hurt and embarrassment and resentment caused us by the abuse of someone else, and be at peace in the idea that the offender(s) will be held accountable. Thus, this example of faith "works" for the person that chooses to engage in it.

A conforming fantasy, then, rather than a simple acceptance of reality that the world isn't always fair and just. No thanks. I can let go of this sort of thing just fine without the fantasy.

Different people need and want different ideas of God, and truth, to help them address different problems in their lives. So they view God and truth as the objective of their faith in whatever ways make the most sense for them. And if they engage in the act of faith properly, the odds are strong that they will obtain the results they sought. And of course these will be different results for different people, because they needed and sought different resolutions.

Back to faith being make-believe. What is acting 'properly' on faith? What you think is proper?

There are no "contradictions".

Objectively false.

There are just different people engaging in faith in whatever various ways they need to, to address the various problems in life that they have to deal with. And there is no logical reason for you to have expected otherwise.

Once again, your version of faith seems like "comforting make-believe".

 

[ratiocinator]

I absolutely disagree that the probability of the universe being instigated by some divine will or agency, is less than the probability of the very special conditions which the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics dictates must have pertained at it’s inception, having occurred randomly. The latter has been calculated (very speculatively) by Roger Penrose to be one in 10^10^123

Penrose had his own answer to that, with the Weyl curvature hypothesis and, more recently, with conformal cyclic cosmology.

Quite apart from the points I raised before about how much we don't know, the probability is a simple mathematical fact. You can't use a conjunction (and) on a low probability and make it higher. As soon as you add, the "and it was created by God", the probability must be smaller (technically, it could stay the same, but only if you think the probability of God is 100%). This is just because probabilities are in the range 0 to 1, and a conjunction translates to a multiplication.

As for God, surely the 'space' of possible Gods is vast, so we'd have to consider the probability that one just happened to exist that wanted to make a universe exactly like this one (with all its proposed improbability). All the improbability of the universe reads straight across to any creator's intention, and hence to its improbability. ETA: So, if the probability of the universe is P(U) (one in 10^10^123, for the sake of argument), then the probability of a creator that just happened to want to create this exact universe has P(U) as an upper bound. It can't possibly be more probable and must actually be less probable because of all the possible 'creators' that would want to create a universe that had laws absolutely nothing like the one we see, rather than lust fiddle with the numbers in the standard model and the initial conditions.

If P(U) is the probability of the universe, the probability that it was created by a God is less than P(U)².

You've basically got one approach to the universe and a totally different one to 'God'. This seems to be very common with theists. They will tell us how improbable the universe is (from the current scientific position of ignorance - we don't know how 'big' reality is, and we don't have a theory of everything) without actually stopping to consider for a moment how improbable a God, that just happened to want to create this universe, would be from an even greater space of uncertainty.

Science can't rule out a God, but the 'fine-tuning' argument doesn't work scientifically, logically, or mathematically.

 

[YellowFeather]

Everything you have was created by someone you cannot see. Even though you cannot see them personally you see what they created so you know that it did not create itself. Even though we can not see God we see his creation of the world and life. Those who have true Faith in God know he is real. Our Faith gives us power to believe in God.

 

[ratiocinator]

Everything you have was created by someone you cannot see. Even though you cannot see them personally you see what they created so you know that it did not create itself. Even though we can not see God we see his creation of the world and life. Those who have true Faith in God know he is real. Our Faith gives us power to believe in God.

Oh, well then, that settles it........
.................oh, wait, no it doesn't, it's just some unargued assertions.

And the universe "creating itself" is a not very popular idea among people who don't resort to a creator. There are a few ideas that are a bit like that, though...

 

[McBell]

Obviously not. But better minds than mine have had a shot at it.


https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/e06/papers/thespa01.pdf

That is a rather interesting article.

However, it does not show the math in support of the claim "our existence here is a statistical miracle"

 

[shunyadragon]

Everything you have was created by someone you cannot see. Even though you cannot see them personally you see what they created so you know that it did not create itself. Even though we can not see God we see his creation of the world and life. Those who have true Faith in God know he is real. Our Faith gives us power to believe in God.

Ancient tribal view of Creation without science. Science does not propose that our physical existence Created itself.

True Faith in God? Another "True Scotsman" fallacy indicating that you believe your belief is the only One True Belief.

 

[PureX]

A conforming fantasy, then, rather than a simple acceptance of reality that the world isn't always fair and just. No thanks. I can let go of this sort of thing just fine without the fantasy.

You asked how faith works for people, so I gave you an example, and all you could do is respond with a petty, selfish whine.
we’re done here.

Back to faith being make-believe. What is acting 'properly' on faith? What you think is proper?


Objectively false.


Once again, your version of faith seems like "comforting make-believe".

 

[shunyadragon]

No, in this instance it's just a lie. The atheists that keep telling it are fully convinced that there are no gods. They just can't defend that conviction, and they know it, so they lie about it.

Your still continuing the vendetta of vindictive pejorative generalizations of atheists.

This doe not reflect the diverse views of atheists,

 

[RestlessSoul]

That is a rather interesting article.

However, it does not show the math in support of the claim "our existence here is a statistical miracle"

British mathematician John Littlewood identified a miracle as any eventuality with odds of a million to one. Littlewood’s Law is based on this precept. I mention that just for context.

In any event, odds of 1 in 10^10^123 are as close to a statistical impossibility as it’s possible to imagine, where probability is non zero.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Penrose had his own answer to that, with the Weyl curvature hypothesis and, more recently, with conformal cyclic cosmology.

Quite apart from the points I raised before about how much we don't know, the probability is a simple mathematical fact. You can't use a conjunction (and) on a low probability and make it higher. As soon as you add, the "and it was created by God", the probability must be smaller (technically, it could stay the same, but only if you think the probability of God is 100%). This is just because probabilities are in the range 0 to 1, and a conjunction translates to a multiplication.

As for God, surely the 'space' of possible Gods is vast, so we'd have to consider the probability that one just happened to exist that wanted to make a universe exactly like this one (with all its proposed improbability). All the improbability of the universe reads straight across to any creator's intention, and hence to its improbability. ETA: So, if the probability of the universe is P(U) (one in 10^10^123, for the sake of argument), then the probability of a creator that just happened to want to create this exact universe has P(U) as an upper bound. It can't possibly be more probable and must actually be less probable because of all the possible 'creators' that would want to create a universe that had laws absolutely nothing like the one we see, rather than lust fiddle with the numbers in the standard model and the initial conditions.

If P(U) is the probability of the universe, the probability that it was created by a God is less than P(U)².

You've basically got one approach to the universe and a totally different one to 'God'. This seems to be very common with theists. They will tell us how improbable the universe is (from the current scientific position of ignorance - we don't know how 'big' reality is, and we don't have a theory of everything) without actually stopping to consider for a moment how improbable a God, that just happened to want to create this universe, would be from an even greater space of uncertainty.

Science can't rule out a God, but the 'fine-tuning' argument doesn't work scientifically, logically, or mathematically.

Yes, I’m aware Penrose has been working on his own theories to account for the statistical improbability of the early, low entropy conditions of the universe. The point is, he acknowledged the on the face of it astronomical odds against our existence, and retains an open mind about the subject, and a willingness to think outside the box.

You don’t have to add anything at all, probabilistically or methodologically, to attribute the inception of the Universe to the will of a Creator. You just need a mind open enough to consider the evidence in that light, and a willingness at least to suspend disbelief for a moment.

 

[McBell]

British mathematician John Littlewood identified a miracle as any eventuality with odds of a million to one. Littlewood’s Law is based on this precept. I mention that just for context.

In any event, odds of 1 in 10^10^123 are as close to a statistical impossibility as it’s possible to imagine, where probability is non zero.

I do not understand why it is so difficult for people to understand what "show the math" means.
Am I so old that I am the only one who remembers writing out every single step of the math problem out in long hand because if you didn't you got no credit for that problem?

Or has the phrase "show your math" changed since then?

the fact remains that the article you presented did not show the math for the claim you made.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I do not understand why it is so difficult for people to understand what "show the math" means.
Am I so old that I am the only one who remembers writing out every single step of the math problem out in long hand because if you didn't you got no credit for that problem?

Or has the phrase "show your math" changed since then?

the fact remains that the article you presented did not show the math for the claim you made.

Yes, I understand the game you are playing very well; issue irrelevant and unreasonable demands, then cry foul when they aren't met on the precise terms you stipulate. You'll have to find someone else to play with I'm afraid.