Wednesday, 12 May 2010
I got this comment yesterday from starlight_22 [emphasis mine]....I hear those bolded parts time and time again - so frequently, in fact, that I can't believe I haven't written up a suitable response to copy/paste from as I have with so many other arguments. I guess there's no time like the present.
But the evidence doesn't disprove a God either. Evidence just proves your disagreement with a doctrine or a text that suggests how, for example, the universe was created. Also, science doesn't address why these things occur. Science address how something like the universe was formed but never explains why it was formed. Does this make science wrong? Not at all but it also doesn't explain why a God could not exist and why the god isn't the driving force for these actions to be put in motion. Then again there could be nothing behind why these things happen but science does not seek to answer these questions. It takes just as much faith to believe in in a God or to believe there is no higher power.
JT, I'm curious to your take on the concept above and as to why you are so sure science discredits an existence of God when at best I can only logically reach (so far) that you cannot prove it either way and must just make a leap of faith. Hopefully that makes sense, I'm not the best at explaining my thoughts as clear as I would like in writing. Always so much better at the science and math side of things.
It should be noted that starlight_22 was very cordial, and did not grow an enormous head and yell that I prove she doesn't have a baseball. I just thought the image was a good illustration of the admonition that I prove a negative."The evidence doesn't disprove god"What would that evidence look like? I mean, if something doesn't exist, what more evidence could we have than the lack of any evidence? The evidence also doesn't actively disprove the existence of smurfs. Does it really take more 'faith' to believe smurfs don't exist? After all, what more evidence do you have that smurfs don't exist than you do that god doesn't exist?
Furthermore, what does this scenario tell us about god? If a god exists who elected to use only natural means to create a universe and chose to mask any evidence of his existence, it can only be concluded that such a god does not want us to believe. Additionally, that he would use a means to produce humans/biological order like evolution, which requires millions of years of a sick rewards system in which animals must often kill each other to survive, and in which the weak often die painfully, suggests a god indifferent to suffering (since a malicious god would start us in hell and a benevolent god would conceive a more compassionate system). An indifferent god is hard (I'd say impossible) to discern from a pitiless universe that functions through unfeeling forces, and nothing more. There are plenty more problems like this, and they all point to a god that virtually no human being believes in, and for which a godless universe is a better explanation.
But apart from simply pointing out that no evidence whatsoever exists to suggest a god was at work anywhere, we have plenty of evidence to support the conclusion that the universe is without god.Evidence supports a godless universe
For one, the universe produces order all by itself via mindless forces acting on inanimate objects. So you cannot simply point to an instance of order and say, "There is complexity, hence it must have been designed!" What's more, thus far whenever humankind has explained a phenomenon, it has been shown to be the result of natural forces with no appeal to god being necessary. All of them. Now imagine you've watched two horses race hundreds of thousands of times, and every time the same horse wins. They're getting ready to run another race and you have to bet your life savings on one of them. Which horse do you pick? Do you need "just as much faith" to pick that horse? Yes, we have other unknowns out there, but to say that it takes just as much faith for me to assume that we will continue to find natural explanations rather than supernatural explanations is simply wrong.
Second, life is very difficult to get started via natural means (go here and read the section "abiogenesis"). A godless universe therefore predicts that we would find ourselves in a very large, very old universe, so that things that have a very low probability of occurring would become probable. That is exactly where we find ourselves.
Third, the flaws in design don't make any sense if a god created anything, since such a god would necessarily be more crafty than humans. If that were the case, it's incredibly odd that we could pick up mistakes that such a god would miss. These are things like the existence of the appendix, babies' heads being bigger than the birth canal, and the clunky nature of DNA.
Fourth, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that our universe had a beginning, and the existence of a god before there was any time or place to think is illogical. Moreover, it is up to the theist to explain how a bodiless mind could both exist and accomplish anything. So far as we know, minds only exist as machinery powered by tissues constructed of cells which, themselves, are made up of elements that took time to create within stars via r and s processes, which means that a mind could not exist before stars. Also, if thought does not require a functional brain, why do we have them?
Fifth, as I said in the first part of this response, the existence of suffering is incompatible with an all-powerful being. An evil god would have us suffer more, and a benevolent god would not allow suffering to continue. That life is based on a system that requires millions of years of agony spread over millions of species of animals is inexplicable via the god hypothesis.
Sixth, if god existed there would not be so much confusion among the world as to which God existed or what he wants from us. Often people say they have experienced god and that's how they know one exists. But god would not be giving everyone contradictory messages and experiences of the divine, nor would a god allow this confusion, since compassion would compel him to give us the best chance of being saved, not the worst.
Seventh, the universe is indescribably vast. It is so large than the human brain cannot comprehend it without invoking logarithmic functions. To give you some perspective, a particle of light will travel around the entire Earth seven and a half times in one second. It would take that same particle 5.3 hours to reach Pluto, and four years to reach the closest star, and there are roughly 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, and there are trillions of galaxies. That same particle would take 93 billion years to go from one end of this universe to the other. As I pointed out earlier, such a universe is precisely what we would expect to find if life arose from natural causation. It makes absolutely no sense that such a universe was created for something so mind-numbingly insignificant in the grand scheme of things as humans.
There are many, many more, but you get the picture. Any evidence to support a godless universe is evidence against god's existence. I will go further to assert that no evidence whatsoever exists to support the conclusion that god exists. This makes a godless universe (far) more likely, and makes it difficult to contrive a more inaccurate statement than, "It takes just as much faith to believe in a God or to believe there is no higher power."Rebuttal to other argumentsIn her comment, starlight says...Science address how something like the universe was formed but never explains why it was formed.Who says there has to be a why? The cosmos appears to be chugging along just fine with its mindless processes and inanimate objects. I address this question more in-depth here.
She also says...[Science] doesn't explain why a God could not exist and why the god isn't the driving force for these actions to be put in motion.It also doesn't explain why leprechauns couldn't exist. That's because no evidence exists to support them so it would be a waste of time. In philosophy, you cannot prove a negative because there will always be gaps in our knowledge, so we must always allow the distant possibility that even unlikely things like leprechauns and gods will turn up. What we can say with as much certainty as humanly possible is that any person claiming to possess evidence that a god exists has not submitted it scientific scrutiny or, if they have, it has been shredded like any other unsupported idea. Moreover, if you believe in god just because we haven't combed our universe to the very edge to make sure there's no place god might be hiding, thus 'disproving' his existence, then it's curious why you don't believe in smurfs, unicorns, leprechauns, and seventeen-legged insects with candy apple horns, since we can't/haven't disproven those things either.
Lastly, science is not a matter of faith, which I'm sure you're aware of. It is supported by evidence and obviously works. When science does not know something, it freely admits it. This is how intellectual honesty works - no faith involved, only what we can rightly claim to know. However, to believe in something for which there is no evidence, that requires faith, and that's not a good thing even though many religious people will throw that word out as though it absolves any shortcoming in reasoning. In fact, it's just another shortcoming. Similarly, it is not a matter of faith for me to say that this universe appears to be godless or that those saying otherwise do so for crummy reasons, if they even advance reasons.