Prove me wrong: there is no God

[Immanuel Can]

You're constraining the number of alternatives artificially...you're "playing God," in trying to model a process that's supposed to have no God in it. To model it properly, you would have to suppose an infinite number of different colours, and an infinitely variable environment in which they were having to match.

But the problem with infinity is that no matter how many times you roll the dice, there are always infinite "other ways" the thing can turn up. So it explains, precisely, nothing.

Irrelevancies.

Hardly. If the model fails to represent the actual situation it purports to represent, it's an inadequate model. And to represent a scenario with infinite possibilities, you need an infinite counterpart...infinite different colours of beads.

<<But the problem with infinity is that no matter how many times you roll the dice, there are always infinite "other ways" the thing can turn up >>

No IC, no matter how many times I roll the de there are only SIX ways it can turn up.

No, Mike...that's the point! You can't represent an infinite set of possibilities with a mere six-sided die. You're artificially constraining the possible outcomes.

Science has nothing to say about "God created the universe" because that statement says nothing about the material things of the universe.

Actually, it says a huge amount about the material things of the universe. For starters, it says a whole lot about their origins. Then, it would indicate that material things are not accidental, but designed, and any scientific explanation should include design as part of any adequate explanation. Another implication would be that scientists should be looking for teleological implications in what has been created, the material world. It would further suggest that the hand of the Designer would be at least latent, if not manifest, in material things. And it would define the legitimate purview of science itself; what is was for, why we have it, how it works, why the universe yields its secrets to us. All this, plus the ethical: what is the right use of our technologies and scientific discoveries, for example.

And most importantly, it would elevate science itself -- because instead of being, as Materialism must suppose, an accidental byproduct of a random-generated universe, science would turn out to be a communication from God, through the designed world, to mankind; a gift, an opportunity, a divine activity. And this would further explain why our brains are so marvellously tuned to unpack the secrets of a universe which, according to Materialism, should be entirely indifferent to our efforts and impenetrable to science itself. We were made to do science. So it becomes no surprise that we're so bloody good at it.

I think you'd have to agree, even if you think Theism is wrong...that's pretty big stuff.

[MikeNovack]

Science has nothing to say about "God created the universe" because that statement says nothing about the material things of the universe.

Actually, it says a huge amount about the material things of the universe. For starters, it says a whole lot about their origins. Then, it would indicate that material things are not accidental, but designed, and any scientific explanation should include design as part of any adequate explanation. Another implication would be that scientists should be looking for teleological implications in what has been created, the material world. It would further suggest that the hand of the Designer would be at least latent, if not manifest, in material things. And it would define the legitimate purview of science itself; what is was for, why we have it, how it works, why the universe yields its secrets to us. All this, plus the ethical: what is the right use of our technologies and scientific discoveries, for example.

And most importantly, it would elevate science itself -- because instead of being, as Materialism must suppose, an accidental byproduct of a random-generated universe, science would turn out to be a communication from God, through the designed world, to mankind; a gift, an opportunity, a divine activity. And this would further explain why our brains are so marvellously tuned to unpack the secrets of a universe which, according to Materialism, should be entirely indifferent to our efforts and impenetrable to science itself. We were made to do science. So it becomes no surprise that we're so bloody good at it.

I think you'd have to agree, even if you think Theism is wrong...that's pretty big stuff.
[/quote]

I did NOT say that theism is wrong or that science says that theism is wrong. Read again.

BUT (a very big but) it is NOT the job of science to investigate "the purpose of the universe". It is not the job of science to investigate whether the universe was created by some God in which you believe, what the intentions and purposes of this deity might be, etc. PURPOSE has nothing to do with material reality.

The problem is that YOUR beliefs about God include beliefs about the material world, about which it is the business of science to investigate. That can lead science to claim things true that are in conflict with YOUR religious beliefs about the material world. It is NOT the job of science to investigate things like whether a deity created the universe, how, to what divine purpose. Science does not disprove "there is a God" and "God created/caused the universe ". Science does disprove "And God created among the animals pink unicorns" or even "and God created the Earth with the plants and animals in the form which we find them now." << your beef with evolution >>

If a religion refrains from making claims about the material world it is not subject to conflict with science. If it chooses to make claims about the material world, then it is. That is the choice of the religion, not the choice of science. THEISM (in general) does not require beliefs about the material world. That your particular "brand" of theism does is specific to your brand of theism. You cannot (should not) jump from "science is in conflict with my brand of theism to "science is in conflict with theism". I believe the reason you do so is that YOUR brand happens to include a belief "this brand is the only correct/valid brand of theism, the only true one".

[Immanuel Can]

Science has nothing to say about "God created the universe" because that statement says nothing about the material things of the universe.

Actually, it says a huge amount about the material things of the universe. For starters, it says a whole lot about their origins. Then, it would indicate that material things are not accidental, but designed, and any scientific explanation should include design as part of any adequate explanation. Another implication would be that scientists should be looking for teleological implications in what has been created, the material world. It would further suggest that the hand of the Designer would be at least latent, if not manifest, in material things. And it would define the legitimate purview of science itself; what is was for, why we have it, how it works, why the universe yields its secrets to us. All this, plus the ethical: what is the right use of our technologies and scientific discoveries, for example.

And most importantly, it would elevate science itself -- because instead of being, as Materialism must suppose, an accidental byproduct of a random-generated universe, science would turn out to be a communication from God, through the designed world, to mankind; a gift, an opportunity, a divine activity. And this would further explain why our brains are so marvellously tuned to unpack the secrets of a universe which, according to Materialism, should be entirely indifferent to our efforts and impenetrable to science itself. We were made to do science. So it becomes no surprise that we're so bloody good at it.

I think you'd have to agree, even if you think Theism is wrong...that's pretty big stuff.

I did NOT say that theism is wrong or that science says that theism is wrong. Read again.

I read it. You said, "Science has nothing to say about "God created the universe" because that statement says nothing about the material things of the universe." But if the hand of God is manifest in the material things of the universe, and if God has designed them, and if science itself depends on the kind of coherent universe that allows science...then science really has a ton legitimately to say about God. In fact, everything that science discovers would ultimately be "about God," even if it were only (proximally) about microbes, or cats, or the size of the universe.

Science does not disprove "there is a God" and "God created/caused the universe ".

Actually, what science does is to uncover all the indicative evidence of Creation, and to explore the nature of the universe God has designed for us to inhabit, and to attempt to turn as much of it as possible to the best uses, under stewardship to God.

Your assumption that science has nothing to do with God is purely assumptive. Without reference to God, science actually ends up crippled and handicapped; for it cannot allow itself the right explications of the origins or dynamics of the created place in which we live, or indeed, the right explications of humanity.

THEISM (in general) does not require beliefs about the material world.

Nowhere is this true. Even the very existence of God would change everything we think about the material world. Is it, as Materialists tell the story, a standing resource of junk, here by pure accident, up for exploitation on any terms we wish? Now you've got the source of the environmental panic of today. Or is it a stage of salvation, an environment bestowed for man's good and explorable on coherent (scientific) terms, because it has been created by a law-giver God, and we have been constituted by Him so as to be able to do science on it, in stewardship to the creator? Now you have the basis of scientific, technological and moral responsibility.

You cannot (should not) jump from "science is in conflict with my brand of theism...

It isn't. Science, when done honestly and with integrity, is always coherent with reality.

Evolution isn't science: it's Scientistic ideology.

[MikeNovack]

........ science would turn out to be a communication from God, through the designed world, to mankind; a gift, an opportunity, a divine activity........

Uh ........ the job of science is to investigate material reality. Science has no purpose beyond increasing knowledge of material reality. It is not a "divine activity". It is NOT "explore the material world to better understand the bounty of God"or "study the creation to better understand the power of God".

Forget "evolution" for a moment and think about all the other times science ran afoul of (your) religion. How many moons are there in the solar system? << do you refuse to look through Galileo's tube to see four around Jupiter -- instead threaten him with punishment for heresy >>

Science has no argument with Theism in general (it CAN'T). If/f a religion includes with its theism statements about the material world can there be a conflict. Sorry, IC, it's not for science to change its positions on the material world to suit what your religion says about the material world. It's for your religion to do so. The state of Tennessee can pass a law against evolution, even prosecute and convict a teacher for daring to teach scientific theory instead of religious dogma, but that does not change material reality (The "Scopes Trial" of 1925)

[Immanuel Can]

........ science would turn out to be a communication from God, through the designed world, to mankind; a gift, an opportunity, a divine activity........

Uh ........ the job of science is to investigate material reality. Science has no purpose beyond increasing knowledge of material reality.

Secular science has defined itself that way. But in doing so, it's just undercut itself. For if the human mind, and our science, is the product of nothing but randomness, materials and accident, why should we believe it?

We shouldn't. So science itself should not be taken seriously, if we accept Materialism.

However, what you'll discover is that from the very start, science was originally an investigation of the works of God. It was often called "natural theology" -- the use of nature to uncover theological insights, in other words. Calling it "science" came later.

Here's Sir Isaac Newton, on that subject:

“A Heavenly Master governs all the world as Sovereign of the universe. We are astonished at Him by reason of His perfection, we honor Him and fall down before Him because of His unlimited power. From blind physical necessity, which is always and everywhere the same, no variety adhering to time and place could evolve, and all variety of created objects which represent order and life in the universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, Whom I call the Lord God.”

And again,

“He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.”

And here's Sir Francis Bacon, inventor of the scientific method:

"Knowledge is the rich storehouse for the glory of the Creator and the relief of man's estate."

And

"Little knowledge of science makes you an Atheist,
In-depth knowledge of science makes you a believer in God."

So...I think you're not in good company in your wish that science should have no view of God. The founders of science certainly believed otherwise, as do many of us today.

[MikeNovack]

However, what you'll discover is that from the very start, science was originally an investigation of the works of God. It was often called "natural theology" -- the use of nature to uncover theological insights, in other words. Calling it "science" came later.

<< That is quite correct. Originally "study the works of the Creator to better understand the Creator >>

"Little knowledge of science makes you an Atheist,
In-depth knowledge of science makes you a believer in God."

So...I think you're not in good company in your wish that science should have no view of God. The founders of science certainly believed otherwise, as do many of us today.

But "belief in God" is NOT the issue. Science does not give you any reason to question "God was the first cause of the universe". Science DOES question beliefs like "and THIS is the material world God created, it works THIS way". Science gives reason to doubt beliefs about that, but notice those things are NOT derived simply from "God created the universe" but things like "as described in THIS book".

Science tells us the world is not some 5000 years old, the plants and animals we see now were not always here, even the great land masses and islands not as they are now. None of that contradicts "God created the universe". Only the version in some sacred text. For science to say "it wasn't as described in that book" is not denying "God created the universe. Just causing problems for a particular conception of God.

Sorry IC, if science contradicts what your religion says about the natural world, science may be a problem for your religion, but it's not the case that science is a problem for all religion. I will repeat, IC, your fundamental "problem" is seeing your religion and its conception of God as the only true one possible. So you see conflict between science and your religion as science in conflict with all religion.

Have you never seen a tee shirt with the four Maxwell equations and underneath "And God said let there be light." Can you not at least envision a different sacred text which went, "In the beginning God created a BIG BANG, and the result was a universe in which space and time had meaning ........" One that would be in accord with what science has learned about the material world (or thinks it has learned, since scientific knowledge always subject to change). The problem with such a book is that it too would come into conflict as science changed what was thought to be true. But a religion with a sacred text that did not make claims about the material world perfect;y safe from science.

[Immanuel Can]

However, what you'll discover is that from the very start, science was originally an investigation of the works of God. It was often called "natural theology" -- the use of nature to uncover theological insights, in other words. Calling it "science" came later.

<< That is quite correct. Originally "study the works of the Creator to better understand the Creator >>

So the idea that science is inherently secular isn't just bad thinking...it's historical revisionism, with an ideological purpose.

But "belief in God" is NOT the issue. Science does not give you any reason to question "God was the first cause of the universe". Science DOES question beliefs like "and THIS is the material world God created, it works THIS way".

I don't know any Christians who think the way you seem to think they might.

Science tells us the world is not some 5000 years old, the plants and animals we see now were not always here, even the great land masses and islands not as they are now. None of that contradicts "God created the universe".

Nor Genesis, for that matter. "Day" is an ambiguous term. In some contexts, it's 24 hours. In others, it means "era," as in "the Day of the Lord." So there's no tying Genesis to a 5,000 year date. That's a myth.

...science may be a problem for your religion...

Not for mine. Christianity created the formal discipline of science. It made men look for laws in nature, because they believed in a singular, rational God, not in tree-sprites or warring groups of godlets. Men like Newton and Bacon were theologians, not merely scientists. And I find science works excellently in light of Christianity.

But how does an Atheist-Materialist believe in science? After all, he denies that his own brain is anything more than a product of accident. How then can he trust it to tell him the truth? His own suppositions undercut science in a very serious way.

[MikeNovack]

...science may be a problem for your religion...

Not for mine. Christianity created the formal discipline of science. It made men look for laws in nature, because they believed in a singular, rational God, not in tree-sprites or warring groups of godlets. Men like Newton and Bacon were theologians, not merely scientists. And I find science works excellently in light of Christianity.

But how does an Atheist-Materialist believe in science? After all, he denies that his own brain is anything more than a product of accident. How then can he trust it to tell him the truth? His own suppositions undercut science in a very serious way.

Uh ... you seem to have a problem with evolution. You seem to propose meaningless/false objections.

And you have no understanding how a "random" process can result in order. I have no idea why you persist in bringing in secularist/materialist (since we are assuming a deity) but a secularist/materialist would have no problem with his brain being the product of evolution. By accident only in the sense that no such brain HAD TO evolve, but since it did, can be trusted << if it hadn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion >>

Consider the word "fit" as we usually use it in evolution. But it has another sense, as in "these pieces fit together". And as an organizing principle, evolution, will make the ecosystem ordered; all parts will be fit to be where they are and so it all fits together. If a part didn't fit, it wouldn't be fit, and so evolution would make it absent. I understand it bothers you that a system so well ordered as a whole could be the result of randomness.

The Moon being the right size for life on Earth gets it backward. OF COURSE the Moon is the right size because whatever its size, evolution would have ensured life evolved to fit with that size of Moon.

[Immanuel Can]

...science may be a problem for your religion...

Not for mine. Christianity created the formal discipline of science. It made men look for laws in nature, because they believed in a singular, rational God, not in tree-sprites or warring groups of godlets. Men like Newton and Bacon were theologians, not merely scientists. And I find science works excellently in light of Christianity.

But how does an Atheist-Materialist believe in science? After all, he denies that his own brain is anything more than a product of accident. How then can he trust it to tell him the truth? His own suppositions undercut science in a very serious way.

Uh ... you seem to have a problem with evolution.

Evolutionism is ideology...not science.

And you have no understanding how a "random" process can result in order.

Nobody "understands" that, because it doesn't happen.

Test it yourself. Take a bag of marbles. Throw them on your floor. Do it until they form something coherent, like the phrase, "To be, or not to be." That's simple.

How long will you have to do it? Argue with me when it happens.

...a secularist/materialist would have no problem with his brain being the product of evolution...

Then he's not thinking...even about his own beliefs. If his brain is the mere product of randomness, then he has no reason for this "having no problem." In fact, he shouldn't even trust his brain.

[MikeNovack]

And you have no understanding how a "random" process can result in order.

Nobody "understands" that, because it doesn't happen.

Test it yourself. Take a bag of marbles. Throw them on your floor. Do it until they form something coherent, like the phrase, "To be, or not to be." That's simple.

How long will you have to do it? Argue with me when it happens.

...a secularist/materialist would have no problem with his brain being the product of evolution...

Then he's not thinking...even about his own beliefs. If his brain is the mere product of randomness, then he has no reason for this "having no problem." In fact, he shouldn't even trust his brain.

Lets try that little experiment, shall we? With some alteration so that easier t model. Randomness PLUS an organizing principle. The quote "To be, or not to be, that is the question:" has 42 characters? You are asking "how long" to reproduce given a keyboard and hitting the keys randomly 42 times. Yes, a VERY long time (number of tries). But that is with no "organizing rule". Let's apply one. Let's say each round we leave in place any letter from the previous round that BY CHANCE was in the correct location. Still will take a lot of rounds but instant compared to without that rule.

Evolution is imposing exactly that sort of rule upon randomness. And it NEEDS randomness to function properly. Go back to the previous example supposing keystrokes NOT random, that for the seventh keystroke we will always strike "k". The we will NEVER get to the quote (it's worse even than the case of random without any rule.)

Randomness PLUS the right sort of rule is a reliable way to get somewhere, especially an unknown destination (you only get told "warmer"/"colder" after each step you try).

Except for your particular beliefs about the nature of God "evolution" should not bother you. It represents an elegant solution an intelligent creator deity might choose to create LIFE so that it would persist even though the environment changed.

BUT AGAIN -- get rid of that bee in your bonnet about the secularist/materialist. THIS THREAD is supposed to be for/against a deity. "prove to me thetre is no god" is NOT a challenge "prove to me there is no god similar to the one a fundamentalist Christian believes in". It is a challenge against the existence of ANY god.

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody "understands" that, because it doesn't happen.

Test it yourself. Take a bag of marbles. Throw them on your floor. Do it until they form something coherent, like the phrase, "To be, or not to be." That's simple.

How long will you have to do it? Argue with me when it happens.

Then he's not thinking...even about his own beliefs. If his brain is the mere product of randomness, then he has no reason for this "having no problem." In fact, he shouldn't even trust his brain.

Lets try that little experiment, shall we?

Call me when you're done.

With some alteration so that easier t model. Randomness PLUS an organizing principle.

No, you can't use an organizing principle, because the question, "Why does the universe have any organizing principles" is part of the problem, and because it removes the very element of randomness you're supposed to be modeling.

If something is "random," then by definition, it has no "organizing principle." It just plays out however the chips fall.

Evolution is imposing exactly that sort of rule upon randomness.

You're anthropomorphizing, or attributing intentionality, to "evolution." By its own description, it cannot have that. It has to be random, non-intelligent, devoid of purpose, and non-teleological. It has to just let chance and randomness do whatever they do.

So, I guess, go and try the experiment, and let me know when you're done.

It is a challenge against the existence of ANY god.

I've been saying that all along, so far...the OP suggests the speaker has some reason for believing there's no God. He doesn't define it further, and neither have I, as yet. So all your carping about "your God" versus "other gods" is simply irrelevant. We're just proving there's some sort of Creator right now; and the only postulate we've had to exclude, so far, is polytheism, because the answers it hopes to present are incoherent with its own narrative.

On we go.

[MikeNovack]

If something is "random," then by definition, it has no "organizing principle." It just plays out however the chips fall.
<< You are confusing what part of a process is random. You are assuming that if the process in any way uses "random" then the result of that process is random >>

Evolution is imposing exactly that sort of rule upon randomness.

You're anthropomorphizing, or attributing intentionality, to "evolution." By its own description, it cannot have that. It has to be random, non-intelligent, devoid of purpose, and non-teleological. It has to just let chance and randomness do whatever they do.
<< again, see above. The random part of "evolution" is just the variations themselves and exactly what the end result will be EXCEPT that it will be more fit than the current form. In what way "more fit" random", but not random that "will be more fit".>>

It is a challenge against the existence of ANY god.

I've been saying that all along, so far...the OP suggests the speaker has some reason for believing there's no God. He doesn't define it further, and neither have I, as yet. So all your carping about "your God" versus "other gods" is simply irrelevant. We're just proving there's some sort of Creator right now; and the only postulate we've had to exclude, so far, is polytheism, because the answers it hopes to present are incoherent with its own narrative.

No, you haven't really provided a good reason to exclude any/all polytheism. Why couldn't creation be the product of some committee/team? I don't find incoherent the notion, for example, that a God and a Goddess could have together created a universe. It is only when you assume polytheism implies a hierarchy that "who is first" comes into play. But equal partnership not unthinkable.

And no, the speaker is not (necessarily) somebody who believes there is no God. ASKING "can somebody give a reason?"

[Immanuel Can]

No, you haven't really provided a good reason to exclude any/all polytheism.

Yeah, I have. Polytheism posits created gods -- a completely different concept from the Ultimate Creator, by their own account. So they're not even really talking about "a God," let alone "the God."

Why couldn't creation be the product of some committee/team?

Easy. Because the team would be contingent and limited. It would also be disunified and factious, plausibly...or if not, it would be merely redundant. Why posit a "committee" when all the members always agree? That would certainly seem to run afoul of Occam's Razor, and would mean the existence of the committee had no purpose.

So it would never answer the First Cause problem.

[Immanuel Can]

To commonsense, and all those interested.

Here's a new find for you. There's a very basic discussion of the arguments for God at: https://www.prageru.com/god-101. You might find it a useful primer on the arguments you would need to engage in order to say there was no way to "prove" that "there is no God." It would at least help you map some of the territory in that discussion.

[MikeNovack]

No, you haven't really provided a good reason to exclude any/all polytheism.

Yeah, I have. Polytheism posits created gods -- a completely different concept from the Ultimate Creator, by their own account. So they're not even really talking about "a God," let alone "the God."

Why couldn't creation be the product of some committee/team?

Easy. Because the team would be contingent and limited. It would also be disunified and factious, plausibly...or if not, it would be merely redundant. Why posit a "committee" when all the members always agree? That would certainly seem to run afoul of Occam's Razor, and would mean the existence of the committee had no purpose.

So it would never answer the First Cause problem.

Polytheism (in general no more posits created gods than monotheism does. Even if you have some gods born to others (when you and some woman make a baby, that is not creation ab initio but a merging of parts of yourselves)

You agree not NECESSARILY contingent or limited, or disunified and factious. Arguing REDUNDANT another matter. The team's agreement might not be more than agreeing to let each have a share in the work. That not a necessary arrangement, that one deity could do it all is not a valid objection. Occam's razor applies if/f only a substantially more complex answer, and even then, Occam's razor is at best a suggested starting point. Yes investigate the most LIKELY answer first, but that doesn't mean it is the correct answer.

Might I humbly suggest that the humans who adopt a hierarchical cosmology are living in a hierarchical society, so they see that as natural. Humans who live in a non-hierarchical/cooperative society might adopt a collective/cooperative cosmology.

BUT --- you weren't (initially arguing polytheism was unnecessary but that it was incoherent. NECESSARILY incoherent. You don't NEED multiple gods when one would suffice, but you don't even need ONE that is separate from creation (Spinoza). Still sure you want to argue "one SEPEPATE deity is the simplest possible explanation?