Does God exist?

[andyoxon]

Tut tut tut. If you are a scientist then you most certainly should know not to use either the "you can't disprove it so it must be true" or the "what came before the Big Bang?" (first cause) arguments.

The infinite set of things you can't disprove includes Bernard Russell's teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Parmesan Be Upon Him!). Hence the idea that scientific theories need to be falsifiable; if a god can only be hypothesised, but there is no testable evidence for its existence, then the theory cannot be regarded as scientific, so doesn't belong in a discussion about the origins of the physical universe.

Likewise your ultimate cause argument simply gets you into the deep water of untestable theories. You can't simply say "We don't know what came 'before' the Big Bang, therefore God must exist" because one could equally propose an infinite number of other untestable explanations for the Big Bang. IIRC, both Dr Who and Red Dwarf have started the Big Bang! Maybe it was time travellers from our universe, or another one? Maybe it is a simulation in a computer, an explosion in someone's particle accelerator, or an artifact from somewhere else, or produced by a cosmic biological process like the continuous creation beings in Terry Pratchett's Strata.

Why does the ultimate cause have to be anything like your god? Why does it have to be sentient, or even if sentient, remotely interested in human beings, let alone demanding 'sacrifices' from them? The point is that the best we can do may be to say "we don't know what the ultimate cause is", maybe we can never know because it is outside our universe. But that doesn't give us licence to invent one to our particular liking.

I wonder what you make of this m.

Russell's Teapot: Does it Hold Water?

Here is a famous passage from Bertrand Russell's Is There a God?

<snip> see link
http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1169851433.shtml

One thing Russell is doing in this passage is making an unexceptionable point about burden of proof and/or the ad ignorantiam fallacy. If the existence of X has not been disproven, it does not follow that X exists, or even that it is reasonable to believe that X exists. So if anyone were to affirm the existence of something like Russell's celestial teapot or Edward Abbey's angry unicorn on the dark side of the moon, then the onus probandi would be on him to support his outlandish claims. The burden of proof would not rest on those who deny or dismiss such claims.

So far, so good. Russell is of course doing more than underscoring a couple of obvious points in the theory of argumentation. He is applying his points of logic to the God question. Here too I have no complaint. If the existence of God has not been disproven, it does not follow that God exists or even that it is reasonable to believe that God exists.

But the real appeal to atheists and agnostics of the Teapot passage rests on a third move Russell makes. He is clearly suggesting that belief in God (i.e., belief that God exists) is epistemically on a par with believing in a celestial teapot. Just as we have no reason to believe in celestial teapots, irate lunar unicorns (lunicorns?), flying spaghetti monsters, and the like, we have no reason to believe in God. But perhaps we should distinguish between a strong and a weak reading of Russell's suggestion:

S. Just as we cannot have any reason to believe that an empirically undetectable celestial teapot exists, we cannot have any reason to believe that God exists.

W. Just as we do not have any reason to believe that a celestial teapot exists, we do not have any reason to believe that God exists.

Now it seems to me that both (S) and (W) are plainly false: we have all sorts of reasons for believing that God exists. Here Alvin Plantinga sketches about two dozen theistic arguments. Atheists will not find them compelling, of course, but that is irrelevant. The issue is whether a reasoned case can be made for theism, and the answer is in the affirmative. Belief in God and in Russell's teapot are therefore not on a par since there are no empirical or theoretical reasons for believing in his teapot.

For me at least this last point on how the devices of FSM/teapots, not forgetting Santa, are often used - rings true. Belief in God - a creator God, in Christianity, flows from the focus on/faith in Christ - his life, death and resurrection. And IMO, the answer to one of Richard Dawkins' questions "who created God" is most likely, from a Christian POV, an eternal God needs no first cause. It depends of course what you believe.

 

[Mr Pig]

When I was in my teens I read a lot of Bertrand Russel's books, they made good sense to me. He was wrong though and most annoying, he had little understanding of what the Word Of God actually taught. Time and again he'd lambaste the Christian position on this or that when, as I later discovered, that wasn't what the Bible taught at all.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

"Just as we do not have any reason to believe that a celestial teapot exists, we do not have any reason to believe that God exists"

The Bible says we do. In fact:

Romans1
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

What this passage is saying is that men are without excuse because the things that are clearly visible to them are ample evidence of the power and nature of God.

Are you wearing a wrist watch? If so, look at it. Where did it come from? I assume you bought it from a shop, which in turn bought it from a wholesaler who one way or another got it from the manufacturer.

What if I said to you that that's not where it came from at all. What if I said that millions of years ago, cosmic winds brought together atoms of steel etc and over time fused them together to form the watch, which just by random chance was accurate to one-hundredth of a second and was marked with culturally correct numerals!

I'm being ridiculous obviously. The skills involved in the manufacture of even a cheap watch are intense and it is clearly the result of design. How is it then that you could look at the hand right next to the watch and not see design?

Look at your hand for a minute. Think about all the aspects of its design, its self-adjusting servos, temperature and touch sensors. The dexterity and precision of its movement, heck it can even self-repair minor damage! With all the knowledge and technology at their disposal all the scientists in the world today could not build a human hand, it would be utterly impossible. And that's just a hand!

How can you think that such complexity came about by random chance? look in the mirror, does random chance produce symmetry? Make no mistake, origin of life by random chance is 'not' logical. For a kick off it breaks two laws!

It breaks the laws of bio genesis, the law which states that life only comes from life, and the second law of thermodynamics which has to do with entropy.

What the entropy laws state is that in the absence of intelligent input things flow from order to disorder. Things even out. Complex moves towards simple. If you left a wooden clock in a room for one-hundred years it would not end up in better condition than it was to begin with.

Evolution, or the part of it we're talking about here, states that the vast complexity of life resulted from random chance.

The first law, the law of bio genesis, states that life can only come from life. Many years ago some people, like Aristotle for instance, believed in what was called spontaneous generation. They believed that if you left a piece of meat to rot maggots would spontaneously form in it out of the rotting matter. Now we know that's not true don't we?

Yet the theory of evolution teaches that life formed out dead matter, by random chance. I have to say that if you have a theory that breaks two fundamental scientific laws, ipso facto you have a very bad theory!

You can't get around this. Science is using observable evidence, often acquired through experimentation, to confirm theories and move knowledge forward. Evolution fails this test. Evolution is not scientific, it is faith!

Don't think it's just me saying that. Charles Darwin said shortly before his death that " 'they' are making a religion out of my unformed ideas". Incidentally, Darwin also called the book of Romans "that royal book" and carried it with him everywhere.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Evolution, or the part of it we're talking about here, states that the vast complexity of life resulted from random chance.

This is the only flaw that needs pointing out here, since it reduces the rest of your argument to nonsense. No serious evolutionary scientist would ever claim that "life resulted from random chance". That is not at all what evolutionary theory states, anywhere. Natural selection is an entirely different thing.

 

[Jaded]

Are you wearing a wrist watch? If so, look at it. Where did it come from? I assume you bought it from a shop, which in turn bought it from a wholesaler who one way or another got it from the manufacturer.

What if I said to you that that's not where it came from at all. What if I said that millions of years ago, cosmic winds brought together atoms of steel etc and over time fused them together to form the watch, which just by random chance was accurate to one-hundredth of a second and was marked with culturally correct numerals!

I'm being ridiculous obviously. The skills involved in the manufacture of even a cheap watch are intense and it is clearly the result of design. How is it then that you could look at the hand right next to the watch and not see design?

You obviously have no idea about watches. Clock mechanisms are actually quite simple. A spring and something to make it unwind at a predetermined rate.

Look at your hand for a minute. Think about all the aspects of its design, its self-adjusting servos, temperature and touch sensors. The dexterity and precision of its movement, heck it can even self-repair minor damage! With all the knowledge and technology at their disposal all the scientists in the world today could not build a human hand, it would be utterly impossible. And that's just a hand!

How can you think that such complexity came about by random chance? look in the mirror, does random chance produce symmetry? Make no mistake, origin of life by random chance is 'not' logical. For a kick off it breaks two laws!

Not random chance!

Have you never seen the parallels in embryology and in the evolutionary process? The similarities between a dolphins flipper and a human hand. Why make the flipper so badly? Why make the human back out of parts that were designed for a horizontal back, that in turn developed from a segmented being? Seems a very lazy god.

It breaks the laws of bio genesis, the law which states that life only comes from life, and the second law of thermodynamics which has to do with entropy.

What the entropy laws state is that in the absence of intelligent input things flow from order to disorder. Things even out. Complex moves towards simple. If you left a wooden clock in a room for one-hundred years it would not end up in better condition than it was to begin with.



Evolution, or the part of it we're talking about here, states that the vast complexity of life resulted from random chance.

The first law, the law of bio genesis, states that life can only come from life. Many years ago some people, like Aristotle for instance, believed in what was called spontaneous generation. They believed that if you left a piece of meat to rot maggots would spontaneously form in it out of the rotting matter. Now we know that's not true don't we?

This law of biogenesis is rather convenient for god.

It is also exceptionally simple.

It also neatly discounts the fact that the earth has been here for 4.5 billion years. I know this is a hard fact to swallow for some god followers (who believe that it has been here for 5,000 year!!!) but you have absolutely no concept of 4.5 billion years and what can happen in that time with a mix of elements, gasses, temperatures.

I don't know how life started in the first place but I am not so arrogant that I can make up a god, say that he made life and then, worst of all, try to get others to go with my made up belief in such an insidious way.

 

[wafflycat]

Thank the FSM for some sanity on this thread...

I love to be touched by his noodly appendege. At least I think that's what it is when I snuggle up to Mr Wafflycat...

 

[515mm]

Who has been promising free beer when I dead, Tell me Tell me as Ill be needing 4 six packs a week which is going cost them loads as ill be having a double chaser of Ardbeg 77 with each can.

Ardbeg '77? My dear, the world knows you should be looking at the '74. Also, I shall draw a discrete veil over the canned beer. *shudder*

 

[Mr Pig]

Natural selection is an entirely different thing.

Yes it is. Natural selection is demonstrable and is known to happen in the world today. But only within species as a survival mechanism. Darwin's leap was to suggest its possible involvement in the origins of new species.

No serious evolutionary scientist would ever claim that "life resulted from random chance".

Really? That's a bold suggestion. From my experience atheists are very good at saying people are talking nonsense but very short on backing it up.

Clock mechanisms are actually quite simple.

So you think a mechanical watch 'could' come about by random chance? Interesting. I was thinking about a digital watch myself! ;0) Could you make one? maybe with the combined efforts of everyone on this forum we could make one, but I doubt it.

I know this is a hard fact to swallow for some god followers but you have absolutely no concept of 4.5 billion years and what can happen in that time with a mix of elements, gasses, temperatures

Yip. Take a stupid idea, like the idea that something as murderously complex as life could come about by accident, add 'millions' of years and suddenly it becomes sensible again! If this "mix of elements temperatures and gasses" could come together in such a way as to produce life by random chance, how come scientists can't replicate it today when they're actively trying to?

The cell is the simplest living organism that we know of. Most of the theories about life coming about by chance were proposed before molecular biology figured out just how complicated even one cell is! It has been compared to a city with a transport system, control centre, and many other mechanisms performing specific vital functions.

For even a simple life form to work all of its components have to be in place and working correctly. Remove or damage one and the life form dies. Can you 'really' imagine a fully functioning, complex system like that just falling into place by chance, ever?

And that's not the end of it. Let's say it did. Let's assume our little life form came together one day somewhere on this planet, 'millions' of years ago. Not only does it need to be fully functioning but it needs to have popped into existence already equipped with the ability to self-replicate or its little life is going to be pretty darn short!

Can't you see how stupid the idea is? When we look at design we assume the hand of a designer. We all do that all of the time. Atheists do it with everything they see, except with life. Life is by miles the most complex design that human eye has ever seen. How can you look at it and think for one second it came about by random chance when you could not pick up a spoon from the kitchen table and think that?

I don't 'make up' a God. I see design and believe there was a designer. It's very simple, you have to be taught 'not' to see it.

Psalm 139
"14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."

 

[Rhythm Thief]

So can you reference me the scientific paper in which a proper evolutionist tells us that life evolved from random chance?

 

[wafflycat]

Mr Pig hasn't heard of speciation then.

 

[Mr Pig]

Could you tell me/us where you, or these evolutionists, think life came from then?

Unfortunately I need a catch a flight in a few hours so I won't be able to respond for a week. All the best though guys and safe riding :0)

 

[Jaded]

Mr Pig,

This book you follow - why did you choose that particular book rather than any other output of mankind over the last 10,000 years or so?

 

[Mr Pig]

Mr Pig hasn't heard of speciation then.

Yes he has, and it has nothing to do with the origin of life itself.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

Could you tell me/us where you, or these evolutionists, think life came from then?

No. Because we're not trying to prove anything here, the burden of proof is squarely on you. You've come up with this theory that the world was created by a bloke living in the sky, now you need to provide evidence.

Unfortunately I need a catch a flight in a few hours so I won't be able to respond for a week. All the best though guys and safe riding :0)

Safe riding to you too. Have fun!

 

[Mr Pig]

Mr Pig,

This book you follow - why did you choose that particular book ?

That's a very important question and I'd love to talk about that right now but unfortunately I 'need' to get off this stupid computer and get ready to get to the airport. I won't forget though, it is a critical question.

All the best, see you in a week :0)

 

[wafflycat]

Digressing..

Religion: I have faith therefore it's a unalterable fact. I have faith that my belief is better than your belief. My god is the only god and the rest of you who believe in a different way or don't believe in god at all are all going to burn in hell unless you repent and believe my way.

Science: You have a theory, you build a hypothesis, test, test again and again, refine hypothesis, test again, and again... draw up paper setting your hypothesis, methodology, results, conclusions, limitations, further ideas for more research based on the evidence you have found. Put your paper forward for extensive peer review. Peer review process refines your work, tests & conclusions based on the evidence. Get published in journal where the public and your peers can judge your work and thus develops a body of 'beliefs' which are open to challenge, not on 'faith' but on evidence. Over time, as new evidence comes to light, the wealth of scientific knowledge grows, changes as old ideas are overturned by new evidence. Nothing is cast in stone: old scientific knowledge can and is overturned if new evidence comes to light.

Interesting debate on the peer review process on Radio 4, which alas I only caught part of. One interesting comment from Steve Jones was that if the *evidence* came to light that the theory of evolution was false, then as a scientist, he'd accept it. As it is, that evidence is not forthcoming. The best evidence we have is that the theory of evolution holds water.

Personally, whilst I have no problem accepting that folk are quite entitled to have religious beliefs, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu.. whatever, I rather get amused when religion, a matter of *faith*, is represented as *fact*.

I've met many religious folk who are genuinely good people who live their lives in a way that does no harm to others, are kind to others, respect others and genuinely try to live their lives in a "do unto others" way. Equally, I've met many non-religious people who are also genuinely good people, living their lives in ways not to harm others, are kind to others, respect others and genuinely try to live their lives in a "do unto others" way.

Currently with science we really don't know the *fact* of how life started: there are various theories which are around, but none has enough evidence to be a conclusive fact. That it is not known exactly how life started does not mean that there must be a god or some sort of intelligence behind it all. Have your faith in god if you want, but faith is not fact.