Certainty There Is No God (Question)

[Guest Queefsr4Quitters]

Since one cannot test what is not falsifiable (a God that supposedly is outside the natural realm), can any scientist (or anyone else for that matter) assert that God doesn't exist with any amount of certainty?

 

This would be assuming a God that doesn't intervene like in prayer or miracles.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

If "god" is a concept that can morph when scrutinized, than of course not. But particular gods, with exact characteristics can be individually disproved. Problem is, people then just drop the impossible qualities and give it new ones. I find myself so often comparing it to Santa Clause it's amusing - we can disprove the existence of Santa as defined as "a man who rides reindeer across the sky one night a year and delivers toys to 'good' children all over the world". If someone defines Santa as the feeling of Christmas that makes people want to buy shit, then its a lot harder to disprove. So the more specific the god is, the easier it is to disprove. If it is kept a vague and pretty much undefinable concept, scientifically disproving it becomes an entirely different matter.

 

I like to quote(ish) something I heard on the atheist experience: If god's characteristics are such that they cannot be proven to exist, and his effect on the physical world and presence is analogous to 'nothingness,' then the definition of god is analogous to nothingness; how is it that he can then exist? I am sure I did not explain it half as well as they did, but really - if the same definition of god can be used to define 'nothing', because he shows no evidence and does not interact with the physical world, is that not simplified to God = nothing?

 

So either god has defined characteristics which can be disproved (and many times are disproved), or his characteristics are such that he cannot be told apart from non-existence and subsequently... does not exist.

[Guest Davka]

I think the concept of a creator God who does not intervene or interact with creation is the only possibility that would make any sense at all. But that's not the "god" of any religion I'm aware of - more like an unfathomable alien being which cannot be studied except possibly through inference.

 

That, however, would make such a being indistinguishable (mathematically) from a simple law of nature. So even if we defined this "creator god," it is unlikely that we would infer intelligence or intent.

[R. S. Martin]

Since one cannot test what is not falsifiable (a God that supposedly is outside the natural realm), can any scientist (or anyone else for that matter) assert that God doesn't exist with any amount of certainty?

 

This would be assuming a God that doesn't intervene like in prayer or miracles.

 

For my own peace of mind, I had to prove the existence/nonexistence of the supernatural. That includes God/gods of all kinds. I went at it via the social sciences, i.e. sociology, anthropology, and psychology. Obviously, there is no evidence from the natural sciences for the supernatural, but the social sciences are the final proof to me that there is no supernatural realm.

 

Not only do I feel confident that there is no god of the Christian description, nor is there magic--black or white or of any other description. I find natural explanations for all phenomena that humans label god or the supernatural of any kind in any religion or superstition.

 

I admit that this is a radical stand taken by few people, religious or otherwise. It is, however, my position and if I would take the time to write a book I could back it up with the social sciences. Interested parties may wish to start with Pascal Boyer's Religion Explained.

 

However, the crushing evidence for me is the argument from silence. Religion either cannot or will not (never mind which) provide evidence for the object of its worship. Every piece of so-called evidence they do provide has a basis in nature or in the natural world/universe. To prove (or disprove) this, the natural sciences have been hard at work for five centuries.

 

When ID proponents argue that "Darwinians," or mainstream scientists, do not investigate the possibility of God as the originator of the universe, they conveniently forget that it was out of deep and pervasive Christendom that Western science grew. The "God hypothesis" had been taken for granted by our early scientists of the 1400s and 1500s, if I am not mistaken. ID proponents somehow fail to know this. It is not productive to reinvent the wheel, i.e. to re-introduce the God hypothesis when we have already thoroughly investigated and weighed all the pros and cons. That is the way things look to me.

[Guest Queefsr4Quitters]

because he shows no evidence and does not interact with the physical world, is that not simplified to God = nothing?

Now a follow up I have is: Does evidence necessarily have to be scientific? In other words, are the only things we can be certain to be true those things which undergo scientific tests? Because if the answer to that is 'yes', wouldn't the response to that be that that statement is false, since that belief cannot be scientifically tested? If the answer is 'no' then what other ways can we know things?

[agnosticator]

Thanks for the reference R.S.

[agnosticator]

Does evidence necessarily have to be scientific? In other words, are the only things we can be certain to be true those things which undergo scientific tests? Because if the answer to that is 'yes', wouldn't the response to that be that that statement is false, since that belief cannot be scientifically tested? If the answer is 'no' then what other ways can we know things?

 

I think when it comes to evidence of god's existence it is a "yes". I would also think that "belief" is a different animal than God's existence. One could believe based on evidence or believe without evidence. Unless you mean belief as 100% knowledge of god's existence. How that is possible I don't know.

 

But if god's attributes are indistinguishable from nature, then is god nature? or nothing?

[Shyone]

because he shows no evidence and does not interact with the physical world, is that not simplified to God = nothing?

Now a follow up I have is: Does evidence necessarily have to be scientific? In other words, are the only things we can be certain to be true those things which undergo scientific tests? Because if the answer to that is 'yes', wouldn't the response to that be that that statement is false, since that belief cannot be scientifically tested? If the answer is 'no' then what other ways can we know things?

R.S. Martin's strategy was essentially the same that I used. Science, archeology, social sciences, anthropology, history and every other way of examining people and/or religion satisfied me that there is no god of any kind.

 

Evidence of a subjective nature cannot be true for everyone, because not everyone has the same experiences (and crazy people have plenty of subjective experiences of god). This would include experiences during prayer, NDEs, hallucinations (visions), etc. A "feeling that this must be right" means nothing outside of that person, and people of other faiths have the same inherent knowledge - and they can't all be correct.

 

Logic, in the absence of evidence, can lead one over a cliff. If the initial assumptions are false, then the conclusions will be wildly incorrect. Just look at Aquinas to see a brilliant man led down the wrong path by false assumptions.

 

Most of the tenets of religion are inherently untestable, but the value of untestable rewards or punishments is neutral. One may choose to believe or not, and considering that there are other religions with completely different tenets anything that is not shared with all religions can be assumed to be false - because they cannot all be true, and there is no way to choose based on any set of criteria.

 

Besides subjective "evidence", logic and preference (or accident of birth), what else is left?

[Mriana]

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. [Carl Sagan]

 

At best, since everything within the universe is made up of various elements, it, whatever it is, can only be chemical in nature, maybe more than one interacting with and/or reacting to each other. Am I saying there is absolutely without a doubt no god? No, but I do not believe it is anything that people have conceive of if there is there one. I think it is more of a case of it being within everything and everyone in the form of chemistry. That is the short of it, with little to no details, but it is nothing people could pray to or even worship. Appreciate, yes, but not pray to or worship. Emotional satisfaction depends on the individual and what they experience or how they experience it.

[GraphicsGuy]

I don't think anything outside our physical realm of existence is provable or improvable at this point in human-development. Anything is hypothetically probable.

 

However, the existence of a being that knows and cares about each one of us and is knowable/understandable by us is supremely unlikely. An infinitessimal improbability.

[Midnight-mindwanderings]

Now a follow up I have is: Does evidence necessarily have to be scientific? In other words, are the only things we can be certain to be true those things which undergo scientific tests? Because if the answer to that is 'yes', wouldn't the response to that be that that statement is false, since that belief cannot be scientifically tested? If the answer is 'no' then what other ways can we know things?

 

There are other means of knowledge besides science. One could philosophically discuss knowledge and all its convoluted meanings - how do we know what we know and what if what we think we know is wrong etc etc. But in human terms and for human means, there are more ways to know things than to test them scientifically. For instance, you don't need any scientific test to tell you that a 2-dimensional shape made of three line segments that intersect to have 3 interior angles is a triangle. We know it by definition. If you see something with three sides and three interior angles you know it is a triangle. We use things like this in geometry and logic proofs. But some things do not have agreed upon definitions - usually abstract concepts, like god for instance. In that case, I'd let the person with the belief define the terms and then see what sort of proof could be brought against it. Its a tricky thing, because when you disprove one aspect, they twist around and change it.

 

So I'd say, as far as we can assert that we know anything, it is possible to also assert that god does not exist whether by scientific proofs or from amongst the multitude of other forms of human knowledge previously mentioned. I prefer the straight up logic proofs though it turns out many people don't understand logic. Convincing someone that what they 'know' is wrong is pretty much impossible in any case. Oh my this is like my theory of knowledge class all over again! Seriously, I have a headache just thinking about it

[RaisedPB]

because he shows no evidence and does not interact with the physical world, is that not simplified to God = nothing?

Now a follow up I have is: Does evidence necessarily have to be scientific? In other words, are the only things we can be certain to be true those things which undergo scientific tests? Because if the answer to that is 'yes', wouldn't the response to that be that that statement is false, since that belief cannot be scientifically tested? If the answer is 'no' then what other ways can we know things?

 

There clearly are things we "know" that are beyond purely scientific proof. Emotions are a good example. You know how you feel about someone or something, but it is not scientifically proveable (though there is a lot of interesting work going on with the study of the brain and brain activity). I think that is what god is to modern people today, for that is the only real proof that can be offered. It is clearly proveable that the god of the old testament is not real, or at least certainly not active in the modern world as described in the bible. But christians today offer things like "he lives in my heart", "god answers my prayers", "god speaks to me through the bible". As another poster stated, these are only meaningful to that person, and in no way proveable outside of that person or submittable to the scientific method. However, the claims of the bible that involve the age of the earth, anthropology, zoology, biology, and astronomy can be submitted to scientific testing, and have proven not to stand up to modern scientific knowledge.

[Mriana]

They also attribute the aesthetic sense to God too, when it is external stimuli triggering internal chemistry in the brain. It cannot be said with absolute certainty that this is a god. It can be said with certainty that it is chemistry.

[Astreja]

I have a certainty of about .999... that the god of the Bible is fictional. Its methods and behaviours are inconsistent with that of a human of average sanity, let alone an allegedly super-intelligent and long-lived being.

 

As for the evidence question, evidence that cannot be verified via repeated experimentation just isn't particularly useful. Many people have had "spiritual" experiences that lead them in the direction of some belief or other; but this serves as first-hand evidence only for the person who has had the experience.

[Franko47]

Like some others, I tend to handle the God/no God question more from a philosophical standpoint than from science.

 

 

Add to that a dimension of psychology and you're off to the races. As Astreja just pointed out, the God of the OT is a philosophical nightmare. In fact, I have never seen such a confused tangled web of philosophical and psychological premises at work. Add to that the fact that the OT teaches humanity nothing at all that has any value, except the value of fear. Irrational punishments and atrocity have always been "method" with ancient warrior kings and rulers; the ultimate act of power is always the taking of life. Therefore, barbarian Gods must kill or demand death on a regular basis. Even with the turnover into the New Testament, an ultimate expression of violence (hell fire) is still maintained. It's amazing really, when you think about it, just how dependent the Abrahamic faith systems are on violence.

 

While the premise of a Universal God, or God-concept is still possible, and still outside the purvue of science, it would likely comprise something to which you could not establish a religion toward. Every attempt at theology, doctrine, or cultural mythology would distort and tarnish such a thing. It could only be a God accessible by personal intuition. No other group of persons could hold lease on such a thing. God may be smart, but humans are stupid.

 

In this way, religion itself pretty well dissolves it's own God; it tries to define and control that which is beyond it, even by it's own admission.

 

OK, I'm wandering a bit; and some of this is a little bit lofty.

[Mriana]

Like some others, I tend to handle the God/no God question more from a philosophical standpoint than from science.

 

 

Add to that a dimension of psychology and you're off to the races. As Astreja just pointed out, the God of the OT is a philosophical nightmare. In fact, I have never seen such a confused tangled web of philosophical and psychological premises at work. Add to that the fact that the OT teaches humanity nothing at all that has any value, except the value of fear. Irrational punishments and atrocity have always been "method" with ancient warrior kings and rulers; the ultimate act of power is always the taking of life. Therefore, barbarian Gods must kill or demand death on a regular basis. Even with the turnover into the New Testament, an ultimate expression of violence (hell fire) is still maintained. It's amazing really, when you think about it, just how dependent the Abrahamic faith systems are on violence.

 

While the premise of a Universal God, or God-concept is still possible, and still outside the purvue of science, it would likely comprise something to which you could not establish a religion toward. Every attempt at theology, doctrine, or cultural mythology would distort and tarnish such a thing. It could only be a God accessible by personal intuition. No other group of persons could hold lease on such a thing. God may be smart, but humans are stupid.

 

In this way, religion itself pretty well dissolves it's own God; it tries to define and control that which is beyond it, even by it's own admission.

 

OK, I'm wandering a bit; and some of this is a little bit lofty.

 

Franko, I was talking psychology when I was talking about brain chemistry and it does not equate any supreme being. Just an aesthetic feeling that people call god and then create a God concept, but it's not God. Philosophy doesn't work for that either, because even in that you can deduce God down to nothing more than a human concept. It just doesn't work to have a possible God, maybe a concept, but that's not real either because it is created by humans, not something out there. So by the same token, psychology and philosophy also "dissolves it's own God" too.

 

BTW, psychology is also a science.