The existence of God may not be the only option

Isabel Hu

In this post, I’m going to talk about some of my concerns and thoughts about the argument posted by Marco Colombini on the Philosophy Forum. Marco’s main conclusion is that theism is the most rational hypothesis to explain the universe, and I consider his argument as something follows:

(1) If established physics cannot explain all observations, then there should be something else that can explain all these.
(2) If there should be something else that can explain all these, then it should be the existence of God.
(3) Therefore, if established physics cannot explain all observations, then the existence of God is necessary to explain all these.

In his post, Marco suggests that the established physics fails to explain all observations in three main aspects. First of all, he points out that our current knowledge of physics cannot explain how the universe began and everything about the beginning of the universe is now still under the category of science fiction. Secondly, he states that our established physics cannot explain why fundamental constants and other properties of the universe are as they are. Lastly, he talks about the second law of thermodynamics and suggests that the established physics can only describe this law, but cannot explain why this is the case. Therefore, he comes to the conclusion that the existence of God can explain all these things, for there are records of God doing something scientifically impossible.
I agree with his three aspects supporting that our established physics fails to explain all observations, as it is true that we currently don’t have sufficient physical knowledge to give thorough explanation to everything. Thus, I think the first premise sounds reasonable. However, my doubts and concerns are related to the second premise, which is if there should be something else that can explain all these, then it should be the existence of God. It is reasonable for people to consider the existence of God as the explanation of all observations, but I don’t think it is the only option for people to take. It is true that there are records of miracles, which can also be said as something scientifically impossible, and for theists, they will probably consider the occurrence of miracles to be the performance of God. However, for people who are atheists and agnostics, I don’t think they will consider the second premise to be fair, as they simply don’t think God exists. Personally, I don’t think the second premise is very reliable, because I think that those things which we cannot explain using established physics may just be something that we haven’t acquired the ability to figure out the law or the pattern yet, and it cannot imply that there must be a divine existence. The future generations may progress in scientific field and figure out what actually caused the beginning of the universe and give a comprehensive explanation.

batsushi7

There is always place for theists, on subjects related that physics, or in general any natural sciences can not explain. Theistic method is simple, just apply transcendent explanations to "Black holes of science", but far as we have seen, natural sciences progress, and we actually can explain every year more things than previous. But mankind always seeks "mystical" explanations for things they can not understand, and create argument, based on their religious beliefs, or scripture. Theologians have had over 2000 years time to prove existence of god, or any religious entities, with no progress at all. Leap of faith, just leads to irrational action, and never gets us forward. Also people seek simplified explanations for things that doesn't have one.

Conception of God is used as epistemological tool, like Joker, as idea applied when u run out of explanations, or just too lazy to find answer, that can empirically be verified, or testable. But there are many cases where transcendental beings, such as "Gods", actually have been reduced into something empirical, like "Gods" of cargo cult in pacific ocean, actually happened to be airplanes that gave them humanitarian help. Of-course the cult members never believed it tho, and still keep worshiping them as "Gods".

3017amen

Also people seek simplified explanations for things that doesn't have one. — batsushi7

Some people do, and some people don't. The irony is that Philosophy itself, posit concepts of God.
And of course science does as well (theoretical physicists, cognitive science).

philosopher004

n his post, Marco suggests that the established physics fails to explain all observations in three main aspects. First of all, he points out that our current knowledge of physics cannot explain how the universe began and everything about the beginning of the universe is now still under the category of science fiction. Secondly, he states that our established physics cannot explain why fundamental constants and other properties of the universe are as they are. Lastly, he talks about the second law of thermodynamics and suggests that the established physics can only describe this law, but cannot explain why this is the case. Therefore, he comes to the conclusion that the existence of God can explain all these things, for there are records of God doing something scientifically impossible. — Isabel Hu

If we say that God is the reason for these things then why can't we attribute it to chance alone.What if everything was an accident that turned out to be something stable(our universe).What if the exact workings of chance in this universe are beyond our intelligence?.What if the highest probable event known to us might be the rarest thing to happen in this universe?.My conclusion is WE JUST DON"T KNOWbecause we are entities just floating on a tiny speck in this vast universe.We just come up with these arguments just to convince us that some higher and immaculate entity is present in this universe because it is just depressing to think that you are the most refined entity the universe can make.

Pro Hominem

Some people do, and some people don't. The irony is that Philosophy itself, posit concepts of God.
And of course science does as well (theoretical physicists, cognitive science). — 3017amen

Ummm, no.

Pro Hominem

(1) If established physics cannot explain all observations, then there should be something else that can explain all these. FALSE
(2) If there should be something else that can explain all these, then it should be the existence of God. FALSE
(3) Therefore, if established physics cannot explain all observations, then the existence of God is necessary to explain all these. FALSE (necessarily, as one cannot derive a true conclusion from false premises) — Isabel Hu

1. Why should there be such a thing? What requires its existence? If there ever were to be such a thing, it would probably be "physics, in the future". It would not be "God" because if we had actual knowledge of God, then that would be an observation for which we had no explanation. Infinite regress.

2. Why? The flying spaghetti monster works just as well.

3. This is an attempt to play the God of the gap concept in reverse. But much like when you play music backwards, you can tell yourself the devil is speaking, but you're really just imagining things.

3017amen

↪Pro Hominem

Over 75% of Philosophical domains invoke God, Ummm, no?

Theoretical physicists invoke God, in some way shape or form (causation), no?

Cognitive science does studies on things like the Religious Experience Ummm, no?

3017amen

The flying spaghetti monster works just as well. — Pro Hominem

In Christianity, was Jesus Italian? (For some reason I thought he was Jewish.)

Pro Hominem

Over 75% of Philosophical domains invoke God, Ummm, no? — 3017amen

Not sure what exactly you are claiming here, but you're going to need to cite some evidence. I suspect you don't have any.

Theoretical physicists invoke God, in some way shape or form (causation), no? — 3017amen

No. If you are using "God" as a synonym for "causation" you are distorting both terms beyond recognition.

Cognitive science does studies on things like the Religious Experience Ummm, no? — 3017amen

Yes, along with all sorts of other delusions and disorders.

Pro Hominem

In Christianity, was Jesus Italian? (For some reason I thought he was Jewish.) — 3017amen

Possibly. He's usually depicted as a tall thin pale-skinned guy, often with some facial hair. But you know, he's whatever you want him to be, just like any other fantasy. Perhaps he learned that trick from hanging out with so many hookers.

3017amen

Not sure what exactly you are claiming here, but you're going to need to cite some evidence. I suspect you don't have any. — Pro Hominem

Logic/epistemology:

1. logical possibility
2. logical necessity
3. a priori v. a posteriori
4. synthetic a priori knowledge
5. binary v. dialectic reasoning
6. reason and belief

Phenomenology/Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. subjective truth v. objective truth
3. the religious experience
4. revelation
5. NDE
6. music
7. math
8. love
9. instinct
10.sentience

Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. self-awareness
3. the will
4. the sense of wonder
5. causation
6. sentience

Cosmology:

1. the illusion of time
2. holographic principle
3. participatory anthropic principle
4. energy
5. gravity
6. causation
7. Panentheism

No. If you are using "God" as a synonym for "causation" you are distorting both terms beyond recognition. — Pro Hominem

How's that possible?

Yes, along with all sorts of other delusions and disorders. — Pro Hominem

Is that like Pathology?

He's usually depicted as a tall thin pale-skinned guy, often with some facial hair — Pro Hominem

I know, his existence is real.

3017amen

↪Pro Hominem

Oh, forgot to add:

Philosophy of Religion: God
Ethics & Political Philosophy (separation of church and state/In God we Trust).

Pro Hominem

A partial list of philosophical ideas and topics? Perhaps you're confused what the word "evidence" means? Or are you asserting that, say, all math is about the Christian God? Because if you are, you're just talking crazypants! :D

I know, his existence is real. — 3017amen

Or at least his caricatures are...

Pro Hominem

Oh, forgot to add:

Philosophy of Religion: God
Ethics & Political Philosophy (separation of church and state/In God we Trust). — 3017amen

Oh, well, that clinched it.

prothero

I think if one wants to talk about "God" one should take some time trying to define the term.
For "God" means many different things to many different people.
Is god some superhuman being who intervenes in nature through super-natural events?
I consider myself a "theist" of sorts but doubtless would be considered an "atheist" by most traditional religions (except maybe the mystical crowd).
In any event most proofs for God seem a great waste of time, one must as Kierkegaard asserts "make the leap to faith" without ignoring the value of science as well as its limitations.

3017amen

A partial list of philosophical ideas and topics? Perhaps you're confused what the word "evidence" means? Or are you asserting that, say, all math is about the Christian God? Because if you are, you're just talking crazypants! :D — Pro Hominem

Nice! Let's dive into mathematics, are you ready?

3017amen

Oh, well, that clinched it. — Pro Hominem

Are you acquiescing already?

Pro Hominem

Oh, well, that clinched it.
— Pro Hominem

Are you acquiescing already? — 3017amen

Oh, you think we're having a dialogue? Lol. Your position is baseless and futile. The lingering taint of religion is an object of unfortunate distraction, not serious consideration. You are attempting to justify your pre-rational ghost stories with rational thought. It's why the "arguments" for the existence of god all fail. God is inherently incompatible with a reason and science based view of the world.

But by all means, tell me about math... :roll:

3017amen

But by all means, tell me about math... :roll: — Pro Hominem

I'm a Christian Existentialist and have more questions than answers. But I am awfully glad you joined the discussion because it appears, or at least I'm sensing, that you have a lot of answers to [my] existential questions and concerns. Or, if nothing else, you probably have certain secrets that might relate to the nature of existence.

So without further ado, are mathematical truth's invented or do they have an independent existence?

Bonus question: are they required for survival of the fittest?

Pro Hominem

They are invented in that they are correlative ideas manufactured by human consciousness in a effort to make sense of the world around them. Your God is another one of these fabrications. However, unlike your God, math actually correlates to observable reality.

No. What is required for survival of the fittest is for there to be organisms, and for the environment to shape those organisms such that some traits survive and others do not. Don't even see how you got here from math, but ok.

Next?

JerseyFlight

So without further ado, are mathematical truth's invented or do they have an independent existence? — 3017amen

I was just conversing on this in another thread not too long ago, I don't remember it going in the direction of the mathematical supernaturalists. The tactic here is worthy of intellectual contempt in my opinion, as it seeks to leverage a high value symbolic structure (or negate that structure's value in the case of supernatural denial). Never mind that the specifics of your Christianity are a million miles away from this form of reason. Mathematical symbols are human inventions, they contain a high level of approximation and for that reason are exceedingly useful. You ask if they have an independent existence? Oh, do explain? This is classic idealism.

3017amen

math actually correlates to observable reality. — Pro Hominem

Are you sure? You're implying that mathematical truth correlates to the reality of consciousness. Is there a mathematical formula that explains consciousness?

. What is required for survival of the fittest is for there to be organisms, and for the environment to shape those organisms such that some traits survive and others do not. Don't even see how you got here from math, but ok. — Pro Hominem

Are you sure? Surviving in the jungle doesn't require knowledge of the laws of gravity do they? Survival depends on appreciation of how the world is; not any hidden underlying order. Surely that couldn't be the case, could it?

So using that example, it seems like you're implying that in order to evade falling objects, I must first run calculations (or at least have knowledge of mathematics) in order to avoid the object. But if I did that, how would I have enough time to avoid the object itself? Wouldn't sensory perception in itself be sufficient?

180 Proof

↪Pro Hominem

:up:

↪JerseyFlight

:up:

Pro Hominem

Are you sure? You're implying that mathematical truth correlates to the reality of consciousness. Is there a mathematical formula that explains consciousness? — 3017amen

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said mathematics was invented by human consciousness as a tool. It is a piece of technology. Stop putting the word truth next to it if you're going to accurately represent what I'm saying.

There might be, but I don't know it. As for explaining consciousness, what's to explain? We all have it.

Are you sure? Surviving in the jungle doesn't require knowledge of the laws of gravity do they? Survival depends on appreciation of how the world is; not any hidden underlying order. Surely that couldn't be the case, could it?

So using that example, it seems like you're implying that in order to evade falling objects, I must first run calculations (or at least have knowledge of mathematics) in order to avoid the object. But if I did that, how would I have enough time to avoid the object itself? Wouldn't sensory perception in itself be sufficient? — 3017amen

You know, you clearly don't seem to need me since you want to make both sides of this argument. I imagine you play with yourself this way a lot. Must be lonely.

That nonsense is in no way connected to what I said. I said natural selection is about the environment acting on organisms, not the other way around. I also specifically said it had nothing to do with math. Are you an AI? Are you just sampling my language and spitting out preprogrammed responses?

3017amen

There might be, but I don't know it. As — Pro Hominem

Well let's parse one thing at a time carefully. Are you saying that mathematical formulas cannot explain the nature of your conscious existence? Or can it only explain things like laws of gravity... (?)

Must be lonely. — Pro Hominem

I'm a little confused, what does loneliness have to do with mathematical truths?

Anyway back to my questions, let me repeat them for you, and maybe take a day or two to think about them or research them in case you are unable to provide a cogent answer:

Are you sure? Surviving in the jungle doesn't require knowledge of the laws of gravity do they? Survival depends on appreciation of how the world is; not any hidden underlying order. Surely that couldn't be the case, could it?

So using that example, it seems like you're implying that in order to evade falling objects, I must first run calculations (or at least have knowledge of mathematics) in order to avoid the object. But if I did that, how would I have enough time to avoid the object itself? Wouldn't sensory perception in itself be sufficient?

3017amen

↪180 Proof

Don't be shy 180 step up to the plate. If you're scared say you're scared LOL

Pro Hominem

Well let's parse one thing at a time carefully. Are you saying that mathematical formulas cannot explain the nature of your conscious existence? Or can it only explain things like laws of gravity... (?) — 3017amen

Neither. This is a false choice. Mathematics doesn't explain things. It correlates with them. Mathematics will allow you to design an aircraft, but it doesn't explain why it flies.

Consciousness exists because complexity accumulates in the universe. When complexities interact they beget more complexities. These complexities must continue to increase or they fall prey to entropy. Eventually, human consciousness arose and is one of the greatest complexities we are aware of currently. However, our consciousness must continue to increase in complexity or it will deteriorate and disappear. It started out individual, then tribal, then religious, now rational. Rationality will allow us to uncover our further evolution. Religion is the obsolete past.

I'm a little confused, what does loneliness have to do with mathematical truths? — 3017amen

What does math have to do with natural selection? You questions are stupid, but I'll answer them. Perhaps you will learn from example.

Are you sure? Surviving in the jungle doesn't require knowledge of the laws of gravity do they? Survival depends on appreciation of how the world is; not any hidden underlying order. Surely that couldn't be the case, could it? — 3017amen

No, survival does not require knowledge of gravity, or even knowledge of the world. The world IS, and some survive in it.

So using that example, it seems like you're implying that in order to evade falling objects, I must first run calculations (or at least have knowledge of mathematics) in order to avoid the object. But if I did that, how would I have enough time to avoid the object itself? Wouldn't sensory perception in itself be sufficient? — 3017amen

No, I wasn't, and I'm still not. Whether sensory perception ends up being sufficient is exactly what determines survival. If it is, you survived. It it isn't, well...

I realize I'm not playing along by giving the answers you've scripted for me, but I know you will continue your inane meanderings anyway. Go ahead, I'm entertained to see where you end up. It's weird, but sort of adorable in a way.

Full disclosure, though, I need to go make dinner soon, so it may have to wait for tomorrow. I keep praying for God to deliver manna from heaven, but he's not doing it. Mathematics must be broken. :scream:

3017amen

Neither. This is a false choice. Mathematics doesn't explain things. It correlates with them. Mathematics will allow you to design an aircraft, but it doesn't explain why it flies. — Pro Hominem

Okay. What then explains existence?

Consciousness exists because complexity accumulates in the universe. — Pro Hominem

What do you mean by complexity? Is that like a sort of metaphysical phenomena? I'm not following that...

Rationality will allow us to uncover our further evolution. — Pro Hominem

What kind of rationality are you speaking of? For instance, a priori or a posteriori kinds of "rationality" as you say?

The world IS, and some survive in it. — Pro Hominem

Oh I got it, are you saying the world just is, kind of like a logical necessity? Otherwise you haven't explained why we have mathematical ability. Can you shed any light on that?

I keep praying for God to deliver manna from heaven, but he's not — Pro Hominem

I'm confused, I thought perhaps you were an atheist (?). No matter, I look forward to your reply.

philosopher004

Okay. What then explains existence? — 3017amen

Why should it be explained?We humans just try to fit everything in our tiny brains and take for granted that everything should be explain in this vast universe.What if everything is senseless?.

3017amen

Why should it be explained?We humans just try to fit everything in our tiny brains and take for granted that everything should be explain in this vast universe.What if everything is senseless?. — philosopher004

Oh, I see. So I think what I'm hearing from you is that you can't explain how you got here (your own existence) yet you're making a judgement about a God's existence, right?

Or think of it another way. In Christianity Jesus was known to be the metaphorical son of God who had a consciousness. You have a consciousness. And neither of which, it seems, can be explained using logic, right?

And as far as tiny brains, are you suggesting the bigger the brain is, the better?

Anyway, what do you mean by senseless? Do you mean a sense of purpose?

philosopher004

Or think of it another way. In Christianity Jesus was known to be the metaphorical son of God who had a consciousness. You have a consciousness. And neither of which, it seems, can be explained using logic, right?

And as far as tiny brains, are you suggesting the bigger the brain is, the better?

Anyway, what do you mean by senseless? Do you mean a sense of purpose? — 3017amen

By senseless I mean absence of final purpose of anything.We are just floating on this tiny rock in this vast universe.I am saying fathoming the universe in our tiny brain is impossible

I am not denying the existence of God but we may be ruled by a benevolent deity to an evil alien civilization who is also in other words God.

The existence of God may not be the only option

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions