The Theist Strikes Back, episode IV

Mike,

"Why" is precisely the nature of this debate. There is a "why" the universe exists, just like there is why I love my wife, why I am back in school at 32 years old, and why I am engaged in having this debate with you. Why do trees grow the way they do, why do mountains exist where they do, why are there only 2 "dead" lakes in the world? There is "why" all over the place; should the universe be any different? My son asks me "why" all the time, and eventually I say something assinine like "just because" just to get him to stop pestering me. But "just because" can't be the end of the answers. Even trying to craft this argument, I can't get away from asking "why" questions - all of this evidences to me the idea of a greater purpose. This is, again to me, the line of distinction between us and animals. Animals are content with how, and never go into why. We are the only animal that asks why. This is the reason that I suggest that we would never have thought to question the existence of God - for it is God that inspires us to ask why. I can't think of any other purpose for our insatiable quest for understanding - our search for the "why" - than that we are inspired to it. I concede that this search creates hair-brained ideas all the time, like teapots and pasta monsters, but that doesn't by implication mean the intent is flawed.

Even if the Bible is a wholly human creation, it at least speaks to the idea that the concensus of mankind is towards an omnipotent being - again using the Bible as a generic to sum up all of religious text and thought. The various texts of most other faiths all point to the same idea. But at very least the 3 big faiths -Judaism, Islam and Christianity - all stem from the OT of the Bible in some form, so it seems appropriate to use it as basis for argument. That said, the Bible doesn't prove that God is the answer, at least logically speaking, but it at least puts the idea of God as more likely than a tea pot so far as popular sentiment is concerned. Unless you have some widely accepted text that makes the case for some celestial hot beverage that a majority of people revere as deity.

Love. I have only 2 things to point out about this part and then I'll let you have it back. First (and I know you'll argue this point but we are probably at a standstill here), all of your physiological explanations only provide observed reactions, in essence answering how. You make no insightful explanations for why these things happen. Why do dopamine levels raise when someone sees a photo of a lived one? What is the cause of that physiological reaction? Second, and my favorite point you made, is thus: "does knowing how it works take away any of the beauty of this feeling?" Mike, I couldn't have made a better case for God than that. Does knowing how the universe works take away the beauty of its creation? Is love any less real because we understand how it effects the body? Likewise, is God any less real because we understand how He manages the universe? If God and love are both observable conditions, the one through natural phenomena (gravity, atmospheric condition for life, or whatever) and the latter through CT imaging, does it change the fact that both are real things? I know you won't concede this point if only for the fact that it would be concedeing the debate in total, but think about your argument for a moment and see if you can explain it in a different manner. You are offering an explanation of love that focuses on observation of the condition and its effects, but offering nothing to explain how the condition occured in the first place. You offer no reason as to why one person comes to love another, or better yet why the condition of love exists in the first place, yet you seem satisfied that it does. Likewise your position as regards God offers only observation of the natural world with no explanation of why such a thing occurs in the first place. So the implication I am making is that you either reject that love exists on the same grounds that you reject the notion of God, or you accept that things exist beyond their observable elements - i.e. that God, like love, can exist in the absence of impirical proof for its very existence and not simply for its observable effects.

This is a tricky idea and I hope I have explained my position well enough to get a meaningful response. If not, well give it a shot and we'll see where we end up.

Cory

9/29/2010 Atheist Rebuttal

Cory,

Your last was by far my favorite rebuttal so far. I feel like you really laid a well thought out argument, and raised some very good questions.  Thanks.

You are absolutely right, a good skeptic should never discount anything when trying to explain something.  If god is a possible answer for a question of the unknown, then god as a possible answer should not be discounted. But the other side of the coin (the point that I've tried to make clear) is that you can't assume any answer, however logical, without proof. You can't logically take god as the answer without proving it.  You are right that God is one possible answer, and I will acknowledge that, but I am also acknowledging that any myriad supernatural causes are also possibilies. I am also acknowledging that natural forces are possibilities. Evidence and history point to natural forces as explaining the universe, which is why I believe in that explanation.

You keep pointing as God as an explanation to why the universe exists.  My argument is that there is no, "why" the universe exists.  It just does because that's the nature of the universe. To ask "why" is to put a human characteristic to a very non-human universe.

Since I believe that the Bible is a wholly human creation, I'm sorry, I can't concede that God of the Bible indicates any better that a god is more likely than a celestial teapot or spaghetti monster. They are all concepts created by the human mind, and without proof, all are just as valid arguments. If I believed in a god or intelligent designer, then yes, I would be willing to look at God of Christianity as a plausible explanation.

In your last argument you said, "I believe that if there were no God, we should never have thought to ask about his existence." But I don't understand why you believe that. We come up with ideas all the time that have no basis in reality.  I can think of a unicorn right now and wonder if he exists.  That doesn't mean he's more likely to be there.


I believe our inquisitive nature is a product of our evolution. There isn't a sharp distinctive line between humans and animals. We are not the only animals to make shelter. We are not the only animals to make tools. We are not the only animals to go to war. We are not the only animals to fear death. Of course there's a distinction within the levels of which we do and understand these things, but that too is a product of our evolution. We still rely on our "animalistic" tendencies in many ways. Humans are pack animals that have distinctive leaders and followers. We have reflexes, and we most definitely allow our emotions to get the better of us sometimes.  Some of us are genetically predisposed to be more likely to engage in certain activities than others.  These are just a few examples of how we too are "animalistic". I know we like to think that we are different in many ways, but the distinctive line between humans and animals just isn't there.  It's a very "blurred" line at best.


Now.. the part that I really wanted to get to: the "Love" discussion.
You introduced this argument to me when we first decided to have this debate.  I'm actually surprised you didn't mention it before in our formal debate. Out of all of the arguments posted so far, I find this is the most compelling.


I don't deny the existence of love.  I feel it just as I'm sure almost everyone does at some point. You can't see it. You can't put it into a test tube, and yet we all know what it is when we say the word.  One could say the same about the plethora of human emotions and feelings. How can I prove something that is seemingly intangible?  Well, I'm going to attack this from a couple of different angles.


Physiologically speaking one can most certainly "measure" love and other emotions. There is ample evidence to support the feelings we have are based off of many factors that take place in the body. We have hormones that can drastically change our moods. Our levels of testosterone and estrogen are excellent examples of hormones that change our mood. Mind altering drugs and natural neurotransmitters also affect and produce emotional responses. An overabundance of dopamine can make a person angry and agitated. A deficit of serotonin can make a person depressed. And a sudden spike of oxytocin combined with dopamine - can make a person fall in love. When people in love are stuck in an MRI the parts of their brains that light up in response to photos of their loved ones are the same parts that light up in response to addictions and urges. Love is a craving.  It's a desire like hunger. It's tied directly to dopamine response. Just as I have the capacity to feel hungry or thirsty, I have the capacity for feeling love.  I know that sounds robotic and cold, but really, does knowing how it works take away any of the beauty that is this feeling?


Beyond physiology, love is a concept within the human mind which doesn't exist beyond the bodies of those who feel it. This is similar to greed, power, values, beauty, etc... If you want to make a comparison of god to this idea, I full heartedly agree. I think god is most definitely an abstract concept which is the product of the human mind.  


I would also argue that you can measure physiologically the power of god on people.  I'm sure just like love, when someone "feels" god, their serotonin levels change, their hormones change, they get a dopamine boost, etc. It can be explained physiologically, and there's nothing supernatural about it. If you want to argue that god is a concept, fine, but I'm not arguing that the "concept" of god doesn't exist.  I'm arguing about the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being which created the universe.  That god isn't a concept. That god is either real, or he's not.


-Mike


**I hate to not give credit where credit is due.  I did a little bit of research specifically when answering the argument about "love", and I think it's only fair to link to those authors' responses.
Kylyssa Shay
Austin Cline

9/27/2010 Theist Rebuttal

Mike,

You have evidence, you simply choose to ignore it or not believe it. In your first post you made the comment that if you believed in just any old thing as the answer to the universe, it would be just as likely that the flying spaghetti monster or celestial tea pot were responsible for the universe as is God. In essence, you argued that there is no more evidence for God than there is for these mythical, fictional beings. I argue that point. Likewise, by choosing to believe that God is the answer to 'why' does not preclude the continued search for more answers. I fault those orthodox individuals who are content with 'God did it' and choose not to learn any more for themselves just as much as I fault those equally orthodox individuals who are content with 'God didn't do it.' Both views are fundamentally flawed. Niether explains why, and both should be asking why. 'I don't know' is only a good answer when you are actively engaged in searching for a better one.

I won't bother bringing up the fallacy of cultural relativism here, simply for the fact that we went those rounds and got no where. Once our God debate runs its course maybe we can try that again. Suffice it to say that you know I don't agree with you regarding right vs. wrong being relative to time and place (that statement is mostly for other readers who are uninitiated with our various sparring).

Now for the evidence. You are correct that there is nothing to suggest the existence of the tea pot or pasta monster, but there are various texts that speak to the existence of God. Of many gods, actually, as you have eluded to over the course of this chat. You have also made the point that not all of them can be right, in which you are also correct. So let's keep it contemporary and familiar and simply say that the Bible speaks to the existence of God. Now I understand that you don't believe the Bible, at least not word for word even if there are elements (historical or alagorical) that you may be okay with. The point, though, is that this religious text at very least makes the argument that God is more likely than the tea pot or pasta monster, and that the universe did not come about from a unicorn fart. It carries very specific language and instruction that make the case for a divine creator, or IMO an intelligent designer, that is responsible for the universe and all that is in it. Whether this evidence is up to your standard is another question, and we can move into a theological debate regarding the various religions at a later date. But this, I should think, will at least settle whether or not God is a reasonable alternative to the orthodox, fundamentalist view of pure science. Basically I mean to say that, if there were an intelligent designer, the Bible at least provides reasonable evidence that it was God rather than some other mythical creature.

I believe that if there were no God, we should never have thought to ask about his existence. One of the fundamental seperations between us and animals is our inquistive nature; we constantly strive to manipulate and adapt our environment rather than being adapted by our environment. Along with this, we have developed a need to know why something works, and for what purpose. Animals are content with knowing how - if they can get food from a certain place by doing a certain thing, they don't bother looking any further. But it is my opinion (since I can provide you with no tangible evidence) that man's spirit, a part of our divine design, gives us the ability and desire to know and ask why. Animals can show incredibly human-like emotions. We've all seen the YouTube video where the dog saves another dog from the middle of a busy road. Truly animals have a degree of spirituality about them, as is evidenced by some of their behaviors. But in my game designer analogy I posed the idea that God's intention is to use this universe to teach us to become like Him through experience. That being the case, we must have the desire and ability to ask why and work towards the answer. In brief, I believe that 'why' is a Godly question that only humans ask, and in the absence of God (i.e. were we simply a random roll of the dice) we would never have had the desire and ability to ask it. We would have simply relied on our animalistic tendencies just like the rest of the animal kingdom. But we don't. We are altogether different from every other creature on the planet, despite having close genetic ties to some of them. Without God, we should never have realized this difference for the fact that I don't suppose we would ever have known to ask about it.

Here's another, I suspect more philosophical, argument. I love my wife. I know when she's sad, or happy, or in pain, or just about any other emotion you can imagine. I can feel it. I can feel her. I suspect we all have someone we could say the same about. So using the scientific method, prove that you love that person. Prove the feelings you have for them. Provide for me tangible evidence to support your claim (loving someone that intensely seems like one of Sagan's 'extraordinary claims') and prove that it is true.

I know I can't do it. I can't explain or prove why I feel the way I feel for my wife using any physical method I am aware of. I can explain why through other means, but that's not going to suffice for a scientific query, is it? Yet it is all the same true that I love my wife and feel what she feels (to some degree or another). Using your arguments, Mike, then I am liar. Since I can't prove it through tangible means, then it isn't true and by suggesting that it is I am promulgating a lie. Can you explain this a different way? Tell me how you would go about proving to a scientific mind that you love someone.

Cory

24 Sept. 2010 Atheist Rebuttal

I agree with you, “Just because” and “due to random chance” don't cut it for me either. I think the major difference between us is that I'm not willing to make the assumption that the explanation for why we are here is simply "god".  I don't believe this assumption, because I have no evidence. As I've said before, I'm not going to blindly believe anything without evidence.


You said, "frankly I’m surprised that a person of a scientific mind is content with such an answer" but that's exactly it... we AREN'T content with "just because" or "random chance".  If we were, there wouldn't be scientific study. Just because I don't know all the answers, that doesn't mean I don't want to know them.  But I am fine with saying, "I don't know." when it comes to answering the currently unexplainable, and not just assuming any answer (including god) is correct without further study.


In regards to your comments on human behavior, humans obviously follow specific rules (or laws), but this is not at all the same the universe following the laws of nature.  For example, it is socially unacceptable to murder, and for the most part, MOST humans follow that social rule, but not all do.  In contrast, the earth CANNOT decide to not have gravity and let us all float away.


This subject really is non-sequitur and should be a separate debate entirely, but I'll touch on it a little.  The social laws humans follow change with time and are relative to whatever situation and culture you are in.  To say that there are universal rights and wrongs is being completely ignorant to the values that other cultures than our own have, or have had. For example, I believe that slavery is absolutely wrong, but just a few hundred years ago, it was socially acceptable. I personally don't understand how they could find this acceptable, but it was. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few hundred years, the people in the future find us to be primitive savages. The answer to WHY we have social laws is extremely complex, but can be studied with the social sciences and human behavior sciences. Philosophy certainly can go pound for pound with religion in terms of debating morality and right and wrong.


In your last argument you said, "It is possible that I am looking for an answer where there is none. It is possible that “just because” or “random chance” are the answers to these questions, in which asking “why” is a worthless endeavor simply for the fact that there is no answer to that question. But I suspect that, if that were true, we would never have progressed to a point that we could have found out that there is no purpose – we would not have had the inspiration to ask such a question. If there is no purpose to this life and there is no answer to the question of why, I suspect we should never have found out that such was the case." I again fall back to "pareidolia" as an explanation as to why humans ask the questions, "Why" and "Why are we here?"  Why do you think that humans could not have progressed to the point of asking, "why" without there actually being an answer? Is there something in that answer that would provide for us to evolve into humans?

Why I Believe: Theist's rebuttal

There’s nothing much to rebut. We are both at the point of repeating ourselves, I think, so let me just try and be a little clearer (because your response indicates that I wasn’t very clear before).

I’m not disagreeing with any scientific precept you are discussing. I’m not suggesting the big bang isn’t the way the universe started. I’m also not suggesting that life is a game (that was simply an analogy). I am suggesting that the only logical explanation I can come to as an answer to all of these observable, natural truths is that there must be a reason for it. “Just because” or “due to random chance” doesn’t cut mustard for me, and frankly I’m surprised that a person of a scientific mind is content with such an answer. As for evidence, I know we disagree here but the clearest evidence to me for the existence of God is that He left no trace of “magic” or “miracle” in the process. Everything has a logical, scientific solution once we get close enough to observe it. But that still only gets us to the “how.” We are still light years off from the “why.”

This of course requires an amount of religious discourse, but I will keep it as innocuous as I can. Here, too, will I answer more plainly why I am no longer an atheist. If there are logical, scientific rules governing the universe, how inconceivable is it that there are likewise rules governing human behavior? This becomes an attempt to answer the “why.” I came to a point in my life that I was no longer satisfied with “just because” as an answer to that question. Millions of people over the millennia have asked this question and have come up with millions of answers – hence we have a plethora of religious and philosophical beliefs today. They all revolve around one central theme, however, and that is that there are guidelines for human behavior. Just as any evolutionary process has to work through several phases and the proper conditions have to be met for progress, so, too, do humans have to work through their own phases in order to accomplish some eternal goal. Here, we diverge into what that eternal goal is and that, of course, leads us into specific religious ideology which I will not delve into, at least not yet. But the point is simple – there exists both physical and spiritual rules by which all the universe is governed, both in nature and in behavior. I would contend that nature and behavior are not actually separate entities, but 2 sides to the same coin.

It is possible that I am looking for an answer where there is none. It is possible that “just because” or “random chance” are the answers to these questions, in which asking “why” is a worthless endeavor simply for the fact that there is no answer to that question. But I suspect that, if that were true, we would never have progressed to a point that we could have found out that there is no purpose – we would not have had the inspiration to ask such a question. If there is no purpose to this life and there is no answer to the question of why, I suspect we should never have found out that such was the case.

Does this prove God exists? Of course not. I have plainly conceded that no physical evidence exists of that. Likewise, you have conceded that no physical evidence exists that He does not exist. Basically, neither of us can prove (nor disprove) our extraordinary claim through any scientific process. You can’t prove that God didn’t write the rules and start the process (through whatever scientific means He may have employed) just as I can’t prove the universe didn’t start “just because.” All the physical and scientific evidence in the world, though, proves nothing regarding the lack of God. This is why I am no longer atheist. I believe there is a reason, and perhaps I could be charged with not having been a very devoted atheist to begin with, but I believe that there is a purpose and a reason to all of this. For all the scientific research and reasoning, and we are no closer today than we were a million years ago to explaining why we are here or what the purpose is. I want that question answered. You will argue, I suspect, that asking such a question begs the existence of deity. To this I have to question how the scientific mind can be content to stop asking questions and seeking for answers wherever they may be? If both science and religion are the pursuit of truth, why would one or the other be content to seek truth only so far as it does not intrude upon the stomping ground of the other? As you know, religion has been guilty of this sin for years, insisting that science not try to answer various quandaries for fear of it contradicting some doctrinal principle. In modern times, it seems that science is making the same error by insisting that, whatever the answer to the question, it can’t be anything religious for fear of it contradicting some scientific precept – if God did it, then really science can’t explain anything, can it? Simply stated, I am no longer an atheist because I came to realize that these two pursuits of truth are not really at odds. They are merely explaining the world and universe from two different perspectives. More intriguingly, they complement each other in wonderful ways, each informing the other in places that may be lacking. This realization proved to me that I could answer the “why” if I would stop being so insistent on denying some portion of truth when I discovered just because it came from a source I disagreed with. I am no longer atheist because I decided to open my mind to truth from whatever its source. I believe in God because I have come to learn that the pursuit of truth is not one-sided.

This presents a great deal of work to me, as it does to anyone who “finds God.” Religious discipline is just as strict and requires just as much diligence as scientific discipline. It also requires a whole host of searching for what philosophy has the most truth about it – realizing that most religious ideology has some amount of truth. This goes into a whole other tale of why I am a Christian and a Mormon, neither of which is pertinent to this topic now. Suffice it to say that I first decided why I believe as I do, then found schools of thought that spoke to that belief. Thus, I have found my pursuit of truth easier and more rewarding the less I have fought its source and allowed it to flow as it will. I cannot pick the answers that come as I search for truth; I can only choose how I will react when those answers come. What truly matters is that I look. Perhaps that is the only eternal principle; perhaps that is the point of the “game” to which I referred previously. The only thing I know to be true in that regard is that I will someday find the answer so long as I keep looking.

Let’s open the floor. I think we have both said as much as we can say without covering the same ground.

Atheist Response to: Why I Believe

Explanations without evidence are speculative at best. 

I understand your argument, and when I believed in god, I believed in similar traits.  It’s easy to explain god as being “beyond” our world, and therefore not constrained to our physical laws of time and space.  There are several problems with this argument. 1. There is no evidence of this, and 2. Without evidence, you could come up with just about any explanation having to do with what is beyond the universe and how/who created it. 
Honestly, your whole argument is a hashing of what you believe to be true, but you don’t go into detail as to what evidence you have to back up why what you say isn’t just a guess.  You’ve done a very good job of describing the god you believe in, but you still haven’t given any reasoning behind why you believe this.  I could recite several different gods and creation myths, all as seemingly valid as yours to those who believe in them. I think I heard you tell me once that you were an atheist, and I would love to know why and how that changed.

I usually try to stay away from arguments dealing with word play and logical paradoxes when debating the existence of god. I have heard the question, “what happens when an immovable object meets and irresistible force” and several variations. To be honest, I find them to be a sophomoric attack at best.  You might as well say, “If god can do anything, then tell him to find something he can’t do and then do it!” I agree with you on the answer to this quandary. If an all powerful god exists, then he will find a way. Just because we can’t conceive on an answer, doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Another answer to such a riddle, and one that I ascribe to, is that there is no such thing as an immovable object/irresistible force/rock that can’t be lifted/etc.. And therefore, it’s little more than a thought experiment that is not representative to the universe we live in.

In reference to your, “Computer Programmer” comparison to god, you said that you feel as though God wrote the rules and we are the “characters” in the game. We have “agency” or as I call it, “Free will” within the given parameters. I don’t see much disagreement with our beliefs in this regard, except where you feel the given parameters our universe has are created by God, and I see them as being fundamental laws of nature.  Sure, you could argue that God created the laws of nature.  Unfortunately, the laws of nature themselves point to a creation story that, although it doesn’t disprove god’s existence, it doesn’t need god whatsoever to work.  The mechanics of the universe we live in operate in such a fashion that there is no need for a designer. There is significant evidence to support this within the realms of physics and biology.

This begs the questions to me, “If the laws of the universe don’t NEED a designer to work, and there’s no PROOF of god’s existence, why would I need to believe that God exists at all, and frankly, why would such a god EXPECT me to believe in him when he’s being purposefully deceptive?”

You asked, “Why is it so inconceivable that God is the answer to the question that science is trying to ask – where did all this come from?” This is a return to my “God of the Gaps” fallacy I explained above. We can never look at something unexplained and assume it must just be god doing it. We can always dig deeper.  We may not currently have the answer to something, but lack of evidence is not evidence of god. It’s just not sound logic.

I would like to correct you. We DO have physical, observed evidence of the big bang.  It’s not just a blanket hypothesis. We have detected light in the night sky which is from far enough away to be light from that time. The galaxies are all red-shifted, which means they are moving away from each other from one place of origin.  There IS cosmic background radiation. We have particle colliders which can recreate specific conditions that existed in the first moments of the universe.  Of course we don’t have all of the puzzle pieces, but we do have an overall idea of what the puzzle looks like. 

You said, “Just because we finally prove it happened through some specific process or another doesn’t automatically mean that God didn’t start the process.”  You are exactly right.  This goes back to my earlier argument that you cannot prove a negative.  You can only prove a positive.  This is exactly why Carl Sagan’s statement, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” is so pertinent. Just because we finally prove the big bang happened through some specific process or another doesn’t automatically mean that the process wasn’t predicated by some other random event either.  We could just as easily say that proving the big bang existed doesn’t mean it wasn’t caused from a unicorn fart.

I think that making the comparison of our universe to a “game” written by god you are fooling yourself by way of pareidolia. You are making the universe a competitive game, where you “win” if you believe in the correct deity and follow the correct social rules imposed by said deity. Beyond religious belief, there is no indication that the universe or that human life is a game, or any goal whatsoever beyond those goals we make for ourselves. There is no reason to reflect human nature onto an absolutely not human universe.

You said in your summary, “I believe in God because I cannot conceive of a world in which He didn’t exist.” This argument is probably what is boiled down by most people who believe in a god. It’s a comfortable explanation for how the universe is such a beautiful place.  Unfortunately, just because you don’t understand how something happens, doesn’t mean it’s divine. For example: The Insane Clown Posse don’t understand how magnets and rainbows work, and yet that doesn’t mean they are a miracle.  There are perfectly rational and well known explanations for how magnets work, and how rainbows are made, and none of them involve miracles. Just because rainbows and magnets can be explained does not make them any less beautiful phenomena.

I too agree that there can be off topics that can and will hopefully be brought up as discourses in themselves.  I would love to talk about the role of social sciences and philosophy as being modern day sciences that can tackle the moral and philosophical issues also addressed by religion.

Why I Believe...

*This article was posted by Mike, but written by Cory in a separate document

Why I believe . . .

I can’t prove that God exists. If you are looking for that silver bullet, you are looking in the wrong place. Tangible, infallible proof that God exists, simply does not exist. However, I also don’t believe that the absence of tangible proof is, itself, proof that God does not exist. It is only proof that we don’t know if God exists, or rather that we lack the language or tools to prove that God exists. Or do we?

On the one hand, we have science. Traditional reasoning will tell you that science – the language of the natural world – is at constant odds with religion – the language of God. If this is true, how are religious people also scientific? What portion of their faith have they ignored in order to accept the explanations offered by science? Such a question is obviously silly – of course science and religion can get along, up to a point. That point is when they attempt to tread on each other’s shoes. This point tends to be regarding that all-encompassing question – why? Since science will deal only with what it can observed through physical means, science cannot attribute any portion of “why” to an intangible, all-powerful being. Here science and religion typically divide. This is a fallacy, for they are two sides of the same coin (to be explained later).

So how does one reconcile a belief in God with an acceptance of modern scientific theory? We’ll get there. Let’s first frame the argument.

Who is God?

I believe that God is the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe and all that is in it. He is human in form, but timeless and conscious in a way mortal man cannot comprehend. God operates at a higher level of understanding than does man.  God is also empathic and knows the full range of human emotion (having created man in his image, it stands to reason He would have created man in his likeness in other ways, too). In addition, God is omnibenevolent. All powerful, all knowing, all loving. These are the traits of God. Of course, we have already reached a point of argument.

For example, the classical quandary of the impotent deity. Can an omnipotent God create a rock so big he can’t lift it? Of course, either answer implies that God can’t do something – either create the rock in the first place, or lift it after it’s created – and if He can’t do one of those things, He isn’t omnipotent and thus isn’t God. Seeking to diminish the traits of God is among the first element of attack the critic will employ against the Creator. The failure of the effort is in the definitions: is our understanding of “all powerful” consistent with what God would consider it to be (since, for this example, we have to assume that God exists)? If so, the answer to both element of the question is “yes.” God could create such a rock, and still be able to lift it. What? The concepts of the question demand exclusivity – both conditions cannot be met at once – unless we also include “all knowing.” If God exists, then He must be omnipotent, omniscience, and omnibenevolent. He cannot be only one or two; he must be all three. Therefore, it stands to reason that His methods are not known to us (we are not gods and therefore not omniscient). So, He could meet both requirements of the question and it is simply that we do not understand how.

This does not prove that God exists. It only suggests that we haven’t even left the realm of understanding yet and already there is trouble. It also proves one further point: much of the problem with this debate revolves around definitions and understanding of deific nature. Perhaps my personal explanations to these questions are not at harmony with the majority of believers. But my attempt here will be to explain why I believe in God, not why people in general do. As such, I cannot believe that God exists in any other way than I have come to understand that He does. I hope to explain that statement in short order.

The Nature of God.

If we assume the above traits of God to be true, then how do those traits affect us today? Do we likewise assume that God is some sort of ethereal puppeteer who controls and manipulates the universe from afar? I think not. God created the physical world around us, set the conditions such that life could exist where it does, and created man in His image and character (with condition). God created something far more important than these other things, however. It is inseparable from mortal life. It is agency. Agency explains the nature of God from here.

Here’s a simple explanation of my point. Think of God as a computer engineer. He made the system, wrote the program (we’ll call it a game), set the rules by which the program runs, and set the whole thing in motion – pressed ‘play’ if you will. Unlike the software engineer, however, God gave us, the characters in the game, agency with which to make our own way. The mortal software engineer must preprogram his characters to follow established routines; God simply wrote the rules and gave us the opportunity to choose how to play. He even empowered us to choose how to describe the game and how it came to be – an opportunity that some of us used to suggest that the game wrote itself. To God, that is fine. He gave us that choice.

At this point, the logical mind must ask, “what about deism then? Aren’t you just describing the absentee creator?” If we stopped there, I suppose the answer is yes. But we won’t stop there. If we were using science and logic as the only tools to describe the game, we could be content to stop. But we aren’t, so we won’t.

Imagine now that God gave us the instruction manual to the game. Perhaps the game has a point, some ultimate goal, and that goal is to discover the truth about how the game came about, how it works and how we can become software engineers (aka gods) ourselves. But God wanted only those who could learn His tenets – the “omnis” – through experience and choice, and not those who were simply given the answers. So He gave the instructions to the game to a few people throughout the program and asked those people to go tell the others about it. The game still runs, the rules still work, and people still go about their virtual little lives. Some choose to read the instruction manual, others choose not to. Some read it and followed it, others read it and ignored it. This isn’t to get into the differences of doctrinal religions; for purposes of this example let’s just lump all faiths into one generic religion.

This is how I see God. He is all those “omnis” from our perspective because we just don’t understand how He does it all. But as we learn the methods and elements of His ways – as we become more omniscient ourselves – this doesn’t diminish who God is; it simply makes us more like Him. I believe that that is precisely God’s purpose – to make us each like Him and to teach us to become gods of other universes ourselves.

Now, let’s join the aforementioned game and discuss this like the players. What if one of the players – we’ll call him Mike – was discovering how the game worked and just couldn’t reconcile that with what another player – his name will be Cory – was telling him regarding the existence of a programmer – the programmer we’ll call God. Mike’s philosophy was that if he couldn’t use the tools around him to explain how something worked, he simply couldn’t answer the question yet. He just needed to learn more about his tools (we’ll call the tools science – clever names here, I know). Cory said, “Mike, you are right. You need to develop your tool set before you can hope to explain anything else.” Here’s his suggestion:

God is nature. God wrote the rules, God designed the system, God made it all happen, and He did it through logical, scientific means. Science is the language of God – the language He used to create the universe and everything in it. Call it a miracle if you want; I call it good design. The design is so good, God left no trace of ‘magic’ or ‘miracle’ in the effort; it simply follows predetermined rules – rules that science is constantly uncovering and relearning – and God lets the natural/physical world take it’s due course. This is the crux of the “intelligent design” argument – that some omnipotent being must have been behind it all. I agree. What I don’t see is how this is inconsistent with modern scientific theory. And now we have come full circle so let’s get back to the point.

Why is it so inconceivable that God is the answer to the question that science is trying ask – where did this all come from? Several theories exist, of course, but science cannot “prove” any of them. Since we can’t get physical, observed evidence of the big bang, does that mean it didn’t happen? Then what did? You see, we just don’t know. We may never know. But not knowing and claiming to know what it wasn’t isn’t the same thing. Just because we finally prove it happened through some specific process or another doesn’t automatically mean that God didn’t start the process – unless you cling to the orthodoxy viewpoint that God created the earth and all there is 7 days without using physical processes. This blind position automatically means that God and science are mutually exclusive – which contradicts everything the orthodox religious person believes. If God created everything, didn’t He also create science? If He created science, why would He do everything He did in contrast to scientific principles? I contend that He wouldn’t and didn’t. I contend that God created the world through the language of science, and He did such a good job (being omniscient and all) that we can’t find one shred of “magic” in it. Everything has an explanation. The more we learn, the more we can explain. If there is a miracle anywhere in there, it is in that very idea.

In sum . . .

I believe in God because I cannot conceive of a world in which He didn’t exist. The natural movement of the planets, the perfection of the physical world, and everything that lives, breathes or exists in the universe speaks the truth of His existence to me. I am not unintelligent, but nor am I omniscient. In either case, I cannot imagine a world like ours that was not designed. A random occurrence of chance does not seem as likely to me as an intelligent, benevolent being having written the rules by which this world is governed. The simplistic (and ignorant) view that “God spoke and it was so” seems equally as unlikely. An omnibenevolent God would play by His own rules; He wouldn’t magically create the world and then create science to mask His existence and involvement. Science simply hasn’t learned to explain God yet. And there is the kicker of my whole belief. I believe that one day science will prove the existence of God. He is real, he exists, and science will discover the language of logic that proves it. We just aren’t there yet.

So what are we to do in the mean time? We follow the instruction manual - the other half of the coin to which I eluded earlier. God doesn’t speak only in logic and science. That is simply the language of the natural world. God’s native tongue is of the spirit. I will leave this discussion here because I don’t intend this diverge into a theological debate. Suffice it to say that, while I truly believe that the natural world is evidence of God’s existence, I also believe that we cannot draw closer to Him, to learning His character and ways, through science. We can only observe how He did things. We can never learn why He did it, or why He involved us. That realm is left to religion to answer, and since this is a religiously neutral discourse, I will leave the debate there.

In parting . . .

I wrote this with intent to be short. To that end, I have bounced off topics that could be a whole discourse in themselves, and left out other topics entirely that don’t directly suit the argument but are relevant just the same (faith, for example). I hope this will be the beginning of a longer discussion in which some of these things can be discussed in more detail, but alas I fear many of them will lead into religious debates rather than broad, “why are we here” discussions. Perhaps that won’t be such a bad thing.

My point is to invite the reader to comment and ask for expansion on various claims and ideas. Please offer your comments and critique as you see fit. I only ask for respect – attacks and accusations lead to neither fuller understanding or enlightenment. My purpose is to gain both; I hope your purpose is also.

Atheism: Why I don't believe in the existence of god

I am an atheist.  Although I have hidden behind a veil of secrecy about it for several years, I am now choosing to be open about my beliefs.  This essay is a brief attempt at explaining my logical reasoning for why I do not believe in a god.  Although the term, “atheist” puts me into a very specific group, I do not claim to be the voice of every person in this group.   I am writing this essay in order to initiate an agreed upon rapport with a theist friend of mine. I am also writing this in hopes that it may be an informative tool in the future for those who may be curious as to why I believe what I believe. For the record, I do not believe I am any smarter, or that I am somehow better than anyone who believes in a god or gods.

    

My goal is not to try and change someone’s belief system (that would be very naïve of me). My goal is also not to offend anyone.  I understand that this is a touchy subject, for which people have extremely strong opinion.  I ask you to read this document with an objective eye. If you are apt to get offended by my saying that god does not exist, then stop reading now.

My goal is to help others understand my point of view so that they may see the world through my eyes, and better appreciate why I don’t believe in the existence of god. If you’re not moved, don’t like, or don’t believe my arguments, that’s fine.  I don’t need you to believe the same things I do. I’m not on a mission to convert anyone. I feel that people owe it to themselves to look at whatever they believe with a critical eye. This goes for everything in life, not just about the existence of a god.

    

My goal in this essay is not to get into philosophical arguments about right and wrong and morality.  The philosophy of social behavior is not the point of this writing.  My goal is to explain why I don’t believe in god. This is a separate issue entirely from how atheists or anyone else can be good people or not. I don’t wish to discuss any other social or philosophical ideas beyond whether or not god exists.

    

This discussion is merely about the existence of a god.  It is not a discussion about Christianity, or any other religion.  I do not want to cite the bible or any other religious text.  Not only do I not want to get into an argument about specific doctrine, but I feel that before someone believes in a doctrine, they have to accept that the god of that doctrine exists first.   Since I do not believe that god exists, I can’t accept that what’s said in religious text to be a valid argument for his existence.  Once you can prove to me that god exists, we can then have a completely separate argument over which religion is the correct one.  In other words, I will not accept a quotation from the Bible (or any other religious text) as proof of god's existence.

    

In my attempts to convey my ideas, I will bring up several points.  Some will be arguments as to why it is illogical to believe in god.  Some will be arguments for the existence of god, and then why those arguments are illogical.  For the sake of keeping my ideas on a clear path, I’ve labeled each idea as a specific “section”. For political correctness’ sake, I apologize for calling god a “he”. I’m not trying to pick a specific sex for the almighty, it just seems less awkward than calling god an “it”.

Section 1. What is "god"?   

I think it would be silly of me to sit here and argue against something if I can't even explain what that something is I'm arguing against.  I'm sure that if you ask a thousand people to define what "god" is, you'll get a thousand different answers.  I can't possibly try to speak for everyone, so I will try to give a brief, blanket definition of what I consider to be "god". 

    

I consider god to be a deity.  God is the self-aware creator of the universe as we know it.  In that god created the universe, god rules his universe. He is probably all powerful, all knowing, and can most likely manipulate the universe to his bidding if/when he chooses. This means god is most likely omnipotent, and omniscient.  

    

I understand that not everyone believes that god needs to fulfill all of these requirements.  But I personally feel that  if he doesn't... he doesn't merit the label, "god".

Section 2. “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.”-Carl Sagan

    

The belief in god is something for me that a person needs to be certain about. I’m not going to believe in something based on hopes and desires. If you’re not certain, then what you believe in could be only partially correct, or even wrong. The heart of my argument comes down to proof.  If I’m going to believe in a god, I want proof. I want tangible proof.  If I’m going to believe in a god, the proof needs to be irrefutable. I’m not going to live my life believing every amazing claim I hear, just because someone or many people have said that it’s true. If I did, I would believe in ghosts, alien abductions, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, and many other fantastic claims.

    

For example: I don’t believe the Easter bunny is real. If you tell me that the Easter bunny exists, I’m not going to believe you until you show me proof.  If I believe your proof to be irrefutable, I will accept that the Easter bunny exists. If I don’t think your proof is irrefutable, than the possibility is still open that the Easter bunny does not exist. If you gave me a photo of the Easter bunny, I would be more likely to believe you.  If I thought the picture could be manipulated to show the Easter bunny, I have just disqualified your picture as proof. If I believed in anything without proof, then I open the door for believing in any myriad possibilities that may or may not be true. If I don’t think your proof is irrefutable, then it’s circumstantial at best, and therefore not enough proof to sway my belief.

    

Many people would flip the argument back at me and say, “Well, prove that god DOESN’T exist.” My retort to that argument is that you can almost never prove a negative. The burden of proof lies to those making the claim, not in those refuting that claim.  To use Bertrand Russell’s famous teapot analogy: What if I claimed that there was a teapot floating in space, revolving around the sun? What if I said the teapot is so small and so far out that our best telescopes cannot see it.  Would you believe me? I don’t have proof. I just believe it to be so. If you told me that you don’t believe me, I would tell you to prove me wrong.  You can’t possibly look in every section of the solar system.  Therefore, I am right, and we should all believe in a celestial teapot.

    

Obviously, the burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim. I can’t disprove that god exists any more than you can disprove that my celestial teapot exists. I cannot believe in such a grandiose claim without specific proof showing me that it’s true. If I did, then I would be open to believing just about anything, true or not, and god is no exception.

    

You can have all the credible evidence in the world proving something is right, but it only takes one piece of credible evidence to prove it wrong.   For example: I believe in the existence of gravity.  If I held a ball at arms length, I would predict that 100% of the time, if I let go of the ball, it would drop to the ground. If I experiment, I can prove that gravity exists by observing the ball falling to the ground.  I could do it thousands, millions, or billions of times.  But it would only take one time where the ball does not fall to the ground to completely negate my argument.

    

This theme holds true for every argument. It is especially used in scrutinizing and disqualifying scientific claims. You can give me your best arguments for the existence of god, but if I can prove that your arguments can be disqualified, then it is not proof.  It doesn’t matter how convincing your argument may seem, if the logic behind your argument is not sound, then your argument is not sound.  I don't have to have a counter idea to answer your question. If I prove that what you believe is illogical, it's illogical.  I don't need to replace your belief with anything else and I don't need a counter theory before I can discount yours.

Section 3. Pascal’s Wager

    

If you want to read about Pascal’s Wager, click here. The French philosopher Blaise Pascal wrote a very convincing argument as to why one should choose to believe in god.  It basically goes like this: You have 2 choices, you can believe in god, or you can NOT believe in god. If you believe in god and god exists, you go to heaven.  If you don’t believe in god and god exists, you go to hell.  And regardless of if you believe in god or don’t believe in god, if god doesn’t exist, then nothing happens.

    

Someone who reads this should realize that this is about probability and reward. Assuming you want to go to heaven, you should choose to believe in god, because believing in god is the only way to have the best possible outcome. If you chose to believe in god, and god doesn’t exist, then you still only suffer the second best outcome of there being nothing after you die.

    

The problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it does nothing to actually prove god’s existence.  All it does is show the weight of the outcomes should you make a choice to believe in god or not.  It also does not take into account which god one should believe in.  If I choose to believe in god, but believe in the wrong god, I still may go to hell.  Also, the possible outcomes could be wrong. It may be that if god exists and I don’t believe, I go to heaven, and if god exists and you do believe, you go to hell. (No one said god had to be nice).

    

In his argument, Pascal has narrowed the possible number of outcomes to four (Go to heaven, go to hell, don’t exist, or don’t exist), when it becomes blazingly obvious that there are more than four possible outcomes, and Pascal may be completely wrong in thinking that if you believe in god, you’ll go to heaven, and if you don’t believe, you’ll go to hell.

Because of this miscalculation by Pascal, his argument, however interesting, does not hold merit, nor does it get us any farther as proof of god’s existence.

Section 4. The Problem with Faith

    

When having arguments about religion, sooner or later, when everything else is pushed aside, the arguments have the tendency to go toward faith. “If god wanted me to have proof, he would have given it to me.  Because I don’t have proof, I have to take his existence on faith.  Why didn’t he give me proof? Well… he works in mysterious ways.” 

“Maybe this is a test, and the faithful are the winners”. If this is your argument, I suggest you read more about Pascal’s wager and logical fallacies associated with it.

    

I have literally been all over the earth.  I’ve danced with African natives.  I’ve been to grass huts in South America.  I have touched the stones in Stonehenge and in the pyramids of both the Egyptians and the Mayans. I have danced the hula, and I have been to many churches.  In my travels, I have met many people of many faiths.  Every person of faith that I have met has one thing in common: They all think that what they believe is correct.  Many of them have had amazing religious experiences. Many believe it so much that they are willing to die for their faith.

I’m not going to speculate on any one religion or anyone’s personal experiences, but it goes to reason that not all beliefs can be correct. Because they can’t all be correct, and yet so many people of so many beliefs have faith, there is only one conclusion you can make: Faith can’t possibly be proof of god’s existence.

    

Try as I might, I can’t believe in something just because I want to.  Sure it would be nice if god existed, but I can’t just have “faith” that he does and decide that’s all the proof I need. If you told me that, I would tell you that you just need to have faith in the flying spaghetti monster.

    

As is evident later in my paper, I believe that science is the best tool we have to explain how our world works, and I believe many scientific theories to be true.  One could make the argument that I’m taking those scientific theories as “faith”.  And to some respect they would be correct.  But what they may not realize is that science falls under considerable scrutiny.  If I wanted, I could repeat the tests that a theorist has made to come to their conclusions.  If I found their theory to be incorrect, I have evidence to support why that theory is wrong.  Scientific theories are constantly under scrutiny, and more often than not, the biggest critics of scientific theory are those scientists who are giving peer review.  How science differs from being a religion is that science is really the language of observation.  It is not a belief system.  It is simply a way for humans to make sense of the universe. Our understandings constantly change, and science is the tool we use to know if our observations are correct.  It does not bias one belief over another. Do I have faith in science?  I would say I have faith that the theories I believe to be true have been put through proper scientific rigor. I have faith that if the theories I believe are proven wrong, that my belief system will change to reflect new, more refined, better tested theories. Do scientists lie, or get things wrong?  Of course they do.  That is why the review process is strict.  Any theory is open for speculation and revision.  History is filled with theories that have been challenged and proven to be inadequate.  In this respect, I am open for changing what I believe in if I am given adequate proof that what I believe is wrong.

Section 5. We are ALL Atheists

    

"Atheist" comes from the Greek words a meaning "no" or "without" and theos meaning "god" or "deity". It basically translates to, "without a god".

    

Do you believe in Zeus? If so, then you likely don’t believe in Ra.  Do you believe in Xenu?  If so, then you probably don’t believe in Vishnu.  If you don’t believe in every god, then you are an atheist to every god or gods except your own.  The difference between me and the majority of people of some form of faith is that I believe in one less god than them (assuming they aren’t polytheists of course).  I ask the believer, what the difference is between their god and every other god from human history? An interesting tidbit about the origins of the word "atheist" is that it was used by the Greeks and Romans to describe the Christians who denied the gods of the Pagan religions.

    

I think if someone disregards one god, they must have reasoning as to why they have ruled out any one god over their own.  I think that if people are to be honest to themselves, they must put their own god to the same reasoning speculation that they have any other god of which they don’t believe.

 

Section 6.  The Intelligent Designer

    

William Paley is credited for the famous, “Watchmaker Argument”. His argument has been rehashed several ways, but can be paraphrased to be, “1. A watch’s inner-workings are complex, and as such, it’s existence necessitates having a designer. 2. As with the watch, the complexity of X (X being any given thing which is complex in nature) necessitates having a designer.”

    

People often use this argument to say that the complexities of nature are proof in themselves that a designer exists. “How could an eye come about through evolution?  It’s too complex to come about in baby steps.” To see Richard Dawkins’ answer to that exact question, see here.

    

The first argument against the Watchmaker Argument that comes to my mind is that, just because you can't conceive of how a complex system may come about naturally, that doesn't mean that it didn't.  It only means that if it did in fact come about naturally,  then you don't understand the process.

    

Other people argue there are several organs that have “Irreducible complexity” which means that they have several complex parts, any of which standing along wouldn’t work.  Specific examples include the flagellum of E.Coli, the immune system, eyes, etc.  Critics of this argument point out that irreducible complexity assumes that individual parts of complex systems can only be used for the specific system we see today and nothing else.  This is contrary to what actually happens.  In fact, evolution is often preceded by the use of a preexisting part in a new way which happens to be more advantageous when used differently.  The elegance of this is that adaptation and change are evolution’s driving forces. Does evolution disprove the existence of god?  No, but evolution is a proven fact. It does not need a god as a driving force in order to explain how complex organisms and systems come about. Does it explain how life began?  No.  Evolution is not a theory of how life started.  We are not yet certain how life started.  But that does not prove that god did it.

    

There are three classic criticisms with Paley’s Watchmaker argument.

    

The first criticism deals with the fact that the Watchmaker Argument assumes that in order to have complexity in nature, there must be a designer.  But this is not necessarily the case.  There are scenarios that we can observe every day that show order and complexity that come about with no help from a designer whatsoever. For example: crystals, snowflakes, fractals, and amino acids.

    

The second criticism deals with the fact that Paley’s argument could be a faulty analogy.  There is no reason to assume that the universe resembles a watch over any other naturally occurring complex phenomena.

    

The third criticism leads me to my next section.

Section 7: The Argument about infinity

    

The third criticism for Paley’s argument is that if there is a designer of the universe, then who designed the designer? And who created THAT designer?  This argument can be made ad infinitum.  Many people would counter this argument by saying that god is infinite and has no beginning or end.  I would counter that argument by asking, “Why can’t the Universe be infinite without god?” Why does god have to be the only possible infinite thing?  In fact there is significant proof in the theory of relativity. This theory shows that time is affected by mass and speed.  Stephen Hawking speculates in, A Brief History of Time that in the earliest periods after the big bang, time itself was fused with the other fundamental forces of the universe in an all encompassing “superforce” that split into the forces we see today (Gravity, electromagnetism, Nuclear Strong Force, and Nuclear Weak force). If that’s true, then there was nothing before the big bang, because “before” did not exist.  There are other theories on the birth of the universe, like the idea that our current universe was created when two or more separate universes collided.   Each of these theories opens up argument and speculation for or against it.  As far as I know, there is no way of testing any theories of what happened before the Big Bang.  Why do I bring these ideas up if they are not proven to be true?

    

My point is this: We don’t know what happened before the Big Bang.  It’s even debated exactly how the Big Bang happened, or if it happened at all. But it is a testable theory.  One day, given humans live long enough, the answer to how the universe came about will be known.  And hopefully, one day the answer to what came before the universe will be known.  Blindly answering that question with, “God did it.” is completely giving up on the quest for the answer. The amount of proof that it was done by an omnipotent being is far less than the amount of proof that it came about naturally. Just because we don’t have an answer does not mean that it’s proof of god’s existence.  All it means is that we don’t yet have an answer.

 

Section 8: God of the Gaps

    

My previous paragraph brought up my next argument which talks about the “God of the Gaps” logical fallacy.  In arguing about god’s existence, people often bring up some experience they have had or they know about that they can’t explain.  Because they can’t explain it, they attribute it to god.  This is illogical reasoning, because, like I’ve said previously, lack of an answer is not proof of god, it is only proof that we don’t have an answer.   One could make the same argument about UFO’s .  They are not proof of alien life.  They are just proof of something in the sky that we don’t necessarily have an answer for.

    

This brings up a compelling argument.  If god exists, how does he do what he does? If god is intervening in our everyday world, how does he do it?  What does “god’s will” consist of?  It’s not enough of an explanation to say, “god wants it to be, therefore, it is.”  There has to be an explanation of how he does what he does.  Does he send invisible angels to do his bidding?  If so, how are his angels invisible?  Is he manipulating things at a subatomic level?  If so, how is he doing that?  There is an explanation for everything beyond it being god’s will, or magic, or whatever you want to call it.  Once you get to the level of explaining HOW god is a god, you start taking the omnipotence away from god altogether. 

    

If you take the omnipotence away from god, then you take away what makes a god a god. With this reasoning, one could say that a belief in a god that works through miracles is proof in itself that god does not exist. Of course, you could say that god does not necessarily work miracles.  But then, the entire argument comes down to the definition of what a god is.  In my personal opinion, god has to at the very least be omnipotent.  If not, then I don’t think they deserve the title, “god”.

    

Of course, one could argue that god is the reason a universe exists at all.  But I think that is a very loose term for a god.  One could just as easily attribute it to nature. In fact, explaining HOW god created the universe also takes away the “god” part of being a creator. There will always be an explanation for how “miracles” happen.  Because of this, the definition of what god is gets smaller and smaller until there’s no more room for god in the equation.

Section 9: Mixing up Causation with Correlation

    

“I prayed for X and X happened, therefore, god exists.”

    

This statement can be very compelling for people as proof that god exists.  I agree, that statistically unlikely events that happen can seem like they are supposed to happen.  If I prayed everyday to win the lottery, and then one day I did, it would seem amazingly apparent that I was blessed.  This is of course until you think about all the people who pray to have monetary riches and never see their wishes come true.  There is a psychological phenomenon that people have where they remember their winnings, and forget their losses.  This is true with gambling, psychic readings, prayer, and probably other scenarios.

    

If someone is to take a prayer coming true as proof that god exists, they must also take prayers NOT coming true as proof that god does not exist.  One could argue that god may pick and choose which prayers he decides to grant.  If this is the case, then we as humans have no idea why some prayers have been chosen over others.  And if that’s the case, then it could also be true that sometimes prayers come true strictly because of chance and god has nothing to do with it.  I think taking chance into consideration is far simpler, far more likely, and it doesn't require an invisible "all powerful" being. 

 

Section 10: How are we here?

    

We live in a universe where specific conditions exist that allow for life as we know it. If any of the known forces of the universe were different by even a super tiny amount, we couldn’t be here like we are today.  If gravity were even slightly as strong as it is, the universe would have expanded too fast for galaxies to form. If the nuclear forces were different, atoms would not be possible.  We live on a planet that, as far as we know, is the only planet in the universe with life.  This certainly sounds like we were meant to be here.  But are we?

    

Lets take the simplest of those questions first.  Why are we here on Earth?  Our planet happens to be of appropriate distance from our star, with appropriate chemicals to support life.  We are a planet which is fed by the sun.  The sun is one of billions of stars in our galaxy.  If one in a million stars in our galaxy has planets, that leaves millions of stars that have the possibility of having planets with situations like Earth’s.  There are billions of galaxies.  That means there are billions and billions of planets. If one in a billion planets that has the possibility for life has life, that leaves the possibility for millions of planets in the universe to have life.  If there are millions of planets that have life, that means Earth happens to be where our life occurred.  Why are we here?  We are here because this happens to be where we ended up.  We aren’t on some other planet because of a choice, we are here because we are the offspring of chance.

    

The same argument can be made about our universe.  It is theorized that there are multiple universes.  If this is true, than it’s safe to assume that there are billions upon billions of universes.  We happen to be in a universe where the fundamental laws of nature are appropriate for life as we know it to form. This again means that we are here because we are the offspring of chance.

    

This does not even take into account the idea that this only explains life as we know it.  Life could live in situations vastly different from our own personal situation.  If this is true, the possibility of life existing in different forms on different planets, in different universes increases exponentially.

 

Section 11: Why do we believe in god?

    

Why are we here? People have been asking that question for millennia.  It’s possible that this question was a catalyst for the formation of religion.  Human beings have a history for putting human feelings and emotions to non-human things and events.  When tragedy strikes us, we ask, “why?”  We wonder what we did to warrant such abuse.  We see faces and people in things like potato chips, clouds and wall markings.  We make meanings and take messages from various (sometimes random) stimuli from the world around us.  This is a well known neurological phenomenon called “pareidolia”.  Most likely, this is a trait that has given us some evolutionary advantage.

     

I feel that pareidolia is possibly one of the reasons that we believe in god.  Humans give human characteristics to objects and happenings in order to better understand and empathize about the world around us.  Asking, “Why are we here?” and “Why did this happen” is giving human characteristics to a very non-human universe.  I think the idea of god came about because humans have a very real need to project human ideals to nature.  We want to know why we are in a draught, we want to know why the sun moves about the sky.  God was a way for us to explain away things we don’t understand.  We still use this idea to explain things we don’t understand.   Unfortunately, as I said before, not understanding why something is the way it is, is not proof that god exists.

    

Nature doesn’t send tsunamis and floods to wipe out sinners.  Nature sends out tsunamis and floods because that’s what nature does.  Whoever gets wiped out just happened to be in a very unfortunate situation.  There is no “human nature” to the universe beyond that of humans and our living counterparts. We project our emotions on emotionless stimuli because it helps us deal better with the world around us.

    

Of course putting the blame on any one phenomenon is most likely oversimplifying how religion came about.  I don’t want to begin to extrapolate the varied eccentricities of the formation of religious belief.  Not to mention trying to do so is far beyond the scope of this essay. But I think that keeping pareidolia in mind when thinking about religion’s beginnings is a good start.  I also think it’s a good phenomenon to keep in mind when we deal with mysteries in the universe we have yet to answer.

In Conclusion

    

The truth is the truth, no matter how many people do or don't believe it. Every single person in the universe could believe in the Tooth Fairy, but that doesn't mean the Tooth Fairy is real. It doesn't matter how much you want to believe, if your belief fails to follow logical reasoning, you have no proof that what you believe is true.This does not prove that your belief is wrong, just that your reasoning is.  But I choose to believe that extraordinary claims require proof. I feel that saying that god exists is an extraordinary claim, and I require proof before I'll believe in him. I can't accept that proof until I know it follows a logical path that does not have faulty reasoning. I have tried to address every argument I could find for the existence of a god, and I feel I have shown why those arguments do not follow logical reasoning. Therefore, I choose to believe that god is an extraordinary claim, without any logical proof to his existence.

If presented with convincing evidence, I would be willing to change my mind.  If the evidence presented no matter how compelling, is shown to be faulty, I can’t rightfully believe in it. This is no different than my belief in scientific theory and experimentation.  You could show me all the evidence in the world, but if it can be disproven, then  the evidence is not proof. 

God also cannot be a blanket answer when we have a question that we cannot answer.  We still have many unsolved mysteries of the universe. Saying “God did it” closes the door on something that could otherwise be further studied and eventually understood.  

The more we understand the universe, the more we understand how it works.  The more we understand about the universe, the less we attribute to god.  In effect, our idea of god is shrinking. If god were real, the way god works can be explained.  The more we explain god, the less godlike he becomes.  Humans put “human-like” attributes onto very non-human things. This is a way to deal with the world, but does nothing to prove god’s existence.

In this essay, I have thrown around a few theories which could possibly explain things otherwise unknown.  Even if these theories are wrong (and it’s very likely that some or all will be found wrong one day) that is not proof whatsoever that God is the ultimate answer. I have yet to be given proof that god exists.  I’ve only been given speculative ideas as to why god may exist. I’ve tried to tackle each speculative idea seen as proof for the existence of god and to why I think those ideas are not logically sound.  I’m sure I have missed several reasons, and I know I could elaborate on any one of my points.   I may even be dead wrong. Therefore, I am opening my arguments up for debate.  I hope that in reading this essay, you have taken away a better understanding of where I come from in why I don’t believe in god.  Thank you.

-Mike