Can you test for God?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Atheists often bring up the fact that there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of God. That is correct, but one issue that never seems to be addressed is the question of what kind of observations would be acceptable as evidence for the existence of God anyway.

In other words,

Assuming God exists, is there any conceivable scientific test which could prove this?

Well, first of all we need to come up with some working definition of what we are testing for. What is this "God", anyway? I will use a minimalistic definition of God, which could fit the divine being of any monotheistic religion (and many supreme gods of other religions, too): God is an intelligent entity that created the universe.

Alright, let's say we have an intelligent entity. How could we go about determining if it has created the universe? I cannot think of any conceivable test for this attribute, even with all the resources in the universe. Even assuming there is an entity who created the universe, it is still impossible for this entity to prove that it did, in fact, create the universe.

Similar problems arise with proving any other divine attributes, such as omniscience for example. Suppose you were omniscient and wanted to prove this fact to a non-omniscient being. How could you prove that you knew everything, as opposed to merely knowing a lot? To your non-omniscient interviewer, there are two kinds of information: Things it knows and things it does not know. If you tell it something it already knows, the fact that a non-omniscient being already knows that information shows that you did not need to be omniscient to learn it. If you tell it something it does not already know, it has no way to determine if you are being truthful. Either way, there is no way for you to prove that you are omniscient.

I believe it is therefore reasonable to say that if God appeared in your living room, he could not prove that he was, in fact, God.

Therefore, asking for proof of the existence of God is like asking for a square triangle.

Take that as you will - there will certainly be some who will say that anything which can never be proven should be disregarded. I prefer to look at it from a different perspective, and say that the reason why God does not provide any evidence of his existence is because there is no evidence which he could possibly provide.

[Publius]

Atheists often bring up the fact that there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of God. That is correct,

Well, then that's end of the line for me, and for many other people.


but one issue that never seems to be addressed is the question of what kind of observations would be acceptable as evidence for the existence of God anyway.

That's because it's a ridiculous question.

As you just said, there is no evidence for God, because that's how God is designed by most religions. The Christian God cannot be seen, cannot be felt (physically, at least), cannot be tasted, cannot be smelled, and cannot be heard, so there is no possible way I could get any 'evidence' of his existence.

I'm not going to see something that's by definition non-corporeal.

All the 'evidence' then would have to be in my head, that is to say, of my own making.



In other words,

Assuming God exists, is there any conceivable scientific test which could prove this?

Maybe.

It would depend on what traits and qualities God had, but I think most conceptions of God divorce him from the universe, meaning he cannot be studied or experienced at all.



Well, first of all we need to come up with some working definition of what we are testing for.

Watch as I predict that this idea will not even make it off the launch pad.


What is this "God", anyway?

We've hit our first snag.

How do we know we even mean the same thing when we use the term 'God'? Well, we can't set out an objective 'God criteria' to compare our ideas with, because that 'God criteria' is exactly what we're setting out to provide.

We've put the cart before the horse, then.


I will use a minimalistic definition of God, which could fit the divine being of any monotheistic religion (and many supreme gods of other religions, too): God is an intelligent entity that created the universe.

Alright, I'll humor you.

Though I must ask, in what sense 'intelligent' could mean anything.



Alright, let's say we have an intelligent entity. How could we go about determining if it has created the universe?

We could ask it.

That would sensible policy.


I cannot think of any conceivable test for this attribute, even with all the resources in the universe.

We could ask it.

And it could answer us.


Even assuming there is an entity who created the universe, it is still impossible for this entity to prove that it did, in fact, create the universe.


It's not impossible at all, assuming that is intelligent enough and powerful enough tell us, which it clearly is if it created us.

So, what's the problem?

If God wants us to believe in him, he CLEARLY has the ability to get us to. And if he doesn't, why does it matter if we believe in him or not?



Similar problems arise with proving any other divine attributes, such as omniscience for example. Suppose you were omniscient and wanted to prove this fact to a non-omniscient being. How could you prove that you knew everything, as opposed to merely knowing a lot?

Good question.

But, if he were omniscient, he would obviously know exactly what it would take to convince me of his existence.

I guess you could argue that there's nothing that would convince me, but I don't buy that at all. In principal, I would believe in God if I had the evidence, I just don't know what evidence that is.

But here's the kicker: God does, if he's omniscient. And he's powerful enough to give it me, AND he's intelligent enough to know I want to have it.

So what's the problem?



To your non-omniscient interviewer, there are two kinds of information: Things it knows and things it does not know. If you tell it something it already knows, the fact that a non-omniscient being already knows that information shows that you did not need to be omniscient to learn it. If you tell it something it does not already know, it has no way to determine if you are being truthful. Either way, there is no way for you to prove that you are omniscient.

There's no way for God to prove to HIMSELF that he's omniscient.

We're the least of his worries.

God making the assumption to himself that he was all knowing has as much credibility as a loony on the street making the same assertion.

You can't know that you know everything, because as long as your knowledge had SOME limit, then it's still CONCEIVABLE that something is outside of it.



I believe it is therefore reasonable to say that if God appeared in your living room, he could not prove that he was, in fact, God.


That's because he wouldn't be.

If can't prove to me he's God, then he's not God. God would have to be intelligent enough and knowledgeable enough to demonstrate his own existence, or he wouldn't be God, he'd just be a very weak, unimaginative illusion.



Therefore, asking for proof of the existence of God is like asking for a square triangle.

Yes, it's asking about something that doesn't exist, indeed, cannot exist.

How fitting.



Take that as you will - there will certainly be some who will say that anything which can never be proven should be disregarded.

Oh, I just came up with a nifty logical decimation of this idea. Tell me what you think:

1. There are an infinite amount of things that have no evidence to support them. God's existence is one of them, as is God's non-existence.

2. By definition, there can no evidenciary difference between any of these things.

3. Since this is the case, believing, without evidence, that God exists is logically identical to believing, without evidence, that God does not exist.

4. So your credulity very clearly undermines itself. YOu can have no better reason for believing in God than not, be definition, so your whole belief system negates itself.

God is not God and not God is God.



I prefer to look at it from a different perspective, and say that the reason why God does not provide any evidence of his existence is because there is no evidence which he could possibly provide.

Well, non-existent entities do have a problem asserting their own existence, but I think that's a funny way of demonstrating God's lack of ontology.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Publius+June 30, 2007 01:17 am--> (Publius @ June 30, 2007 01:17 am) As you just said, there is no evidence for God, because that's how God is designed by most religions. The Christian God cannot be seen, cannot be felt (physically, at least), cannot be tasted, cannot be smelled, and cannot be heard, so there is no possible way I could get any 'evidence' of his existence.

I'm not going to see something that's by definition non-corporeal. [/b]
That is not the issue here. Bear in mind that I defined God merely as the creator of the universe. I did not say you could not see, hear, smell, touch or taste him. But anyway, supposing a very physical being claiming to be God stood in front of you, how could you tell if it was, in fact, God? What use is it to see God if you don't know what God is supposed to look like?


Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)
Alright, let's say we have an intelligent entity. How could we go about determining if it has created the universe?
We could ask it.[/b]
Oh, okay then. Behold, I am God and I created the universe! Do you believe me?

We're talking about scientific tests here. If you're willing to believe anyone claiming to be the creator of the universe, that's your problem.


Originally posted by Publius

Even assuming there is an entity who created the universe, it is still impossible for this entity to prove that it did, in fact, create the universe.
It's not impossible at all, assuming that is intelligent enough to want us to know it exists and powerful enough tell us, which it clearly is if it created us.
Fine. Suppose you encounter some kind of non-human intelligence who claims to be the creator of the universe. Do you take its word for it?

If yes, you may well end up worshipping the first bored alien that decides to land on Earth.


Originally posted by Publius
I guess you could argue that there's nothing that would convince me, but I don't buy that at all. In principal, I would believe in God if I had the evidence, I just don't know what evidence that is.

But here's the kicker: God does, if he's omniscient. And he's powerful enough to give it me, AND he's intelligent enough to know I want to have it.

So what's the problem?
You've just said it yourself: "I guess you could argue that there's nothing that would convince me." You say you don't buy it, but then go on to admit that you have no clue what might possibly convince you.

If God is omniscient, he does have the answer to every question - but the answer to the question "is there anything that could prove my existence?" may well be "no".


Originally posted by Publius
You could by knowing things that are, in principal, not knowable. If you could accurately predict quantum fluctuations or something, you would have a claim to omniscience, or so it seems to me.
Well yes, you could know things that are in principle not knowable, but if they are not knowable that means your non-omniscient interviewer does not know them, so how could he tell if the information you give him is accurate or if you're just making it up and pretending to know unknowable things?


Originally posted by Publius
But actually, we've reached an interesting point, because this back around on you: how do you know omniscience can even exist at all? How do we even know the term is sensical?
Well, I do not see any logical contradiction associated with knowing all the information in the universe.


[email protected]
If can't prove to me he's God, then he's [not] God. God would have to be intelligent enough and knowledgeable enough to demonstrate his own existence.
Being able to demonstrate his own existence was not part of the definition of God that we were using. We were talking about "God" first as the creator of the universe (who is not necessarily omni-anything), and then about God as some omniscient being (who is not necessarily omni-anything else, and does not necessarily have the power to defy logic).


Publius
There are an infinite amount of things that cannot be proven.
Really? Such as?

Bear in mind, I'm not talking about non-falsifiable hypotheses here. I'm talking about things that would be logically unprovable, even if they were true.

Other than God, the only kind of thing whose existence cannot be proven is something that does not interact with the universe in any way. God is special because, in principle, God could be able to affect the physical world and his existence would still be unprovable.

[Demogorgon]

You ask a fair question. And it deserves a better response than I can give just now. However I will give it a try.

I think you make a mistake in saying that God chooses not to reveal itself because it could not prove its own existence. If we accept God is omnipotent, we must accept that it can do such a thing if it feels so inclined. Consequently we really have to conclude that God is not too bothered about revealing itself to us or that it does not exist.

Now it could be of course that there is a God and it just does not fancy jumping out to say hello every five minutes. If that is the case we may wish for there to be some kind of test for the existence of God. But I think the very fact that there isn't one is the reason why a lot of people do not accept God. If something's existence cannot be verified in any way, it is something that has to be taken on faith or else on a guess as to the likelihood of it.

I do not like taking things on faith. I am not going to take God on faith any more than I will take the Celestial Teapot. As for the likelihood of God. Well that is anybodies guess. But given we are always moving forward in explaining natural phenomena without the assistance of a God, and may in theory hope to explain everything (given enough time of course) I do think God is quite improbable

[Dr Mindbender]

Why has no one applied the theory of parallel universes to account for the fact that God is invisible to us? If you dispute this theory, then you must subscribe to destiny or predestination which in its own right, is a form of theism.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 30, 2007 12:13 am
Why has no one applied the theory of parallel universes to account for the fact that God is invisible to us? If you dispute this theory, then you must subscribe to destiny or predestination which in its own right, is a form of theism.

Why has no one applied the theory of parallel universes to account for the fact that God is invisible to us?

Why? Because it's pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo with about as much actual evidence behind it as a big bearded man in the sky.

[Publius]

That is not the issue here. Bear in mind that I defined God merely as the creator of the universe. I did not say you could not see, hear, smell, touch or taste him.

In order to create the Universe, he must be outside it.

That means he cannot be directly experienced. He can, however, be indirectly experienced, through his effects on the Universe.


But anyway, supposing a very physical being claiming to be God stood in front of you, how could you tell if it was, in fact, God? What use is it to see God if you don't know what God is supposed to look like?

If he could demonstrate to me that he was God, I would believe that he was God.

And since he is God, he would be able to convince me of that fact.



Oh, okay then. Behold, I am God and I created the universe! Do you believe me?

No, because you're not God. That's very easily solved.



We're talking about scientific tests here. If you're willing to believe anyone claiming to be the creator of the universe, that's your problem.

I'm not willing to believe anyone, I'm willing to believe God, who, being God, could very easily demonstrate his Godliness.

I see no logical contradiction in testing attributes of God, if indeed he has attributes. Where is the logical contradiction here?



Fine. Suppose you encounter some kind of non-human intelligence who claims to be the creator of the universe. Do you take its word for it?

I'd say you have to.

If you choose to believe in 'God', when a candidate shows up who fits the bill, you HAVE to believe in him.

Period.

Now, we can argue over whether it's sensible to look for a creator at all. I don't think it is, so I don't have this problem.



If yes, you may well end up worshipping the first bored alien that decides to land on Earth.

Yes, if you apply 'God' to mean 'a higher intelligence that created the Universe' and an alien comes along who is smart enough to convince he created the Universe, you WILL believe in him, and it's your own fault for using such a terrible definition of 'God'.

I, on the other hand, will just refer to him as an alien, because I have no use for this nebulous 'God' entity you're so enamored with. He might be smart enough to convince even me that he did make the Universe, but I still wouldn't call him 'God', because, to me, that term has a very specific meaning that does not apply there.



You've just said it yourself: "I guess you could argue that there's nothing that would convince me." You say you don't buy it, but then go on to admit that you have no clue what might possibly convince you.

I don't. I have no idea what would convince me that string theory is right either, but that doesn't mean that string theory cannot be proven (Note; that's just an example, don't bite me for using something that might not actually be able to be proven.)

Just because I don't have the imagination to figure out what could convince me doesn't mean there is nothing that could convince me.



If God is omniscient, he does have the answer to every question - but the answer to the question "is there anything that could prove my existence?" may well be "no".

It could be.

But I very much doubt it. I mean, I am myself and I know myself fairly well, and I can say that's false. It is possible for God to demonstrated to me.

So your conjecture is just that. And so God would have to be able to prove his own existence to me, at least in theory. He might choose not to, but he certainly could do it. Which obviates your argument, as I see it.

There is nothing in the idea of 'God' that makes it impossible to test it. The only thing that makes it impossible is that he doesn't exist. If he were to exist, he would have to exhibit SOME property that is not explicable by other means, leading you to the supernatural as a solution to your problem thus leading you to God. It cannot be otherwise.



Well yes, you could know things that are in principle not knowable, but if they are not knowable that means your non-omniscient interviewer does not know them, so how could he tell if the information you give him is accurate or if you're just making it up and pretending to know unknowable things?

Unknowable in the our limited sense, like the future. Really, the future IS 'knowable', as in 'able to be known by an all powerful entity', but it isn't 'knowable' in an everyday sense.



Well, I do not see any logical contradiction associated with knowing all the information in the universe.

God has to know something else, in addition to all the knowledge of the Universe, or else he would just be the Universe.

It's this something else that is the problem.



Being able to demonstrate his own existence was not part of the definition of God that we were using. We were talking about "God" first as the creator of the universe (who is not necessarily omni-anything), and then about God as some omniscient being (who is not necessarily omni-anything else, and does not necessarily have the power to defy logic).

You defined God as an 'intelligence' (I still don't know what that could possibly mean) that 'created' the 'universe'.

I have to assume that this God is 'intelligent' enough to prove his own existence, because I can do that. I think therefore I am. So you're telling me God is intelligent but not intelligent enough to figure out that simple puzzle? Come on. If you don't like the consequences of the word 'intelligent' don't use it, but dont' complain when I point out that the logical consequence of an intelligence higher than human intelligence has all the capabilities of human intelligence, then some.

If I can demonstrate my own existence, God sure as hell can, granting that he is intelligent (your word.)



Really? Such as?

Use your imagination. Posit the existence of something that cannot be demonstrated. Not posit another thing. Continue ad infitum.

It's not hard. You just did it.



Bear in mind, I'm not talking about non-falsifiable hypotheses here. I'm talking about things that would be logically unprovable, even if they were true.

How Godelian.



Other than God, the only kind of thing whose existence cannot be proven is something that does not interact with the universe in any way.

Not quite.

I could posit the existence of something that is simply too small to be detected by any means (by continually making it smaller than any device you come up with to find it, for example), I could come up with a being that effects the universe but disappears on any attempt to find it, I could use special pleading to, again, come up with an infinite amount of entities that can effect that Universe and yet remain undetected, and these need not fit your definition of God.



God is special because, in principle, God could be able to affect the physical world and his existence would still be unprovable.

No, it wouldn't. It would provable due to simple exclusion. If we had the power to test every possible means, and we did so, and a mystery still eluded us, we would have to admit that God is at work.

Ultimately, if the existence of God cannot be proven, it is than nonsensical to talk of God existing at all. If there is no evidence for believing in God, you won't believe in God. The fact that you do demonstrates that there has to be SOME evidence for God, in your mind, even if it's bad evidence.

[Publius]

Why has no one applied the theory of parallel universes to account for the fact that God is invisible to us?

I don't understand what you mean by this.


If you dispute this theory, then you must subscribe to destiny or predestination which in its own right, is a form of theism.

Do you mean determinism? That isn't theism.

[Publius]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 30, 2007 01:02 am




Why? Because it's pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo with about as much actual evidence behind it as a big bearded man in the sky.

I think it has more explanatory power than God, which is nothing but special pleading.

It also has fewer problems, given that most definitions of God are logically contradictory in nature.

That being said, it is pure conjecture, but it's still far better than God conjecture.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by pusher robot+June 30, 2007 01:02 am--> (pusher robot @ June 30, 2007 01:02 am)
Ulster [email protected] 30, 2007 12:13 am
Why has no one applied the theory of parallel universes to account for the fact that God is invisible to us? If you dispute this theory, then you must subscribe to destiny or predestination which in its own right, is a form of theism.

Why has no one applied the theory of parallel universes to account for the fact that God is invisible to us?

Why? Because it's pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo with about as much actual evidence behind it as a big bearded man in the sky. [/b]
If there is only one universe, then it dictates that time takes a pre-destined course which contradicts the principle of free will. I believe the accepted model within modern physics, is that all eventualities that can happen, do happen (the mathematics is more ambiguous in my post but I seem to remember that Hawking goes into great depth while arriving at the same hypothesis in 'A brief history of time').In the absence of a better explanation as to why we can't physically 'see' God, then from a believer's perspective at least, it seems to be all we have.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 30, 2007 03:21 am
If there is only one universe, then it dictates that time takes a pre-destined course which contradicts the principle of free will.

Free will has not been conclusively proved to not be an illusion.


I believe the accepted model within modern physics, is that all eventualities that can happen, do happen (the mathematics is more ambiguous in my post but I seem to remember that Hawking goes into great depth while arriving at the same hypothesis in 'A brief history of time').

It is a model, all conjecture.

[Dr Mindbender]

and yet to be disproven.

[greymatter]

God exists in the minds of a huge portion of the earth's population. As such, belief in god manifests itself as a political and material force.

Ideas have energy, and energy has mass. :P

[TC]

Can you test for God? Absolutely

First, consider what you’re actually testing for.

You are not testing for a ’minimalist’ god because no one believes in a minimalist ‘watchmaker’ non-interventionist god, the deists who speculated on such a god only did so because there was no scientific theory of biological evolution and no scientific theory of the origin of the universe so at the time a non-interventionist watchmaker psudo-god was a reasonable hypothesis.

That’s not the type of entity that would actually be recognized as “god” by any monotheistic religion because due to its non-interventionist nature it could neither answer prayers nor issue commandments nor determine where someone’s soul goes, and due to its moral neutrality would be in no position of ‘truth’ or ‘knowledge’ or ‘morality’ and it could never be appealed to for issues of right and wrong, of whats real and whats fake, which are precisely the issues that every major theistic religion appeals to its god for.

The God worshiped by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, and Bahá'í, is clearly not a “minimalist” God, in fact most theologians and theistic philosophers characterize ‘Him’ as an ultimate and absolute entity, as all powerful, as everywhere and everything, acting as the prime mover behind reality itself, with infinite knowledge and wisdom and therefore infinitely good and just. In fact none of the major monotheistic religions would make *any sense* at all if their God did not possess these characteristics and any kindof religion would be utterly impossible with a watchmaker deity (which is why the deists didn’t have one).

So, we can devise a number of tests to determine whether it is possible for an all powerful all knowing all good entity exists. We’ll start with a testable hypotehsis:

Hypothesis 1. An omnipotent, omnicent, infinitely good entity exists.

If this hypothesis were true, it would also entail several logical conclusions about the behavior of this entity.

a. Such an entity would not deliberately deceive people (this is a point that Descartes makes in his Meditations as a necessary element of God’s perfection)

b. Given that such an entity created the universe, the universe itself would not be created in a deliberately deceptive way.


So, to test Hypothesis 1, you simply need to determine if the arrangement of the world is intuitively consistent with something created and managed by an all knowing all powerful all good entity.

So, we can then devise an empirical experiment:

Ask anyone “Does everything world appear to be all good”.

Notice that the question is on the world’s appearance not its actuality, because this is an empirical test, and since we’re testing for Hypothesis 1 where God would not deceive people, if the hypothesis is true than the world is as it appears to be.

This test however clearly comes back negative. No reasonable person would agree that the world is all good. Even if someone reasonably posits that evil actions by humans are necessary correlates of free will which is in itself good, many bad things cannot be attributed to free will.

Therefore we can conclude that the hypothesis is not consistent with the empirical data so the hypothesis is wrong. Note that, if the hypothesis was supported by the data, that would not be a positive proof of the hypothesis it would just fail to disprove the existence of god (since the world might be all good for reasons other than an all good all powerful god, but such a god is not consistent with a world that isn’t all good)


We can also devise a number of additional tests to determine if the God of the Bible existed at any point:

Hypothesis 2. The bible is a historical account of real events

There are a bunch of good tests we can do for this hypothesis:

If hypothesis 2 is true than the universe would only be a few thousand years old.

We can test for this by excavating mineral deposits to determine the apparent age of the earth or by extrapolating based on current position and development the age of numerous stellar objects, or by measuring cosmic microwave background radiation over space. By all measures the universe appears to be more than 13 billion years old, rather than several thousand, and since such a god would not deliberately deceive people there would be no reason to trick people into thinking this. Therefore this test has a negative result as well.


Or, ignoring that, lets have a third hypothesis accepted by every major monotheistic religion:

Hypothesis 3. God loves people and listens to their prayers and intervenes accordingly

This is a really easy one to test for, all you have to do is have two groups of people under identical scenarios with one group being prayed for and the other not being prayed for and see if it changes the outcome or not. If God was real, and he was good and powerful and cared if you prayed or not, then the group being prayed for would have a better outcome than the group not being prayed for.

A group ran this test with 1600 heart bypass patients, and naturally, the data was inconsistent with the hypothesis, God failed.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_060330_prayer.html



So, there you have it, you can test for God, and the result of the tests are negative. That’s why religious people reject any real attempt to test for God.




I believe it is therefore reasonable to say that if God appeared in your living room, he could not prove that he was, in fact, God.


Of course he could, all he'd have to do would be to defy the laws of physics in an obvious way, which should be no trouble for him since he's all powerful. If someone claimed to be God, all you have to do is say "okay, lets go to the local university science lab and see if you can break the law of conservation of energy in the lab, then i'll believe you're God. Also i assume we wont have to walk, what with you being God and all"

It would be so obviously easy to positively establish whether or not a person or voice or burning bush claiming to be God was not God because an all powerful being would have no difficulty proving him or herself to be so, they'd just have to break laws of physics in an obviously supernatural way.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:13 pm

Ideas have energy, and energy has mass. :P
Incorrect, mass consists of particles. Energy does not. Therefore it has 0 mass.

[Publius]

Free will has not been conclusively proved to not be an illusion.

Free will is incoherent concept.

To say you make decisions that are not entirely predicated by previous brain states (that is to say, determined) is to say that you make decisions acausally.

I think we can both agree that that is not the case.

I certainly don't proclaim to know the answer to the riddle of how it seems like we have free will in a deterministic universe, but I can't see how the idea of 'free will' even makes sense. Free from what?

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:26 pm


Free will has not been conclusively proved to not be an illusion.

Free will is incoherent concept.

To say you make decisions that are not entirely predicated by previous brain states (that is to say, determined) is to say that you make decisions acausally.

I think we can both agree that that is not the case.

I certainly don't proclaim to know the answer to the riddle of how it seems like we have free will in a deterministic universe, but I can't see how the idea of 'free will' even makes sense. Free from what?
Free will is the antithesis of 'pre destination' or destiny. If you beleive that the universe can only take one route through time, then it means our sentient will has no role in its course.

[apathy maybe]

Fuck free will. It doesn't fucking exist. Not only that, it doesn't fucking matter! (And I can't be fucked finding the thread I started completely crushing the idea that the idea matters, I can't remember if I also demonstrated that from a material perspective, it also doesn't exist, but it doesn't...)

Now onto proving (or not) the existence of God. I honestly can't be fucked responding to the posts previous to this one. I though that Edric O had a good first post, and then Publius responded well as well, and so on (well, some of the posts were really shit, but still...).

Just a question to the believers (specifically Edric O), why believe then? What is the point in believing in a god that can't be demonstrated to exist? More to the point, what is the point in believing in a god that hasn't done anything for you (or if it has, that is directly attributable to god, and not some actual material thing...)? And so on, why believe, if you have no proof and no good reason to believe?

[Publius]

Free will is the antithesis of 'pre destination' or destiny.

I believe determinism is the preferred term, but whatever.


If you beleive that the universe can only take one route through time, then it means our sentient will has no role in its course.

Well, that's not EXACTLY true.

Our sentient will DOES have an influence. For example, if you desire to drink a cup of coffee, and then you do just that, then your sentient will clearly had an effect on the Universe: it caused you drink a cup of coffee.

But notice something here: free will never enters into this picture. Your 'sentient will' is, obviously, predicated on a previous brain state, a previous sentient will, and so and so forth, tracking all the way back to your birth, and even, really, to your conception.

So a sentient will CAN have an effect on the universe; we're not epiphenomenalists (God that is a ***** to spell), are we? But just because it can have an effect doesn't mean it doesn't behave deterministically, which I think it does.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by TragicClown+June 30, 2007 08:33 pm--> (TragicClown @ June 30, 2007 08:33 pm) First, consider what you’re actually testing for.

You are not testing for a ’minimalist’ god because no one believes in a minimalist ‘watchmaker’ non-interventionist god, the deists who speculated on such a god only did so because there was no scientific theory of biological evolution and no scientific theory of the origin of the universe so at the time a non-interventionist watchmaker psudo-god was a reasonable hypothesis.

That’s not the type of entity that would actually be recognized as “god” by any monotheistic religion because due to its non-interventionist nature it could neither answer prayers nor issue commandments nor determine where someone’s soul goes, and due to its moral neutrality would be in no position of ‘truth’ or ‘knowledge’ or ‘morality’ and it could never be appealed to for issues of right and wrong, of whats real and whats fake, which are precisely the issues that every major theistic religion appeals to its god for. [/b]
I did not use the minimalist God hypothesis to imply that I was testing for a deist God; I used it because if we are going to test for God, it is important to test for characteristics that God and only God could possibly have (and therefore we should strip down our definition of God until we are left with only the absolute minimum).

I used it also because I did not want to test for the Christian God in particular, but for any entity worthy of being called "God" in general. If we define God simply as the creator of the universe, this does not exclude the possibility that he has other attributes as well - he does not have to be the unknowable deist God. But we are saying that those other attributes are not essential to the definition of God.

And I used it because, frankly, the Bible never provides a neat list of all the attributes of God. Many of the things that Christians commonly attribute to God - such as omnipotence or omniscience - were first thought up by medieval Christian theologians rather than being stated in the Bible.


Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)The God worshiped by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, and Bahá'í, is clearly not a “minimalist” God, in fact most theologians and theistic philosophers characterize ‘Him’ as an ultimate and absolute entity, as all powerful, as everywhere and everything, acting as the prime mover behind reality itself, with infinite knowledge and wisdom and therefore infinitely good and just. In fact none of the major monotheistic religions would make *any sense* at all if their God did not possess these characteristics and any kindof religion would be utterly impossible with a watchmaker deity (which is why the deists didn’t have one).[/b]
I would disagree with the assertion that none of the monotheistic religions would make any sense without an all powerful God with infinite knowledge. Depending on how omnipotence is defined, it may or may not include the ability to defy logic. If God is not quite omnipotent in the sense that he cannot make square circles, that is no major problem for any religion.

Likewise, omniscience raises well-known questions when we try to reconcile it with free will. If God is not quite omniscient in the sense that he knows everything except [some of] the future decisions of independent minds, that is again no major problem for any religion.


Originally posted by TragicClown
Hypothesis 1. An omnipotent, omnicent, infinitely good entity exists.

If this hypothesis were true, it would also entail several logical conclusions about the behavior of this entity.

a. Such an entity would not deliberately deceive people (this is a point that Descartes makes in his Meditations as a necessary element of God’s perfection)

b. Given that such an entity created the universe, the universe itself would not be created in a deliberately deceptive way.
I am afraid I am not familiar with Descartes' argument there. Why is it necessary for an infinitely good being to avoid deception at all times? Depending on one's ethical frame of reference, deception may not necessarily be bad in all circumstances. In other words, there are many definitions of good and evil that do not make deception automatically evil. Thus an infinitely good being would not need to avoid it.


Originally posted by TragicClown
So, to test Hypothesis 1, you simply need to determine if the arrangement of the world is intuitively consistent with something created and managed by an all knowing all powerful all good entity.

So, we can then devise an empirical experiment:

Ask anyone “Does everything world appear to be all good”.

Notice that the question is on the world’s appearance not its actuality, because this is an empirical test, and since we’re testing for Hypothesis 1 where God would not deceive people, if the hypothesis is true than the world is as it appears to be.

This test however clearly comes back negative. No reasonable person would agree that the world is all good. Even if someone reasonably posits that evil actions by humans are necessary correlates of free will which is in itself good, many bad things cannot be attributed to free will.

Therefore we can conclude that the hypothesis is not consistent with the empirical data so the hypothesis is wrong. Note that, if the hypothesis was supported by the data, that would not be a positive proof of the hypothesis it would just fail to disprove the existence of god (since the world might be all good for reasons other than an all good all powerful god, but such a god is not consistent with a world that isn’t all good)
That is the standard formulation of the Problem of Evil, which can be solved in many different ways. My favourite solutions are:

a. Deny God's omnipotence. If "omnipotence" is defined as including the power to create a perfectly good universe which also respects free will, we may remove that power from the list of things God is capable of doing without seriously infringing on the traditional monotheistic view of God.

b. Argue that we do in fact live in the best of all possible worlds, and that any attempt to change the basic structure of the universe (physics, biology, human behaviour) would end up creating a worse universe than the one we live in today. This argument also denies God's omnipotence in a way. Our universe is clearly not all good; if it is indeed the best of all possible worlds, that means God lacks the power to improve it. But again, I don't see this as a theological problem for any religion.


Originally posted by TragicClown
We can also devise a number of additional tests to determine if the God of the Bible existed at any point:

Hypothesis 2. The bible is a historical account of real events
It is not necessary for the Bible to be a (fully) historical account of real events in order for the Biblical God to exist. Some parts of the Bible are clearly marked as allegory. It is not unreasonable to believe that other passages are also allegorical even when not clearly marked as such.


[email protected]
Hypothesis 3. God loves people and listens to their prayers and intervenes accordingly

This is a really easy one to test for, all you have to do is have two groups of people under identical scenarios with one group being prayed for and the other not being prayed for and see if it changes the outcome or not. If God was real, and he was good and powerful and cared if you prayed or not, then the group being prayed for would have a better outcome than the group not being prayed for.

A group ran this test with 1600 heart bypass patients, and naturally, the data was inconsistent with the hypothesis, God failed.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/ap_060330_prayer.html
You did not spell out this hypothesis in full. In order for the effects of prayer to be testable by experiments such as the one you describe, the hypothesis would have to be as follows:

God loves people and listens to their prayers and always intervenes in favour of those who pray or are being prayed for.

Or, in brief, the hypothesis is that prayers are always answered.

Clearly, that is not the case - and I don't know any Christians who would argue that prayers are always answered and God always gives us what we pray for. You are attacking a straw man.

God would presumably have access to more information than most people, and would be able to determine the exact effects of answering a prayer. It is not difficult to imagine that the effects of answering a prayer would sometimes be negative overall. In such cases, the only possible course of action for a perfectly good entity is to leave the prayer unanswered.

A God that always answers prayers is incompatible with a God that is all-good and omniscient (or very nearly so).


TragicClown


I believe it is therefore reasonable to say that if God appeared in your living room, he could not prove that he was, in fact, God.
Of course he could, all he'd have to do would be to defy the laws of physics in an obvious way, which should be no trouble for him since he's all powerful. If someone claimed to be God, all you have to do is say "okay, lets go to the local university science lab and see if you can break the law of conservation of energy in the lab, then i'll believe you're God. Also i assume we wont have to walk, what with you being God and all"

It would be so obviously easy to positively establish whether or not a person or voice or burning bush claiming to be God was not God because an all powerful being would have no difficulty proving him or herself to be so, they'd just have to break laws of physics in an obviously supernatural way.
Breaking the laws of physics would not prove that he created the universe. It would also not prove that he is omniscient, nor would it prove that he is all-good.

At most, such a display of force would prove that we are dealing with a supernatural entity, but it would not prove that it is God.

* * *

I hope now you see why I used my minimalist definition of God as the creator of the universe. Alongside perfect goodness, that is one attribute of God which is non-negotiable. Other things, such as omnipotence, omniscience or answering prayers, are not necessary attributes of a God - not even the Christian God, let alone "God" in general.

Your three tests failed because they were not general enough. Yes, you can test for the existence of a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good, but that is only one of many possible views of God. You have tested for the existence of three very specific Gods, not tested for the existence of any God in general (or even for the existence of a Christian God in general - there are many Christian conceptions of God).

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 30, 2007 07:32 pm

Free will is the antithesis of 'pre destination' or destiny. If you beleive that the universe can only take one route through time, then it means our sentient will has no role in its course.
Sorry comrade, but you have this one wrong. Free will is not the only alternative to a scripted Universe. Publius was referring to Determinism, which has nothing to do with any preplanned model for the Universe (in most of its forms) but rather says that everythig that happens is caused by everything that has previously hapened and when you make a decision you make the only decision you could make in that exact state of mind and that state of mind is caused by everything you have experienced so far in life and so on.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Ulster [email protected] 30, 2007 04:28 pm
and yet to be disproven.
As has the existence of the FSM.

[wtfm8lol]

read "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger if you want to read a good book about testing for God. the book demonstrates that it is possible to test for gods, that it has been done, and that it has failed to turn up any positive evidence.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by wtfm8lol+July 02, 2007 07:11 pm--> (wtfm8lol @ July 02, 2007 07:11 pm) read "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger if you want to read a good book about testing for God. the book demonstrates that it is possible to test for gods, that it has been done, and that it has failed to turn up any positive evidence. [/b]
Sounds interesting. Can you summarize the experiments for me, just so I know what kind of gods he was thinking of or testing for?

I am asking this because, as I said in my previous post, it is possible to test for some specific gods, but I do not believe it is possible to test for God in general - because it is not possible to test if the universe had a creator - and neither is it possible to test for the Christian God.


pusher robot
As has the existence of the FSM.
That depends. What are the attributes of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, exactly? Is he supposed to inhabit a specific location? Does he have certain powers? How does he interact with the universe?

When you press atheists with questions about various made-up gods - like the FSM or the Invisible Pink Unicorn - you usually find that they are either easily disproven or quickly reduced to deist gods that are invisible, intangible and don't really do anything. The same applies to Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, mythical creatures or any of the other examples that atheists use to show the supposed absurdity of asking them to disprove god. Most of these mythical creatures are supposed to interact with the universe in predictable ways - for example, giving presents at a specific time of year - which clearly do not happen.

[Publius]

I don't even really see the point of this thread. It seems to me that what you're attempting to do is creating a vacuum where evidence usually is, into which you can insert faith, which of course, to you, means faith in the Christian God.

But why even go through the trouble of showing that scientific discovery and evidentiary reasoning cannot yield findings about your God? Why not simply assert that your faith is strong enough to go against science, as many of your cohorts do? I've read them say that even if all the scientific evidence in the world pointed against their God, they would still believe, because that's what faith is, to them. So, really, what's the purpose of using evidence, even the lack of evidence, to bolster an argument that HAS to be based on faith, at some point? Just stop with the nonsense and say "I have faith that God exists." That's all you have.

It may be true that the God you believe in cannot, actually, be tested. I don't know. I don't know what God you believe in (You say it's the Christian one; I say which one), and I doubt that you could accurately portray your religious beliefs to me even if you wanted to, simply because it's the kind of thing that cannot be easily transmitted. But through all that, why not just say you have faith? Then I could more easily reject your claims out of hand, saving us all a lot of trouble and effort.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Publius+July 03, 2007 01:27 am--> (Publius @ July 03, 2007 01:27 am) I don't even really see the point of this thread. It seems to me that what you're attempting to do is creating a vacuum where evidence usually is, into which you can insert faith, which of course, to you, means faith in the Christian God. [/b]
Not at all; I am attempting to show why faith is necessary in the first place. It is perfectly reasonable to ask "why does God want us to have faith in him instead of proving his existence? Is faith somehow superior to evidence?" And many atheists do indeed ask this. Therefore I give them my answer: No, faith is not superior to evidence and scientific inquiry. But we are dealing with an issue that could not be settled by all the evidence and scientific inquiry in the universe. That is why faith is necessary.


Originally posted by [email protected]
But why even go through the trouble of showing that scientific discovery and evidentiary reasoning cannot yield findings about your God? Why not simply assert that your faith is strong enough to go against science, as many of your cohorts do?
Because it is not. It would be irrational to have faith in something which has been proven wrong, and irrationality is no virtue.

I am a Christian, but I am also a Marxist, which inevitably makes me a product of the Enlightenment. My God is a God of both love and reason.


Publius
I don't know what God you believe in (You say it's the Christian one; I say which one), and I doubt that you could accurately portray your religious beliefs to me even if you wanted to, simply because it's the kind of thing that cannot be easily transmitted.
Well, I can try. Here is my religion in a nutshell:

There is one God, who is the creator of the universe and the source of morality. To act morally is to act in accordance with the view that one's interests are not superior to the interests of anyone else - this is what it means to "love one's neighbor as oneself". Another person's thirst, or hunger, or happiness or suffering are no less important than one's own thirst, or hunger, or happiness or suffering. Thus one should always act not for the purpose of maximizing one's own happiness, but for the purpose of maximizing the happiness of Humanity as a whole. This is what God demands. We all fall short of this ideal - we are all sinners - but God forgives us. We must simply accept his forgiveness and show gratitude through acts of worship and by doing our best to live moral lives. That is Christianity to me.

[Publius]

Not at all; I am attempting to show why faith is necessary in the first place. It is perfectly reasonable to ask "why does God want us to have faith in him instead of proving his existence? Is faith somehow superior to evidence?" And many atheists do indeed ask this. Therefore I give them my answer: No, faith is not superior to evidence and scientific inquiry. But we are dealing with an issue that could not be settled by all the evidence and scientific inquiry in the universe. That is why faith is necessary.

See, this is where we differ: I don't think we're dealing with an issue at all.

There is no issue to have faith about, in my view.

And also, the Bible itself is evidence. So to say there cannot be evidence for God has to be wrong. I guess you could say that isn't 'scientific inquiry' or a 'test', but you actually can test the validity of the Bible, scientifically. So there's that.



Because it is not. It would be irrational to have faith in something which has been proven wrong, and irrationality is no virtue.

Well, neither is faith, to my mind.

But what's irrational about their worldview? They truly believe that God is the Truth, that God is the Way, the Light, the Body, and the Blood. So their belief that all the evidence in the world is nonsense is then not irrational at all: it fits in perfectly with their preconception about Christ's divinity, and, if you pardon my English, definity.



I am a Christian, but I am also a Marxist, which inevitably makes me a product of the Enlightenment. My God is a God of both love and reason.

Well, that's the good thing about God: you can make him be anything.



Well, I can try. Here is my religion in a nutshell:

Thanks for humoring me, but I'm going to be kind of an asshole here and pick this apart as best I can.

I'm trying to keep in mind that you base this all on faith, but I have to take issue with some of this. I'm certain you'll disagree with all my analysis, but I felt like it would worthwhile to give sort of an opposite view of what you just did.



There is one God,

Why only one? Wouldn't any arbitrary number of Gods make as much sense and still fit the criteria?



who is the creator of the universe

Could God have not created the Universe?


and the source of morality.

Can God change morality?


To act morally is to act in accordance with the view that one's interests are not superior to the interests of anyone else - this is what it means to "love one's neighbor as oneself".

What if thy neighbor is an asshole?


Another person's thirst, or hunger, or happiness or suffering are no less important than one's own thirst, or hunger, or happiness or suffering.

We'll then we're all immoral.

What I find ironic is that this is Peter Singer's morality, essentially.

That's funny.


Thus one should always act not for the purpose of maximizing one's own happiness, but for the purpose of maximizing the happiness of Humanity as a whole.

Meet: Jeremy Bentham.


This is what God demands.

God seems to demand fealty to himself, first and foremost. Everything is second. Christian morality is first praising God.


We all fall short of this ideal - we are all sinners - but God forgives us.

He'd damn well better, he made us.


We must simply accept his forgiveness and show gratitude through acts of worship and by doing our best to live moral lives.

Why worship him?


That is Christianity to me.

Well, I've heard worse.

:lol:

[wtfm8lol]

Originally posted by Edric O+July 02, 2007 05:41 pm--> (Edric O @ July 02, 2007 05:41 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 07:11 pm
read "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger if you want to read a good book about testing for God. the book demonstrates that it is possible to test for gods, that it has been done, and that it has failed to turn up any positive evidence.
Sounds interesting. Can you summarize the experiments for me, just so I know what kind of gods he was thinking of or testing for?

I am asking this because, as I said in my previous post, it is possible to test for some specific gods, but I do not believe it is possible to test for God in general - because it is not possible to test if the universe had a creator - and neither is it possible to test for the Christian God. [/b]
stenger's arguments (http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Godless/Summary.htm)

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 29, 2007 10:53 pm
Assuming God exists, is there any conceivable scientific test which could prove this?
No, otherwise we'd all believe in God wouldn't we.

There are no tests you can perform to prove the existence of God, because he does not exist. End of.

[Tommy-K]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:03 am

To act morally is to act in accordance with the view that one's interests are not superior to the interests of anyone else - this is what it means to "love one's neighbor as oneself".
What if thy neighbor is an asshole?
I read this, and I LOL'd :P

[Omar]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 29, 2007 10:53 pm
Assuming God exists, is there any conceivable scientific test which could prove this?
The beauty of science there is a conceivable scientific test for every hypothesis, excluding the God Hypothesis. God has been constructed by theists in such a way that to look for him is impossible, to find him is impossible, it is impossible to prove or disprove he exists. But as with Russells teapot, the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn the question of its existence of non-existence is irrelevant.

Lets look at the God Hypothesis in the scientific method.

Hypothesis; there is an invisible, imperceptible, infinite, immaterial being, that has existed forever and always will exist that created the universe from nothing.

It is impossible to prove or disprove this hypothesis. There is literally nothing we can do to prove he exists, because conveniently he is imperceptible and invisible and cannot be measured.

The God Hypothesis has to be rejected as it is built upon "belief" and "faith", two concepts that exist only in the mind of a delusional human being, science has to come to the conclusion that God also only exists in the mind of delusional human beings.

[samofshs]

look, God doesn't force us to believe because he respects free will. can YOU not respect free will?

[Kronos]

Kwisatz Haderach, how much would I have to pay you to read Nietzsche's The Antichrist COMPLETELY?

That is the easy way for both of us. This is a debate/discussion forum. If I proceeded to engage you in a debate over Christianity, there is no doubt in my mind that I would win. What I doubt, however, is that you will concede my points, stay for the duration of the debate, or maintain any interest in it.

It comes down to whether or not you want to know the truth, or prefer to believe things that you find agreeable. Your "blind faith" is not a positive thing. It is a measure taken to prevent an existential crisis, not because any of those beliefs make sense. You want to believe in that garbage...so you find a way to dodge and avoid the overwhelming evidence against you.

If you have the courage, read the book. It is the greatest demolition of Christianity that was ever written, in my opinion. Theorists and philosophers like Bauer, Feuerbach, Marx, those from the left are formidable as well, but pale in comparison to the breadth of Nietzsche's work.

When you are ready to begin the Three Metamorphoses, seek Zarathustra and he will guide you.

Farewell, comrade.

[ rides off on trusty steed ]

[Decolonize The Left]

Not at all; I am attempting to show why faith is necessary in the first place. It is perfectly reasonable to ask "why does God want us to have faith in him instead of proving his existence? Is faith somehow superior to evidence?" And many atheists do indeed ask this. Therefore I give them my answer: No, faith is not superior to evidence and scientific inquiry. But we are dealing with an issue that could not be settled by all the evidence and scientific inquiry in the universe. That is why faith is necessary.

Faith is not necessary. Faith is only necessary to believe in god! We (atheists, anti-theists) already know that faith is necessary for this purpose. We are attempting to argue down faith.


I am a Christian, but I am also a Marxist, which inevitably makes me a product of the Enlightenment. My God is a God of both love and reason.

Well, I can try. Here is my religion in a nutshell:

There is one God, who is the creator of the universe and the source of morality. To act morally is to act in accordance with the view that one's interests are not superior to the interests of anyone else - this is what it means to "love one's neighbor as oneself". Another person's thirst, or hunger, or happiness or suffering are no less important than one's own thirst, or hunger, or happiness or suffering. Thus one should always act not for the purpose of maximizing one's own happiness, but for the purpose of maximizing the happiness of Humanity as a whole. This is what God demands. We all fall short of this ideal - we are all sinners - but God forgives us. We must simply accept his forgiveness and show gratitude through acts of worship and by doing our best to live moral lives. That is Christianity to me.

I respect you and your willingness to debate many different arguments, some quite interesting and important, others not.

That said, what you have posted above functions equally as well (in fact, better) without god. I could just as easily say:
"To act morally is to act in accordance with the view that one's interests are not superior to the interests of anyone else. Another person's thirst, or hunger, or happiness or suffering are no less important than one's own thirst, or hunger, or happiness or suffering. Thus one should always act not for the purpose of maximizing one's own happiness, but for the purpose of maximizing the happiness of Humanity as a whole."
This is actually more coherent than your claim because mine is a simple normative statement. Yours is both normative and empirical, and as you have argued repeatedly, you cannot prove the empirical end. Hence your lack of proof causes me to doubt the validity of your normative claims as they fundamentally stem from your empirical claims.
On the other hand, my simple normative claim can only be argued within the realm of relative morality and is a simple matter of logic and reasoning as to the worth of such a theory.

- August