I’ve had God on my mind lately, as I’ve been finishing an invited essay for the upcoming Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity. The title is “Does the Universe Need God?“, and you can read the whole thing on my website by clicking.
I commend the editors, Jim Stump and Alan Padgett, for soliciting a contribution that will go against the grain of most of the other essays. As you might guess, my answer to the title question is “No,” while many of the other entries will be arguing “Yes” (or at least be sympathetic to that view). I think of my job as less about changing minds than informing — I want thoughtful people who are committed Christians reading this volume to at least understand where I am coming from, even if they don’t agree. Think of it as an elaboration of “Why (Almost All) Cosmologists Are Atheists,” which was a bit breezier.
Hopefully there is still a bit of time for tweaking the essay before the editors get back to me with their comments, so please let me know if you think I’m getting something importantly wrong. Again, the whole thing is here, but I’m including the final section (minus the footnotes) as a teaser below the fold. In the earlier sections I do more nitty-gritty cosmological stuff, talking about the Big Bang, the anthropic principle, and meta-explanatory maneuvers. In this section I finally evaluate the God hypothesis in scientific terms.
God as a theory
Religion serves many purposes other than explaining the natural world. Someone who grew up as an altar server, volunteers for their church charity, and has witnessed dozens of weddings and funerals of friends and family might not be overly interested in whether God is the best explanation for the value of the mass of the electron. The idea of God has functions other than those of a scientific hypothesis.
However, accounting for the natural world is certainly a traditional role for God, and arguably a foundational one. How we think about other religious practices depends upon whether our understanding of the world around us gives us a reason to believe in God. And insofar as it attempts to provide an explanation for empirical phenomena, the God hypothesis should be judged by the standards of any other scientific theory.
Consider a hypothetical world in which science had developed to something like its current state of progress, but nobody had yet thought of God. It seems unlikely that an imaginative thinker in this world, upon proposing God as a solution to various cosmological puzzles, would be met with enthusiasm. All else being equal, science prefers its theories to be precise, predictive, and minimal – requiring the smallest possible amount of theoretical overhead. The God hypothesis is none of these. Indeed, in our actual world, God is essentially never invoked in scientific discussions. You can scour the tables of contents in major physics journals, or titles of seminars and colloquia in physics departments and conferences, looking in vain for any mention of possible supernatural intervention into the workings of the world.
At first glance, the God hypothesis seems simple and precise – an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent being. (There are other definitions, but they are usually comparably terse.) The apparent simplicity is somewhat misleading, however. In comparison to a purely naturalistic model, we’re not simply adding a new element to an existing ontology (like a new field or particle), or even replacing one ontology with a more effective one at a similar level of complexity (like general relativity replacing Newtonian spacetime, or quantum mechanics replacing classical mechanics). We’re adding an entirely new metaphysical category, whose relation to the observable world is unclear. This doesn’t automatically disqualify God from consideration as a scientific theory, but it implies that, all else being equal, a purely naturalistic model will be preferred on the grounds of simplicity.
There is an inevitable tension between any attempt to invoke God as a scientifically effective explanation of the workings of the universe, and the religious presumption that God is a kind of person, not just an abstract principle. God’s personhood is characterized by an essential unpredictability and the freedom to make choices. These are not qualities that one looks for in a good scientific theory. On the contrary, successful theories are characterized by clear foundations and unambiguous consequences. We could imagine boiling God’s role in setting up the world down to a few simple principles (e.g., “God constructs the universe in the simplest possible way consistent with the eventual appearance of human beings”). But is what remains recognizable as God?
Similarly, the apparent precision of the God hypothesis evaporates when it comes to connecting to the messy workings of reality. To put it crudely, God is not described in equations, as are other theories of fundamental physics. Consequently, it is difficult or impossible to make predictions. Instead, one looks at what has already been discovered, and agrees that that’s the way God would have done it. Theistic evolutionists argue that God uses natural selection to develop life on Earth; but religious thinkers before Darwin were unable to predict that such a mechanism would be God’s preferred choice.
Ambitious approaches to contemporary cosmological questions, such as quantum cosmology, the multiverse, and the anthropic principle, have not yet been developed into mature scientific theories. But the advocates of these schemes are working hard to derive testable predictions on the basis of their ideas: for the amplitude of cosmological perturbations, signals of colliding pocket universes in the cosmic microwave background, and the mass of the Higgs boson and other particles. For the God hypothesis, it is unclear where one would start. Why does God favor three generations of elementary particles, with a wide spectrum of masses? Would God use supersymmetry or strong dynamics to stabilize the hierarchy between the weak scale and the Planck scale, or simply set it that way by hand? What would God’s favorite dark matter particle be?
This is a venerable problem, reaching far beyond natural theology. In numerous ways, the world around us is more like what we would expect from a dysteleological set of uncaring laws of nature than from a higher power with an interest in our welfare. As another thought experiment, imagine a hypothetical world in which there was no evil, people were invariably kind, fewer natural disasters occurred, and virtue was always rewarded. Would inhabitants of that world consider these features to be evidence against the existence of God? If not, why don’t we consider the contrary conditions to be such evidence?
Over the past five hundred years, the progress of science has worked to strip away God’s roles in the world. He isn’t needed to keep things moving, or to develop the complexity of living creatures, or to account for the existence of the universe. Perhaps the greatest triumph of the scientific revolution has been in the realm of methodology. Control groups, double-blind experiments, an insistence on precise and testable predictions – a suite of techniques constructed to guard against the very human tendency to see things that aren’t there. There is no control group for the universe, but in our attempts to explain it we should aim for a similar level of rigor. If and when cosmologists develop a successful scientific understanding of the origin of the universe, we will be left with a picture in which there is no place for God to act – if he does (e.g., through subtle influences on quantum-mechanical transitions or the progress of evolution), it is only in ways that are unnecessary and imperceptible. We can’t be sure that a fully naturalist understanding of cosmology is forthcoming, but at the same time there is no reason to doubt it. Two thousand years ago, it was perfectly reasonable to invoke God as an explanation for natural phenomena; now, we can do much better.
None of this amounts to a “proof” that God doesn’t exist, of course. Such a proof is not forthcoming; science isn’t in the business of proving things. Rather, science judges the merits of competing models in terms of their simplicity, clarity, comprehensiveness, and fit to the data. Unsuccessful theories are never disproven, as we can always concoct elaborate schemes to save the phenomena; they just fade away as better theories gain acceptance. Attempting to explain the natural world by appealing to God is, by scientific standards, not a very successful theory. The fact that we humans have been able to understand so much about how the natural world works, in our incredibly limited region of space over a remarkably short period of time, is a triumph of the human spirit, one in which we can all be justifiably proud.
@94 Robert
Thanks for the compliment, but I assure you I am quite comfortable with my present state. Both atheist and theist have accused me of sitting on the fence waiting to be swayed one way or another and from those perspectives it may look this way, I assure you that I am not sitting on the fence, I am the fence.You naturally see my stance as non-committal and I understand from your view it does look like this, the view from an atheist is the same. It is not an easy view point to obtain because their are so few that (get it).
I find a unique comfort and freedom that comes from this perspective, I am not troubled or bothered by questions of why…These why questions ultimately boil down to why are we here, and the answer to this question can only be answered by the individual and their are many answers to be acquired and sometimes the answer will change throughout ones life as you may already be aware.
The way I see this god thing is;
Their is not a definitive answer to the question…I find the question, (not the concept as it effects the world around me), Irrelevant.
We are all unique and diversity of thought is important,it causes disturbance and disturbance leads to discovery. For me (god) will remain a placeholder for that which humanity does not yet understand…period.
#97 Gary B wrote, “Programmers inevitably learn that being the “creator” vests one’s self with neither omniscence nor omnipotence over one’s creation. Even for “God,” there may be limits….”
Thank “God” somebody else can see that!
#100 el_dhulqarnain wrote, “If the universe didn’t ‘just go boom’ and exist, how come god went ‘boom’ and exists?”
Maybe god didn’t go ‘boom’, and maybe god can never fully exist.
#101. Sphere Coupler,
I don’t know if you realize this, but you have just defined God as you know Him with this statement, “For me (god) will remain a placeholder for that which humanity does not yet understand…period”.
Especially since it brings into question a topic much like the Dark Matter conundrum; can man ultimately know everything? Or, is there enough stuff to learn for the Universe t0 always retreat behind man’s sphere of knowledge (by which your definition means there will always be God), or is there not enough stuff and the Universe will eventually shrink inside man’s sphere of knowledge (meaning God has been squeezed out).
The latter scenario is just as depressing as if there turns out to not be enough Dark Energy to obviate the Big Crunch. Imagine how bored those billions (trillions) of future humans would be once we knew everything. Once God has been disproved using your method, the Universe becomes a very dark place.
The former scenerio means that there will always be an abundance of unknowns regardless the number of human souls who are in persuit of the edge of the Universe. In this Universe, there will always be unknowns, and therefore always God.
You may be the fence. But, your front side is pointing at God. Your backside is pointed at a very drab Universe. That tells me that you are ever so slightly an optimist, a dreamer, and a thinker. My friend, you are already leaning.
To me, proof comes from this, our rate at which we come to know things pales in comparison to the rate at which we don’t know things. That is patently counter-intuitive, because the number of things we don’t know should be decreasing. It isn’t. To me, that tells me that maybe someone is hard at work keeping the Universe full of new stuff to know.
You know, the Hubble, I think, has given us a glimpse as to just how busy God must be. I am sure you have seen the Hubble Deep Field Survey. Are you fully aware of how this shot was taken? Scientist pointed the Hubble at an empty spot in the sky and left the shutter open for a very long time.
If you have seen this photo, the density of “stars” is just about greater than any other Hubble photo. The density is even more mind boggling when you realize that nearly every point of light in that photo is a *galaxy*, not a star.
I haven’t seen that anyone has fully understood the implications. If the density of stars is that much greater in the dark patches of our sky than the density of the stars we can see, then the Universe just got exponentially larger. It is already going to take many years to analyze that one photo. What if we start routinely taking these photos? What if we take 100 such photos? Centuries just to analyze them? What if we take 1000? Could we really have just opened up a Pandoras box (of cool stuff) that large? Millennia? Really? Random chance? Really?
But, that is my belief — that God is filling the Universe up for us to find stuff and satisfying our curiosity and inquisitiveness. That makes the Universe a thoroughly cool place to live.
You are smart, very smart. Eventually, your intellect will cause you to choose one viewpoint or the other.
–Robert
BTW, I noticed how your handle fits your viewpoint, as it is now. Cool.
Sean, your premis is wrongand mistated. “Does the Universe need God” is rediculous. Your think ‘god’ was invented by people. Preciselly the Opposite. Let me pose a Simple question: Where did the Laws of Calculus come from; Higher mathematics we recently discovered? What kinds of ‘accidents of Nature” Began Everything?
First, Definitions: God. Normal standard definition is The Omniscient Mastermind, Creator of Everything. All major beliefs think of the same qualities for God: Loving, Creator, Mastermind, to whom we need to show Respect, as we do tto our parents: It’s tough for an infant to survive, grow up without parents. And it is not many gods, but many Names for God: Yahjweh, God, Buddha, Allah, Nature, the Natural Force, etc., etc. The Best film About God is by Scientists, to refute Atheism, by questioning Where the Enormous complexities of Nature, and the INTELLIGENCE Obvious in the Universe came from; by accident? Obviously, there is The Supreme Intelligence, the Master mind, that created the Intelligence in the universe, including ours. Anyone who has studied Biology, a Leaf, a worm, Higher mathematics, Physics, is overwhelmed by the incredible Mastermind/Intelligence of everything. Just accidents? Where did Nature come from? The Laws of Gravity, electronic charges? Please give us Your opinion, Sean………………………..
The now Proven by measurements (Rate of expansion of everything In the Universe) is the Big Bang: Everything, from Nothing (Science does not recognize Nullity/Nothing) described ‘scientifically’ as a ‘subatomic particle’ by the now Very Famed Father/Doctor Belgian Scientist/Priest in the 1920’s Georges Lemaitre from all the Science/Math discoveries of his Science previous masterminds. Albert Einstein held Fr/Dr Lemaitre in highest trespect, once asking Fr/Dr Lemaitre to fill-in for him at one major Physics world Class Seminar. Documentation is available. Dr/Fr Lemaitre used Science only in his research and Presentations, never Religion; Professionally Highest Integrity/Professionalism. How do You refute “The Big Bang” origin of EVERY Thing, aka Everything, including the Natural Laws of Calculus, Sean? Everything From Nothing is not The Ultimate Proof of Not Physical, Spiritual only Creator God, Sean?
Why do 80-90% 0f All Humans believe in a Mastermind, a ‘God’ not included in your thinking, scientifically, Sean?? Let’s remember Albert Einstein did The Mega-Wisdiom Thought: One can Not Understand Science without God; One can not understand God without Science, Sean. How do you refute Einstein’s Premise, Sean? Much more significally, Sean, is the fact that World belief in Atheism (No God, as you beleve) is Very single digits: 4-8%. Are over 90% of Humans wrong, Sean? I practise the Same Original Master Wisdoms/Discovering/Initiator of Western World Scientific Research Religion/Faith: The Ideal 1.3 Billion member Roman/Orthodox Catholic Church, Like Dr/Fr Lemaitre. Everything Is The Proof of God; God is Love, Never retribution or source of evil. The Greatest Wisdom of Catholic Intelligence points out that negatives/’evils’ are the Absence of Good” Blindness, etc., etc. Not aware, Sean, of the recent (few Decades) Observation by Intelligence: The More Scientists Discover things, the More they Become Deists?? Science and True religion ComplEment each other, Never Conflict, unless the Bible is Read in Modern LITERAL English: Fundamentalism: WRONG every way, Ignoring the Culture, Thinking of 2,000-3,000 years ago, Which we Catholic Experts Know, understand, remember.
First 2 Dictionary definitions of God each say the perfect being, universal ruler, creator of the Universe. What’s Your definition of God, and who/what created the Universe, meaning Everything, Sean?? Am Highly knowledgeable of Scince, Scientific method. What Proof, Evidence do you have for your postulation, Sean? Never realized that Science and God Validate/ Prove each other?
Please don’t give us your opinion, Anthony………………
but if you have any more gems like “normal standard deviation is the Omnisient Mastermind” we will make an exception. There is a very thin line between “The Mega-Wisdom Thought” and utter gibberish. I wish you luck with your continuing quest for deep meaning concentrated Anthony, you are going to need it.
Robert,
There is a story by author Ray Bradbury, I believe it was in the Martian Chronicles. If I remember correctly the story depicted a telepathic martian who transformed into a person in which who’s mind she was reading, was thinking about, she was everyone to everybody.
(If anyone recalls the name of the story, I would love to read it again, I read it long ago)
Let me say that a bit clearer.
Whomsoever mind she read, she would become the person who they were thinking about, whether that person was dead, lost or in the next room.
Apparently it is much the same, from my point of view, those from both sides see my view as close to theirs (or grossly set apart), though much of what you say is true…from your viewpoint, an atheist would read it differently from their perspective, and that’s OK really, because they both are true for both camps.
“For me (god) will remain a placeholder for that which humanity does not yet understand…period”.(comment 42)
You read this differently than an atheist would, and that’s OK, I actually like your interpretation.It’s intellectually pleasing, if you will.(comment 103)
Indeed the moniker does fit, you are correct, though it was not chosen for any one specific duty…it was chosen because it fits many facets of physics(particle, geo, and others)…and we are…all of us…on this one…tiny, blue…planet.
@ Anthony K #107: “Are over 90% of Humans wrong, Sean?”
I can’t speak for Sean, but there are plenty of matters upon which large percentages of the population are factually incorrect. For example, about half of Americans think that antibiotics kill viruses.
Also, nobody denies that religious faiths exist, and it is entirely possible that religious faith imparts benefits even if God does not exist. Indeed, the secular view of religion is that this almost has to be true for religion to be so common.
Further, since no one religious view commands majority support in the world, a majority of the people in the world disfavor every particular kind of belief about God.
@110. Sphere Coupler,
I know you are not going to like this, but I think I can count you as a convert. Which, heretofore, I would have thought impossible. But, then again, maybe optimism is based on the notion of a higher being and a greater purpose because nothing is pointless, and by extension, no one is pointless.
I’d much rather live in that Universe, than the alternative. I think you want to as well, but are looking for an intellectual excuse (euphemistically called a “nudge”). Maybe you aren’t ready for the immortal soul, and the Big Book of Deeds and the Pearly Gates and all that stuff. But, I think you would like to know that you aren’t a random collection of chemical coincidences.
Plus, lets be honest, we Christians are pretty arrogant as a group, and we like the idea of the entire Universe existing for our purpose. If there is a God, then that last statement is undeniably true. I teach Calculus and Physics at a Christian High School. I am a supporter of Evolution, the Big Bang, and Adam and Eve. I speak only English, so I’m not delusional enough to think that if I can’t read it in the Bible, it must not have happened — if for no other reason than the fact that the Bible wasn’t written in English, and was translated by a King with a pretty severe political agenda.
I find very few people who think as I do, and my boss tolerates my point of view mostly because I am the best teacher the school has ever had in its 25 years of existence. The parents make a strong case for keeping me for that mostly pragmatic reason. But, since I am talking to an intellectual, you are probably already aware of the fact that people are more tolerant of the eccentricities of the rich and the highly intelligent. Since I am not rich, I rely on the latter and get away with it.
But, I have found that if you loosen your grip on the language of the Bible (which should be easy enough for the English or Spanish speaker, you would think), many of the ideas of the Bible are actually *almost* supported by Science. Examples: 1) there was an actual global flood at a time in Earth’s history that could align with the story of Noah, 2) Jesus was a real person (and almost scientifically proven), 3) the junction of the Tigress and Euphrates rivers makes a strong case for being the Garden of Eden, etc. Some have accused me of wishful thinking, but I don’t think so. I would expect Science, on occasion, to patently make at least some of the events in the Bible impossible, that weren’t obvious allegory, of course. Science has had a very hard time doing that, even after thousands of years of trying.
Even the resurrection of Jesus is hard to refute because we routinely resurrect people as a matter of course, now.
I find it comforting and interesting that Man had an opportunity to live a life of Bliss, and instead chose Knowledge, and then God went about filling the Universe with enough stuff to keep us occupied forever. We disobeyed our Father, and He — while angry — made sure we could be successful living the lives He did not choose for us. I only wish I could be that benevolent with my own children. Most of us disown children who choose lifestyles diametrically apposed to our own value system.
Creation says the Earth and animals existed prior to man (true). The Universe existed before Earth (true). Man is in fact near the end of the creationary/evolutionary process (true). The Universe started from a very bright single event (true).
My ideas fit so neatly I can’t imagine why hardly anyone else agrees. I just find it difficult to believe that ancient man can somehow be so close to the *truth* as modern science is defining it.
Man was created from the Earth. Every molecule of Earth and Man come from the destruction of large, majestic, beautiful stars in very bright, violent Super Novas that happened long ago. God, in my mind, destroyed a rather gorgeous Universe just to make the stuff that makes us with one monumental act of destruction after another. An inexorable, improbable, monumental, purposeful (?) laundry list of changes had to happen for us to even be possible. And yet, here we are.
I look at the Hubble Deep Field Survey, and I am shocked. I’m thinking that photo should have had cosmologists circling their wagons defending its impossibility, and Theists proclaiming, “see, I TOLD you so!” That didn’t happen. How is it that the Universe is bigger in the past than in the present?
The number of stars represented by that photo…
The infinitesimal angular view…
You do the math…
Here it is: http://www.cosmiclight.com/imagegalleries/deepfield.htm
Gaze and think. I mean really think about what it represents.
I think cosmologist are avoiding what it means. We should point Hubble in the opposite direction and see what happens. What if the far away Universe is as super-dense looking forward *and* backwards?
You are not an atheist. You are not the fence. I believe you are the epitome of an agnostic, which is a point of view I can except because of the many abuses of every major religion on Earth.
Christianity is singularly interesting because it is defined on faith, with is belief in the absence of proof. So, the fact that science can sometimes almost prove a tenet of Christianity sorta fits, because if there was ever any actual proof, their could be no Christians. Some can say self-serving, but I don’t think so, because I don’t believe the early humans who were writing the book had the wherewithal to have that particular ulterior motive.
A constantly expanding Universe *needs* God because it needs someone to constantly fill it. This type of Universe is happy, and big, and comfortable, and interesting, and varied, and unique, and surprising, and dangerous, and scary, and daunting, and cruel, and safe, and loving, and good, and evil, and hot, and cold, and fuzzy, and warm, and sneezey, and venomous, and, and, and……..
A Universe destined for the Big Crunch is finite, eventually boring, eventually dark, depressing, small, and very, very uninteresting.
Well, I won’t be a teacher anymore after next week. The economy is such that I must move back into my primary field as a Computer Scientist and once again earn enough to properly support my family. That means my audience for my point of view will exponentially shrink. I spent 5 years putting kids from a small Black high school (pop. 78) into Harvard, Cornell, Dartmouth, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Julliard among others, but I must walk away.
If you know computer scientists, that is the same as saying all-scientists, because it is a particularly grueling course of study.
I walk away with the comfort of knowing that there is a God, and though He wont prove Himself to me, he will drop a few hints here or there. And, he will make sure there is always something for me to learn, and my sons and daughters, and my grandchildren, and so on and so on.
You can be the wall, if you like (I still feel that you are non-committal), as long as you are facing my side. I’ll take “intellectually pleasing”, and complain no more.
Well, I’m rambling. Nay. I’m in full diatribe mode, once again. So far, you’ve been a willing target. I hope I haven’t worn out my welcome.
–Robert
@111. ohwilleke,
“Further, since no one religious view commands majority support in the world, a majority of the people in the world disfavor every particular kind of belief about God.”
You overstate. In fact, the top three religions of the world, which represent the overwhelming majority of people, believe in the same God. They differ on the role of Jesus. If you substitute Jesus for God in your statement, you would essentially be correct.
–Robert
Robert, I’m sorry to hear about your change in venue, as it seems you are one of few who are not polarized and willing to seek middle ground (which is always good).
“You are not an atheist. You are not the fence. I believe you are the epitome of an agnostic, which is a point of view I can except because of the many abuses of every major religion on Earth.”
The major abuses of religion are done by government manipulation and willingly excepted by the major religions in a herd mentality, that and the fatalistic end view that relinquishes those from accountability. No religion should promote an unending excuse from sin or wrongdoing to their fellow man & the planet and I see so many religions of today promoting sin for six and be absolved on the seventh. Until that changes religion is a problem to the well being of mankind.
Too many religions promote the destruction of my home on the basis that it was put here to use and abuse.
Religion and god are different subjects and I digress.
“but I think I can count you as a convert”
On the contrary my friend, I am rock solid, my worldview has allowed me to see further than anyone would have thought possible and from this perspective allows me to deeply see the interplay between those who believe and those who don’t, a world of all believers or a world of all non-believers would be a drab world indeed.
“A Universe destined for the Big Crunch is finite, eventually boring, eventually dark, depressing, small, and very, very uninteresting.”
I disagree, I find the big freeze very uninteresting.
Just as we see the space of the Universe expanding, we also see the coalescence of galaxies and clusters of galaxies and further down that road black hole coalescence, the Universe will expand forever, till the majority of matter is in black hole form, they will not radiate away, Hawking radiation is not a primary mover on such scales. You will be interested to know that I profess the Universe will end only to be recreated. When all matter is in the same state and space is meaningless, it is a form of harmony where gravity cannot exist in any meaningful way (you need opposing particles to recognize gravity) and therefore expansion/inflation will ensue yet again. These few common words can not do this explanation justice.
Needless to say all matter in one state (harmony if you will)is not uninteresting.
” How is it that the Universe is bigger in the past than in the present.”
It isn’t, The Universe has been expanding all along, we did not have the capability to see…now we do see this, though what we see, the light we see, has traveled a very long way and by the time it reaches us it is just a record of what once was, that does not mean the past was a bigger(space between galaxies) Universe, it means what we see is big and by all indications the space is getting bigger yet on a local scale we orbit the sun which orbits the galactic center, which orbits the barycenter of the local cluster, which orbits the barycenter of the super-cluster. To eventually coalesce to a black-hole. One amongst many.
We all have a quest and only the individual can define that quest for ones self, some people never recognize this, to me that is a sad non-event, you seem to have found yours, good for you, what a boring world if we all held the same Weltanschauung.
There is a difference between my mindset and that of an agnostic, an agnostic claims that the subject is unknowable.
Peace to you.
I remain the fence,
(I like the view)
Sphere Coupler.
First, I’m none of the other Kevins who have posted so far.
I predicted (sadly, only to myself) that when Bivins asked the question “why is the sky blue” that two things would happen.
1. Someone would answer the question.
and
2. Bivins would attempt to refute it by redefining the meaning of the word “why”.
The how IS the why. Rephrase the question to “why is the sky blue and not some other color” and the answer is still the same. Rephrase the question to “why is the sky blue and not completely transparent” and the answer is still the same. Rephrase the question to “why is there sky at all” and the answer is somewhat different — without an atmosphere, life of our particular type that would look at a sky and perceive it blue would not be possible. In which case you’re merely asking why frogs don’t grow wings so they don’t bump their asses on the ground so much.
You are engaging in a presuppositional bias — assuming that a choice was made with regard to sky color. Wasn’t. The why is the how. There was no choice made because there is no such thing as a “choosing” entity.
If sophistry is all you bring to the table, then your arguments fall flat on their proverbial nose.
Your argument in comment 112 is a very old fallacy called “argument from consequences”. Whether or not you wish something to be true, there is or is not a validity that must be dealt with. There is not a single shred of evidence that the truth claims of any religion, including the Abrahamic ones, are anything other than imaginative musings from people who did not understand enough about the world around them (or who had/have more-venal purposes in mind, such as control of the population via an unseen authority).
And I would think very hard about your “wish” that there be some “purpose” to life. Because what you’re really saying is not that you want there to be purpose to this life, but that you hope to get a larger apartment (with a kitchen upgrade) in the eternal after-death. Why in the world would anyone wish for an eternal after-death? In 5 billion years, the sun will consume the Earth as it goes red giant. In a few trillion years, the odds are that the universe will have devolved down to undifferentiated photons. And that’s merely the knife’s edge of eternity. Are you SURE you want an eternal after-death? What a horrible thought.
Happily, there is no evidence for such a state, so you’ll just have to be content with what you have — a finite existence, and then a redistribution of your constituent atoms back to the environment. Enjoy your life. There’s nothing after but that.
@ 93,
You must have missed it when the NOMA nonsense was debunked once and for all. Love is as much in the realm of science, as physics, or music, or gods.
@48,
He should have added, “or lack of evidence for it”.
As to the Universe, and whether it needs the made-up myths of ancient goatherders in a remote area of a remote planet in a remote area of a remote galaxy? The question is quite farsical, really.
@115 Kevin,
Proclaiming that “how” = “why” is a very poor argument. Patently so; you are attempting to prove your point by assuming your point is true. You have to FIRST disprove God before you can say there was no “choosing” of one sky color over another (or that there is a color at all). You must do your homework first and actually do the work of dis-proving God exists before you can dismiss His choices.
You have not even attempted to do the heavy lifting. In fact, you’ve done no lifting at all. The simple fact that they are two questions makes it perfectly reasonable for me to expect two different answers. Your supposition that one is necessarily the other is unreasonable, unusual, and illogical. “How” and “why” aren’t even synonyms.
–Robert
Sphere Coupler,
I appreciate you point of view, and your intelligence, and especially the fact that you don’t attack the messenger.
You are a worthy foe. I enjoy our conversation.
–Robert
Pingback: Debating William Lane Craig | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine
Why is it being assumed that a deist god is any more possible than an involved one? If that’s being based on the existence of evil/unpleasantness, then that’s not a good argument if we’re assuming the Christian model of God. In the Christian/biblical model, God is not known as personal to everyone- hence, the “chosen few”. Maybe he’s a deist as far as the unchosen many are concerned, but very clearly revealed to others. We do after all, have personal accounts numbering almost certainly in the millions of people “hearing from God”. None of these are scientifically observable, but in many cases there have been impressive real-world results.
There’s a form of anti-intellectualism in basic Christian theology. It’s not anti-intellectualism strictly speaking, but it’s anti-intellectualism-as-being-advantageous-spiritually. The African villager with no access to books or classical education is just as likely to discover the spiritual secrets of the universe, etc. as the brilliant physicist. It’s reprehensible to those of us who value education and intellect, but there’s a real fairness to it- if spiritual enlightenment is attained by education, then those who are poor (or even mentally disabled) are at an unfair disadvantage. There must be entirely different criteria than the meritocracy-of-brain-power favored by academia.
This could even explain the inconclusiveness of the cosmos. The theists and atheists are all seizing evidence to support their cause from every new discovery. What if God made the universe deliberately intriguing, but ultimately evasive, for the reason outlined above?
Sorry if I threw things off topic.
To me, time is essentially the succession of events, irrespective of any measure. I have no hope of a purely physical explanation of why physical events happen in succession.
I have shown the possibility of a universal objective present in space-time, and have postulated time in God. This time is transferred to physical time, but they are never identical.
Details are in Analecta Husserliana 2011, vol.107, 289-295; and more accessibly at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/stone-catend/time.htm, with other articles. Sorry – but a difficult subject needs a detailed approach! (Alan Padgett knows my work, by the way.)