Does God exist?

[UtahDan]

As usual, you can't seem to post about this without being a condescending ass. I'd tell you to work on that, but you seem to only dig yourself in deeper with your follow-up comments.

I didn't utter a condescending word, nor was there any dismissive intent in what I said to HFN. Very much the opposite, I'm very sumpathetic to what he is talking about having experienced it. This topic does continue to cause people to see the worst in each other unfortuantely. People bring a lot to it, which I understand. I'm sorring you're seeing me the way you are.

[ERCougar]

I didn't really get past the first couple sentences before his analysis fell apart for me.

The first thing he asserts is that our current inability to go further back in the causal chain that we currently can is a glaring ommission. He asserts this, but then doesn't tell us why it is so. To me it is like saying, our understanding of subatomic particulas describes a lot and is fine and well, but it doesn't tell us what the smallest partical is, and isn't that a glaring ommission? Uh, no. The whole "glaring ommission" thing is clearly a suggestion that the Laws of Nature are a weak explanationwithout that. But again, why? I can think of dozens of other examples. So as a critique, I mean, I don't even want to call it that. He is anthropomorphizing the cosmos. Is there any good reason to?

But even if you for some reason decide it is a problem, are we then saying that someone who has an idea about a first cause has something more valuable than one who doesn't? Why? What difference does it make?

Finally, if it does make some difference, what exactly is it? If somehow it is an argument for the first cause having a personality, it is not an argument for which personality it is. This argument aids a Catholic and a Pastafarian equally.

I don't think Lewis is intending this to be a proof of God's existence, but rather a defense against the idea that eventually science will explain away or disprove God. So the infinite regression back through "well, what was the cause of that?" questions is actually relevant because it points out that while science asks and answers very useful questions, it's not equipped to ask or answer the ultimate one. I think good scientists recognize this.

Your second point is well-taken, but again, this is not a complete defense of or argument for the existence of God. I'm sure Lewis believes plenty about the value of a belief in God, but he doesn't address it here. He has stated elsewhere (I'd have to pull the quote) that he does not consider that a better or happier life is sufficient reason to become Christian, so maybe he doesn't consider it relevant.

[Donuthole]

I didn't utter a condescending word, nor was there any dismissive intent in what I said to HFN. Very much the opposite, I'm very sumpathetic to what he is talking about having experienced it. This topic does continue to cause people to see the worst in each other unfortuantely. People bring a lot to it, which I understand. I'm sorring you're seeing me the way you are.

lol. The prosecution rests, your honor.

[UtahDan]

I don't think Lewis is intending this to be a proof of God's existence, but rather a defense against the idea that eventually science will explain away or disprove God. So the infinite regression back through "well, what was the cause of that?" questions is actually relevant because it points out that while science asks and answers very useful questions, it's not equipped to ask or answer the ultimate one. I think good scientists recognize this.

Your second point is well-taken, but again, this is not a complete defense of or argument for the existence of God. I'm sure Lewis believes plenty about the value of a belief in God, but he doesn't address it here. He has stated elsewhere (I'd have to pull the quote) that he does not consider that a better or happier life is sufficient reason to become Christian, so maybe he doesn't consider it relevant.

I guess maybe what I am doing is rejecting the idea that it is "the ultimate" question. In other words, but saying the answer is important I think he necessarily pressuposes God and it causes him to load the question. If all is at stake there is whether the existence of God can be disproved, as you suggest, I certainly concede that it is impossible to. I'm just not sure that this concession advances anyone's position. Where does it get him? Maybe I need more context.

[UtahDan]

lol. The prosecution rests, your honor.

Always happy to provide the entertainment.

[ERCougar]

I guess maybe what I am doing is rejecting the idea that it is "the ultimate" question. In other words, but saying the answer is important I think he necessarily pressuposes God and it causes him to load the question. If all is at stake there is whether the existence of God can be disproved, as you suggest, I certainly concede that it is impossible to. I'm just not sure that this concession advances anyone's position. Where does it get him? Maybe I need more context.

Ok...scratch the word "ultimate"--I was only using it as many people do, not to illustrate any particular importance. Point is still the same--the question of God cannot be answered by science.

I don't have any context to give you because I didn't read it from an original source and am too lazy to look it up. But I do think it's an important point, even if obvious. If you spend much time among scientists, you'll start to notice just how prevalent atheism is among them. I can think of a lot of reasons for this, but I wonder if one of them is that scientists start to think that they can answer anything. For example, I can't think of a single well-known physicist who isn't atheist, and that fairly vocally. Why? Well, there's not another field that comes closer to this question of ultimate creation (maybe evolutionary biology?) and I wonder if they subconsciously forget the limits of their science--Lewis is just reminding them exactly where those limits are. I love the Blue Dot quote from Sagan. But really, does it disprove God?

[UtahDan]

Ok...scratch the word "ultimate"--I was only using it as many people do, not to illustrate any particular importance. Point is still the same--the question of God cannot be answered by science.

I don't have any context to give you because I didn't read it from an original source and am too lazy to look it up. But I do think it's an important point, even if obvious. If you spend much time among scientists, you'll start to notice just how prevalent atheism is among them. I can think of a lot of reasons for this, but I wonder if one of them is that scientists start to think that they can answer anything. For example, I can't think of a single well-known physicist who isn't atheist, and that fairly vocally. Why? Well, there's not another field that comes closer to this question of ultimate creation (maybe evolutionary biology?) and I wonder if they subconsciously forget the limits of their science--Lewis is just reminding them exactly where those limits are. I love the Blue Dot quote from Sagan. But really, does it disprove God?

I want to push back on what you are saying here a little and ask you the same thing I'm asking of Lewis. Why frame it in terms of whether God can be disproved? This seems to pressupose that if the answer is no, that the idea that he does exist must be taken seriously. But that isn't the default. The default for anything is that is should be believed and taken seriously in proportion to the evidence that exists for it. I think scientists do not believe in God because they don't think there is evidence which supports the hypothesis, not because they think they have the answer to everything.

If I said to you that you only think you heal people, it is really tiny elves, and you can't disprove it. What would you make of that? Because you can't disprove that, of course. Now that you have stared this realization in the face, what will you do differently? See this is the reason I don't like to think in terms of proof, because none of us spend much time adjusting our lives around things that we can't disprove. What we all do is gather what evidence we can and then act on it when it is suffient. The pale blue dot doesn't disprove anything, but what it does do is make some things very unlikely. And when something is unlikely enough, even though not disprovable, practically speaking the way we treat that thing is indistinguishable from how we would act if somehow we could disprove it.

[old_gregg]

Right, more or less. I think a lot of people say, but if there is no God, what then? What meaning? What is it all about? They literally can't conceptualize what possible answer there could be. I think Sagan is just saying, hey, I've stared into that abyss and actually there is all this really great stuff that can be enjoyed and which gives meaning; there are other things and people find them to be sufficient.

Sagan can once again be thanked for enlightening the masses with a gem like "everything isn't horrible."

[ERCougar]

I want to push back on what you are saying here a little and ask you the same thing I'm asking of Lewis. Why frame it in terms of whether God can be disproved? This seems to pressupose that if the answer is no, that the idea that he does exist must be taken seriously. But that isn't the default. The default for anything is that is should be believed and taken seriously in proportion to the evidence that exists for it. I think scientists do not believe in God because they don't think there is evidence which supports the hypothesis, not because they think they have the answer to everything.

If I said to you that you only think you heal people, it is really tiny elves, and you can't disprove it. What would you make of that? Because you can't disprove that, of course. Now that you have stared this realization in the face, what will you do differently? See this is the reason I don't like to think in terms of proof, because none of us spend much time adjusting our lives around things that we can't disprove. What we all do is gather what evidence we can and then act on it when it is suffient. The pale blue dot doesn't disprove anything, but what it does do is make some things very unlikely. And when something is unlikely enough, even though not disprovable, practically speaking the way we treat that thing is indistinguishable from how we would act if somehow we could disprove it.

I think we're drifting into the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument, and I'll differ from Lewis in saying that it matters very much to me if there's a benefit to my life that stems from believing in God. But again--that's not the point of this passage. Is this passage a complete defense of the existence of God? Of course not, and Lewis doesn't frame it that way. Yes, he's not doing much more than saying the tiny elves COULD be out there, but I think that's an important thing to keep in mind. Next, he needs to show why we ought to believe in them. He does a nice job of this in the first section of Mere Christianity, by the way.

But the question arises--why do scientists conclude, to a larger extent than other equally smart people in other fields, that there is not evidence to support the existence of God, if their field of inquiry really does nothing to answer the question?

[ERCougar]

Regarding the Blue Dot passage--I'll disagree that it suggests any sort of metaphysical answer. It's a metaphysical question. By definition, its answer is in a different realm. Genius that he is, Sagan is awfully arrogant about what he can or can't know.

[UtahDan]

But the question arises--why do scientists conclude, to a larger extent than other equally smart people in other fields, that there is not evidence to support the existence of God, if their field of inquiry really does nothing to answer the question?

It's not just scientists. Academics too.

[old_gregg]

What we all do is gather what evidence we can and then act on it when it is suffient. The pale blue dot doesn't disprove anything, but what it does do is make some things very unlikely. And when something is unlikely enough, even though not disprovable, practically speaking the way we treat that thing is indistinguishable from how we would act if somehow we could disprove it.

some evidence does not meet scientific scrutiny. While that's probably not a good basis for making general normative prescriptions for a society, does that make it less valid for an individual to feel compelled by it? Dawkins and hitch have a tendency to revert to discussion of probabilitywhen it suits them but to load the dice when it might not support their thesis, e.g. explaining creation as the result of infinitude but dismissing/mocking religious claims they deem to be improbable. What does unlikely enough mean, and who cares about how we deal with things practically? What's the difference that welcomes unsupported conjecture about wave function collapse but calls religion a disease? These lines are much subtler, if they exist at all, than a pompous dingleberry like Dawkins lets on.

[UtahDan]

Regarding the Blue Dot passage--I'll disagree that it suggests any sort of metaphysical answer. It's a metaphysical question. By definition, its answer is in a different realm. Genius that he is, Sagan is awfully arrogant about what he can or can't know.

We might be about to run off into a tangent. What other realm? That looks a lot like a special pleading fallacy.

But putting that aside, I still just know what the practical upshot of recognizing the limitations of knowledge is. That recognition just doesn't send me rushing off to accept anything on poor evidence. Are you thinking it should?

[UtahDan]

some evidence does not meet scientific scrutiny. While that's probably not a good basis for making general normative prescriptions for a society, does that make it less valid for an individual to feel compelled by it? Dawkins and hitch have a tendency to revert to discussion of probabilitywhen it suits them but to load the dice when it might not support their thesis, e.g. explaining creation as the result of infinitude but dismissing/mocking religious claims they deem to be improbable. What does unlikely enough mean, and who cares about how we deal with things practically? What's the difference that welcomes unsupported conjecture about wave function collapse but calls religion a disease? These lines are much subtler, if they exist at all, than a pompous dingleberry like Dawkins lets on.

I don't know what valid means in this context. I have no problem with people thinking anything they want to so long as it doesn't harm others. Since I don't believe in free will, I can hardly blame anyone for what they think.

[myboynoah]

I look forward to one of CUF's belligerent believers answering with a one-word post in the affirmative. That should add a lot.

Yes!

Next question.