I guess I don’t see the irony. Curiosity has no bearing on chains of logic or empirical method.
Asking “why?” presumes there is a WHY. Asking what the reason is presumes there is a REASON. It’s the same asking what color something is. You’re presuming it has a color.
Now you may say that one possible answer to the question is that there is no why, but that’s really a negation of the question, not an answer to it.
Perhaps a better formulation of the question might be “IS there a reason?” To which the logical response would simply be that there is no evidence that there is and leave it at that unless and until some kind of evidence is found.
Showing a reason to ask the question is a step that must be met before it becomes necessary to answer it. I don’t know how to state it more clearly than that.
Maybe this is just a semantic divide here. As I said above, asking the question “Is there a reason?” is different than asking “What is the reason?” The second question implies that a reason must exist, the first question does not.
It’s hard to prove the existence of God because it’s hard to prove the existence of anything. I can’t prove there’s an attractive force between the Earth and objects near its surface. I can pick up an object and release it a thousand times, and a thousand times it will fall, and that still doesn’t rule out the posibility that I halucinated it every time. Even if the experiment is repeated by other people all over the world, this still doesn’t completely rule out the possibility that all those people just happened to be halucinating. But we can at least say that there’s good scientific evidence that an attractive force exists between objects and the earth.
I see no such scientific evidence when it comes to the existence in God. But I also see no evidence against the existence of God. The fact that God hasn’t shown us he exists isn’t evidence that he doesn’t exist. Perhaps he just doesn’t want to show himself. Likewise, the fact that there is suffering in the world isn’t evidence that God doesn’t exist. Maybe he just doesn’t care if people suffer, or has some specific reason to prefer that the world contain human suffering. For these purposes I’m defining God as “an all-powerful, all-knowing sentient being who is directly responsible for the existence of the universe.” I’m not assuming he necessarily gives a damn about you or me.
At any rate, in the absence of any scientific evidence in favor of or against the existence of God, I don’t really think it’s unreasonable to choose to believe he exists, nor do I think it’s unreasonable to believe God doesn’t exist. Whereas, if you don’t believe in gravity (or for that matter, evolution) in spite of the overwhelming scientific evidence that they’re real, I’d say you’re a dope.
I vote “semantic divide.” As far as I can tell, theamazingluther is using “Why?” to mean “Is there a reason, and if so, what is it?” whereas you are using “Why?” to mean “What is the reason?”
Regardless, if the relevant question is “Does the universe exist for a reason?”, I see absolutely no evidence one way or another, so both seem like equally reasonable answers.
I disagree. The definition of God commonly proposed, which you repeat here, is logically impossible, and gives rise to many questions that can’t be answered (e.g. if the universe includes everything that exists, where was God before he created it?). The religious response is that our puny brains just can’t understand and we just have to accept (to which I always ask Why?). Those logical quandaries are enough, at least for me, to say that it *is * unreasonable to believe in the existence of God.
IMO the impulse to believe in God is entirely psychological and has no basis in any observable or reproducible phenomenon. It requires an act of will to ignore physical reality and opt for the supernatural explanation.
From where do you get the premise that the universe includes everything that exists? Even physicists have postulated other universes, not that it’s particularly relevant here.
I see no logical impossibility to the existence of extrauniverse deities. Frankly, I see no reason why we should assume that the rules of logic would apply outside of this universe any more than the rules of physics would.
I’m not even suggesting that any of this is the case; I just have a problem with assertions that things are impossible, especially in an area such as universal origin, where we have such little understanding of possibilities to begin with.
By “Universe” I *mean * “everything that exists”, not this one universe that may, theoretically, be one of many universes. There may indeed be some being in some other universe who created all that we perceive as our universe, but to that I would say So what? I don’t think that’s what people who believe in God are referring to (though I haven’t asked that particular question of any of the ones I know). God is generally posited as the creator of “all that exists”, not of some puny universe-among-many.
“Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo’s kidneys, but that didn’t stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God”.
There is no doubt in my mind that Paul Martin, the Prime Minister of Canada, exists. I’ve never met him. I’ve never had a conversation with him on the phone. I’ve never witnessed him change the moon to Rice Krispies. And yet, as the one chiefly responsible for how Canada is run, I have no doubt he exists.
God is the one supposedly chiefly responsible for how *everything[/] is run. How much easier for him/her/it to make his/her/its existence plain?
Just do something absurdly impossible on a hugely-grand scale, and I’ll come around without a peep. There are an infinite variety of such miracles the Big Guy/Gal could perform, but just for shits and giggles, here’s a suggestion: Send the Earth and all its inhabitants, enclosed in a miraculous protective bubble, “through” the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy; have us pop out in Andromeda; then I dance the Charleston with Greta Garbo on Titan, we’re both naked, and we live. Put everything back the way it was, except every person on Earth remembers the trip, and we all have a new, heart-shaped tatoo on our left buttock reading “I [heart] G-d”.
It may seem like a lot to ask, and at best a tad impertinent; but to an omnipotent being, I can’t see why that’s a problem, unless he/she/it is being stubborn or has some other mysterious reason to remain so safe from inspection.
That’s the fun part. Some people have told us that we have to have faith in God, to question God is to be condemned to some eternal state of unpleasantness, and that the reason God does not make Itself manifest is to test our faith, which we have to have because some people said so. It’s so beautifully circular.
Oh yes, and the (fill in name of holy book of choice here) was written by people, but they were under the influence of God when they wrote it, or they witnessed the miraculous events themselves and could not possibly be fudging for any reason, and it doesn’t matter how many different holy books contradict each other, or how many internal contradictions there are within each holy book, it must be true because, um, some people said so.
Perhaps I’m ranting a bit. The utter absurdity of it all.
I didn’t. By “the universe” I mean all the stuff that’s out in space (plus the stuff that’s here on earth). But regardless, why must God be anywhere? Location is a property of material objects in the universe. Why should we assume something external to the universe must have any location at all?
You’ve been talking to the wrong religious people. There have been numerous very intelligent people throughout history who have spent their lives considering questions about God. I think you’d be hard pressed to find any question for which some logically viable answer hasn’t been proposed by somebody.
Belief in things like the existence of God (when there’s no evidence one way or another) is perfectly rational. (Although no moreso than disbelief in the existence of God.)
Belief in things like the world having literally been created in seven days (despite overwhelming scientific evidence that it wasn’t) is absurd.
But they’re not equally reasonable answers. When we speculate as to whether the universe exists for a “reason,” what we are really doing is postulating the existence of an intelligence behind that purpose. There can’t be an intention without an intender, a plan without a planner, a reason without a reasoner. To posit that the universe has a purpose is to posit that something else exists. Furthermore, it does this without any evidence. the logical default is always to assume that X does not exist until it is proven to exist.
I would also point out that when you say there is no evidence one way or the other, it should be noted that it would no evidence would be possible to prove that the universe does not have a purpose. Think about it. What theoretical piece of evidence could prove that universe has no purpose?
No! No no no! Nowhere is this the logical default! This is exactly what I don’t get!
If I ask any astronomer if there are planets that orbit a specific, random star in another galaxy, that astronomer will say “I don’t know.” That astronomer will not assume that there are no planets until she sees them. That astronomer will make no guess one way or the other. The presense of planets is just as likely as the absence, without any other evidence.
There is absolutely no reason to assume that existence stops at the bounds of this universe. The unknown is not assumed to be empty. You don’t assume the cat is unchanged until you open the box; you accept that it is neither dead nor alive until it can be observed.
I trust you aren’t supposing that “logically viable” means the same as “logically proven”? I’m probably not up to it myself, but all of the theological arguments I’ve come across, even the sophisticated ones, can be shown to have flaws in their logic.
I really should have some cites here, but I’m at work and it would take hours to dig them up. So I’ll just say IMHO for what it’s worth.
I would like to re-emphasize my original point, which is that the qualities ascribed to God, such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, are logically contradictory. This makes the existence of such a God an assertion that needs to be proven, and lacking such proof, the logical position is that such a being does not exist. Just that it requires proof of some kind. And we come full circle back to the OP. What kind of proof? For me, something persistent and reproducible would do it.
FWIW, I’m not saying that these logical contradictions mean that it is impossible for such a being to exist. Just that I haven’t seen compelling evidence for it.
I keep wondering if the OP is ever going to come back and tell us about all those things that “doesn’t fit well” with science, or if **Liberal **is ever going to give us a hint about all the evidence he “sees” for the existence of God…
There we agree. I’m quite convinced that all “proofs” of the existence of God are crap. (Some may be quite clever and original crap, but crap nonetheless.) However, I also haven’t ever seen a truly convincing proof of the non-existence of God.
If it’s logically contradictory, I’d go so far as to say that it’s been disproven. If that’s the case, theists don’t need a proof, they need to find something else to believe in. (Or, I suppose they could hold that logic is inapplicable to asertions about God, but I find that to be a somewhat absurd position.) But the thing is, not everyone agrees completely about the qualities of God. There are some descriptions of God that I find logically contradictory, but even then people can usually defend them by invoking somewhat non-standard definitions of terms. For instance, I once objected to someone that God can’t be perfectly good if he stands idly by while bad things happen, and he responded that “good” really is a measure of how closely we choose to obey God’s wishes, so God is perfectly good just by doing what he wants.
There is still no question that planets exist. Your analogy is off target. We’re talking about purely hypothetical magical entities, not discussing the wherabouts of known entities. Just because you can conjecture a magic all powerful sorceror in your imagination does not mean that sorceror has therefore acquired some sort of de facto possibility of existence which is equal to the probablity of non-existence.
This is especially true when it comes to entities which violate the known laws of the universe. Magic is impossible, and the only rational default is that the impossible cannot exist until proven otherwise.
Isn’t that circular? You say it’s impossible. Then you say that the impossible cannot exist until proven otherwise.
I say that the impossible cannot exist at all. If it is proven otherwise, then it was possible all along.
A creator god would be extrauniversal. The known laws of the universe do not apply. We have no basis for setting possibilities. Indeed, I have no idea what caused the creation of the universe, but if it can be explained by science, given its weirdness on the quantum level, I am quite confident that such a cause would be considered “impossible.” There is no basis for the statement that the existence a god or gods is impossible.
I can see that we’re just going in circles at this point. I think I’m done.
Famous last words. Meant to include in the last post, but my brain was away:
Yes, the magical sorcerer thing at first glance seems to require more proof. But, IMO, when compared with the scenario of a universe such as ours springing into existence all on its own, I find both options to be equally weird, and, hence, equally likely. But that’s just me.