An important point that the OP is missing is also why we prefer certain hypotheses over others.
We prefer hypotheses that make testable claims. These hypotheses may become theories which is great because they don’t only enhance our understanding of the world but also are actually useful.
If the god hypothesis made testable claims then sure, I’d be all for throwing it in the mix.
Sent from my Redmi 5A using Tapatalk
The premise of the deity is that it has motivations (possibly quite a challenging concept, for what could motivate an omnimax entity that has no needs). Sciency stuff explains how things happen, but it fails to address the deep, underlying why of them. Hence, we have the deity, who does things because, reasons. The deity has the ability to manipulate physics and chemistry and to some extent even people, hiding its hand behind the reality curtain. And, of course, the why of the deity’s actions is wrapped up in “god’s secret plan” and “mysterious ways”, so the explanation that the superbeing offers is empty platitudes.
God can be a useful tool, but he is a tool.
But of course the only reason we search for a “why” in the first place is because we are high-functioning mammals. Blessed and cursed by evolution to be pattern-seekers. Assuming the intentions of others is a useful thing in our social constructs but it also leads us to assume intention where none is present. Given that facet of our cognitive abilities it is entirely unsurprising that our more primitive selves created gods.
I like that, I’m going to steal it.
When you are raised in a religious culture that attributes all things to your creator god and ascribes to the philosophies of God’s Mystery and The Unknowable Plan, then of course your default answer is: “God Did It.” Because that’s what you were taught and that’s what you heard every time you had a difficult question as a child. You were taught by experience that this is the ONLY answer to the mysteries of the universe.
The more you are dependent upon the certainty of this for your own peace and security in the world, the more resistant you are to people telling you there is no God.
There is no God, and She hates me.
It is, and it even has a somewhat more explicit version: Presuppositionalism:
This is only difficult to understand in that it’s so mind-blowingly stupidly dishonest it would only occur to someone convinced they had God on their side. Nobody else would have the chutzpah to state it and expect the person they’re stating it to to resist the urge to punch them in their face.
In short: Presuppositionalism asserts that God created logic, so using logic to argue against God is implicitly assuming the existence of God. Ha! Got you! I win! You lose! HAW HAW HAW!
In my less charitable moods, I conclude that this isn’t even intended to be a logical argument, but a power play. If they can get you to swallow Presuppositionalism, they’ve got you in such a mental headlock they can get you to swallow anything. It’s pure intimidation when aimed at outsiders, and comforting word-noise nonsense for the true believers.
Anyway, it’s a more explicit version of “god of the gaps” in that it presupposes God created everything, especially logic, as opposed to what Novelty Bobble said, where God is merely assumed to have created every natural mechanism and entity until and unless proven otherwise. Presuppositionalism is insane, yes, but it’s the same kind of insane as “god of the gaps” or, indeed, any other piece of religious apologia.
Well let’s start at the beginning here for Christianity.
El was the supreme Caananite God. The ineffable creator and patron God of the Caananites and specifically of the Israelis.
There is some argument that JHVH may have arisen like many gods, as a cultural hero who became a god. Early on, he was a minor, tribal patron god of Judah.
Well, Israel and Judah were smack in the middle of territory constantly being contested between the Hittites, Babylon and Egypt. So they ended up getting conquered a lot and paying tribute to whomever ruled them this month. The wars and revolts got messy, Babylon came in, kicked their asses, took Jerusalem and carried off the better part of Judah into exile. They left behind a new Judean King, who invited refugees back and then got assassinated. Some mess later, the Babylonians came back a second time, carried off more of the population, killed most of the rest and destroyed Jerusalem.
It was those exiles, carried off to Babylon from Judah, who wrote the books and told the story from then on, and JHVH was their [del]man[/del] God. So JHVH eventually took on all of the attributes of El and the other Caananite gods and became THE ONE TRUE GOD of the Jewish people.
But all that was in the @600-700 BC range.
Where was “God”/JHVH/Jehovah before that? He was El. Before El he was likely An/Anu of the Babylonian pantheon, the supreme ineffable creator god there, who was worshipped at least as far back as 3,000 BC and maybe as far as 4,000 BC.
Thing is, even in Babylonian mythology, An/u isn’t the first god. They have a long string of begats there too. A line of worshiped gods that goes back into unknown time.
So if JHVH is your ineffable creator god, you’re worshiping this idea under a name that is at most about 3,000 years old and who originally wasn’t any kind of supreme god, but the tribal patron god of a bronze age culture living right in War Alley between three major empires. And you’re attributing the same laws and rules, culture and ideals of that culture to your UberCreator God of the Universe.
Who adopted a role played under many different names by different cultures, including the one that influenced all others in the region, for at least 3,000 years before that and likely for considerably longer.
A God who became Hellenized and part of the foundation of Western Civilization as it spread, conquered and forcibly converted Europe.
Who is being altered again and becoming Americanized and very very different by American Conservatives.
Who has claims of prophets with powers granted by God in ancient days, but who clearly hasn’t seen fit to do the same in 2,000 years through his old religion and multiple versions of his new religion. Each of which claims to be the real truth, the real religion serving the real version of JHVH, while all the others are false.
So tell me who your God is in that context.
One giant gap is why the physical constants are what they are, just right for stars and life and all the rest to be possible. Not only can’t science explain it, it cannot find a place to begin. The leading explanation is that in the entire infinite multiverse every combination of physical constants is found in some universe, but ours is one of rare ones where creatures could evolve to wonder about it. But god–some god–might be the only explanation.
An even bigger gap is why is there something rather than nothing. What set it in motion. The leading explanation is that it always was and always till be, but that is about as unsatisfying–and untestable–as it could be. And even god cannot explain that. The idea that god is so powerful that she created herself is simply fatuous.
Firstly note that we only know about this explanatory gap thanks to science.
But secondly, an explanation is something that aids understanding, and we understand a system when we can make useful predictions and/or inferences about it.
Saying “god did it” lets you make exactly what kind of testable inference?
So is it even an explanation?
Agreed, it’s a big philosophical problem, and the handwavey answers that theists, and even some atheists, give, don’t work IMO.
I think the only thing to say to this, I think, is “I don’t know”.
This line of thinking is faulty.
If you define nothing as the absolutely opposite of something, you end up defining a thing, which is not what you mean by nothing. You simply cannot define nothing in terms of something. It is logically unreachable. If there is something, then “nothing” is meaningless.
If you define nothing as the ultimate void, then it is something (nothingness), and you run into a serious problem. The void is in the purest equilibrium, and what we know about equilibrium is that it is inherently unstable: nothing became something because it had to. No causa prima is needed. Creation was an entirely natural function of the void.
Or, “nothing” could be the Elizabethan slang, the metaprimal vulva out of which reality was birthed.
Possibly the best response to presuppositionalism is found here at about 10:25:
Essentially “Nothing is still something”.
I think this is flawed – it’s a semantic game that for some reason I’m hearing alluded to a lot recently on the youtubes.
If I say “There’s nothing to be afraid of” that doesn’t mean I’m talking about an entity called “nothing” and we should be afraid.
And there is no logical inconsistency with potentially “nothing existing”. It’s not claiming some state of a thing called “nothing” having the extrinsic property of existing.
“Nothing” belongs to the set of concepts like “unknown”, “undefined” or NaN. They are a special case; they are not values, and not instanceable things.
But this is again starting with something; the idea that equilbria are unstable. When was that decided?
The only terms, context and experience we have is being in the Universe. We have no means of knowing what not-Universe is like, so it isn’t surprising when we fall into the trap of using Universe specific concepts and terms to attempt to describe not-Universe. It’s all speculation and science fiction.
But “We Can’t Know” doesn’t necessarily mean “Here be God”.
an angel gets his wings.