# On God, His/Her/Its Nonexistence, and Bullshit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 26, 2005, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240 "2005-04-26T20:31:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/81 "2005-04-27T19:32:04Z")
> [@Dob](#): > > So you spontaneously decided that no God exists? No, I looked around me and saw no evidence that one did. > [@](#): > > No argument or theory convinced you of that? Not really. > [@](#): > > No annoying born again Christian hounded you so much that you just decided no God could be worth this? No. > [@](#): > > Not calling you a liar, but I find that hard to believe. I find that strange. > [@](#): > > To form an opinion, any opinion, you must have something to base it on. Yes. In this case, absence of evidence. > [@](#): > > So somewhere, somehow, you heard/read something that led you to believe God doesn’t exist. And whatever you heard/read was proof enough for you. Therefore you have proof that God doesnt exist. No. I need evidence to believe that something does exist, not that it doesn’t. That something (gods, angels, pink unicorns, and also more commonly accepted things like beer, dogs and a nice little pub I went to in Prague once) doesn’t exist is the default assumption, which is changed upon confrontation with sufficient evidence. For gods, angels and pink unicorns I haven’t seen any yet. I have, however, seen beer, heard of beer, drunk beer, seen beer being drunk. I have also seen dogs, read about dogs, heard of dogs, wrestled with dogs, played with dogs. And as for the pub in Prague, I was there. It is of course possible that beer doesn’t exist, that dogs don’t exist, and that the pub in Prague never did. I just see that as less likely than the alternative. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/82 "2005-04-27T20:00:47Z")
> [@Spatial Rift 47](#): > > It is my claim that if the Universe has a creator, this will necessitate observable properties. Fair enough. I claim that it won’t! Why can’t there be a “wind it up and watch it go” Creator? A Creator that sets the universe up in its very early state - small, dense, way too hot for even hydrogen atoms to have appeared, and then kicks back and spectates? Watches the whole thing unfold - expansion, hydrogen formation, stellar formation, fusion to heavier elements, novae, supernovae, heavy-element planets, complex chemistry, self-replicating molecules, the first cells, evolution, intelligence, apes that are too clever by half; - and doesn’t intervene? Are we supposed to be able to extropolate from the current state of the universe that if a creator had been involved waaaay back then, things would look different now? Put another way, is there a difference between an avalanche started by a thrown snowball and one started by a gust of wind? ---
**Author:** ![Dob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dob)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/83 "2005-04-27T20:13:30Z")
> [@](#): > > doesn’t exist is the default assumption, which is changed upon confrontation with sufficient evidence I disagree, why should it be the default assumption? It is the default assumption for you, because someone, something, convinced you it should be. But again we come to the question of evidence, or proof. I have the proof I need, but would that same proof convince you? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/84 "2005-04-27T20:20:55Z")
> [@dob](#): > > So you spontaneously decided that no God exists? No argument or theory convinced you of that? No annoying born again Christian hounded you so much that you just decided no God could be worth this? Do _you_ believe that rrggldhdxvw exists? If not, did you spontaneously decide that no rrggldhdxvw exists? Did an argument or theory convice you that rrggldhdxvw doesn’t exist? > [@matt](#): > > Why can’t there be a “wind it up and watch it go” Creator? A Creator that sets the universe up in its very early state - small, dense, way too hot for even hydrogen atoms to have appeared, and then kicks back and spectates? Watches the whole thing unfold - expansion, hydrogen formation, stellar formation, fusion to heavier elements, novae, supernovae, heavy-element planets, complex chemistry, self-replicating molecules, the first cells, evolution, intelligence, apes that are too clever by half; - and doesn’t intervene? There’s no reason there _can’t_ be such a creator, but what reason would you have to believe there _is_? If we’re going to blindly speculate on what _might_ exist in other realms which are completely disconnected from ours, then the universe might be a ball in the mouth of a giant space dog, and the dog is owned by the Jolly Green Space Giant, who goes to Space Giant University with 6000 other space giants. Or the universe might be a seed in a giant space tomato in Space Giant Farmer John’s field. How does that help us understand anything better? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/85 "2005-04-27T20:22:48Z")
> [@Dob](#): > > I disagree, why should it be the default assumption? If “exists” is the _default_ assumption, then you must believe that my Space Dog exists, correct? ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/86 "2005-04-27T20:23:56Z")
> [@Dob](#): > > I disagree, why should it be the default assumption? Well, the pragmatic answer is because if we go around assuming that everything imaginable exists, our lives would become extremely complicated. We would quickly succumb to apathetic convulsions as we realized that any actions would cause us to be burned alive by horrific demons, as well as skewered by red-hot spears, as well as slowly eaten by Hungarian quarrydogs, and so forth. Oh, and inaction would cause the same things to happen, as we assume that Hungarian quarrydogs who slowly eat people who don’t do anything exist as well. That way lies madness. Not only that, but if you stop and think for a while, I think you’ll find that you agree with me. You do not believe in, say, winged reptile rhinos who play the harp expertly. That’s because you assume they don’t exist and will continue to do so until you’ve seen enough evidence that they do. > [@](#): > > It is the default assumption for you, because someone, something, convinced you it should be. Yep: common sense. > [@](#): > > I have the proof I need, but would that same proof convince you? Probably not, but feel free to try me. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/87 "2005-04-27T20:26:33Z")
> [@rfgdxm](#): > > I say God is Dead. If only your member name was “The New York Times”. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/88 "2005-04-27T21:29:47Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Put another way, is there a difference between an avalanche started by a thrown snowball and one started by a gust of wind? With enough computational power to analyze the differential equations governing the flow of snow over the hill, yes, there is a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/89 "2005-04-27T21:33:31Z")
> [@Spatial Rift 47](#): > > With enough computational power to analyze the differential equations governing the flow of snow over the hill, yes, there is a difference. Good answer, but this still presupposes that we can say something about the nature of the Creator. In the avalanche example, we’ve seen avalanches, we’ve seen gusts of wind, and we’ve seen snowballs. But we’ve only seen this universe, and it either is or isn’t created by an intelligence or agency. There is no way to determine, using your method, whether it was or wasn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/90 "2005-04-27T22:01:01Z")
> [@Spatial Rift 47](#): > > - Second, Ockham’s Razor. Given that the Universe obeys a coherent mathematical model, even if us lowly humans can’t figure out what that model is, you don’t need a god. From [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ockham%27s_razor): William of Ockham wrote, _“Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate,”_ which is best translated into English as “Plurality should not be posited without necessity.” I don’t see how you go from that to “God is not necessary and therefore doesn’t exist.” If you’re going to go with the bastardized version so often touted as “the simplest explanation tends to be the simplest”, then suppose you write possible explanations for the creation, assuming a creator and assuming no creator. I think the argument “God made it” is, strictly speaking, _simpler_ than most explanations that either preclude or just don’t include a creator. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/91 "2005-04-27T23:05:10Z")
> [@Othersider](#): > > I think the argument “God made it” is, strictly speaking, _simpler_ than most explanations that either preclude or just don’t include a creator. 😉 “Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/92 "2005-04-27T23:09:29Z")
Very well. Change “Ockham’s Razor” to “Einstein’s Razor.” It’s a better description of the idea I had in mind. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/93 "2005-04-27T23:17:38Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > It’s the common Christian explanation for why God isn’t evident - that if he were, it would destroy faith. Since they more or less believe in the Bible (and you don’t have to be a literalist to believe in the Exodus) this is a valid refutation of that argument. It obviously is not valid for non-sked theologies. Deists believe in a god who is not evident, so this isn’t a problem at all for them. > > That your concept of god has changed is understandable. What is less understandable is that the official definition of god has changed also. If any of these religious folks actually had a direct or indirect line to god, their perception over the ages should remain pretty stable. That it has not means that only one has had this connection (and who that is is unclear) or that none has, which is a lot more likely. There seems to be two different arguements here. If someone believes the Bible is for the most part historically accurate even in the face of evidence to the contrary then for me thats chooseing tradition over the truth. On the other hand even though I don’t embrace the story of Noah or the parting of the red sea, I do beleive in the possibility of miraculous events defined as an event outside the commonly accepted natural law. I think it is completely logical that the definition of God would change over generations. If an individuals concept of God changes as they learn and grow then why wouldn’t that be refelcted in society. Especially in a culture where literacy increased. Individual growth would begin to influence the overall concept over generations. Personnally I think we all have a direct line to God but it’s not like a light switch we can just turn on or that God flips on at a whim. We have to choose to listen, and that means giveing up some preconcieved ideas, religous and otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2005, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/94 "2005-04-27T23:23:59Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I have no idea what you’re asking me. I must have misunderstood your statement. > [@](#): > > But then other things are trivially easy. For example, I can easily disprove the existence of a contradiction — any contradiction. what did you mean by any contradiction? ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/95 "2005-04-28T06:38:32Z")
> [@Spatial Rift 47](#): > > Very well. Change “Ockham’s Razor” to “Einstein’s Razor.” It’s a better description of the idea I had in mind. I don’t see how “Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler” implies that God doesn’t exist. Besides, I’m pretty sure Einstein was a deist. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/96 "2005-04-28T08:44:07Z")
> [@PriceGuy](#): > > And what you’re demonstrating is still that this planet has gorillas or is devoid of them. How do you go about disproving that gorillas exist at all? I didn’t say you _could_, that’s why I specified the gorilla behind me. Read the thread again and you’ll see that I was addressing two myths (_not_ your position specifically): that “you can’t disprove things” and that “you can’t prove a negative”. There are indeed things which can’t be proven _or_ disproven, _negative or not_, depending on the [properties of the entities and the extent of the domain](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic). (There is even a form of logic _dedicated_ to establishing what kinds of things are [provable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provability_logic) or not.) Your position, _and mine_, is that neither “There exists no x (such that x has property P of “observability”) for all space and time” nor “There exists no x (such that x has **no** property P of “observability”) for _any_ space and time” are provable. These statements are not by any means equivalent to “You can’t disprove things” or “You can’t prove a negative”. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/97 "2005-04-28T08:57:27Z")
> [@Spatial Rift 47](#): > > With enough computational power to analyze the differential equations governing the flow of snow over the hill, yes, there is a difference. I’ll grant there is _some_ difference in the final configuration of the avalanche whether you have the computational power or not, but is it detectable? Can you gather enough precise information about the avalanche to do the computation, even if you had unlimited computing power? Do you claim information cannot be destroyed? Do you claim measurements are perfectly precise? What about next summer after the snow has melted - could you tell from the river flow and erosion patterns that last winter’s avalanche was started by a snowball? (And yes, I grant that somewhere there WILL be some tiny differences in landscape resulting from a snowball/wind avalanche, but I claim they will be lost in the noise of any measurements you would care to make.) We have to extrapolate our observations back a hell of a long way to get an impression of the early universe, and there are disagreements about the implications of what we see. I contend that it is **possible** to have a non-intervening Creator who simply cannot be proven/disproven, because there is no discernable difference between a non-created Universe and one generated by such an entity. If you’re right, a Creator would have to have fiddled about with the Universe enough to leave his fingerprints on it. You are claiming that in the absence of such fingerprints, a Creator would be disproven. I don’t disagree with the argument, but with the premise. I’m also not sure you can prove the absence of any such fingerprints, unless you know where some MUST have been left if a Creator had been at work. On the other hand, since a non-intervening Creator is not discernably different from no Creator at all, I would take the “absence of fingerprints” as proof enough that I don’t have to worry about it. Vengeful, lightning-bolts and hellfire Creators are a concern but are provable; invisible, insubstantial do-nothing Creators are not provable but are also irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/98 "2005-04-28T09:09:00Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Your position, _and mine_, is that neither “There exists no x (such that x has property P of “observability”) for all space and time” nor “There exists no x (such that x has **no** property P of “observability”) for _any_ space and time” are provable. Well then, we agree. Where we disagree is that I consider “you can’t prove a negative” to be an acceptable shorthand for our common position. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/99 "2005-04-28T09:38:21Z")
“You can’t prove a negative” is _shorthand_ for “You _can_ prove all sorts of negatives, actually”? Well, OK … ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2005, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240/100 "2005-04-28T11:52:13Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > “You can’t prove a negative” is _shorthand_ for “You _can_ prove all sorts of negatives, actually”? Well, OK … When I use the phrase, and when I’ve seen it used, it is shorthand for “you can’t prove a negative as it pertains to this discussion”, as in, för this discussion, “you can’t prove God doesn’t exist anywhere anywhen”. I admit it’s sloppy. OK? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-god-his-her-its-nonexistence-and-bullshit/301240.md?page=6)