# Questions on Christianity (Again...)

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/61 "2010-08-31T01:38:09Z")

</div>

I didn’t say a “quantum state” I said “from the quantum field.” These particle are created from nothing. These particles don’t exist and then they do exist. At the quantum level, that can happen. Sorry. No need for your wizard.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/62 "2010-08-31T01:43:42Z")

</div>

> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> > [@aigonz](#):
> >
> > A hypothesis requires an observable phenomenon.
> 
> A hypothesis requires an observable phenomenon _in order to be tested_, but it doesn’t require one to simply be hypothesized. Obviously, making up a hypothesis that can never by tested is pointless, but it would still be a hypothesis.
> 
> That God exists is a hypothesis. That multiverses exist is a hypothesis. The multiverse hypothesis, though, has the advantage that it doesn’t contradict what we know about reality. God quite often does. If there was some sort of intellect in creating the universe, for example, then there appears to be a massive amount of waste and the whole process from the Big Bang to now to have occurred entirely via random happenstance. There’s no evidence of a guiding hand. There’s no evidence that prayer effects outcome. There’s no evidence that people receive transmissions of spiritual guidance from some alternate being. There’s no evidence that there’s a spiritual anything to be guided. These facts contradict the God hypothesis. So while there may not be any more evidence for a or several deities than for multiverses, like I said, the multiverses have the advantage that they don’t go against what we can actually observe.

I will willingly debate many of your supposed probelms with the God hypotehsis, however there is something more fundamentally flawed in your assumptions.

Your argument seems to be that a lack of evidence FOR something contradicts that hypothesis. But there is no evidence for the multiverse. Therefore by your own logic, this lack of evidence contradicts the multiverse hypothesis.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/63 "2010-08-31T01:48:30Z")

</div>

> [@aigonz](#):
>
> I will willingly debate many of your supposed probelms with the God hypotehsis, however there is something more fundamentally flawed in your assumptions.
> 
> Your argument seems to be that a lack of evidence FOR something contradicts that hypothesis. But there is no evidence for the multiverse. Therefore by your own logic, this lack of evidence contradicts the multiverse hypothesis.

No; he (and I) have been saying that the “God hypothesis” not only has no evidence for itself, but that it contradicts various things that we do have evidence of. That is not true of the multiverse hypothesis.

And again; we know that universes are possible because we live in one. Where is your evidence that gods are possible? Not even evidence for them being real; just that they are even possible?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/64 "2010-08-31T01:48:53Z")

</div>

> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
>
> I didn’t say a “quantum state” I said “from the quantum field.” These particle are created from nothing. These particles don’t exist and then they do exist. At the quantum level, that can happen. Sorry. No need for your wizard.

No they are not.

‘Virtual’ particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing.

What happens (or at least what is theorised) is that the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/65 "2010-08-31T01:49:17Z")

</div>

> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> So while there may not be any more evidence for a or several deities than for multiverses, like I said, the multiverses have the advantage that they don’t go against what we can actually observe.

In that regard I will invoke the [Zero One, Infinity rule of software design](http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/Z/Zero-One-Infinity-Rule.html). Which implies you can have exactly 0, 1 or infinitely many instances of any class of entities. And you’d better have a damn good reason to go for 0 or, especially, 1.

This is not any kind of persuasive argument, except that if you’re a designer, you ignore it at your peril.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/66 "2010-08-31T01:50:55Z")

</div>

> [@aigonz](#):
>
> Your argument seems to be that a lack of evidence FOR something contradicts that hypothesis.

No such argument was made. The argument was that the God hypothesis contradicts empirical reality.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/67 "2010-08-31T01:51:20Z")

</div>

> [@Der\_Trihs](#):
>
> > [@aigonz](#):
> >
> > I will willingly debate many of your supposed probelms with the God hypotehsis, however there is something more fundamentally flawed in your assumptions.
> > 
> > Your argument seems to be that a lack of evidence FOR something contradicts that hypothesis. But there is no evidence for the multiverse. Therefore by your own logic, this lack of evidence contradicts the multiverse hypothesis.
> 
> No; he (and I) have been saying that the “God hypothesis” not only has no evidence for itself, but that it contradicts various things that we do have evidence of. That is not true of the multiverse hypothesis.
> 
> And again; we know that universes are possible because we live in one. Where is your evidence that gods are possible? Not even evidence for them being real; just that they are even possible?

Read the number of times the expression “There is no evidence” is quoted in the post I responded to. No evidence for is not evidence against. So to be consistent, you must discount those paticular points.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/68 "2010-08-31T01:52:58Z")

</div>

> [@aigonz](#):
>
> > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
> >
> > I didn’t say a “quantum state” I said “from the quantum field.” These particle are created from nothing. These particles don’t exist and then they do exist. At the quantum level, that can happen. Sorry. No need for your wizard.
> 
> No they are not.
> 
> ‘Virtual’ particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing.
> 
> What happens (or at least what is theorised) is that the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum.

This is a hypothesis. What is actually knwn is that particles don’t exist, and then they do exist, and then they don’t exist.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/69 "2010-08-31T01:53:17Z")

</div>

> [@aigonz](#):
>
> Your argument seems to be that a lack of evidence FOR something contradicts that hypothesis.

The existence of things which contradict a hypothesis are proof against that hypothesis. The lack of evidence for a hypothesis doesn’t effect the plausibility of the hypothesis one way or the other.

I.e. there can be evidence for and against.

Multiverses - Evidence for: 0 - Evidence against: 0  
Deities - Evidence for: 0 - Evidence against: lots

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/70 "2010-08-31T01:53:19Z")

</div>

\<\<There’s no evidence of a guiding hand.\>\>

\<\<There’s no evidence that prayer effects outcome.\>\>

\<\<There’s no evidence that people receive transmissions of spiritual guidance from some alternate being.\>\>

\<\<There’s no evidence that there’s a spiritual anything to be guided.\>\>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/71 "2010-08-31T01:55:19Z")

</div>

> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
>
> > [@aigonz](#):
> >
> > Your argument seems to be that a lack of evidence FOR something contradicts that hypothesis.
> 
> No such argument was made. The argument was that the God hypothesis contradicts empirical reality.

How so? And please don’t quote ‘there is no evidence…’

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/72 "2010-08-31T01:55:42Z")

</div>

> [@aigonz](#):
>
> \<\<There’s no evidence of a guiding hand.\>\>
> 
> \<\<There’s no evidence that prayer effects outcome.\>\>
> 
> \<\<There’s no evidence that people receive transmissions of spiritual guidance from some alternate being.\>\>
> 
> \<\<There’s no evidence that there’s a spiritual anything to be guided.\>\>

Agreed.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/73 "2010-08-31T01:56:57Z")

</div>

Evidence for God…

1. Design

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/74 "2010-08-31T01:58:54Z")

</div>

> [@aigonz](#):
>
> Evidence for God…
> 
> 1. Design

That’s it?! Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

Design of what?!

Please note I’ve seen most “arguments from design” already. Make it interesting.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/75 "2010-08-31T01:58:57Z")

</div>

> [@aigonz](#):
>
> > [@Der\_Trihs](#):
> >
> > No; he (and I) have been saying that the “God hypothesis” not only has no evidence for itself, but that it contradicts various things that we do have evidence of. That is not true of the multiverse hypothesis.
> > 
> > And again; we know that universes are possible because we live in one. Where is your evidence that gods are possible? Not even evidence for them being real; just that they are even possible?
> 
> Read the number of times the expression “There is no evidence” is quoted in the post I responded to. No evidence for is not evidence against. So to be consistent, you must discount those paticular points.

This argument was never made. The argument was that a hypothesis is stronger if it at least consistent with observable reality. A multiverse is consistent with the obeservable universe. The sky god hypothesis is not.

Even if it were, the specific religious explanations developed by humans are all very provably false. Even if you could prove the universe needed a creator (and that has still never been proven), that would not alter the fact that the Bible, for instance, is demonstrably a human composition with no reliable scientific or historical value (and that’s putting it kindly).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/76 "2010-08-31T01:59:24Z")

</div>

> [@aigonz](#):
>
> \<\<There’s no evidence of a guiding hand.\>\>
> 
> \<\<There’s no evidence that prayer effects outcome.\>\>
> 
> \<\<There’s no evidence that people receive transmissions of spiritual guidance from some alternate being.\>\>
> 
> \<\<There’s no evidence that there’s a spiritual anything to be guided.\>\>

Say that I hypothesize that a particular wall is pink. I then go and look at the wall, and discover that it is white. I have no evidence of pinkess, because for it to be pink, it would have to contradict what I have already observed. I have observed that the hypothesis contradicts reality.

The hypothesis proposed something that _could be observed_. When I went to check, those observations failed to manifest. Instead, they were contradicted.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/77 "2010-08-31T02:03:01Z")

</div>

The claim was \<\<The argument was that the God hypothesis contradicts empirical reality.\>\>

I am simply asking how so?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/78 "2010-08-31T02:05:09Z")

</div>

> [@aigonz](#):
>
> > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
> >
> > No such argument was made. The argument was that the God hypothesis contradicts empirical reality.
> 
> How so? And please don’t quote ‘there is no evidence…’

Well, to start with, lack of _necessity_ is de facto evidence against all by itself. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like that. As long as you can explain the universe without magic, there is no reason to hypothesize it. Magic i impossible, and impossible things should be preseumed to be impossible until proven otherwise.

Beyond that, many of the claims made _about_ this creator god are deonstrably false. For instance, the universe shows no conscious design (and in the case of biology, often very _poor_ design), it has never been shown to intearct with the universe or answer prayers, it logically _can’t_ be omnimax, and magic is impossible. Just to name a few things.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/79 "2010-08-31T02:06:20Z")

</div>

> [@aigonz](#):
>
> The claim was \<\<The argument was that the God hypothesis contradicts empirical reality.\>\>
> 
> I am simply asking how so?

Don’t make up quotes, dammit. Quote with names and numbers or leave it alone.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\
**Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/80 "2010-08-31T02:07:48Z")

</div>

> [@Sage\_Rat](#):
>
> > [@aigonz](#):
> >
> > \<\<There’s no evidence of a guiding hand.\>\>
> > 
> > \<\<There’s no evidence that prayer effects outcome.\>\>
> > 
> > \<\<There’s no evidence that people receive transmissions of spiritual guidance from some alternate being.\>\>
> > 
> > \<\<There’s no evidence that there’s a spiritual anything to be guided.\>\>
> 
> Say that I hypothesize that a particular wall is pink. I then go and look at the wall, and discover that it is white. I have no evidence of pinkess, because for it to be pink, it would have to contradict what I have already observed. I have observed that the hypothesis contradicts reality.
> 
> The hypothesis proposed something that _could be observed_. When I went to check, those observations failed to manifest. Instead, they were contradicted.

Firstly, the quotes above were not mine. I was quoting them to make a point.

Secondly Merriam Wedster defines hypothesis as “a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences”. The greek origin of the word is conneected to ‘suppose’. In science, however, an hypothesis requires some empirical observation. On that basis, your suggestion that the wall is pink is more akin to a ‘guess’ than an hypothesis.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=3)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=5)