The God Hypothesis Examined Part 1
70The goal of some believers, the ones interested in converting “heathens” like myself, is to convince us that God is real. However, in order to do this, their arguments have to be free of logical error. Perhaps the following will show why positing a god to answer the question of how we came to exist presents a few problems.
I know what you’re thinking - he hates God and is just trying to find excuses not to believe. You can believe that if you wish, but hear me out first before passing final judgment.
Who Or What Made God?
In one of his published works entitled A Refutation Of Deism [1814], the English poet and essayist Percy Bysshe Shelley addressed some of the problems with the God hypothesis. The following is an excerpt from that essay:
“[. . .]Thus have we arrived at the substance of your assertion, “That whatever exists, producing certain effects, stands in need of a Creator, and the more conspicuous is its fitness for the production of these effects, the more certain will be our conclusion that it would not have existed from eternity, but must have derived its origin from an intelligent creator.”
In what respect then do these arguments apply to the Universe, and not apply to God? From the fitness of the Universe to its end you infer the necessity of an intelligent Creator. But if the fitness of the Universe, to produce certain effects, be thus conspicuous and evident, how much more exquisite fitness to his end must exist in the Author of this Universe? [. . . ]
The belief of an infinity of creative and created Gods, each more eminently requiring an intelligent author of his being than the foregoing, is a direct consequence of the premises which you have stated. The assumption that the Universe is a design, leads to a conclusion that there are [an] infinity of creative and created Gods, which is absurd. [. . . ]
Until it is clearly proved that the Universe was created, we may reasonably suppose that it has endured from all eternity.[. . .]”
When we look at the natural world, we see complexity and order, no doubt. According to some, the only way that the natural world could have come into being is by the will of an intelligent designer. As they see it, the complex processes we see in nature could not have come about without the insight of an intelligent mind. However, as I see it, the designer argument suffers from the same problems that it is intended to address. Consider this: Intelligence is a complex process that can only happen within a mind. A designer, being intelligent, would require a mind in which thoughts could be generated. In order for a mind to be able to think, it must utilize a very complex thought mechanism. Now, if the only answer for how the complexity and order of nature came into being is that an intelligent entity created it, then how in the world did the intelligent entity - which would have to be at least as complex as the things it had created - come into being? Thus, we are confronted with a paradox. Of course, we can’t very well say that another entity created that entity - a problem philosophers call “the infinite regress” - for reasons that I hope by now are obvious.
Believers will often respond to this contention with something similar to the following: “God is eternal and uncreated; the first cause, the prime mover, the alpha and the omega” or “These arguments do not apply to God because he is a spirit, unbounded by the constraints of physical existence" or even "God is an entity that exists outside space and time and is, therefore, not subject to the same limitations that apply to us." But, what data or logical argument can establish the plausibility of these assertions? Why can God get away with being uncreated and we cannot? Can something exist outside space and time? Is there such a thing as a non-corporeal being? Can consciousness exist without physical substance? Simply offering a definition of a thing and its attributes doesn't mean that that thing actually exists in reality.
The Burden Of Proof
Ultimately, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. It is not the skeptic that is required to disprove the claim. If one wants an assertion to be believed, evidence must be presented that shows it to have merit. If this cannot be done, a skeptic is justified in maintaining his or her skepticism.
Click this link for part 2
- The God Hypothesis Examined Part 2
The argument from design is a popular argument used by theists to prove the existence of God (One major problem with the argument from design is addressed in part 1...
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Thanks Qwark, glad you liked it.
Good work David!
The problem though is that as you say, the "burden of proof lies with the one making the claim" is the amazing stuff people will come up with and present as proof- see endless quotes from the good book, and then say: "there, proof, its written right here!" I know you've been there too and the battle shall continue. hope some of the happy clappies make a comment on your blog, but from experience I can almost guess at what they would say to it.
Never stop trying to make the world a smarter place!
Lee - Not many believers understand the basic tenets of logic and reason. That is what makes it difficult to engage in any meaningful conversation with them. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Hi David - you are right about the burden of proof, but believers will always insist that personal revelation (which may be nothing more than a form of self-hypnosis) constitutes proof. It doesn't, of course.
odd that you are not getting the usual bible slingers commenting on this one Dave
Paraglider - You're right, personal revelation or experience doesn't constitute proof, yet, relating personal experiences remains one of the cornerstones of their proselytization method. Go figure. Thanks for reading and leaving a comment.
Lee - For some reason, the Bible slingers stay away from my articles. I'm not sure why. I'm sure they're reading them; they just don't leave comments. This is dissappointing since I am always looking forward to a good debate! Thanks for reading and commenting.
David
I've enjoyed reading your blogs. You're intelligent and well spoken.
I am not a "Bible slinger" I do have one that I was given back when I was in my teens. I don't think I've ever read more than a page at a time. I found the Bible very hard to understand and became even more confused after reading what I did. In fact I believe that most people interpret what they read from the Bible and might speak in words that are different and possibly with even a totally different meaning.
Where you and I seem to differ is not in the teaching of the Bible, but in the possibility of a creator of some sort.
I know that everyone that's posted on this blog is wanting proof that one exists and I agree, if there were substantial proof then the debate would be over.
I believe the problem as it relates to adequate proof lies in the fact that science doesn't use all the necessary means required to accurately proof this as fact or fiction.
I've stated this before in your other blogs where I am sure you will respond in time.
Science only uses 5 senses and 3 dimensions. That is where the problem is. There is a 6th sense that we all are born with, however most people never develop that ability. The dimensions are probably one of the biggest reasons there is not the kind of proof you are wanting to see. We see things only 3 dimensionally There could be something or someone right in front of our face and we might not see them. I am referring to a spirit.
There are people and I have personal experience with this, that have and can see spirits. Now if you can't see a spirit that can clearly be seen by another, although you might not believe it, that doesn't mean that it's not there.
I realize that this doesn't give you documented proof of a spiritual realm that is there, because you don't see it, therefore it's not true to you.
Let me ask you a question, as you said you like a good debate.
Let's assume for just one moment that you had the ability to use your 6th sense or intuition accurately and the feelings you received over and over again proved to be true.
For example, let's say that you had a vivid dream and in this dream you saw a vision of a being/spirit that told you not to drive a certain way to work the next day and you ignored it. The next day as you were driving to work you end up in an accident. You get out of the hospital and then a few weeks later you have a similar dream. This time the dream tells you to again not drive to work a certain way and this time you follow the suggestion. After you get to work and listen to the morning news you learn that there was a terrible accident and 10 people were killed.
I realize this is hypothetical but if that happened to you, would you then believe in the possibility of a spiritual realm?
If your answer was yes, would it also make sense that people that never received the same dream would doubt what you say?
If God or the creator is not of the same dimension as us, we might not have the ability to see him or it, does that make sense? If you go to the movie that is in 3-d and you don't have a pair of those special glasses, you don't see the images appearing to come out of the screen at you. What I am saying is that all things that exist might not be viewable by our naked eye or even by our current scientific tools. Therefore it can't be proved scientifically.
There are people however that have psychic ability and can see the spiritual realm and some can communicate with spirits. If this is possible, then isn't it just possible that God or a spiritual energy of some sort can come in contact with some people. Is it also possible that these people might be the reason that a believe of God is in place. This of course doesn't give you the much needed documentation that you are requesting and I understand that.
It could be possible that you and your other readers never receive the proof you require and it could also be that they really don't want to know?
I do know, and this isn't with physical proof but it's with my 6th sense and ability that there is a spiritual realm. I've never seen something or someone that I would call God, but I get feelings and I get answers when I ask in one way or another. It all comes in the form of a feeling and a direct result of my 6th sense. In my dream state I can go into another dimension and I can see things that are not visible when I awake. It is in this dimension that you can communicate with others that are not part of what science would consider scientific proof.
David and the rest that are reading this, if the truth is what you desire, then find another way to find it other than with a test tube. If you continue to look there it will never appear.
rvsource - If some day I had a spiritual experience, then I would believe, however, I would not expect others to. I think they would be completely justified in their skepticism.
I desire the truth as I think any reasonable person does. I am not, however, willing to surrender my reason and take things on faith. If you have really had spiritual experiences, then I am happy for you. If the spiritual realm really does exist, then I hope that one day I will experience it for myself.
Thanks for the comment.
David,
Spiritual experiences take place all the time, most people just ignore them. In fact they are not always about God and usually about things that play parts in your daily life. The spiritual realm is bigger than you can imagine and might be exactly what you need in order to understand more than just what science says is fact. It involves using other senses as I've said and going into other dimensions. There is no magic or witchcraft here just using your dreams and meditation and doing some reading. I believe that if you take that seriously and really try, you might have a different outlook. Of course that is only if you want to.
I am not a bible thumper and I don't attend any church other than a wedding, or maybe an Easter Sunday with my wife because she was raised Catholic. I also don't subscribe to the normal use of the word God! I do however believe of a divine energy, not based on scientific evidence but based on spiritual awareness, using meditations and through dreams that have played out to be true.
rvsource - I may try meditation one of these days. I was just having a discussion with another Hubber, Jewels, on that subject. You may want to check out some of her hubs. You two seem to have similar views.
Thanks for the comment.
David
Fair enough, I will look her up
Thanks
Best of luck
rvsource,
There is no proof of a 6th sense or a reality with more than 3 dimensions. If you or ANYONE claims there is, then all you have to do to prove it is to produce a truth statement for each claim. If you can do that, then you can claim truth on these issues and the debate is over. Otherwise you only have blind belief in them.
Sorry RV - load of tosh. You say there's a sixth sense. Maybe someone else believes there's a 7th sense. Or an 8th. Or a sense allowing us to know that cows are dancing behind a hill even if we can't see them. Why not? Once humans depart from reason they can believe any crazy thing is possible. It's just bad science. In other words, you're looking for cause and effect but coming up with the wrong answers. Broken bones are fixed by medics with the right materials and good training, and in some cases by naturally occurring processes in the body. ie. good science. They're not fixed by crystals, miracles, prayers or spirits. ie. bad science. Sometimes when scientists get things wrong, people look outside science for answers, when the answer is more and better science.
qwark says:
4 months ago
Hi David:
Standing ovation!!!!!
Qwark