It is quite common for theists, when asked to provide some evidence for their belief in God, to reply, "why, the fact that we are here, that the universe exists, is more than enough evidence!".
I don’t know if most theists have really thought about what they mean when they say that. Think about it: when they say that the universe’s existence is evidence for a god, the implication is that, without a god, there could be no universe.
But now I ask the obvious, but not often asked question: why does the universe require a god to exist? The answer, I believe, is that you don’t know any other way, can’t conceive of any other possibility. You don’t understand how the universe could exist, except by divine creation. But isn’t that just the God of the Gaps fallacy, all over again? You don’t know, so it must have been God? Much like diseases were thought to be caused by demons before we knew about germs?
Sure, science can’t yet explain the origins on the universe; we have only hypotheses, such as the Big Bang, which are currently imperfect and incomplete. But science evolves, and we can today explain many things that were "obviously" supernatural centuries ago. Why not the origin of the universe, a few decades, or even centuries, from now? It’s possible.
You may now reply: "ah, but God could have created the universe with its natural laws, so that everything occurs naturally, but God did provide the original intent, the original authorship. In other words, God created a completely natural, self-sustaining universe."
But… then, why is God needed at all? If a universe can "happen" naturally without a god, then we must at least concede that this one could have, and the "evidence for God" thing goes out of the window.
Or consider another approach. Let’s assume you’re a theist and you believe that this universe was created by God. Fine. Now imagine, please, how a universe would be like without God, a universe which "happened" naturally in every respect, which doesn’t have any kind of conscious being at its origin.
Imagine that universe. A universe where there is no heaven, no hell, and no supreme being taking care of us. Where everything happens according to natural laws, and nothing more. A universe where no miracles happen, at all. Where prayer doesn’t work, doesn’t make impossible things happen, and doesn’t even affect probabilities of possible things. An incredibly complex universe, at the same time harsh and uncaring, and beautiful, but one which science increasingly understands, and can be used to grasp patterns and predict behaviors.
Now… how could you distinguish that universe from ours? Could you, at all? Doesn’t our universe, at least from appearance, fit that description to a T?
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
It is even better hearing people say “The universe exists, therefore you can’t have an abortion!”
But I think most religious people would say the universe COULDN’T exist without God, so asking them to imagine what such a universe would be like is impossible.
[quote post="295"]But… then, why is God needed at all? If a universe can “happen” naturally without a god, then we must at least concede that this one could have, and the “evidence for God” thing goes out of the window.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter if God is “needed”, it only matters if God is. So discussing whether He is needed is mute.
It is also important to realize that things happening “naturally” and because of a God are not at all contraindicative. In the words of your post you said something like “what if God made the universe AND the natural laws?” Then nature and natural laws would be, by definition super-natural, they would be a creation of God. Can you think of a better way to make this thing?
I believe a better way of thinking about existence as evidence for God is to think in terms of probabilities. Look at the thousands and thousands of things that are statistically improbable at best yet still had to happen in order (and in order) for us to exist. Water, oxygen, atmosphere, planetary placement, and plant life just to get us started with a list that is far, far, far from complete.
^ so you’re saying it’s improbable, so it had to be god? lol that’s dumb.
let’s assume the universe is infinite. if it is, then probabilities don’t apply. even if the chances of our earth forming are 1 in 100000000000000000000, the universe is larger than 100000000000000000000 so that 1 small chance becomes just as great as the chances that it doesn’t happen. somewhere somehow (especially over the huge amount of time it took for the earth to come the way it is) it had to happen. and here we are.
“Where prayer doesn’t work, doesn’t make impossible things happen, and doesn’t even affect probabilities of possible things.”
I would recommend rewording this line, as it gives readers the impression that you vehemently deny any sociological role religion may have had all throughout our history on the Earth. Prayer does and has affected many things on this planet because it is a strong conviction where faith (an unimaginable, unwavering force in the few who possess it) is supremely. Getting people together and getting them praying to feed off this strangely human emotion was arguably one of the most consistent forms of societal change and social disobedience until the about 1920’s.
However, more and more people everyday are becoming convinced that no supreme being is listening to their prayers. This increasingly common mode of thinking is like believing in Santa Claus: You can’t prove his existence, but you’re told this in confidence by those you trust to enchant and remove personal connotation from the amazing gifts you receive, and if you don’t like them… well there’s only one person to blame. Then, one day you wake up and realize for every one atheist there are probably 50 - 100 theists.
Believing in God, however, is not like believing in Santa Claus. It means believing the world is futile and worthless until our next life comes into question. I would rather be fooled by the blindfold of science that submit myself this to conviction, wouldn’t you?
Steve,
I’m not saying that because it is improbable it had to be God. I’m not even saying whether or not I see the Universe as evidence for the existence of God. First, we should be clear about the difference between evidence and proof. Proof is like saying “this is now known to be a fact”. Evidence is like saying “this seems to indicate that ___”. Just so we can be careful about our language use so we can have an intelligent conversation.
Saying the Universe proves God’s existence could be considered as dumb as assuming that the universe is infinite ;> Your argument would indicate that the flying spaghetti monster must be out there somewhere because the chances of it happening somehow somewhere are just as great as it not happening.
So, as long as you wish to drop the facad of scientific thinking and go with assumptions like an infinite universe I vote we go with a simpler assumption, let’s assume there is a God. See, it doesn’t work for me either ;(
Bobson
The first two paragraphs of your post were excellent but I have no idea what you were trying to say in the last two. I would love to know though. I did get this. You think theists (I guess of every kind) see this world as futile and worthless until our next life comes into question (by next life I guess you mean after-life). If that correct? If so …
I can assure you that I see this life neither as futile or worthless. It is a glorious and magnificent thing of immeasureable value. In fact, all life is glorious, magnificent and of immeasureable value. I think life could only be futile and worthless in a universe without a God where it just happened to evolve and had no particular reason for being.
Those who say that there is no god have no idea on how earth was built to sustain life. The delicate balance for things is unconceivable for us humans. For example having 7 layers of spheres to protect us from the harsh uv rays. The fact we have magnetic fields on the north and south pole to protect us and give us guidance.
Every planet that NASA has looked at, has lacked more than one of these basic elements to sustain life of any kind
“Those who say that there is no god have no idea on how earth was built to sustain life. The delicate balance for things is unconceivable for us humans. For example having 7 layers of spheres to protect us from the harsh uv rays. The fact we have magnetic fields on the north and south pole to protect us and give us guidance.”
That’s true, it IS extremely rare that we’re here at all with a planet that can support us and life can flourish on. But you’re implying that “earth was built to sustain life”. What if it wasn’t, but life happened anyway? Maybe we’re missing some crucial piece that other planets (too far from us to know about) have, and life there requires it?
Out of all the planets in all the galaxies in all the universe, there has to be life. There has to. The odds of it happening are small, but they aren’t that small. And isn’t it lucky that it was this planet, which produced this species in this order, that made you? Think about the odds of YOU being here at all. The odds of your parents meeting, the odds of them having you exactly when they did. When you start to pull numbers like that everything sounds like it should never happen. But something always does happen. No matter how big the odds, it happens eventually. Think about how many planets may have had life, but it died out. Cause it didn’t have this crucial balance. To count us as a “chosen” planet is laughable. Why aren’t we protected from the sun’s rays completely? How come I can sunburn? Why isn’t there an eighth layer so I don’t have to wear sunscreen?
To make the argument that God exists because the Earth exists TO SUPPORT LIFE is just wrong. I’m not saying God doesn’t exist, but an all powerful, all knowing being probably could have tried a little harder? Then we wouldn’t have earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc that cause death and destruction, often to the innocent.
If God knows suffering and won’t stop it, he is malevolent and does not care for the innocent.
If God knows suffering and can’t stop it, he is not omnipotent.
“For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God…” Exodus 20:4-5
Excuse me? Isn’t envy a sin?
Maybe there is a god. Maybe there isn’t. My faith hasn’t been tested enough for me to be certain. Just live, love, and enjoy. Everyone wins.
To prose,
“To make the argument that God exists because the Earth exists TO SUPPORT LIFE is just wrong. I’m not saying God doesn’t exist, but an all powerful, all knowing being probably could have tried a little harder? Then we wouldn’t have earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanoes, etc that cause death and destruction, often to the innocent.”
At least from a Christian view, no one is innocent. That is to say no one is without sin. The old testament has a very thorough treatment of human suffering and disasters. It discusses why they exist/happen and who causes them.
“If God knows suffering and won’t stop it, he is malevolent and does not care for the innocent.
If God knows suffering and can’t stop it, he is not omnipotent.”
Sorry, I don’t want to be harsh but a basic understanding of theology destroys this. Once again their are no innocent people. Does your father stop you from suffering the consequences of your actions? If he does then he is spoiling you and does not care about your development, much less that of anyone else, and certainly doesn’t understand justice.
“For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God…” Exodus 20:4-5
Excuse me? Isn’t envy a sin?
This one is a much better talking point. (BTW it’s just 20:5) First of all, I think your concept of envy may be a little askew. Part of the reason I say that is, in accordance with the books in the Bible this God owns and has right to all existence, so I think envy is not as correct as anger at having what is his taken from him. Jealousy, perhaps as a parent feels when a child begins to date? Perhaps as one may feel if what rightfully belonged to them was given to another.
Secondly, since the statement seems wierd we should consider going back to the original Hebrew text for various translations. Unfortunately I do not have that with me now and cannot do so.
Third, we should consider when it was written, who wrote it, who they were talking to, why they wrote it and how that context may affect it. I’m not going to do that here but, there is probably a seminary around you where you could find a knowledgeable person. Please do not consult just any Christian. Unfortunately that is like training in the martial arts under a white belt, who trained under a white belt, that trained under a white belt, that…..
It seems to that it requires a lot of faith either way. If you do believe in a God then there are a lot of inconsistencies that have to be explained. If you don’t believe in a God then there are still a lot of inconsistencies that have to be explained. Both beliefs explain something and leave something out. All I am saying it that is takes faith either way. Faith to believe that that God does exist, and faith to believe that he does not. Either way we still are stuck here right now, so we should try to make the best of it and enjoy the ride.
Yes you’re right, according to theology there are no innocent people. I just have a really hard time agreeing to that. My faith does not extend to the point of any God punishing everyone for simply living. To force someone to grasp hold of God and the church, to prevent them from being punished for not doing anything, just doesn’t sit right with me. Which is why I don’t belong to a specific practicing denomination. I’m not saying everyone should be like me, I’m a firm believer that religion does do good in the world, but that’s why my argument is how I’ve worded it, which means the two of us will never be able to agree. Different beliefs, neither of which can be proven wrong (which I think is really what this is all about).
However, I do have to say that in terms of the father analogy, it works except it’s not quite the same situation. Yes, my father is a strong believer in letting me sort things out myself and owning up to me actions and responsibility. But to let it get to a point of causing other people harm is just plain irresponsible. Let’s assume I’m going to kill someone. If he knows about it and does nothing, he is aiding the murder. And why is an earthquake a consequence? Not everyone that dies from such a disaster can deserve it.
And that kind of arguing of jealousy is semantics. No, it wasn’t the strongest argument in my argument, I know that. However, when you’re debating, any thing you can toss in before delivering the rest is good, no?;) The Bible was written so long ago and been translated so many times…not to mention how many ways it can be interpreted. I find it hard to find faith in that book also…not necessarily the lessons it teaches, but specific examples and taking everything literally. The remark was meant for this type of debate, the accuracy of the Bible.
It’s our faith that seperates us, but I believe it’s also what brings everyone together. Regardless of what we believe, we have a responsibility to each other.
(by the way, the Flying Spaghetti Monster COULD be out there somewhere…we really don’t have any way of proving it isn’t same as I don’t have any way proving God isn’t)
No argument from me. That is not at all the level of my understanding of God. Grasping ahold of God a can agree with. Today’s church, even as an active member, I cannot say the same for.
The Bible itself points to the fact that there are at least two ways of understanding what it says. Jesus himself says ‘let those with ears to hear hear me’. He was not implying that he had come only for those with physical ears ;> No, he was saying, let those that are capable of understanding the other meaning of what I say hear me. Please don’t take the whole thing literally. Here is another example.
1. I am the way and light and no one comes to the Father except by me.
2. Jesus is God
3. Interpretation. God is God and no one comes to God except by God. Assuming His existence, this is undeniable.
Was Jesus talking about his physical being or the spirit which inhabited him, his soul?
This we will never know.