-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is God an Unnecessary Hypothesis?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Read the OP:
"It is sometimes said that "God is an unnecessary hypothesis" -- meaning there are no cases or instances when one must resort to claiming god did it in order to explain anything about the nature of the physical universe."
This sets out pretty clearly the sense in which the God Hypothesis is or is not unnecessary. it specifically limits consideration to the physical universe, which ultimately means, it limits considerations to science.
And, in explaining things about the physical universe, there are no known cases where one *must* resort to claiming a God did it.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
So, science doesn't need God to explain anything that is within its limited scope. It can offer alternate causes.
Can I assume that, in your mind, that statement makes an argument against the existence of a higher power as a cause of everything?
I think it is 'instinctual' to see motive in most events. The chimp that thinks the leaves moving might be due to a predator is more likely to survive than the one that does not. So we automatically see motive even when there is none.
The same happens with detecting faces. We naturally see faces, even in clouds. It is part of out pattern recognition apparatus.
Many people give their cars names, or claim their computer has desires (often malicious). Jokingly, of course. But it is the same basic drive.
Not the question of the OP.
But yes, it does. A creator that leaves no evidence is as good as non-existent anyway.
joe1776
Well-Known Member
You're mistaken. You're forgetting that cause-and-effect happens in chains.
All cause-and-effect chains go back to the Beginning. The mere fact that science can identify the prior cause of an effect tells us nothing whatsoever about the Beginning. Nothing.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Sounds like the question of whether or not there is a First Cause.
Multiple Causes would be unnecessary hypotheses (Occam's Razor).
And No Cause leaves the question as to how anything can happen at all (No Cause is insufficient to explain because nothing comes from nothing).
So it would seem that a First Cause is the first best guess (hypothesis) as it both assumes the least, while at the same time providing a sufficient explanation. That doesn't mean that it is the correct assumption...
But to sum up: God is both sufficient and necessary to explain anything because He is the least sufficient cause to explain anything.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
the universe (one word)
had a Cause
How do you know? And, even if it did, why call it a God, unless you can show it was intelligent?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
No, cause and effect happens in trees, not chains. There are usually multiple causes for any event, which brings into serious question the concept of a single ultimate cause.
But, I would also question the very concept of a cause for the universe. You see, causality requires time and time is part of the universe. That means that causality is part of the universe and so a cause for the universe itself is contradictory.
But, more so, we KNOW of events that are not caused in any conventional sense of the term: most quantum events are not.
Well, I evolved and thoughts and information processing are crucial for survival.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
why form billions of learning devices ?
only to have them crumble into dust
learning devices.....the human body
produces a unique spirit on each occasion
On the contrary, the branching aspect of causality (most events have multiple causes) is quite good reason to think there would be multiple causes.
And that simply means that you want an explanation where there isn't one" only randomness. But, that is the nature of the quantum world, so the possibility of no cause is quite likely.
But it is also likely for other reasons. Causality itself is based on a time sequence and time is part of the universe. In particular, time itself cannot be caused and thereby the universe itself cannot be either.
It is actually the guess with the LEAST evidence in its favor.
Really? How is that? Why does such a 'least sufficient cause' exist? What ordering are you using? How do you kn are not multiple such? Why no infinite regress?
Who said anything is 'built'? Again, that presupposes a consciousness, which is not in evidence.
Also, this puts *way* too much emphasis on one species living on one small planet in a very big universe. it sounds like ants asking why the universe is so specially made for them.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
about reduction?
reverse the motion we see in our telescopes......all the way back to the primordial singularity
just ONE
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and we are specially made for this planet
physically.....living somewhere else would be a trick
and considering the complexity it takes to be human
THAT is also some trick
Nope, not the case. if you are talking about the Big Bang, you clearly have some wrong ideas about it. it was NOT located in just one place, for example. It was literally everywhere.
The term 'singularity' probably doesn't mean what you think it means. It isn't an event.
We evolved on this planet, which is why we fit so well. Sort of like the pond wondering why the banks fit it so well.