• 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?

joe1776

Well-Known Member
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.
We have different perceptions of cause-and-effect.

Imagine a cue ball breaking a tightly packed group of balls on a pool table. A single cause can produce multiple effects, not the reverse. Thus, a scientist could discover that the nine ball knocked the eight ball in the pocket even with no understanding of the entire event. But he'd be wrong if he argued that the cue ball wasn't involved because he didn't need knowledge of it to make his discovery.

That God is unnecessary to conduct science is not a good argument against the existence of God..
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
We have different perceptions of cause-and-effect.

Imagine a cue ball breaking a tightly packed group of balls on a pool table. A single cause can produce multiple effects, not the reverse. Thus, a scientist could discover that the nine ball knocked the eight ball in the pocket even with no understanding of the entire event. But he'd be wrong if he argued that the cue ball wasn't involved because he didn't need knowledge of it to make his discovery.

That God is unnecessary to conduct science is not a good argument against the existence of God..

Seldom are situations so clear as in the pool table. But even there, more than one cause is involved. For example, the felt on the table, if different, would have produced a different trajectory, so is validly included in the list of causes. The fact that the table is inside and not in a rain storm is also a relevant cause. Whatever brought the person to the pool table is also a cause.

You are looking for a single cause, when usually there are many causes that conspire to produce the effect. Any one being slightly different could produce a very different scenario.

And, the cue ball can be detected and tested for. It may take several pool games to find it, but there is no doubt that it can be detected. The God Hypothesis amounts to assuming an ultimate cue ball while ignoring the other causes and with no evidence for such a cue ball.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
I've certainly found it to be a wholly unnecessary hypothesis.
in my opinion there is evidence for a creative force that is loving.
Look at nature that can be this beautiful:
turquoise-2991021__340.jpg

this is my evidence. There is no evolutionary need for the sand to look beautiful besides the blue water.
And it could be different: it could be muddy and ugly always.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
in my opinion there is evidence for a creative force that is loving.
Look at nature that can be this beautiful:
turquoise-2991021__340.jpg

this is my evidence. There is no evolutionary need for the sand to look beautiful besides the blue water.
And it could be different: it could be muddy and ugly always.
Would posting a picture of parasites eating a child's eyeballs be evidence that there is no creative force, or that there is a creative force that is hateful?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
in my opinion there is evidence for a creative force that is loving.
Look at nature that can be this beautiful:
turquoise-2991021__340.jpg

this is my evidence. There is no evolutionary need for the sand to look beautiful besides the blue water.
And it could be different: it could be muddy and ugly always.

Aren't spandrels wonderful?
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Would posting a picture of parasites eating a child's eyeballs be evidence
you can post pictures of humans not helping humans who have a problem with their eyeballs. This counts as evidence for humans not assuming their tasks?
Who are you going to blame first?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
this isn't about spandrels though. It was a beautiful landscape.

Yes, humans interpret it as beautiful. But do houseflies? Or other species?

Why do *we* interpret it as beautiful?

I suspect that we see it as beautiful because of a spandrel: we find things to be beautiful that are useful for health and this fits enough of the characteristics to be found beautiful. For a species where seasides are NOT healthy, they would NOT find it to be beautiful.

In other words, its beauty is more about us and about the seaside.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
you can post pictures of humans not helping humans who have a problem with their eyeballs. This counts as evidence for humans not assuming their tasks?
Who are you going to blame first?
Let's say that I spike the lemonade at a party with a poison to which you have the antidote. Then I tell you about it, yet you do nothing. Does your being able to tell people, and provide an antidote absolve me of responsibility for poisoning the drinks in the first place?

Hint: No, it doesn't
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
you can post pictures of humans not helping humans who have a problem with their eyeballs. This counts as evidence for humans not assuming their tasks?
Who are you going to blame first?

If there was someone who gave children problems with their eyes, I would blame that person before those who don't help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ppp

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Why do *we* interpret it as beautiful?

I suspect that we see it as beautiful because of a spandrel: we find things to be beautiful that are useful for health and this fits enough of the characteristics to be found beautiful. For a species where seasides are NOT healthy, they would NOT find it to be beautiful.

In other words, its beauty is more about us and about the seaside.

There are other landscapes detrimental to human health that are beautiful, too:
iceland-2111811_960_720.jpg
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
There are other landscapes detrimental to human health that are beautiful, too:
iceland-2111811_960_720.jpg

Again, the spandrel effect: if enough similarities exist to things that are beneficial, we may well see them as beautiful, even if they are harmful.

Let's put it this way. Suppose that an intelligent species of aliens came to Earth. Would you expect them to see the same things to be beautiful as we do?

I certainly would not. I don't think that things are *objectively* beautiful. Humans may well find them to be, but that says more about us than the thing observed.
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Let's say that I spike the lemonade at a party with a poison to which you have the antidote. Then I tell you about it, yet you do nothing. Does your being able to tell people, and provide an antidote absolve me of responsibility for poisoning the drinks in the first place?

Hint: No, it doesn't
God is responsible for billions of deaths. It's my belief that he limited human life time.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
you can post pictures of humans not helping humans who have a problem with their eyeballs. This counts as evidence for humans not assuming their tasks?
Who are you going to blame first?
Moving the goal post does not help you
 

thomas t

non-denominational Christian
Let's put it this way. Suppose that an intelligent species of aliens came to Earth. Would you expect them to see the same things to be beautiful as we do?
I don't suppose anything about aliens that I don't know.
Let's apply Occam's razor now:
Hypothesis No 1) God loves us and makes things beatuful
Hypothesis No 2) a) man messes helpful landscapes and detrimental landscapes up
b) he values helpful landscapes higher than non-helpful ones
c) in general helpful landscapes look more beautiful
d) valuing beneficial landscapes higher provides man an evolutionary advantage over those who don't
e) recognizing beneficial landscapes becomes a human trait through the effects of evolution

No 2... that's too complicated, man.
 
Top