Is God an Unnecessary Hypothesis?

[Thief]

 

[Polymath257]

If scientists were concerned about all the contributing causes such as those you describe, science would never happen. You can't test for multiple causes.

Of course you can. It happens all the time. You s many things constant as possible and change one and see what happens. Then you change a different one. Then a different one. Eventually you learn how all the different causes interact to produce the effect.

I offered the pool game comparison for one purpose only: to show you that knowledge of the cue ball (God) wasn't necessary to conduct science but that the fact that it isn't necessary to science doesn't logically argue for non-existence.

But if there was never a cue ball around that could be detected, why would you postulate one? Especially when actual searches also produce nothing?

Max Planck, the Nobel physicist who discovered the quantum of action, known as Planck's constant and laid the foundation for quantum theory, wrote:

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.

I don't know if Max was right, but I'm not going to be convinced he was wrong by labeling the God Hypothesis as unnecessary.

It is unnecessary to explain anything that happens in the physical universe. That can be seen by the simple fact that none of the scientific theories require such a thing and they actually work.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't think he's a monster.
Look, I recently saw a good video. Know what? It ended after 10 minutes. Was its creator a monster?

Different because of all the pain that has no human cause. If there is a deity in charge and it allows such pain and suffering, it is a monster.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Here we disagree. The muddy things can be beautiful, too. German Northsee seaside always has muddy water. Yet it is beautiful.
But if you find an ugly countryside... it may serve as a frame for the more beautiful ones.

Again, that simply demonstrates what I already said. The only thing that finding beauty in nature indicates is that different people view different things as beautiful. I don't see how it provides any sort of useful 'evidence' that some god being exists.

So tell me, IF nature is nothing more than a natural process (no god being involved) does that mean you think that no one would find anything in nature that they thought was beautiful?

 

[thomas t]

Different because of all the pain that has no human cause. If there is a deity in charge and it allows such pain and suffering, it is a monster.

or... waiting for you to do something about it...
also think of all the different suffering caused by humans...

 

[thomas t]

Again, that simply demonstrates what I already said. The only thing that finding beauty in nature indicates is that different people view different things as beautiful. I don't see how it provides any sort of useful 'evidence' that some god being exists.

should I cite studies that a majority of people finds beaches beautiful?
It's enough for God to have created a nature that's commonly perceived as beautiful, I guess.

So tell me, IF nature is nothing more than a natural process (no god being involved) does that mean you think that no one would find anything in nature that they thought was beautiful?

that's not the game please.
If the road is wet... this is evidence for some rain to have occured. Because evrything is wet. We are talking about evidence here. It could be different than wet.
But I'm not saying that if it didn't rain, the road would never be wet, of course...

 

[McBell]

or... waiting for you to do something about it...
also think of all the different suffering caused by humans...

Why do you keep trying to change the subject from god to humans?

 

[thomas t]

Why do you keep trying to change the subject from god to humans?

well, because humans do have the means to help other people. I perceive these means as given from God.

 

[QuestioningMind]

should I cite studies that a majority of people finds beaches beautiful?
It's enough for God to have created a nature that's commonly perceived as beautiful, I guess.

that's not the game please.
If the road is wet... this is evidence for some rain to have occured. Because evrything is wet. We are talking about evidence here. It could be different than wet.
But I'm not saying that if it didn't rain, the road would never be wet, of course...

should I cite studies that a majority of people finds beaches beautiful?
It's enough for God to have created a nature that's commonly perceived as beautiful, I guess.

Which means it's good evidence that different people find different things to be beautiful... while it's VERY POOR evidence that there must be some sort of a creator god.

that's not the game please.

I'm not playing a game... I'm trying to get you to clarify what you wrote. Just answer the question: So tell me, IF nature is nothing more than a natural process (no god being involved) does that mean you think that no one would find anything in nature that they thought was beautiful?

 

[McBell]

well, because humans do have the means to help other people. I perceive these means as given from God.

Looks mostly like you have not actually thought this thing through very well and are simply trying to avoid thinking it through now

 

[Aupmanyav]

Should I cite studies that a majority of people finds beaches beautiful?
It's enough for God to have created a nature that's commonly perceived as beautiful, I guess.

God could have created a world of nice people with no sorrow, hunger, poverty or crime. Why did he not do it? Or God does not have that capability and cannot do it?

 

[Ponder This]

On the contrary, the branching aspect of causality (most events have multiple causes) is quite good reason to think there would be multiple causes.

Sure. Father Time and Mother Earth, multiple causes, and a great explanation.
But this idea of multiple causes merely reinforces the idea that events have causes.
As opposed to the idea the events do not have causes. And Occam's Razor merely offers that we should first hypothesize the simpler explanation - not that the simpler explanation is the correct one.

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.

Perhaps you misunderstand the quantum world. A spike in the probability wave that leads to the position of a particle in a location is not something from nothing. It is something from something. Think carefully on this.

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.

Is it? Perhaps causality is the cause of time and perhaps causality causes itself.
Time is merely the perception of events as they take place. It is possible for two observers to observe events in reverse order, it is possible to describe the universe in reverse-time, and Time itself can be altered... Consider light. Things that move at the speed of light experience no passing of time. Yet light is bouncing around everywhere. You don't know that any time has passed at all unless something happens. So perhaps causality is the cause of time. And perhaps causality causes itself.

It is actually the guess with the LEAST evidence in its favor.

It is the simplest explanation which no evidence contradicts. But you are welcome to create more complicated hypotheses (all of which have no evidence).

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?

I am using number of causes. So one cause is less than two causes is less than three causes, etc. I'm not ordering causes into a hierarchy and saying that one cause is more or less than another cause. The premise is that there is at least one cause (because nothing comes from nothing).

Infinite regress is clever but uninformative. It merely suggests that transcendence of the material causal chain is necessary to understand the nature of the universe. And, thereby, you arrive at an Uncaused Cause anyway.

 

[joe1776]

Of course you can. It happens all the time. You s many things constant as possible and change one and see what happens. Then you change a different one. Then a different one. Eventually you learn how all the different causes interact to produce the effect.

It wasn't clear that I meant that science can't test for multiple causes at the same time. Nevertheless, I doubt your claim that it happens all the time because the practical value of science is that it might help us find causes so that we can reproduce wanted effects or prevent unwanted effects. To do either, we need to isolate causes we can change.

But if there was never a cue ball around that could be detected, why would you postulate one?

One of my reasons: I allow the possibility of a higher power because it seems to be an intuitive belief of every culture on the planet. I have a high regard for intuition. The fact that men used the belief to make false claims and build religions doesn't matter to me.

It is unnecessary to explain anything that happens in the physical universe. That can be seen by the simple fact that none of the scientific theories require such a thing and they actually work.

This argument will work with someone who already agrees with you. I don't think an agnostic, like myself, will find it persuasive.

 

[joe1776]

God could have created a world of nice people with no sorrow, hunger, poverty or crime. Why did he not do it? Or God does not have that capability and cannot do it?

Maybe life is meant to be a learning experience. Maybe we are challenged for the same reason that school teachers don't supply the answers to their tests.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure. Father Time and Mother Earth, multiple causes, and a great explanation.
But this idea of multiple causes merely reinforces the idea that events have causes.
As opposed to the idea the events do not have causes. And Occam's Razor merely offers that we should first hypothesize the simpler explanation - not that the simpler explanation is the correct one.



Perhaps you misunderstand the quantum world. A spike in the probability wave that leads to the position of a particle in a location is not something from nothing. It is something from something. Think carefully on this.

I doubt that I misunderstand quantum physics. The graduate classes in physics and the PhD qualifying exam suggest otherwise. Might I suggest that if you are talking about a 'spike' in the probability wave, then maybe you are not understanding the physics?

In particular, which specific event is actually produced is *random*. There is literally no way to know ahead of time which value will be give by a measurement beyond the probabilities.

That, at least by classical notions of causality, means that the event is NOT caused.

Is it? Perhaps causality is the cause of time and perhaps causality causes itself.

Or simply that causality is based on the natural laws of physics and only makes sense when those laws give unique predictions.

Time is merely the perception of events as they take place. It is possible for two observers to observe events in reverse order, it is possible to describe the universe in reverse-time, and Time itself can be altered...

No, time is NOT merely perception. For example, we cannot perceive the time for the decay of a muon, but we can certainly measure it.

Consider light. Things that move at the speed of light experience no passing of time. Yet light is bouncing around everywhere. You don't know that any time has passed at all unless something happens. So perhaps causality is the cause of time. And perhaps causality causes itself.

Might I also suggest you don't understand special relativity?

It is the simplest explanation which no evidence contradicts. But you are welcome to create more complicated hypotheses (all of which have no evidence).

On the contrary, to hypothesize an intelligence also requires a great deal of extra assumptions to be able to *have* an intelligence.

I am using number of causes. So one cause is less than two causes is less than three causes, etc. I'm not ordering causes into a hierarchy and saying that one cause is more or less than another cause. The premise is that there is at least one cause (because nothing comes from nothing).

Infinite regress is clever but uninformative. It merely suggests that transcendence of the material causal chain is necessary to understand the nature of the universe. And, thereby, you arrive at an Uncaused Cause anyway.

On the contrary, an infinite regress is a very simple alternative in which there is no ultimate cause.

 

[Polymath257]

or... waiting for you to do something about it...
also think of all the different suffering caused by humans...

Once again, if someone puts another in harms way, it in no way eliminates their guilt whether or not I then help them.

Waiting for someone to do something about it when it should not have happened in the first place is the problem.

Yes, humans do cause suffering. But that isn't what i am talking about. I am talking about suffering that is in no way caused by humans.

 

[Thief]

If there is a deity in charge and it allows such pain and suffering, it is a monster.

as a human.....you need your pain

grief is something else

and God gave Man dominion

 

[Thief]

God could have created a world of nice people with no sorrow, hunger, poverty or crime. Why did he not do it? Or God does not have that capability and cannot do it?

chemistry

once the rules of chemistry took hold.....life had to follow suit

that you live....other things die

and some things die.....just cause we don't like them
ever slap a mosquito?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Maybe life is meant to be a learning experience. Maybe we are challenged for the same reason that school teachers don't supply the answers to their tests.

Yeah, apologists try to defend it with various theories.

 

[thomas t]

Once again, if someone puts another in harms way, it in no way eliminates their guilt whether or not I then help them.

A comparison: If I do harm to a piece of art I just created, I am guilty of harming it. Well yeah. But I'm not accountable to my drawing, I think. The drawing can't tell me "you are guilty: anything you're changing right now should not have happened in the first place! You're such a monster!".
I'm entitled to treat the drawing the way I want. It's my property. Maybe something was not right in the drawing and I corrected it doing harm to it..
Yet the drawing is not my judge. I'm not a monster.