Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The construct of god as an explanation for anything causes more problems than it solves.
1) One has not given an explanation if one has not proposed a mechanism. Giving god credit for something leads to the illusion that one has offered a satisfactory explanation, when one has actually not said much of anything. To illustrate, allow me to use "gremlins" for the word "god".
Where did the matter/energy for the Big Bang come from? "Gremlins did it". It sounds like I gave an explanation, but I proposed no mechanism, so I never really answered the question or explained where the matter/energy came from. So the question still remains. Yet, some theists criticize atheists for not having a definitive answer for this question. My point is that theists don't have an answer either. "God" by itself is not an answer. Where did god get the matter/energy from? "Oh, he is omnipotent so he can just do things like that". That is not an explanation. I could claim the same for Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Invisible Pink Unicorns.
2) Immaterial and material gods. People have many different concepts of god, so it makes showing the problems with god’s properties difficult, because not every theist believes he has such and such a property. But, allow me to address the problem immaterial beings have.
How does an immaterial being interact or have any influence on a material being? Being immaterial, god has no weight (i.e., no gravitational pull), no electrostatic charge (he can't touch or hold any material thing), no electro-magnetic waves (he is not light, cannot be seen, and cannot influence things that can be influenced by light), he has no molecules that can hold heat energy, etc. If he is immaterial, he has no physical force or energy with which to interact with the physical world. Mind powers don't cut it. How would an immaterial mind exert a physical force to move a planet, etc? What makes the physical world physical is that it responds to physical forces. And energy and light are physical. Remember E=mc^2? Matter/energy is one thing. Kinetic energy, heat, etc, are natural and part of the physical world.
By this point, some theists are saying, "OK, an immaterial god won't work because although we can dream of beings that can move physical objects with their mind, there is no mechanism to make it happen, so I changed my mind and now my god is a material god". So, now the problem is how does a material god do all the things people claim he does through natural means? And why haven’t physicists detected any physical forces of unknown origin doing everything from altering the rate at which neurons fire in human brains to stopping bullets from going through garments.
Look, a neuron does not fire unless the charge on the inside of neuron reaches -70 mV. Since we have already established that it would take some physical force to do that, why do we not find any out of place electrical charges targeting certain neurons so that God can give you a thought that you would not have had without his interference? That is just one issue. You name whatever you think god has done and tell me why we cannot find any trace of physical evidence that he did or is doing something.
Someone yells, “We just haven’t discovered it, yet”. Well, my friend, everything is happening naturally and normally according to the natural laws of physics. There is no evidence that the system is being acted upon. If god is physical then he is an actor in the physical universe and we should be able to detect him doing things that change the normal course things would follow. Now, someone will bring up the strange behavior exhibited by sub-atomic particles in which quantum mechanics rules supreme. The strange behavior of mesons and such does not help the theist out. I am willing to show how it is not helpful if someone posits a coherent theory of how god uses quantum mechanics to answer prayers, etc.
3) The probability of the existence of a god complex enough to be able to create physical laws and constants is less likely than the probability of the physical laws and constants existing without a creator. As difficult as it is for some of you to believe that something as complex as the universe exists as it is without a creator, it is even a bigger leap to believe that something way more complex, a god that can manipulate the constants of the universe, exists without a creator. Now, Mormons believe god did have a creator, namely a father god, but this only moves the same question back a step and does nothing to solve the problem. You are attempting to solve the problem of how something complex can exist without a creator by supposing something even more complex existing without a creator. This does not prove that a god does not exist, because even highly improbable things can happen if given enough trials. But, it does make moot the argument for the existence of god due to the probabilities of the universe being the way it is without a creator. And you have made the whole matter worse by introducing a god whose existence and properties must be explained.
In conclusion, using the concept of god as an explanatory factor for anything that happens in the universe creates more problems than it solves. Without a stated mechanism by which god does his miraculous deeds, using god as an explanation explains nothing. Immaterial beings have to have some interface by which to influence physical things. The question of how one gets an immaterial thing to influence a physical object is a lot more difficult than explaining whatever you need to explain without god. And finally, using a god to explain the origin of the universe just moves the questions back one step and makes the task even more difficult because now you have to account for something even more complex than the original question.
The construct of god as an explanation for anything causes more problems than it solves.
If this is true . . . why hasn't the same thing happened with the use of "Nature?"
Quote:
1) One has not given an explanation if one has not proposed a mechanism. Giving god credit for something leads to the illusion that one has offered a satisfactory explanation, when one has actually not said much of anything. To illustrate, allow me to use "gremlins" for the word "god".
Why not us the word "Nature" . . . which is what is actually done.
Quote:
Where did the matter/energy for the Big Bang come from? "Gremlins did it". It sounds like I gave an explanation, but I proposed no mechanism, so I never really answered the question or explained where the matter/energy came from. So the question still remains. Yet, some theists criticize atheists for not having a definitive answer for this question. My point is that theists don't have an answer either. "God" by itself is not an answer. Where did god get the matter/energy from? "Oh, he is omnipotent so he can just do things like that". That is not an explanation. I could claim the same for Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Invisible Pink Unicorns.
You mean like this: "Where did the matter/energy for the Big Bang come from? "Nature did it". It sounds like I gave an explanation, but I proposed no mechanism, so I never really answered the question or explained where the matter/energy came from. So the question still remains. Yet, some theists criticize atheists for not having a definitive answer for this question. My point is that theists don't have an answer either. "Nature" by itself is not an answer. Where did "Nature" get the matter/energy from? "Oh, IT just is." That is not an explanation. I could claim the same for Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Invisible Pink Unicorns"
Quote:
2) Immaterial and material gods. People have many different concepts of god, so it makes showing the problems with god’s properties difficult, because not every theist believes he has such and such a property. But, allow me to address the problem immaterial beings have.
How does an immaterial being interact or have any influence on a material being? Being immaterial, god has no weight (i.e., no gravitational pull), no electrostatic charge (he can't touch or hold any material thing), no electro-magnetic waves (he is not light, cannot be seen, and cannot influence things that can be influenced by light), he has no molecules that can hold heat energy, etc. If he is immaterial, he has no physical force or energy with which to interact with the physical world. Mind powers don't cut it. How would an immaterial mind exert a physical force to move a planet, etc? What makes the physical world physical is that it responds to physical forces. And energy and light are physical. Remember E=mc^2? Matter/energy is one thing. Kinetic energy, heat, etc, are natural and part of the physical world.
This exhibits serious misunderstanding about the nature of our reality. Materiality is the illusion. The quark/gluon plasma thought to be the essence of our reality (with the Higgs Boson as the ultimate "God particle") reflects the strong conditioning of "materiality" on our thinking. There are no "particles" of any kind . . . just vibratory "energy events" in the "perfect fluid" of the universal field that comprises our reality. The materiality comes about by the aggregation of these "vibratory energy events" through frequency interference, resonance and dissonance . . . like energy "traffic jams" that our senses and their extensions can detect. The "semi-permanence" we see results from the "standing wave forms" of these " vibrational energy traffic jams." Our consciousness is the purest form of vibratory energy and . . . as pure energy . . . is eternal.
Quote:
By this point, some theists are saying, "OK, an immaterial god won't work because although we can dream of beings that can move physical objects with their mind, there is no mechanism to make it happen, so I changed my mind and now my god is a material god". So, now the problem is how does a material god do all the things people claim he does through natural means? And why haven’t physicists detected any physical forces of unknown origin doing everything from altering the rate at which neurons fire in human brains to stopping bullets from going through garments.
Strawman . . . ALL of our "forces" are of unknown origins . . . despite our naming them. Materiality is simply a range of vibrational energy aggregation ("traffic jams") within the same range as our sensory system.
Quote:
Look, a neuron does not fire unless the charge on the inside of neuron reaches -70 mV. Since we have already established that it would take some physical force to do that, why do we not find any out of place electrical charges targeting certain neurons so that God can give you a thought that you would not have had without his interference? That is just one issue. You name whatever you think god has done and tell me why we cannot find any trace of physical evidence that he did or is doing something.
Because everything that is being done is of God. God is NOT separate from the reality we inhabit.
Quote:
Someone yells, “We just haven’t discovered it, yet”. Well, my friend, everything is happening naturally (you mean by God's will and design) and normally according to the natural laws of physics (you mean according to God's laws of physics). There is no evidence that the system is being acted upon. (Sigh!) If god is physical then he is an actor in the physical universe and we should be able to detect him doing things that change the normal (you mean God designed) course things would follow. Now, someone will bring up the strange behavior exhibited by sub-atomic particles in which quantum mechanics rules supreme. The strange behavior of mesons and such does not help the theist out. I am willing to show how it is not helpful if someone posits a coherent theory of how god uses quantum mechanics to answer prayers, etc. (you've left the science arena and have entered the belief arena . . . apples and oranges)
I hope my clarifications in red were helpful.
Quote:
3) The probability of the existence of a god complex enough to be able to create physical laws and constants is less likely than the probability of the physical laws and constants existing without a creator. As difficult as it is for some of you to believe that something as complex as the universe exists as it is without a creator, it is even a bigger leap to believe that something way more complex, a god that can manipulate the constants of the universe, exists without a creator.
Why must God be this uber-complex additional thing? Why are they NOT the same thing we already have?"
Quote:
Now, Mormons believe god did have a creator, namely a father god, but this only moves the same question back a step and does nothing to solve the problem. You are attempting to solve the problem of how something complex can exist without a creator by supposing something even more complex existing without a creator. This does not prove that a god does not exist, because even highly improbable things can happen if given enough trials. But, it does make moot the argument for the existence of god due to the probabilities of the universe being the way it is without a creator. And you have made the whole matter worse by introducing a god whose existence and properties must be explained.
More irrelevant belief nonsense having nothing to do with science.
Quote:
In conclusion, using the concept of god as an explanatory factor for anything that happens in the universe creates more problems than it solves.
No more so than using "Nature" to do the same thing. Your other arguments have been dealt with as relevant only to belief systems . . . NOT science.
Just for argument's sake, lets look at mormon beliefs, which you mention (correct me if I'm wrong Katzpur ). Mormons believe god is a physical, material being. Said god also wears white robes and has a throne to sit on which must have been manufactured in some way. He also lives on a physical world called Kolob. If god wears clothes and can make a throne, and has an actual dwelling place, then who's to say he doesn't have a physical craft to travel around with or a physical genetics lab or a physical vial of algae to pour in a puddle of primordial earth water.
I'm not saying the mormons are right, but your argument still doesn't prove life on earth or the universe itself wasn't a creation instead of an accident, just that an immaterial god is unlikely in a physical world.
material nature is a part of God's energy but it is Him that controls it and although at the same time it is Him,He is also seperate from it.
but when people say nature did it instead of God did it they dont realize that nature is a partial energy of God but its God who has the intellegence and power to create and nature is under His guidance.TWIB
We don't just willy-nilly toss "Nature" around in the same way that theists do with "God", Mystic.
In our case, we only seek to actually understand the simplest possible version of HOW things may have happened, and by what reasonable process, and by golly, durned if we haven't discovered many things that even you agree on. How toasters work, or that new HD TV you just bought. Or how different species arose.
You just choose to add in a completely unnecessary component, one that adds nothing to the rationale, and in fact, as to the OP's excellent and logical points, simply clouds up the waters. For no good reason other than theists would rather have that supernatural (i.e.: illogical and unnecessary) bit in there. Simply to make them feel all warm, protected and loved. And likely, to guarantee a safe afterlife.
It's philosophically like insisting that your new HD TV musthave God inside it in order to be understandable or to work. Why?
How is it that non-Christian civilizations (the Mayans, the ancient Chinese, the East Indians, the native Africans, the various American Plains Indians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Huns, the original Arabs, the natives of Amazonia, the original Hawaiians, the Inuit... shall I go on?) were quite able to function perfectly well, and to contribute in their own way to honest science and documented worldly knowledge completelyabsent the Abrahamic, or in some cases, ANY iconic and invented, Godly figure?
If He's so gawl-durned super critical to everything, why didn't He visit himself upon a jungle tribe in the Amazon? Or the Inuit? Why is there no global consensus for your particular god as an absolute necessity? In fact, all those various iconic myths conflict time- and fact-wise. So Why indeed...
He's an unnecessary construct, pure and simple. That's the right answer here.
How is it that non-Christian civilizations (the Mayans, the ancient Chinese, the East Indians, the native Africans, the various American Plains Indians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Huns, the original Arabs, the natives of Amazonia, the original Hawaiians, the Inuit... shall I go on?) were quite able to function perfectly well, and to contribute in their own way to honest science and documented worldly knowledge completelyabsent the Abrahamic, or in some cases, ANY iconic and invented, Godly figure?
If He's so gawl-durned super critical to everything, why didn't He visit himself upon a jungle tribe in the Amazon? Or the Inuit? Why is there no global consensus for your particular god as an absolute necessity? In fact, all those various iconic myths conflict time- and fact-wise. So Why indeed...
He's an unnecessary construct, pure and simple. That's the right answer here.
What culture exists absent of ANY religion of any sort? I can't think of a single one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). Mormons believe god is a physical, material being. Said god also wears white robes and has a throne to sit on which must have been manufactured in some way. He also lives on a physical world called Kolob. If god wears clothes and can make a throne, and has an actual dwelling place, then who's to say he doesn't have a physical craft to travel around with or a physical genetics lab or a physical vial of algae to pour in a puddle of primordial earth water. 
And oh BTW...
