Scientific Proof Of God

[superuniverse]

A little article posing massive problems for our godders.

Does the size of the universe prove God doesn’t exist?

Scientists now know that the universe contains at least two trillion galaxies. It’s a mind-scrunchingly big place, very different to the conception of the universe we had when the world’s major religions were founded. So do the astronomical discoveries of the last few centuries have implications for religion?

Over the last few decades, a new way of arguing for atheism has emerged. Philosophers of religion such as Michael Martin and Nicholas Everitt have asked us to consider the kind of universe we would expect the Christian God to have created, and compare it with the universe we actually live in. They argue there is a mismatch. Everitt focuses on how big the universe is, and argues this gives us reason to believe the God of classical Christianity doesn’t exist.

To explain why, we need a little theology. Traditionally, the Christian God is held to be deeply concerned with human beings. Genesis (1:27) states: “God created mankind in his own image.” Psalms (8:1-5) says: “O Lord … What is man that You take thought of him … Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!” And, of course, John (3:16) explains God gave humans his son out of love for us.

These texts show that God is human-oriented: human beings are like God, and he values us highly. Although we’re focusing on Christianity, these claims can be found in other monotheistic religions, too.

We will include this nonsensical article...

[Hermit]

It is impossible for a universe consisting of trillions of galaxies, a number limited by the instruments we use to measure them, for it to come from nothing.

Just speaking for myself, I never claimed the universe came from nothing. I just say I don't know how it came about, and neither do you.

[Seabass]

Do You Really Believe?

[NineBerry]

Logic is a very human thing. Surely, such a huge universe has room for things that go beyond human logic.

[Cunt]

I just put a truth-table together, plugged in that last statement, and it proved god.

Unfortunately, it didn't prove God, and didn't specify which god it proved, so it leaves a field rich for research.

[NineBerry]

[Brian Peacock]

Didn't we deal with all that in 2009?

No.

Ok. The absence of material evidence in support of claims for supernatural entities justifiably supports the conclusion that supernatural entities do not exist.

Absurd. It's like saying that the absence of material evidence in support of claims for black swans justifiably supports the conclusion that black swans do not exist.

Which it does. When I see evidence of black swans or supernatural entities, or anything else a human can imagine and then described, then I'll re-evaluate my conclusion. The standard here is not found in proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence is forthcoming.

[Hermit]

Didn't we deal with all that in 2009?

No.

Ok. The absence of material evidence in support of claims for supernatural entities justifiably supports the conclusion that supernatural entities do not exist.

Absurd. It's like saying that the absence of material evidence in support of claims for black swans justifiably supports the conclusion that black swans do not exist.

Which it does. When I see evidence of black swans or supernatural entities, or anything else a human can imagine and then described, then I'll re-evaluate my conclusion. The standard here is not found in proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence is forthcoming.

I can't work out what you are saying here, or if you are even addressing the problem I tried to illustrate by means of the black swan analogy. Maybe if I try to rephrase it, you might do likewise by replying directly to how I put it now: Lack of evidence for the existence of black swans is not proof of the non-existence of black swans. If it were, we'd have to come to the absurd conclusion that black swans did not exist until we found evidence of their existence.

[superuniverse]

"A little article posing massive problems for our godders."

And "two trillion galaxies" is a slight understatement.

Lol yeah right. The exact opposite is true.

[JimC]

The key to the whole "proof" argument is that it is simply unnecessary. There is no practical value in proving non-existence of a supposed entity, so whether it is logically possible or not to do so is not of any critical importance. "Hard agnosticism", in which one states that there is no point in assuming via faith that a god entity exists, given that its existence is not needed to explain anything in the observable universe, and that no credible evidence for its existence has been demonstrated. Without directly stating "god does not exist", and leaving open the possibility (however remote one might view it) of some future evidence of such an existence, one avoids the charge of illogic that certain pedants might otherwise make...

[Hermit]

The key to the whole "proof" argument is that it is simply unnecessary. There is no practical value in proving non-existence of a supposed entity, so whether it is logically possible or not to do so is not of any critical importance. "Hard agnosticism", in which one states that there is no point in assuming via faith that a god entity exists, given that its existence is not needed to explain anything in the observable universe, and that no credible evidence for its existence has been demonstrated. Without directly stating "god does not exist", and leaving open the possibility (however remote one might view it) of some future evidence of such an existence, one avoids the charge of illogic that certain pedants might otherwise make...

I agree with all of that, Jim, but my line of posting started with your 'fix' of Svartalf's comment.

You don't believe in a loving god then Denis - only the thin-skinned, spiteful, brutal, abusive god?

Anyway, between the babble and a reality check, the myth of a god is thoroughly dispelled, debunked, and relegated to QAnon conspiracy theory.

Changing 'God' to 'god' is a mistake, and "...the myth of a god is thoroughly dispelled, debunked..." is too close to "having been proven to not exist" for my liking.

[JimC]

Not for me - I can see a thin sliver of light between "...the myth of a god is thoroughly dispelled, debunked..." and "having been proven to not exist"...

[superuniverse]

Ok. So who created the heavens and the earth?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Warlike Bronze Age agrarians had it all figured out. We needn't trouble ourselves, because they answered the big questions thousands of years ago. Satisfied? Good. Now run along.

[JimC]

Ok. So who created the heavens and the earth?

You observe that many things on Earth are created by direct human action, and you then assume that "being created" is the only way to explain the existence of things. Other possibilities exist, and have been explored by theoretical physicists and cosmologists for years. Fore example:

* the Universe has simply always existed, and so there was never a time "before"

* The Universe has an eternal cycle of big bang and big crunch

* our Universe started as a quantum fluctuation in space-time, and grew from there

* Universes continually bud off from events in a larger, 11 dimensional multiverse