h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Arguments for belief: Circular reasoning, blind faith, appeals to authority, faked evidence, and pseudoscience.

Arguments for nonbelief: Evolution theory, consistency in the fossil record, geological and astronomical evidence for natural creation, extrasolar planets, evidence of bacteria on Mars, historical analysis of the evolution of myths, absolute failure of any myth to produce tangible evidence to support their beliefs, constant revelation of faked evidence for belief.

In order to have any sort of discussion about god, you must first define him. Caledonian shirks from any definition, which would make my arguments meaningless to him. I stand by my earlier definitions, even if it turns out that I invented the word panathiesm. All conceptions of god are of a creator. If we find some sort of higher life form that isn't our creator, then it is something else. If it is something else, it is not god. To recap those definitions:

Many gods: we all agree on this one.
One god: logically insupportable.
All is god: no different from atheism

Why do I get the feeling that you're arguing against Christianity specifically?

Defining what God might be is a remarkably difficult task. For examples, many of your arguments are centered around the Christian belief that God directly designed and created specific aspects of the universe, making them into forms that they would never 'naturally' have taken on their own. But why should that be part of the definition of God? Should God be comprehensible by human beings or not? Should God think like human beings or not? Should God think at all? Should God be immortal? Eternal? All-powerful? Why should we agree on one set of characteristics for God, when we have no reason to assume that any God would have them? Who says that God would have to be our Creator? Not all conceptions of God include that idea, after all.

If you put forward a definition, then we can at least determine if we are capable of verifying or disproving the existence of a God that fits that definition. If we can, then we can determine if the God exists or not. Otherwise, we can't. I await your response.

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian

A single creature wouldn't have anything to think about after a while. Although you might think that it might think about itself, we've tried that with humans -- they go insane. (Long-term sensory deprivation is remarkably unpleasant.) Without external sources of information, a 'sentient' being has nothing to process. Using the common sense of the word, then, God (or the universe, whatever) cannot be sentient, since God has nothing outside of himself to interact with.

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian

I'm not attacking Christianity specifically, but all religions. The Christians do generate most of the arguments for belief, but every religion is guilty of at least some of those. Besides, the pantheism and panatheism (I'm going to stick to it, regardless of whether it is a made-up word... besides, isn't that how we get new words? ) arguments are totally non-Christian, and the monotheism arguments apply to the entire Judeo-Christian family of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They're easy to attack as a group, since they share the same roots in the Torah.

As for the definitions of god, that is exactly why I kept my definition very loose, only coralling him on one issue: creation. Not all gods have been immortal (although those who die have an alarming tendency to rebirth, Jesus being only the last in a long line of dying and rising gods), nor necessarily omnipotent, omnipresent, or omiscient. But the gods of every mythos are the creators of the earth and man. So if one particular attribute can be understood to apply to god, it is that he (or they, or it) created life, the universe, and everything. If creation can be shown to have occurred without the interference of an exterior life force, then there is no god. We might discover some alien life force that has greater power than we, and is further evolved, but unless that entity created the earth, it is not god. It is something else. Therefore, every bit of evidence that supports a natural progression from ethereal soup to abundant life is an argument against god. That pool of evidence is only getting larger, ever since we started building it in the 1850's.

You're generalising from humans to all possible intelligences there - and you accuse atheists of making leaps of faith...

Humans are 'designed' to interact with an external environment. It is no surprise, then, that when that environment is taken away from them they go mad. This would not be a necessity for all intelligent entities - it's just that evolution on earth produces a certain type of intelligence.

Same reason that you can fly without feathers, come to that.

That only means that God (if He exists) can't be intelligent in the same way humans are. It's perfectly possible that God could be intelligent in a different way.

The same argument applies to the universe, as well. Then again, those who believe the universe if sentient often also believe that we can't never understand HOW it is sentient.

I don't think I've made any leaps of faith here -- if my assumption is correct, then God/universe can't be humanly sentient. Of course, it's easily possible that I'm wrong in my assumption.

Here's a question for you, though: how exactly do you define intelligence? (In other words, what must all intelligent things share to be considered intelligent?)

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian

Some people believe that God might only have created the universe, and everything arose out of the universe on its own. I've even heard claims that God has nothing whatsoever to do with the universe, just interacts with it occasionally (out of curiosity? Who knows that would motivate a God, or if one would even have motivations?).

There are even some God-like entities (whether they're Gods or not is mostly a semantic issue) that don't do anything at all. Buddhist beliefs about nirvana are possibly the most well-known example of this.

How do you deal with these 'Gods'?

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian

"Some people believe that God might only have created the universe, and everything arose out of the universe on its own." - This still fails the logical test for monotheistic systems. If god were to create the universe, he would have to be many times more complex than the universe. Unless you want to get caught in the infinite logical loop, you have to argue that either god, or the universe, created itself. Since the universe would be much simpler in design than god, the universe would be infinitely more likely to create itself than god.

"I've even heard claims that God has nothing whatsoever to do with the universe, just interacts with it occasionally" - This concept comes to us from Deism, a system of beliefs (it wasn't really a religion) that influenced the founders of the US. Wherever you find references to the Deist god, you'll find him named The Creator. That's because he created the world, then got bored and wandered off. It explained why prayers were never answered, but still gave them a framework for the creation of the world that they could deal with. But the bottom line is this: he still created the earth. If you have some sort of entity that did not create the earth, and interacts with it only occassionally or not at all, then you have something which is not god.

"There are even some God-like entities (whether they're Gods or not is mostly a semantic issue) that don't do anything at all. Buddhist beliefs about nirvana are possibly the most well-known example of this." - I'm afraid it is NOT a semantic issue. If we are going to accomplish anything in a conversation about god or gods, we have to define our terms. If they are not gods, they are irrelevant to the discussion. I don't know where you're going with the nirvana thing, though... could you elucidate?

"If God were to create the universe, he would have to be many times more complex than the universe." Actually, no. There's no particular reason to assume that a created or designed object must be less complex than its creator/designer, so your logical test is invalid.

There are concepts other than Deism in which God doesn't normally interact with the universe. In some, God wasn't even involved with the creation of the universe in the first place. Such a being would not be God according to your definition, but you haven't shown any reason why we should accept your definition as being the 'right' one.

How do you justify defining a God as something that's involved with creation? What is your logical basis for doing so?

In Nirvana, a person achieves enlightenment -- which essentially is awareness of the futility of desiring things. An completely enlightened person no longer wants or wishes for anything. They have unlimited power, but never use it; they perceive the entire universe, past and present, but never interfere or interact. They're eternal and unchanging simply because they never bother changing, not because they want to stay the way they are. Such a state is thought to be Godlike by some...

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian

Well, given that normally Buddhists are included as a class of atheists by a large number of sources, I'd say that there is a crucial difference between being 'godlike' and being a god.

Aside from the facet of creation, another very common attribute of God is that it requires worship. A santa who didn't give out presents or have reindeer would not be santa.

This is turning into a language issue - so I'll hasten to copy and paste from my recently acquired copy of the SOED:-

God(1) - A superhuman person regarded as having power over nature and human fortunes; a deity. Also, the deity of a specified area of nature, human activity, etc. OE.

Well I don't like that definition: it's too wide. Superintelligent aliens would fall under that category too, provided they looked sufficiently humanlike, and they patently aren't Gods.

How about Merriam-Webster? They say:-

God(1) capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

God(2) : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

Cambridge Dictionaries:-

God(SPIRIT) a spirit or being believed to control some part of the universe or life and often worshipped for doing so, or a representation of the being

God(MAKER) capitalised : (in esp. Christian, Jewish and Muslim belief) the being which made the universe, the Earth and its people and is believed to have an effect on all things

Those definitions seem to me to be more accurate.

There's no particular reason to assume that a created or designed object must be less complex than its creator/designer" - This statement is absurd. In order to create, the creator must be able to contain a conception of the design in his mind. That mind is, therefore, already more complex than the design, because apart from containing the design, it also contains the personality, motivations, and basic functions of the designer. That mind is then kept alive by whatever method is required, which requires more mechanisms which are also more complex. No single man has ever created anything more complex than him, although there have been cases where many men have created something more complex than one (the space station comes to mind), but the whole is still simpler than the sum of the creators.

"How do you justify defining a God as something that's involved with creation?" - If you refuse to place any kind of definition on god, then the entire discussion becomes meaningless. Name a religion where the god is not the creator. No more vague "in some religions"... I want a solid, real, tangible example.

"Such a state is thought to be Godlike by some... " - Except, of course, by Buddhists, who steadfastly deny that there is anything in their religion which might be called "god."

A single cell can grow into an immensely complex organism with hundreds of billions of cells. Would you therefore say that the cell must be more complex than the resulting body? Of course not. If a divine being caused, say, a empty void to experience a quantum fluctuation and have the universe pop out of nothingness, it wouldn't have to be more complex than the resulting combinations of matter and energy -- it would only have to be complex enough to fracture the fluctuation.

Additionally, you're confusing the concept or the idea of the object and the object itself. A conception can never be more complex than the mind that is having it, but the OBJECT of that conception can easily be more complex in actuality than the mind. For example, the blueprints of a car could be understood by a single human mind, but the car itself is far more complex than the human mind can comprehend. I can mold a clay bowl, but I can't understand the total amount of detail the bowl has -- but I can still say that I designed the bowl. A God could have designed aspects of the physical universe without 'fully' understanding the universe itself.

Your argument is only valid if the universe is considered to be an actual 'idea' of God, that its only existence is within God's mind. That's not the only conception of what the universe is, so you haven't proven anything. QED.

I can't think of any well-known major religions in which God is not the creator in some way. I know that, in some interpretations of various religions, God was/wasn't involved with the design or creation of various things. Some Christians believe that God specifically designed and put together everything that exists, while others believe that God only started the universe and everything arose 'naturally' out of that beginning. I know several people whose 'Gods' don't affect anything and who weren't involved in the creations of anything, but their beliefs are idiosyncratic: major religions all seem to have the idea. So what? Five thousand years ago, everyone would have agreed that the world was flat -- does that mean that we can only discuss possible shapes for Earth that involve flat planes?

Buddhists believe that there are actually "Gods" (or what most religions would consider Gods), but that they're not truly important, as they can't help humans to achieve enlightenment and are incapable of enlightenment themselves. It's even implied by some that they're creations of humans, not the other way around. I don't think that it's true that there's nothing in Buddhism that could be called 'god'.

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian

Interesting points.

If we assume that a God must REQUIRE human worship, then it could easily be argued that there are only two possible cases to consider:

1) There is no God.

2) God is so unimaginably incompetent that He cannot make clear to the human race what He is so that we can appropriately worship Him.

Given the premise, the conclusion that God doesn't exist is a lot more reasonable. Not all definitions of God include the worship requirement, though.

Quite a few of the definitions you give involve God controlling or influencing the world. At this point, I don't think that we understand the world well enough to be able to say if there are any 'outside' influences or not.

Your points about Buddhism (as well as Colonel Sellers) are good. Both Buddhism and Hinduism are such complex religions that I can't really evaluate them well at all. For instance, I've heard arguments for and against the statement that Hinduism is a monotheistic religion -- I have no idea what it 'really' is.

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian

"the car itself is far more complex than the human mind can comprehend" - I wouldn't quite say that... I've known fantastic mechanics who weren't particularly bright in other areas. But remember, cars are no longer designed by a single person.

"If a divine being caused, say, a empty void to experience a quantum fluctuation and have the universe pop out of
nothingness, it wouldn't have to be more complex than the resulting combinations of matter and energy -- it would only have to be complex enough to fracture the fluctuation." - Now please explain to me why we need a divine being to be the catalyst.

"I know several people whose 'Gods' don't affect anything and who weren't involved in the creations of anything" - Now you've tacitly admitted that they made up their own gods. Why should I believe in them? Why should I believe in any? Remember, every god originally began as someone's invisible friend.

re: buddhism. Warning: info taken from website, passing through fallible mind to get here.

I seem to recall the Buddhist 'gods' being rather similar to the norse gods - stuck away in valhalla, drinking wine and making merry. They are an extension to karma - if you do really bad, then you go to 'hell', if you do really good, you go to 'heaven'. In both cases when you die you'll get reincarnated again, either higher or lower.

We have no contact in this life with denizens of either heaven or hell - they are simply seperate planes of existance.

denizens of heaven can't be enlightened because they have it too easy - you need to be away of the possibility of suffering. denizens of hell don't have the self-awareness required. Humans, then, have the best chance.

Being in heaven is bad for your chances of enlightenment, but on the plus side is widely considered to be rather fun. Therefore one tries to behave in a 'good' way. It helps that behaving in a good way comes rather naturally to the partially enlightened.

I'd say that the denizens of buddhist heaven are not gods because:

-> They are just normal people like you or I, who behaved particularly well in a former life.
-> They don't require worship. Nor are they worthy of worship.
-> They didn't create diddly squat
-> They don't effect the world
-> A distinct lack of hammers. Every god should have a hammer.

re: earth being flat.

I thought of a useful extension to this analogy here. Suppose we are in the era before anybody worked out the world had curvature - I'd say ancient greece, and try to ignore the fact they had a decent port, so they'd have known.

Now, I come to you and I say "the best way to create a map is with cartesian co-ordinates - I have here a proof that it gives the same accuracy at all points on the map, and this is a good thing."

And you say "how can you be so sure? What if we had some strange country where, if you went far enough in one direction, you'd get back to your original position. Surely cartesian co-ordinates would fail miserably?"

Or, to be more analogical, "how can you be so sure? what if your concept of a mappable area is wrong in some weird, but undefined way, which I'm not going to elucidate on."

And the reply would come back "look here - I have ye olde dictionary, and it says what a map is. I have every map every drawn. For every one of these, cartesian co-ordinates are the best and fairest solution."

"but what about maps yet to be conceived?" you reply.

I can hear an audible groan at this point. "That's why I've got a proof - given a description of what a map is, and what a co-ordinate system is, it follows thus. I've even written QED on the bottom, and they haven't invented Roman yet."

"But what about maps which don't fit your description of what a map is?"

"It's not my description - it's everyone's description. If it don't fall into this description, it ain't a map!"

And then, these being less civilised times, there would have been punches thrown, of course.

--
And so looking back on this we can come to two conclusions: a correct one, and an incorrect one. The incorrect one is to say that ancient caledonian was right, and the maps of the world prove it to be so. The correct one is to say that with the discovery of the curvature of the earth, the concept of what it is to be a map changed, and the old concept acquired a new name - the 2D Euclidean Map. And the statement that cartesian co-ordinates are the best for that type of map still holds.

Gods which don't require worship? Pray tell.

Gods which don't require worship? Pray tell.

It doesn't matter if a car is designed by a single person -- the car contains more information on the atomic level for a billion humans to understand.

What does needing a divine being have to do with anything? It can't be excluded from the realm of possibility, which is why we can't say it's impossible without evidence. Saying it happened also requires proof, of course...

No, they didn't make them up -- but their gods were sufficiently unlike the generally accepted gods that a distinction is required. Additionally, I'm not saying that you should believe in their gods -- just that, without good reason to show that they are incorrect, you shouldn't disbelieve in their gods either. (It should be pointed out that I think there is enough reason to disbelieve most of their beliefs already -- but the same goes for many other beliefs as well.)

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian

In a deterministic universe, information cannot increase - you can compress the universe by saying "take something with this state, and run it for X billion years".

In a non-deterministic universe, information can increase. such universes can start with virtually no information, and increase to present day apparent complexity. In this case the designer can be a lot simpler than the designed, but he can't predict the exact form it will take, as the car designers can't predict the atomic makeup of the car.

In fact, the amount of information he can predict in the finished form must be less than the amount of information he had on the initial form. There are proofs.

Hence, any creator who created and then wandered off either
a) doesn't care about the shape of the universe.
b) is more complicated than the universe.

But of course, most creators are meant to still be here(but not all - some polytheist religions have their creators dieing). What about them? Well, if there was some sort of divine plan, and all interventions are to obtain this plan, then the same problem occurs, and we can show that the planner must be at least as complicated as the plan. So either:
a) the plan is extremely broad, and what happens to MyRedDice is not important
b) the plan is detailed, and the planner is more complicated than the universe.

The difference between active plan and passive plan is merely practical - a passive plan would, in humans, be much more difficult, though there is no reason to generalise that to a creator.

I'm heavily guilty of fallacy of excluded middle here, but them's the rubs. I thought it was worth writing.

Actually, Cartesian coordinates won't work properly on a sphere. A better example would be the Mercator projection -- that has something to do with the earth's curvature.

I think your analogy is wrong. If a person claimed that the Mercator projection was the best and only accurate way to construct a map of the world, and there are no other valid methods, I'd say that the person was wrong, for two reasons.

1) There are other known ways to construct a map without using Mercator that are just as accurate (although they're less intuitive).

2) Without logically demonstrating why there can be no other accurate projections, the claim to know the "one and only" correct projection is unsubstantiated.

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian