The "creator hypothesis"

[Mikey]

It's very polite, but I don't think my more general statement about faith is either wrong or abrasive. I freely admit that I cannot prove the existence of G-d; if I could, then it wouldn't require any faith, would it? Conversely, I couldn't consider myself to have faith if I required proof.

Yes, yes, I know this is unscientific... and I know that all the atheistic empiricists out there are now saying, "Q.E.D. - if you can't prove it, there's no reason to believe it." That's fine, if that's your system of belief. But the educated - or at least intelligent - atheists already know full well that faith and proof exist outsde of each other's realm, and that demanding proof of a religious belief is purely and soleley an expression of contentiousness.

[Graham Kennedy]

I can see that faith and proof are separate things, but where I differ is in the claim that god's existence falls into the first category.

A thing doesn't become a matter of faith just because somebody has faith in it. I may have faith that Liverpool are the greatest football team ever, but that does not mean that their greatness is a matter of faith; the fact is that such a thing is determinable by objective measure, and my faith is demonstrably wrong.

If god exists and interacts with this world, then that interaction should be measurable by science and his existence is not a matter of faith.

If god exists and does not interact with this world, then it's existence becomes a matter of faith... but such a god is identical in every way to there being no god at all. It's also not a position that most religions take - deist rather than theist.

[Nickswitz]

But what if the interaction between god and us can't be measured with current technology. I mean 1000 years ago we couldn't measure the flow of electricity through something and thought that lightning was similar to black magic, obviously we were poorly equipped and therefore couldn't do so.

Does that make sense?

[Tsukiyumi]

But what if the interaction between god and us can't be measured with current technology. I mean 1000 years ago we couldn't measure the flow of electricity through something and thought that lightning was similar to black magic, obviously we were poorly equipped and therefore couldn't do so.

Does that make sense?

Maybe a million years from now, we'll be able to scientifically prove the existence of God. Made sense to me.

[Nickswitz]

I think that's what Graham was arguing against, but I'm not entirely sure...

[Mikey]

I can see that faith and proof are separate things, but where I differ is in the claim that god's existence falls into the first category.

A thing doesn't become a matter of faith just because somebody has faith in it. I may have faith that Liverpool are the greatest football team ever, but that does not mean that their greatness is a matter of faith; the fact is that such a thing is determinable by objective measure, and my faith is demonstrably wrong.

If god exists and interacts with this world, then that interaction should be measurable by science and his existence is not a matter of faith.

If god exists and does not interact with this world, then it's existence becomes a matter of faith... but such a god is identical in every way to there being no god at all. It's also not a position that most religions take - deist rather than theist.

That's a very matter-of-fact analogy which I'd expect from someone who already has a foregone conclusion in the negative about G-d's existence. That's the only problem with these conversations - either side already "knows" the answer.

I disagree in two ways. First, your Liverpool example is flawed because you are comparing a supernatural embodiment - one which is inextricably involved with unproven faith - with a soccer team. While there may be years in which Liverpool FC requires divine intervention, it is part of the natural, measurable physical universe.

Second, your assertion that G-d's interaction with the world should be measurable wrongly assumes what is perhaps the most prideful idea about G-d that I've ever heard: namely, that we can see and understand the method of G-d's interaction. Like the old priest who drowns in the flood, asks G-d why He didn't rescue his faithful servant, and is told by G-d, "What do you mean? I sent two boats and a helicopter." Here's an example:

You, as an empirical atheist, subscribe to the idea of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution. I don't see any reason at all why natural selection couldn't be one of the tools G-d uses d/uses in the pursuit of evolution... which in turn is the method He chose with which to pursue creation. This is an excellent example of what I mean when I say that science and religion don't need to be in conflict. It never casts in doubt the scientifically accepted ideas about the subject, yet doesn't abrogate any religious tenet (save those of the fundamentalist fruitcakes.)

[Vic]

If god exists and interacts with this world, then that interaction should be measurable by science and his existence is not a matter of faith.

If god exists and does not interact with this world, then it's existence becomes a matter of faith... but such a god is identical in every way to there being no god at all. It's also not a position that most religions take - deist rather than theist.

So an observer that does not interact with the observed does not in fact exist?

Does Liverpool sometimes need divine help to win?

(edited)

[Griffin]

Does Liverpool always need divine help to win?

Fixed, and yes.

[Captain Seafort]

Does Liverpool always need divine help to win?

Fixed, and yes.

The fact that we've frequently obtained divine assistance does not mean we always need it. I would, however, concede that both in 1959 and earlier this year we did indeed need it. And got it.

[Mikey]

"We?" And yet you once decried to me your status as a fan of Liverpool FC?

[mwhittington]

My dad sent this to me in an email, and I thought it fit here pretty well:


"Let me explain the problem science has with religion." The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. "You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"

"Yes sir," the student says.

"So you believe in God?"

"Absolutely."

"Is God good?"

"Sure! God's good."

"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"

"Yes."

"Are you good or evil?"

"The Bible says I'm evil."

The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a moment. "Here's one for you: Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"

"Yes sir, I would."

"So you're good..."

"I wouldn't say that."

"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."

The student does not answer, so the professor continues, "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Can you answer that one?"

The student remains silent. "No, you can't, can you?", the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. "Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"

"Er..yes," the student says.

"Is Satan good?"

The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."

"Then where does Satan come from?"

The student falters. "From God."

"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?"

"Yes, sir."

"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"

"Yes."

"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."

Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"

The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."

"So who created them ?"

The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. "Who created them?" There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?"

The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."

The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"

"No sir. I've never seen Him."

"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"

"No, sir, I have not."

"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?"

"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."

"Yet you still believe in him?"

"Yes."

"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"

"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."

"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"

"Yes."

"And is there such a thing as cold?"

"Yes, son, there's cold too."

"No sir, there isn't."

The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. "You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat, or no heat, but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit down to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."

Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.

"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"

"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it isn't darkness?"

"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?"

The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"

"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."

The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. "Flawed? Can you explain how?"

"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You argue that there is life and then there's death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it. Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, then yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.

"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?"

The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean." The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir. So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?"

Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable. Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess you'll have to take them on faith."

"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"

Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil."

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

PS: the student was Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein wrote a book titled God vs. Science in 1921...

[Lazar]

Um... Albert Einstein was a Jew.

[stitch626]

I have an urge to read that book. At the very least, it sounds intriguing.

Also, while he was born to Jewish parents, they were not observing, and he went to a Catholic elementary school and later considered himself a Christian, then Agnostic.

[Lazar]

And guess what, he wrote no such book either. The whole thing is debunked at Snopes and elsewhere; for God's sake, never put any stock in anything sent to you in a chain letter. (I could be misinformed, but I've never read that he went through a Christian phase.)

[stitch626]

Bummer... I wanted to read that book.

However, that was an impressive and unbiased article.