The Absurdity of Evidential Arguments For and Against the Existence of God

[NowAgnostic]

Theists and atheists alike have offered evidential inductive (as opposed to claimed logical or metaphysical deductive proofs) arguments for and against the existence of God. For theists, an example is the fine-tuning of the universe. For atheists, an example is the evidential argument from evil. Both are nonsense. They involve inventing likelihoods out of thin air. The theist asks, what is the likelihood of a universe coming to exist by random chance with the physical constants fine-tuned for life? The atheist asks, what is the likelihood of there existing a logically necessary reason we don’t currently see for the existence of a certain evil.

And the answer is that both are undefined because there is an infinity of possible universes. If I tell you that I am picking an integer at random from the infinite set of possible integers and ask you what the likelihood is that the integer is positive, or negative, or even, or odd, the answer is undefined, even though it might seem intuitive that it should be 0.5. That is only because you would be using an “intuitive” way of taking the limit to infinity. But I can do it a different way, I match up 1 with -1 and -2, 2 with -3 and -4, 3 with -5 and -6, etc., all the way to infinity, and claim that there are two negative integers for every positive one, so the probability of a positive integer being picked is 1/3. No way is “right” - the answer is undefined. So therefore, asking any question about the “odds” of our type of universe existing from an infinite possible set is meaningless - the answer is undefined. This suffices for the theist argument. For the atheist argument the same argument holds with a little more detail. There is an infinity of universes in which a given evil exists. If there is an infinite subset of universes in which there is a logical reason for the evil, the same argument against likelihood holds. If there is only a finite subset of such universes, then the likelihood of ours being one is zero and we should have a logical disproof of God’s existence.

 

[Foreigner]

Theists and atheists alike have offered evidential inductive (as opposed to claimed logical or metaphysical deductive proofs) arguments for and against the existence of God. For theists, an example is the fine-tuning of the universe. For atheists, an example is the evidential argument from evil. Both are nonsense. They involve inventing likelihoods out of thin air. The theist asks, what is the likelihood of a universe coming to exist by random chance with the physical constants fine-tuned for life? The atheist asks, what is the likelihood of there existing a logically necessary reason we don’t currently see for the existence of a certain evil.

And the answer is that both are undefined because there is an infinity of possible universes. If I tell you that I am picking an integer at random from the infinite set of possible integers and ask you what the likelihood is that the integer is positive, or negative, or even, or odd, the answer is undefined, even though it might seem intuitive that it should be 0.5. That is only because you would be using an “intuitive” way of taking the limit to infinity. But I can do it a different way, I match up 1 with -1 and -2, 2 with -3 and -4, 3 with -5 and -6, etc., all the way to infinity, and claim that there are two negative integers for every positive one, so the probability of a positive integer being picked is 1/3. No way is “right” - the answer is undefined. So therefore, asking any question about the “odds” of our type of universe existing from an infinite possible set is meaningless - the answer is undefined. This suffices for the theist argument. For the atheist argument the same argument holds with a little more detail. There is an infinity of universes in which a given evil exists. If there is an infinite subset of universes in which there is a logical reason for the evil, the same argument against likelihood holds. If there is only a finite subset of such universes, then the likelihood of ours being one is zero and we should have a logical disproof of God’s existence.

Yes it is absurd.

And yes we are to believe in God intuitively.

Trying to prove God exists by human reason is ridiculous. You can’t use tools of creation to prove the existence of something that exists outside of creation. It is preposterous.

On the other hand, if you met God you would believe. People do know him personally and He lives within them.

 

[johngh]

I am currently taking a Philosophy of Religion class, which is utterly fascinating not just because of the subject matter but because the professor is awesome (for the most part).

After being in that class for 2+ months I too am starting to come to the belief that arguing about God’s existence is ridiculous. It seems to me that both sides can come up with some pretty good arguments, both logical and evidential, but that ultimately neither side really wins. To me God’s existence is obvious, but there are people with just as much intelligence and knowledge who think the exact opposite. What is the cause of this difference? Is it the circumstances we are raised in? I was not raised to have any religious beliefs and came to them quite independently of outside pressure.

My theory is that there is something else, something beyond reason, that determines whether you believe or not. You could call it Faith, but I almost feel as if that is the wrong word to use.

Though to be perfectly honest mostly the class has just made me confused. It’s sort of a nice confused though so I don’t mind.

 

[tonyrey]

Theists, atheists and agnostics alike rely on their power of reason to reach their conclusions. Any explanation of reality which does not justify the use and efficacy of reason is therefore inadequate. To regard it as a subordinate derivative of non-rational processes necessarily undermines confidence in its power and leads to Hume’s notion that thought is but “a little agitation of the brain”. The success of science demonstrates the implausibility of this hypothesis and is clear evidence for the rational basis of reality…

 

[brandymmiller]

Trying to prove God exists by human reason is ridiculous. You can’t use tools of creation to prove the existence of something that exists outside of creation. It is preposterous.

I would beg to disagree. I arrived at sufficient proof of God’s existence through reason that I was able to return to the Church. The tools of creation are more than adequate, according to the Catholic Catechism, for mankind to prove the existence of God using logic and reason. However, the problem is the WAY most people conduct the experiments.

The Catholic Church is built on the following premises:

1. God is love.
2. Christ is God.
3. Therefore, Christ’s teachings are the Way to love, the Truth about love, and will lead to a Life of love.
4. The True Christian Church is the one which most closely reflects Christ’s love in its teachings.
5. The Catholic Church is that Church.
6. The more fully obedient to the teachings of the Catholic Church an individual becomes, the more fully capable of loving others that person becomes.

So, what you are ultimately testing for is an increase in your capacity to give and receive love. Now, religion is like an exercise machine and it takes regular and consistent effort to see results. If you aren’t comfortable with being fully obedient to the Church, start smaller. Pray once a day every day a simple prayer like this: Although I do not now believe in you, God, nor do I know if you exist I pray that if you are there and you do care that I may grow in my love of You and my desire to be obedient to Your will.

All good scientists document their work. Be a good scientist. Document your efforts. Chart how you feel before you pray, how you feel after you pray. It’s exercising spiritual muscles, so you need to give yourself enough time to see results. After 30 days, look to see if you notice any change at all in the way you think and feel. Do the same thing after 60 days.

Most atheists say, “If I pray for x and I don’t get x that means that God does not exist”, usually basing this statement on the scripture “ask and you shall receive”. However, that’s misunderstand the nature of prayer. God’s not a slot machine where you pull the lever and get your chance to get your wish, he’s not a pez dispenser where you pull back the lever and get the candy, and he’s not a mathematical equation where you plug in x and get y every time. Prayer is a conversation with God, and since He knows you better than you do He may see that answering your prayer isn’t good for you and isn’t the most loving thing that He could do. Like a parent, sometimes the most loving thing is to say “You’re not ready yet” or to say “You don’t need that, there are better things for you.”

Scripture isn’t a textbook so it shouldn’t be read like one. It’s a love letter. Read a bit of it and try to “hear” what God is saying to you through that scripture. For instance, I read the 2nd chapter of Genesis at a time in my life when I wondered why God had allowed a terrible evil into my life. Reflecting, I realized that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was actually put there out of love. God was giving Adam and Eve the choice to love Him by giving them an opportunity NOT to obey Him. No choice, no real love. God couldn’t stop the person who did the evil to me before they did it otherwise He would also be stopping them from choosing at the last second NOT to do it. However, He took the pain it caused me when I gave it to Him and has used it to transform not only my life but the lives of countless others.

 

[AntiTheist]

Most atheists I know don’t mount arguments “against” the existence of any particular god (remember, there are thousands of potential gods that could exist). Most atheists I know just don’t see any good reason to believe for precisely the reason you mentioned – there’s no good reason to think that there is any god.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I agree that we have no idea of the “likelihoods” involved when it comes to claims about why the universe is this way or that way. Neither do I know how “likely” it is that my mother really loves me. Nevertheless, I have reason to believe that my mother loves me, and I have reason to believe in God. The reason *is *based in experience, but I have no guarantee that everyone else has had the same type of experiences I have had.

The problem with the alternative, a priori reasoning to God, is that a god that is known a priori is not known. If God is personal, if we are to know God, God must reveal himself. But there is no guarantee that, when/if He reveals himself, we will be paying attention.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Most atheists I know don’t mount arguments “against” the existence of any particular god (remember, there are thousands of potential gods that could exist). Most atheists I know just don’t see any good reason to believe for precisely the reason you mentioned – there’s no good reason to think that there is any god.

That’s not what the original post was saying. NowAgnostic was saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that, empirically, even if there were a good reason to believe, we wouldn’t know it was a good reason. This argument cuts both ways: even if there is a good reason to believe there is no God, we have no “privileged view” to discern what that good reason is.

Could the universe be so designed without a Creator? We don’t know. Period.