Theism is, scientifically, the most rational hypothesis

Marco Colombini

Scientifically, the best hypothesis is the one that makes the fewest assumptions, requires the fewest number of parameters that are not experimentally determined, and explains the most about the subject in question. The subject in question is the nature of reality and that if our universe.
The structure and dynamics of our universe is understood based on a set of fundamental constants, a set of forces, a set of laws, and equations that describe how matter and energy behave and interact. This is the science of Physics and it is through this science that we can make sense of what we observe both qualitatively and quantitative. With this as a foundation, let's consider 2 hypotheses:

H1: Established Physics can explain all observations and thus there is no God.
H2: Established Physics fails fundamentally and God is necessary

Current Physics does an excellent job of describing and explaining just about everything in the universe. This is not surprising because the science is constantly adjusted to fit all observations. The only requirement is that the properties of the universe are constant even if they were to change with time. Indeed, much of Physics is very solid and unlikely to change.

There are, however, problems.

First of all, the universe is not in steady state but began about 13.8 billion years ago. All the universe began at that time: matter/energy and space/time. Before time zero there was no space into which matter or anything else could be placed. There was also no time in which processes could occur. This event cannot be explained by established Physics. A number of proposals to circumvent this problem have been published. None of these can be explained by established Physics and thus are in the realm of science fiction.

Secondly, the properties of the universe are such that as the universe self-assembled into what it is today, life could form and indeed also intelligent life. There is no reason that the fundamental constants and other properties should be as they are. Yet, most of these must be as they are in order for life to form. Even small changes result in a dead universe. The typical response is that if the properties were not what they are we would not be here to ask the question. That misses the point. Not only does established Physics have no explanation for how the universe began and no explanation of the reality before the universe formed but it cannot explain why the properties of the universe are as they are since there is not reason for the properties to be as they are. A proposal, that there are actually an infinite number of parallel universes with all possible variations in physical properties, attempts to explain the this but in doing so it introduces an infinite number of unmeasurable parameters and thus it is not a viable hypothesis.

Thirdly, well before the "big bang" was proposed, scientific observations required that the universe had a beginning. The second law of Thermodynamics, a law often tested and always found to be correct, requires that energy be less available to do work every time it is used. Thus the universe started off at insanely high energy levels and useful energy has been lost ever since...converted to heat. Eventually this loss of usable energy will result in a lifeless Universe. Thus the Universe is highly tuned for life to come into existence but its properties will eventually extinguish all life. Physics can describe this in detail but not explain why this is the case.

The existence of God naturally explains all these and gives a purpose to existence. In addition there is direct historical evidence for the existence of God from the many scientifically impossible events performed by God and witnessed at times by few and at other times by thousands of skeptical observers.

turkeyMan

↪Marco Colombini

i agree with most of this. The parts i'm not sure about i would have a hard time proving them wrong, such as whether matter didn't always exist. I believe matter always existed but i don't work for CERN so i'm not going down that rabbit hole. Even if you wanted to argue with me about that i couldn't produce a good argument in my favor.

Gregory

The existence of God naturally explains all these and gives a purpose to existence. In addition there is direct historical evidence for the existence of God from the many scientifically impossible events performed by God and witnessed at times by few and at other times by thousands of skeptical observers. — Marco Colombini

Why does it have to be a person? Why can't it be a force, or Form, or Confucian Heaven, or pure potentiality? Also, there sure are things that have happened that science can't explain. But what is science? Much of it is speculation. Add some speculation about other dimensions, for example, and you have an explanation for "miracles" without positing a guy out there

Gregory

Also, why God? Why not Gods?

Philosophim

Hi Marco. For something to be scientific, it must be "falsifiable". Its a tricky subject, but essentially there needs to be the possibility that a God is false. If a God is false, how do we show that it is false? Then we try to show that.

Basically science tries to disprove everything, and when something just can't be disproved we accept it...for now. So a most rational hypothesis is something that can be very clearly disproved, and tested to see if it can be disproved.

Augustusea

↪Marco Colombini

First of all, the universe is not in steady state but began about 13.8 billion years ago. All the universe began at that time: matter/energy and space/time. Before time zero there was no space into which matter or anything else could be placed. There was also no time in which processes could occur. This event cannot be explained by established Physics. A number of proposals to circumvent this problem have been published. None of these can be explained by established Physics and thus are in the realm of science fiction. — Marco Colombini

this assumes creatio ex nihilo, which is an illogical concept truly, if you want further reading, here.
anywho, if we assume god doesn't abide by the laws of logic, then it would defeat the point of trying to prove him using science or logic, or the universe really.

Secondly, the properties of the universe are such that as the universe self-assembled into what it is today, life could form and indeed also intelligent life. There is no reason that the fundamental constants and other properties should be as they are. Yet, most of these must be as they are in order for life to form. Even small changes result in a dead universe. The typical response is that if the properties were not what they are we would not be here to ask the question. That misses the point. Not only does established Physics have no explanation for how the universe began and no explanation of the reality before the universe formed but it cannot explain why the properties of the universe are as they are since there is not reason for the properties to be as they are. A proposal, that there are actually an infinite number of parallel universes with all possible variations in physical properties, attempts to explain the this but in doing so it introduces an infinite number of unmeasurable parameters and thus it is not a viable hypothesis. — Marco Colombini

1- how are you so sure changes would result in a dead universe? that assumption would require you to actually verify in such universes, we know that we would be dead there, but what about different forms of what we call life?

2-this is just a reformed version of the teleological argument, which truly doesn't prove god's existence, a good counterargument would be that our universe is actually terrible for life, especially with the amount of dead space we know of and radiation and explosions, it is completely hostile to life actually, we might be a tiny probability that happened, so its ignorant to assume the universe is fit for life.

Thirdly, well before the "big bang" was proposed, scientific observations required that the universe had a beginning. The second law of Thermodynamics, a law often tested and always found to be correct, requires that energy be less available to do work every time it is used. Thus the universe started off at insanely high energy levels and useful energy has been lost ever since...converted to heat. Eventually this loss of usable energy will result in a lifeless Universe. Thus the Universe is highly tuned for life to come into existence but its properties will eventually extinguish all life. Physics can describe this in detail but not explain why this is the case. — Marco Colombini

The universe is terribly tuned for life to exist, and you just proved it, the universe will end one day, that is the most terrible for life, for it to end, the universe is pretty hostile

The existence of God naturally explains all these and gives a purpose to existence. In addition there is direct historical evidence for the existence of God from the many scientifically impossible events performed by God and witnessed at times by few and at other times by thousands of skeptical observers. — Marco Colombini

one no it doesn't at all as explained above, the existence of a first mover? maybe if we do some scientific gymnastics with the Kalam argument.
I would love to see any direct historical evidence lol.

Gregory

The existence of God naturally explains all these — Marco Colombini

Unless you subscribe to a specific ontology like Thomism, you should have said "God or Gods" and said "theism or polytheism" in the title

TheMadFool

The existence of God naturally explains all these and gives a purpose to existence. — Marco Colombini

n addition there is direct historical evidence for the existence of God from the many scientifically impossible events performed by God and witnessed at times by few and at other times by thousands of skeptical observers. — Marco Colombini

Given that the theism I'm familiar with is the kind where a person in serious trouble screams at the top of his lungs, "Oh God! Please help me!", I feel sad to inform you that our ancestors, those who first thought of God, probably had a really really bad time.

Gregory

The Bible should be in the comic book section

Marco Colombini

turkeyMan, thanks for your comment. All science can say with confidence is that shortly after time zero the energy level was so great that all matter/energy (these are the substance in different firms) existed only as energy...i.e. light ...extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation. Matter only formed later when the energy became more reasonable. Our whole understanding of the beginning of the Universe comes from a backward extrapolation. It's somewhat like extrapolating an explosion backward except that space and time are also extrapolated backward. Unlike an explosion that would require some initial substance to explode, just think of all the matter/energy of the Universe crammed into a point...all 10 to the power 22 stars packed into a point. That is such a truly insane energy level that it is impossible to comprehend. There is obviously nothing in this Universe that could cause such an event...hence the instant of creation.

Marco Colombini

Gregory, it depends on how we define a person. God needs to be extremely intelligent to not only provide the right amount of matter/energy but also exactly the right parameters for the Universe to self-assemble as it did. Obviously it is an extremely complex problem to solve. Consider what one would need to do, based on our scientific knowledge just to adjust the values of the fundamental constants so that when elements formed the right amount of carbon would form from helium atoms but not be all converted to oxygen leaving no carbon for life to originate. Consider what values would allow the formation of the compounds necessary for life? How strong should be the electrostatic interaction? How strong should gravity be. If too weak, our Earth would not retain its atmosphere. If too strong, large animals could not exist. As to science, yes there is speculation but settled science is strongly supported by experiments. There is hard and soft science. Hard science is highly unlikely to change. The properties of the elements are very well categorized. The structures and properties of many biological macromolecules (DNA, proteins, etc) are well known. ...and so on. True, in Physics there is far more speculation but that is followed by experimental testing to eliminate incorrect ideas. The events in the past that were scientifically impossible are still so today and could only be caused by the same God that created the Universe.
Are there many Gods? The only information on that matter comes not from science but from statements attributed to God.

Marco Colombini

Philosophim, it is very true that hypotheses are tested by trying to disprove them. Hypotheses are formulated by making observations and trying to understand these by generating an hypothesis. One could come up with several hypotheses to explain the same observations. Then one would try to find the correct hypothesis by trying to disprove each one. If one's ability to experimentally disprove each of these is limited, one then selects the best hypothesis as the most reliable until more information is available. The inability to disprove a hypothesis does not make it incorrect. With regard to the existence of God, my H1 hypothesis is disproved leaving H2. One could say, there is no hypothesis because H2 cannot be falsified. However, there is much evidence in favor of H2. With H2 many jigsaw puzzle pieces fit together into a coherent picture. In science the ability of a hypothesis to explain much indicates a correct hypothesis.

unenlightened

"God did it." explains everything and anything, and therefore nothing. It's not a hypothesis but a mantra.

Science is about observation and more importantly, demonstration. We all believe in science because the magic works, not because it has this or that method that we have a theory makes our knowledge secure or because the jigsaw pieces fit together.

Imagine all our machines suddenly stop working because 'it's God's will'. Faith in science would last about 10 minutes.

Marco Colombini

Augustusea, let me start by dealing with energy becoming unavailable and the universe eventually becoming dead as far as living organisms are concerned. I focus on living organisms because of their importance but, in fact, all activity will eventually cease. Every action requires that matter and energy are conserved. However, energy exists in two parts, usable and non-usable energy. Every action converts more energy from the usable to the non-usable form. Eventually all the energy will become non-usable and thus no action can take place.
Is the Universe hostile to life? Yes in a sense it is. However, the fundamental conditions for life to form at all are very difficult to achieve and our science only understands these in a very limited way. For example, if all there was in the Universe is Hydrogen and Helium, life could not possibly exist. A small change in the fundamental constants of the Universe would have that result. If there were no carbon atoms, there would be no life as we know it. Again, it is well understood that the amount of carbon is critically dependent on the energetics of subatomic particles. A small change would not allow sufficient carbon to exist for life to form. Even the simplest cell is extremely complicated, relying for survival on the exact amount of interaction energy between its molecular components. In short, it is very easy to get the wrong conditions and have a dead universe. For a poor analogy, consider that it is very easy to assemble something that looks like a car but does not function...anyone could do that. Whereas it is very difficult to produce a working car if one is stranded in an uninhabited island. The information and skills required are enormous.
It is very easy to misuse logic because, unlike mathematics, words and meanings are not precise. The fact is that the Universe exists and did not exist. Did it come from nothing? All we know is the matter/energy with which we are familiar. Is there other "stuff"? Our senses can only detect our matter/energy so we cannot detect any other stuff.

Marco Colombini

Unenlightened, much of what we see and do can be explained by our collective and well settled science. (motivations, emotions are excluded). From the subatomic to the biological to the galactic, all this is understood or largely understood on the basis on relatively few fundamental principles. Thus we can safely fly on a jet or operate a computer. The science underlying our modern society works well. It does not work well at all when considering how the universe came to be. It does not work well when considering certain historical events. The fact is that it is incomplete because reality is more that our universe.

Marco Colombini

TheMadFool...and yet there is ample evidence that early humans were very intelligent, discriminating, critical, all the human abilities but devoid of out technology. A visit to see the truly ancient constructions in Peru, for instance, should convince any skeptic of the great intelligence of those people. With our current level of technology it would be extremely difficult to assemble very large stones of different shapes with extreme precision. Also cutting perfect square holes into hard stone is virtually impossible without modern tools and indeed would be even difficult today. Hollywood generated caricatures of primitive peoples are worthless.

180 Proof

↪unenlightened

:100:

The fact is ... reality is more than our universe. — Marco Colombini

How do you know this? Or it just an 'article of faith'?

Hippyhead

The existence of God — Marco Colombini

Forget about the God part for a bit, and focus on the existence part. Instead of tying to prove or disprove any gods, try to prove or disprove that the "yes/no, exists or not" paradigm the God question is built upon is a valid useful paradigm which is aligned with observations of reality.

Forget about the competing answers for awhile, and focus instead on the question. If the question is fatally flawed, all the energy being invested in the competing answers contest may be for nothing.

As example, consider the question "what color is the sound of dog barking"? If we thought this was a useful valid question we might argue for centuries over whether the color was blue or red. If we just assumed the question was valid and didn't bother to examine and challenge it, we might wind up wasting a huge amount of time.

unenlightened

From the subatomic to the biological to the galactic, all this is understood or largely understood on the basis on relatively few fundamental principles. Thus we can safely fly on a jet or operate a computer. — Marco Colombini

Absolute tosh! You have it all backwards. Because we can safely fly on a jet, we can have confidence in our scientific principles. Because the magic works, we believe in science. Because the magic doesn't work, we don't believe in Daedalus and Icarus or Seven League Boots or flying carpets. If we could safely fly on carpets, we'd fly on carpets and to hell with science.

3017amen

How do you know this? Or it just an 'article of faith'? — 180 Proof

↪Marco Colombini

I would say that Marco's faith (assuming he has a thing called faith) is the same or similar faith that the atheist has in his/her belief system. For example, it's a faith towards something that is Metaphysical or not Metaphysical. At the same time, in the case of Christianity, since Jesus existed in history, another question emerges as to what kind of belief or faith does that represent?

Marco Colombini

Proof, this is a reasonable deduction to explain events that are incompatible with our understanding of how substances in the universe behave. The alternative that there is something wrong with our understanding of the universe is very unlikely because such events are so radically incompatible. Yes indeed, this is not proof but the best hypothesis to understand reality.

Marco Colombini

Hippyhead, clearly your example is nonsense and not worth considering. That is not so for the quest to understand all aspects of nature. Much progress has been made in this understanding. Limiting our thoughts only to observations that can be explained by current settled science is insufficient. One should seek to understand all observations and not reject those that are serious outliers, as long as the observations are reliable. There was much resistance to accepting the conclusion that the universe had a beginning because it resembled too much the story of Genesis. However, the evidence mounted so that only fringe elements refused to accept it. It's far more than a philosophical question. It is the need to know, understand... Most people are happy with the fantasy, fundamental unimportance, that is everyday life.

Marco Colombini

unenlightened, granted that some things are discovered by accident and the underlying mechanism is not understood, at least at that time. Fire, for instance, was most likely not understood but just accepted. That is not true of jets and computers. They were not found and used without understanding. Quite the opposite. Much understanding of Physics was needed to come up with these objects. There is no magic here expect perhaps for most who use them not knowing how they work...although I hope everyone knows that these are remarkable feats of science and engineering.
We have confidence in the Physics and so design jets capable of flying. It is true that the complexity of the process of flying means that we cannot be certain that the jet will fly properly without testing. In any case, the science came first.
Sometimes what is constructed teaches us new aspects of science but that is very rare. The science generally comes first.

Marco Colombini

3017amen, indeed, both views are held by persons interested in understanding the universe and our existence. These are two hypotheses of the nature of our reality. The difference is that one view is far better supported by all available information and the other is not. Some scientists I have known actively ignore information contrary to their hypothesis because they become so wedded to it. These can be very intelligent and capable scientists. It is quire sad especially if one knows the person. It is a human weakness. It is most difficult to put aside one's deeply held views and just take a hard look at all the information and come to the logical conclusion. I think that any atheist who does the very difficult task of considering all evidence dispassionately will realize that the existence of God is most likely to be the correct answer.

180 Proof

↪Marco Colombini

"Explain events"? With a woo-of-the-gaps "hypothesis"? Mysteries (aka "woo" "g/G did it" etc) only begs questions and doesn't answer them. To my mind "reality is more than the universe" explains - or describes - nothing more than north of the north pole does. A lack of (speculative) imagination at the very least.

Streetlight

An appeal to ignorance filled in by a stop-gap 'God'. Infantile theology.

Hippyhead

Limiting our thoughts only to observations that can be explained by current settled science is insufficient. — Marco Colombini

Current settled science shows that the vast majority of reality at every scale is space, a phenomena which not be neatly filed in either the "exists" or "doesn't exist" categories, because it has properties of both existence and non-existence.

You are attempting to conduct yet another version of the same old God investigation that's already been endlessly repeated a billion times, based upon the assumption that a god either exists or not, yes or no, a simplistic paradigm which bears little resemblance to the complexity of reality as observed by science.

If the question being asked is fatally flawed, there's little chance a competing answers game will prove useful. But, nobody cares. All most "philosophers" wish to do is spew a bunch of fancy talk which they hope will make them look impressive, a purely emotional agenda.

Ciceronianus

Definition of futile
1: serving no useful purpose : completely ineffective
// efforts to convince him were futile

--Merriam-Webster Online

DingoJones

↪Ciceronianus the White

cor·rect
/kəˈrekt/

adjective
free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.
"make sure you have been given the correct information"

3017amen

3017amen, indeed, both views are held by persons interested in understanding the universe and our existence. These are two hypotheses of the nature of our reality. The difference is that one view is far better supported by all available information and the other is not. Some scientists I have known actively ignore information contrary to their hypothesis because they become so wedded to it. These can be very intelligent and capable scientists. It is quire sad especially if one knows the person. It is a human weakness. It is most difficult to put aside one's deeply held views and just take a hard look at all the information and come to the logical conclusion. I think that any atheist who does the very difficult task of considering all evidence dispassionately will realize that the existence of God is most likely to be the correct answer. — Marco Colombini

Indeed. Logically, there is more evidence in favor of a cosmological God v. no God. As far as human (Being) existence, those of us who are Christian Existentialist's typically understand Jesus existed and was known to have a consciousness. The irony is that because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically imposible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.

Trips-up the Atheist every time!

tim wood

The existence of God naturally explains all these — Marco Colombini

The hypothesis of the existence of God naturally(?) explains all of these hypotheses about the universe. Well, exactly explains nothing about anything.

"God" in science is simply a very short-hand way of saying "I don't know and I have no idea!" But it's not quite that simple, because "God" is also a very short-hand way of expressing the presupposition that the universe operates under one set of rules, as opposed to a universe with multiple "Gods" each determining its own laws and nothing to prevent the laws from being inconsistent and contradictory, or, of no "God" in which an absolute chaos might pertain.

"God," then, in science useless, or as the name for a hoped for and presupposed universality of law.

Theism is, scientifically, the most rational hypothesis

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions