I've just discovered this website while looking to see who is writing and what they are saying about the existence or non-existence of God. The conversation that my search engine picked up was a well presented argument by someone named Kath who is obviously conversant with the function of proof in validating scientific and mathematical theories. It was well explained how scientists accept a theory as proven in the absence of any data to support an alternative hypothesis. This was then applied to the question of proof of the existence of God, ie to say that in the absence of evidence to contradict the proposition that there is no God, it is rationally tenable to believe that there is no God.
Let me begin by saying that I believe in the existence of God. I will try to support this hypothesis with proof, and would also like to say something about what I mean by God.
One proof of the existence of God has to do with causation, because everything is preceded by a cause. (I make this assertion under the same corollary as the one mentioned above, ie it's a proposition based on the absence of evidence to the contrary.)
Everything which we know to exist must be either accidental or not accidental. If existence is random, or accidental, then there would be no reason to hypothesize about a God. But if everything we observe (or any part of it) proves to be not accidental, and is moreover predictable in any way, then it's natural for the human intellect to hypothesize about the original cause of that which exists, and about its nature.
The advancement of our ability to investigate the physical universe and the immense knowledge that's been yielded has done nothing to contradict this most rudimentary rational proof of the existence of an invisible, primal cause which humans call God. This is not to assert anything about the nature of God except to support the definition of God as essentially unknowable, since humans and the human intellect are part of that ordered construct comprising the physical universe, also called the creation, which is preceded by an unknown cause.
There's a reason why it's called a "creation". If it looks like a creation and acts like a creation it likely is a creation. In the absence of evidence to contradict this hypothesis, that's all we really have to go on.
As for the proposition that reality consists solely of the physical universe, and therefore the hypothesis of the existence of God is irrelevant, it doesn't seem well supported if one accepts the above mentioned proof.
I'm a dabbler in such debates, but I can't accept the argument that the belief in the non-existence of God can be supported based on the lack of any evidence to the contrary. This is only valid within a strictly materialistic interpretation of reality, and the proof of causality puts the materialistic interpretation of reality in serious doubt.
deRanger
1.
One cannot produce evidence for the non-being of something - in fact, there is no need for such an activity. HE/she who claims the existence of something has the burden of proof. In the case of god that is why almost all religions refer to "proven miracles" of their gods, semi-gods or prophets, none of which stand simple reality tests. Do you really believe there is proof that the Red Sea parted before the Israelites, Jesus reanimated Lazarus, and the moon split in two on Mohamed's command?
2.
Causality is a double-edged thing. Following your argument, there must be a cause - a creator-creator - behind the god you introduce as the initial cause... and one who caused that one, etc, ad infinitum...
Some people who use your argument cut this causal chain short by decreeing that the hypothetical creator is the "original cause", outside of causality. Meaning, everything needs a cause except the creator. But that means that there is not always a cause... and if causality is not universal, bang goes your proof
3.
Only people who assume everything was created use the word "creation". Us ordinary folks speak about the universe, or earth, or reality.
The existence of the word "trinity" is no proof that a certain god is threefold...
It has been shown that extremely simple rules can lead to systems with universal Turing capability. That such rules exist is basically proven. It is my view that they exist independent of any material substrate, that is they exist in an abstract eternal way as valid|truths.
Numbers too are infinite, there is no greatest number, if we take this too to be an abstract truth that does not depend upon the physical, we can come to one conclusion... from the existence of rules that operate on binary numbers combined with the existence of an infinite range of such numbers, it stands to reason that the relationships between these numbers also exist(as a consequence of the validity of the proven rules that will connect one numerical sequence to another in a specific manner.).
The existence of the relationships between sequences means that the sequence of a simulation exists abstractly as derived from the rules with regards to the infinite numerical sequence(the rules define that a specific interaction will lead to a transition from one sequence to the next.).
If the previous is considered true, then it can be seen that all possible simulations exist in a way, abstractly. Simulations with all sorts of physical constants and physical laws. While any simulation may operate independently of any external actor, it is conceivable that in some of them 'something' that resembles the definition of god exists.
@ élan vital
Of course, if universes are sequential, there may be some containing a flying spaghetti monster or something similar. But unless we're able to switch from one part of the sequence to another and check (which, presently, we cannot), we're limited to the one we dwell in, which, apparently, contains no conceivable gods.
The general problem with the "God in scientific gaps" guys is that they adhere to the funny idea that if out of a bunch of different claims one is true, then all the other ideas must be true, too.
"If I can prove there is a God,
then my idea of a God is proven.
And God hates fags - Lev. 18:22."
If there were a god who caused the big bang - as I said, it's unlikely - then he'd have nothing to do with that Abrahamic village-deity whose devouts against better knowledge still claim he made the world in seven days...
The Creationists don't realize that "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" and that "the tree of life" are just metaphorical myths instead of literal trees, in the middle of a metaphorical garden with metaphorical characters, which thereby Jesus ended up dying for a metaphor, etc, etc, etc.
It is not necessary to check each and every one of the simulations, if we start with the supposition that all possible simulations exist, then somewhere basically anything conceivable exists(unicorn, lord of the rings, star wars, leprechauns, etc) so long as there is nothing that creates some inconsistency that simply makes it impossible for it to exist(e.g. square circle). Thus all we have to look for are fundamental inconsistencies that preclude existence, and this will in essence provide an instant check for all possible cases.
If we find say fundamental reasons indicating that no mind, independent of its design, can scale past a certain limit of complexity, that would rule out a good chunk of godlike beings. If however it was found that mind can scale indefinitely in complexity, starting from the assumption that all possible simulations exist abstractly, then somewhere there would be beings that match the description of any God with their respective universes.
If such does exist it may very likely not be able to interact with this reality(as evidence suggest), just as we can't alter the characters in a particular version of harry potter(any attempted alterations, are simply reading into an alternate version of harry potter, the particular original story is, I believe, immutable and eternal in an abstract sense).