Scientific proof of god's non-existence

A minor quibble over a parenthetical comment you made in this excellent and sensible article. You say:

"(Note that 'positive' and 'negative' are just labels and the charges could just as well have been called things like 'green' and 'blue'.)"

While this is certainly true, it is (as you know) useful and consistent to use the terms 'positive' and 'negative' -- for the simple reason that these terms conform to how the equations of electromagnetism describe the related fields and forces. Indeed, we could reverse what we call 'positive' and 'negative' without doing deep damage to this metaphoric relation, but it is clearly useful to name them in a way that connects to the mathematical representations.

HangInThere

HangInThere is quite right. There are a huge number of advantages for assigning the labels plus and minus to the two kinds of charges and these advantages are immediately apparent to anyone who actually uses the mathematics of the theory of electromagnetism.

But some non-scientists tend to confuse labels with intrinsic properties and I was trying to separate the two.

Mano Singham

Intrusting to see complete dogmatism from two apposite sides:
Religious unreasonable dogmatic:
1. We cannot prove that god does not exist.
2. Hence it is rational to believe that god exists.
vs. Scientist Reasonable dogmatic:
So if someone should ask me 'In your scientific opinion, does God exist?', I would answer 'No' with the same degree of confidence that I would say 'No' to the question as to whether a third type of electric charge exists.

Best response is from:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=231

...The fact that the universe is developing and not just standing still certainly makes the questions of how it started, where it's going, etc. very relevant, and a lot of people might find a place for God in trying to answer those questions....

However, there is absolutely no reason to question "whether a third type of electric charge exists".

How can one compare the two questions?

All the best.

When someone says: "We cannot prove that god does not exist, hence it is rational to believe that god exists," I have to laugh to myself. Using this type of reasoning, one may rationalize the existence of anything:

We cannot prove that pink unicorns do not exist, hence it is rational to believe that pink unicorns exist.

Evidence is the lacking feature here. It is a matter of simple statistics: Abundant evidence increases the chance that something exists, while lack of evidence (or no evidence at all), decreases that chance.

I am surprised that author had chosen the most idiotic religious argument...
Regarding "lacking Evidence" , there are different opinions on the subject...
As an example:
A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism (search) for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141061,00.html
...

Mano - Since you are willing to allow that labels are somewhat arbitrary and are chosen for *reason* of their usefulness, in the case of charge - usefulness in working with the related mathematics, maybe you could apply a similar reasoning to other vocabulary choices.

I'm thinking of the use of the word "irrational" when it comes to discussions of atheism, religion, and those who seem to want to argue about such things. Maybe the very effort to convince people one way or another is itself irrational, as in nutso? That might make me the Chief Ringer in the Belfy of Chapel Bats. And it might explain why I always seem to come back from the market with two shy of a six-pack... :)

In any event... Another *reason* might be to further *conversation* (and not mere argumentativeness) among people with widely varying points of view?

If your word choice gives the people you're discussing reason to think you don't respect them, and if you *know* you're going to have this effect, then are you really engaged in a conversation, or are you preaching to *your* choir? Is a mere echo chamber that readily agrees with you really what you want?

You don't seem like the kind of person who would say yes to this question. If I'm correct in this, then don't you have the burden, and yes it's a burden, of making your language as palatable as possible to those who disagree with you.

I'm most certainly *not* saying you should be false to your viewpoint. But surely you'll agree that the map isn't the territory. The menu isn't the food. The words we use aren't the things that are being discussed.

So it seems to me (again - only if I'm correct about you) that selecting your words in ways *calculated* to cause pondering rather than dispute would be of value. I think I've seen you make such an effort. I haven't read enough of your essays to know if you do so all the time. And most certainly, there are other players here who *don't* do so.

But if the game is conversation and not merely praise-in-the-echo-chamber, shouldn't this be the objective all the time?

Kind Regards,
Bal

=========
The all-important thing to me are the Questions. Not your answers. But the Questions. And if you have no proof - no evidence, then all you've got are opinions. End of story. (Or is it?) :)

If you have seen Anthony Flew recently, it's pretty obvious that he's gone senile. see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04Flew-t.html?_r=4&pagewanted...

I do not believe in any kind of God for a lot of the reasons mentioned in this article and others. However, I would not try to argue against the existence of God with someone who does believe. As was said in the article: "A belief that has no observable consequences is of no use to scientists...". It is, however, of use to the believer. Many find comfort in "knowing" that there is someone watching over them, or that death is not really the end. Who are we then to try to rob them of that comfort.

People who believe do not bother me at all, people who govern others based on their own personal beliefs is another thing. I don't think the holy wars and other atrocities connected with religion should be blamed on religion itself but on the people and the greed and selfishness that comes with being human. By trying to prove that God does not exist I'm only trying to reassure myself. To the believer my proof will have no value. The existence of God is therefore irrelevant - in my opinion - and arguing about it will always be fruitless. We should instead focus on what it means to believe and try to convince people that belief is very much a personal thing. If that idea is accepted, maybe people will learn to a bit more tolerant toward others with different beliefs. That's what really matters, isn't it?

The problem here is that religious belief is the cause of much death and destruction in the world. As author Sam Harris said: "That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion – to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources – is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity."

I agree, that is the problem. I just don't think that trying to prove that God does not exist will do any good. My girlfriend sometimes says that see knows some things to be true and yet she does not believe in them. I would argue that if one knows than surely one must also believe. I thought about this and I have formed the opinion that to believe is to hold something to be true whatever anyone or anything else says. By arguing with, and observing, true believers the validity of my opinion is only strengthened. Whatever happens to a true believer, he/she will trust that it was for the best and part of the divine plan. If a proof of Gods non-existence would be discovered it would probably have been provided by God to test the faith of his people or something along those lines.

I'm afraid that doing nothing simply maintains the status quo. Non-believers *must* be active and resolute. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm late for my community atheist meeting....

I can understand where you're coming from, but it seems possible that you are using a false analogy.

Most of your argument was perfectly easy to understand. You seem to think that believing in God is like believing in an invisible pink unicorn, a common analogy. We should doubt its existence until given unambiguous data otherwise. My doubts, however, stem from the fact that this analogy contains plenty of assumptions that can themselves be questioned.

First, it is helpful to notice how unreliable analogies are. ALL analogies presume that two things are meaningfully similar and can be compared usefully. Another problem is that an unexplained analogy hides more than it shows. Suppose someone was to say that 'belief in God is like belief in Leprecauns.' This is all very well if I already agree, but if I doubt the analogy I need an explanation. 'Like belief in Leprecauns in what way? Are you saying that God is Irish?' 'But Leprecauns live in Ireland, whereas God lives everywhere.' My point is that these seemingly innocent, simple, convincing analogies unpack into reams of reasoning and discussion, that can in turn be doubted. Far from answering our questions, analogies can give rise to more. Analogies look innocent only because they hide more reasoning than they show.

To deal with your 'Pink Unicorn' analogy more directly, it seems to imply the following:
- God is merely a myth, like Unicorns.
- There is no evidence for God, as there is with Unicorns.
- By default, we should be sceptical of God for the same reason that we are sceptical of Unicorns.
- Like a Unicorn, God is complex. (I'm less certain about this one; I'll admit that it's an uncertain interpretation.)
What I'm trying to illustrate is how loaded this, and all, analogies are. They cannot take the place of real, explicit reasoning. Most of your agument did not deal directly with God, but with analogies about God, and this can never be rationally preferable. There's plenty of reasoning about Unicorns, all hinging on the premise that God is more or less the same. Is that safe?

I also have a few doubts about the four bullet points above. For instance:
- The belief that 'there is no evidence for God' may seem perfectly safe, but it is actually very interpretative. What you really mean is that 'there are no events that should require God as an explanation', but this already looks less certain. What evidence is 'evidence FOR' depends on how you interpret it, not that some interpretations are not better than others. What would 'data about God' be like, in your opinion? Whatever your answer, it implies an undertanding of God. One point I think you missed is that God is often intended to function as an ultimate explanation, not a proximal one (look up Aquinas for an influential example.) Many people think that the world itself is evidence for God; that this evidence is not specific things in the world, it IS the world.
- A common response to this notion is that God is a bad explanation for the world in some way. One problem (for certain atheists, at least) is that this already delves into Theology, every atheist's least favourite subject. If you think that God is a bad explanation for the world, why? Is God complex? Then we need analysis that shows this. Is it that we should prefer 'natural', rather than 'supernatural' explanations? Then what do these words mean? I've read an excellent essay recently that suggests that they mean nothing at all. Are there 'better' explanations available? How are they better? You can bet that any answer to these questions will contain yet more assumptions.
- Probably the biggest assumption in the argument is that we should be equally sceptical of God as we are of Unicorns until there is data. Is this necessarily true, however? I would argue that a simple item like Gravity requires less scepticism than a complex one like the Flying Spagetti Monster. Which one you think God more closely resembles, is, again, a matter of Theology.

Also, I would argue that there are profound differences between God and Unicorns that render the 'Unicorn' analogy demonstrably unreliable. (Similarly for leprecauns, the Tooth Fairy, etc...) Unlike a Unicorn, God is not made of a large number of cells arranged in space, does not have a horn, is infinite rather than finite... you probably get the idea. What's more, I think that evidence for God would have to be of a very different character from evidence for Unicorns. Exactly what character is something I'm trying to figure out. When the object of your search is omnipresent, it cannot be pointed to, and it's no use looking in any particular place for it either. Think of the claim 'I don't believe in Gravity. I've travelled all over the world and I've never seen it.' My point is that belief in God is far more like belief in Gravity than it is in a Unicorn. Gravity, like God, is omnipresent and arguably displays a kind of limited Omnipotence as well as infallability. It may sound odd to apply theological terms to a force of Physics, but it's not unfair. We find gravity not by looking in certain places, but by interpreting the world as a whole. God is not something you find, it is something you recognize. Notice that this follows inevitably from understanding what 'Omnipresent' means - it is not a controversial piece of Theology, a claim to have seen God, or even an implicit claim that God exists because it can be hypothetical as well. Comparing God to Gravity seems a far fairer analogy to use, and I've also tried to reduce the ambiguity by explaining it.

Overall, my problem is that your approach from analogy will only satisfy people who largely already agree with you, and your implicit Theology to boot. The purpose of reasoning and philosophy, however, is to make the implicit explicit.

This whole thing comes down to the definition of "rational" (or even more importantly "not rational").

Since one can't prove that God does not exist, that makes it not irrational to believe in him.

Does "not irrational" exactly equal "rational"?

To the person making those logical steps it apparently does. To many of us though, it doesn't. It's only rational to believe in something if there is evidence (not even "proof" mind you, just evidence).

So the rationality of belief in God, even short of proving God, should be based on presentation of evidence.

Then of course you get into the definition of "evidence". Any time I've had this conversation, the "evidence" I get is mostly personal feelings and emotional responses that would certainly not pass as evidence to most rational people.

This seems a flawed analysis to me.

The world is built on the metaphoric assumption there are two charges, positive and negative, because it works, and in a quite Darwinian way what works tends to get copied. The world says nothing about the existence of a third charge because it makes no difference to the operation of devices dependent on the two-charge system. There might be a third charge; there might not be a third charge. It really doesn't matter. This is NOT the same as saying that there is no third charge.

(And anyway, this notion that we are so certain of there being two charges that we base our entire society on it - it's a rather confused notion. At the level of everyday electronics we conceptualise charges as positive or negative, but in reality there is only one type of charge which is either present or not present.)

But I digress. The point is, there is a key difference with religious belief.

Unlike magic unicorns and third electrical charges, belief does serve a useful purpose. For some people it is the difference between delight and despair; between purpose and apathy; between life and death. On the whole, people who believe in God tend to be happier. And you can go measure this - it's an evidence-based assertion. You might not understand it or experience it, but that does not make it less real.

Finally, and most importantly, all the above arguments are flawed (including mine) because of (take your pick) the Allegory of the Cave problem or the Brain-in-a-Vat problem (aka the Matrix Hypothesis / simulation argument).

And I'm an atheist.

It is clearly not rational to believe that any god exists.

The real question is this:
If belief in god can save me from this awful deterministic world view would it be worth it?

So far I have decided that the answer is NO.

@ the.speck
Unlike magic unicorns and third electrical charges, belief does serve a useful purpose.
I absolutely agree. But the question is if the purpose is useful for the believer or for those who tell him what to do, be they officers, politicians, Kings, or other bosses. Organized religion over the centuries has shown the tendency to either dominate or align with mundane powers, thus lending the rulers additional (spiritual) authority.
A few examples:
Egyptian, Mayan, Persian God Kings - Roman deification of Caesar Augustus,
Christians since Constantine of Byzantium Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s
Muslim mystification of the Ottoman Empire as Forces of Islam
Todays Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran, Palestine, Israel - less so Cyprus and Sri Lanka.
The invocation of powers infinite and all-knowing behind it all, the styling of childlike faith as superior to mundane reasoning, the dehumanization of unbelieving heathen, it all serves the purpose of disciplining and humiliating the believer.
Oh, what a happy man.
And I didn't even start with what the Abrahamic religions that dominate the discussion here disproportionally did to charge the simple processes of eating, procreation, tenderness with guilt and aversion...
You refer to the happiness of the faithful as a proven fact, may we see the evidence? I mostly see guilt and fear, again, on a global level.
The fact that many believers treat criticism of their beliefs as a personal aggression only means that their beliefs are deeply felt. Is doesn't mean faith makes them happy...
My experience with Abrahamic believers (Jews, Christians, Muslims) is that they often tend to monopolize the meaning of life and values. What is so fulfilling, so meaningful about being a humble servant of Yahwe/God/Allah? Aren't there really pressing issues not mentioned in the holy book like the environment, the abolition of wars, famine, diseases, all worthy of full scale devotion? Is working for decades to find a cure for HIV, cancer, malaria not reason enough for an existence? Is the existence of my sons not reason enough to set an example for them, feed them, educate them as good as can be? I don't need a god to abstain from beating my wife and children (and I don't care that quite a few deities actively advise corporal punishment). And of course I won't seduce my neighbors wife, or steal his car, and he won't. It's all a simple question of reciprocal behavior.
Values... Did you ever think about the reasons why of the mosaic commandments 40% are about details of religious service, and only 60% about all the rest?
And most of those 60% abrogated in cases of war or towards unbelievers?

There are things beyond logic. Try refrain yourself from restricting to just one view and you might see things differently.

Things are material, menglee.
Logic is derived from the way material things are and interact, it describes and explains the way things are, and thus is shaped by the way things are. Therefore, there are no things beyond logic - logic is like things. If things were different, (like in a hypothetical universe) then logic would be accordingly different.
What you refer to is, there are thoughts and ideas beyond logic, stuff like the arts, poetry, fairy tales, urban and rural myths, and, yes, religion in a few thousand different ways. Now, thoughts are not bound by the material world of things. They are only restricted by the boundaries of imagination, there is no reality test for them.
People can imagine and invent just about everything, like elephants with very big ears that act as wings, or incredibly brave but totally outnumbered warriors who go to their imminent death joking and laughing, or very very bad and ugly entities who plan to destroy the world. And Hollywood can make a plethora of movies along those lines, with lots of special effects, and the emotions you feel when Leonidas or Dr. Frankenstein appear on the screen are usually more intense than the emotions you experience in your daily mundane life - after all, the people who write and direct those stories know how to work your emotions, keep you interested, deliver their message. But that does not constitute a reality beyond or beside logic, in which Dumbo flies, Leonidas is heroic and Arnold S. shoots cold beams. Elephants aren't built for flying, Spartans were rather one-dimensional bullies, and freeze rays are impossible (cold, being the absence of heat, can't be focussed).
But in a story, a movie, everybody accepts those impossibilities for the emotions they evoke and the special effects they usually go with. One enjoys it ( or is deeply moved by heroism or tragedy or dramatic love), which was the purpose of the movie/story/fairy tale. You come out of the theater and feel different. And this kind of story-telling has a very long tradition.
But, remember, it is all made up, menglee.
And for purposes. The shaman tells stories about mighty hunters who fight bears bare handed and succeed, and get the most beautiful woman on earth only to instigate bravery in the tribes youngsters. The Roman tales of Cocles (a soldier who all alone held a bridge against an army ), Livius (who burnt his hand to impress the Etrurians) and Curtius (who sacrificed himself to ensure the eternal duration of the Roman Republic) are pure lessons in the question-less underling heroism the Roman Empire (and most military organizations until today) require...
But still - all these figures did not and do not exist in a material way, nor do they have an existence beyond logic. They are puppets to demonstrate something useful. Not for the individual, usually for the general good as perceived by the Caesar, pontiff, Great Honcho - the puppet players.
As you may see, I avoided the openly religious tales, but there's no difference to old testimony's claims that Jahwe intervened godly in favor of his tribe, advising them to kill other people he made, or the claim that god saved the one surviver of a plane crash while letting all the others die.
There you have your Things Beyond Logic. They follow a hidden logic, instigate emotions, behaviors, discipline and a general attitude of hostility and not-worthiness of the individual. They are destined to turn people into puppets.
Not a point of view for the 21st century...
I prefer the other kind of stories, the ones where people help themselves and others, working hard using logic and science, inventing useful things like Penicillin, tampons, or a third-world water pump easy to assemble from tin cans... Those are a little closer to reality, and definitely more useful for a meaningful life.

I agree with MycroftH. There is nothing beyond logic. This is because logic is not even a place, and "beyond logic" is not any kind of place. Logic is simply a requirement of statements made by us to describe things. Regardless of what exists and does not exist, nobody has the right to have his/her illogical statements taken seriously.

Try explaining the logic of astronauts not falling from the sky and plane that can fall. Though I understood the logic behind it but how do u explain the universe has 2 system for one thing? Likewise, Bible stated God made Adam before Eve but science prooved otherwise. Logic or beyond logic? LOL!

Your astronautical/aeronautical question was (in principle) already answered by Newton, Huygens, and Leibnitz back in the 17th century... gravity follows the square inverse law. Which results in relatively stable orbits for objects depending on their speed and altitude .
Your Astronaut, it seems, is in one of those orbits above the denser parts of the atmosphere - he moves along a circular path where, roughly speaking, the centrifugal force resulting from his tangential speed equals earth's gravity's force.
That's why satellites don't fall down as long as they maintain the same tangential speed. Details here Which is enormous - the ISS, for example, which orbits 380 km above the surface, goes a speed of 7.68 km per second - roughly 16,450 mph, while a satellite in a geostationary orbit in an altitude of 35,800 km requires less than half the orbital speed, 3.07 km/s.
The closer to the surface, the higher the speed required for an orbit. A 30,000 feet orbit would require a speed of more than 7.8 km/s, which these days can't be reached in a dense atmosphere - friction problems.
That's why we - ingenious species that we are - use a different system of locomotion for flying inside an atmosphere, utilizing aerodynamic effects like uplift and such. Same system (Universe, Planet Earth), same force (gravity), additional phenomenon (atmosphere), different solution.
Interesting enough, one of the better arguments against the brothers Wright and their machine was based on gravity calculations.

As for Adam and Eve and whom Yahwe made first - that's a matter of abrahamic literature, a rather irrational and openly misogynistic - patriarchal concept. After all, males can't procreate...
Norse mythology (Ask and Embla), Chinese Pangu, Hinduist Manu, Inca (Pacha Camac), and the Maori traditions ( just to name a few) are a little more realistic inasfar that according to them man and woman were created at the same time...
But, as I said, that's merely a question of interpreting an early kind of fantasy literature.

The cause of death and destruction is dogmatism, whether it is religious, political, nationalistic, scientific, economic or philosophical.

Whenever human beings decide that their beliefs about something (the superiority of their God or their race or their country or their ideology) trump such considerations as the need to help rather than harm other human beings, the result is going to be bad. (This is an idea by the way, that lies at the heart of revealed religion, whether or not we practice what our faiths preach.)

I fail to see how the antipathy of atheists is any better than the antipathy of religious people. In any case, it will not solve mankind's many problems.

The failure of religion is that we have failed to practice what such luminaries as Buddha, Christ and Baha'u'llah have taught. That is, it is our failure, not the failure of faith.

I also note that the statement that "religious ideas are irrational" is itself not rational (I'd argue that it is dogmatic). All religious ideas are obviously not the same, but the statement assumes that they are. I've encountered many religious beliefs that I find irrational, but I think it would be wrong of me to promote the idea that they represented all religious points of view or to issue judgments about all religious thought or religious people as a result.

I believe in God. But NOT because science can't disprove His existence. And I don't know anyone who does believe in God for that reason. So to me, this seems like a straw argument. The thought processes that have gone into my belief are too complex to be summed up in a bulleted list, and they bear no resemblance to the chain of "logic" suggested in the above article.

My take on what is a moral and intellectual necessity is for us to use the rational faculties God endowed us with to seek out the best understanding of our selves, our reality and our world that we can, using the tools available to us. And when it seems to us that our beliefs as practiced inflict harm on others, we need to question them.

the.speck wrote: "Unlike magic unicorns and third electrical charges, belief does serve a useful purpose. For some people it is the difference between delight and despair; between purpose and apathy; between life and death. ..."

It also serves a purpose within societies, encouraging people to overlook personal likes and dislikes, native distrust, etc, in order to expand the concept of "WE" to a larger group. To find a larger loyalty that "myself, my family, my clan, my tribe, my country, my ethnic group".

Moses, for example, gave teachings that caused the separate tribes of Israel to cohere into a people with an ethnic identity that superseded the smaller tribal unities. Christ encouraged his followers to look beyond their ethnic or regional loyalties when considering who was their neighbor. Muhammad's teachings brought together and pacified a gaggle of warring tribes of diverse religious backgrounds. Baha'u'llah's teachings, based as they are around the unity of humanity, call for a paradigm shift in thinking to elevate our idea of "WE" past political, religious, or ideological loyalties to embrace the entire planet.

Key in the.speck's analysis to me is a point that I rarely if ever see considered in my engagement with atheists. He comments: "The world is built on the metaphoric assumption there are two charges, positive and negative, because it works..."

Consider the idea that some of us believe in God not because of some absurdly simplistic idea that we believe in God because of a lack of proof of His non-existence (now there's a convolution for ya) but because it works.

The main purpose of beliefs should be to be true. Everything else is fluff.

Paul wrote: The main purpose of beliefs should be to be true. Everything else is fluff.

I think that's more an attribute than a purpose, isn't it? And it requires that standards for truth be addressed.

If I believe I can accomplish something, I stand a far better chance of accomplishing it because my actions will be more decisive and confident. Conversely, if I don't believe I can accomplish something, I stand a far better chance of failing because my actions will be indecisive and tentative.

So it may be equally true to say that I can accomplish a thing and to say that I cannot. Aha! Schrodinger's Truth!

Ultimately, this is what I mean when I said I judge my beliefs in part by how well they work in context with life, the universe and everything. They are proven to be true.

I think what Paul is saying here is that belief should be the result of a process which searches for objective, rather than subjective truth. Not truth that is true for me alone, but truth that exists even outside of human observation (but not necessarily outside of human comprehension); truth that has been verified by empirical evidence. It is the difference in belief between "I believe in flying apples, even though I cannot see them" and "I believe that the moon has a dark side, even though I cannot see it."

The quest for truth has provided humankind with much evidence for the latter, but no evidence for the former. And that is something I truly believe.

Mary Lee said: "I think what Paul is saying here is that belief should be the result of a process which searches for objective, rather than subjective truth. Not truth that is true for me alone, but truth that exists even outside of human observation."

So are you saying that anything that is believed MUST be true for (and therefore believed by) everyone? That, in essence, all truth is objective and universal and never individual and subjective?

I can't agree with that, though I can agree that belief should be the result of a process that seeks objective truth, IF we acknowledge that that objectivity may be relative or contextual. As I noted above, to say "I believe I can do X." May be true or it may be untrue. It may also be true at one moment and not the next.

Truth can also vary between individuals. I can look at a color and say "That's green." My husband can look at the same color and say, "No, it's blue." Is one of us right and one wrong? Or is this a matter of definition--whether we take cyan as being bluer than it is green? Or is it possible for the object to be blue to one person and green to another because of physical differences in the eye?

Once, not that long ago, we looked at a spot in space and said, "There's nothing there." We all agreed that was true. We looked again with a new set of lenses and saw a huge cloud of some sort of material there that we could not see previously. "There's nothing there" was an accepted truth -- a universal truth -- until we applied a different tool to the task of seeing. Suddenly, "There's nothing there" was false.

Because of this discovery, I can make the statement that, at that point in space, there is a Great Wall ... except that's not true. It's not a wall. There's something there that we metaphorically refer to as the Great Wall. So this once unrecognized truth is communicated via metaphors, which are subjective. (You say "wall", I say "cloud.")

This is not unlike the way we communicate about God.

There are other levels of necessary subjectivity to truths as well. It is true for me that the movie "Big Trouble in Little China" is inspiring. It's absolutely true, I've gotten ideas for two completely different novels out of the ambiance alone. I doubt it's true for you or anyone else. It's my truth that Vivaldi's "Et in Terra Pax" from his Gloria Mass is the most evocative piece of music I've ever heard. Again, I doubt that's true for everyone.

Some truths -- some even profound truths -- are true for individuals.

Yet, I think some of the greatest universal truths have come to us from religion. One I find quite profound at this point in my life is the idea that hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love. And that, as an extension of this, the only way to destroy hatred is with a stronger thought of love.

You may think it odd, but it is a tenet of my religion "Scientific knowledge is the highest attainment upon the human plane, for science is the discoverer of realities." I accept this as true. I suspect you may, as well.

with her view of what I meant about belief. Belief should be the end result of trying to find out what is true. I find it of great concern these days that lots of people seem to be promoting the idea that we should assess beliefs on other grounds - How good do they make us feel? How much social utility do they have? Do they help us get through life? Do they make us feel in touch with something spiritual? Do they associate us with some group that gives us identity? All of these may be attributes of a belief, but they are also purposes that some people assign to beliefs - the two are not mutually exclusive. Something can be attribute of a belief, but also a reason for having a belief. Whether it is true or not is an attribute of a belief. It is also the only criteria we should have for holding a belief. Of course, people will make mistakes and think a belief is true when it is false, but people do something else as well: They actually use different justifications for holding beliefs that are not based on the truth values of those beliefs, and that is pure insanity. It is also of questionable coherency because it suggests that some people can think that something is true while at the same time not thinking it is true, but deciding to think it is true for other reasons. There is no reasoned argument for such a position. Indeed, if anyone tries to argue for such a position we should wonder if he/she even really thinks his/her own argument is true, as he/she is making it clear that issues such as truth aren't that important.

Kaath, hypothetically speaking, what would it take for you to become atheist? What impediments would need to be removed in order for you to make this change?

Paul wrote: "Belief should be the end result of trying to find out what is true. "

Yes, I see what you're saying now, and I agree.

CindyB asked: "Kaath, hypothetically speaking, what would it take for you to become atheist? What impediments would need to be removed in order for you to make this change?"

I had to chuckle. To me this seems such an odd question. The answer is I don't know what it would take, because I haven't encountered it. And I don't think of it in terms of impediments. There isn't something keeping me from becoming an atheist; there are things, rather, that continually reinforce my belief. Every time I consider the atheist world view in context with what I know of history, science, life and religion, it just seems an irrational response to the way the world is.

I once worked for a man who said he was an atheist because he was mad at God for something that failed to happen that he'd really wanted. I tried to point out to him that that wasn't atheism, really, just a high dudgeon. But I think if I ever became an atheist, that's the sort of atheist I'd be. And, to be honest, I don't think it would last once I stopped to consider my reaction.

I am a Baha'i because the world as explained by Baha'u'llah makes more sense to me than the world as explained by any other faith taken as an isolated event or by the dogma men have extrapolated from those faiths, OR by atheist philosophies.

So, it's not a question of something in my faith world view that needs to be removed, but things in the atheist world view that are missing. The reverse would have to be true: those things would have to be not only present in atheism, but missing from my faith.

I might ask you the same thing: "Cindy, hypothetically speaking, what would it take for you to become a theist of some sort (not a Christian or a Buddhist or a specific denomination, but simply a believer in some sort of universal Intelligence)? What impediments would need to be removed in order for you to make this change?"

Hi Kaath,

What I was getting at (and perhaps stated poorly) was this: Is there *any* way that you could become an atheist, or are you absolutely, positively, dead set against it?

The reason I am asking is that if there is no evidence that would convince you that god does not exist, then reason is not a part of your toolkit; you have simply "decided" and will under no circumstances change your mind. To be "reasonable" one must be open-minded, and to be open-minded is to be amenable to change.

For my part, I most certainly *could* be convinced of the existence of god--if only I was shown conclusive empirical evidence that is reproducible by others. I could be convince of god if her existence could be shown to be true the way the existence of this apple on my desk can be shown to be true. It is this truth that I am after, and I hold no prejudices beyond that desire.

The impediments which would have to be removed for me to except the existence of god are modes of belief that have been excepted without empirical evidence. Thousands of gods have been believed in by millions of people over the centuries (a small sampling of which have been listed on this website: http://machineslikeus.com/news/global-gods), and most are now forgotten; their gods have died out with their civilization. And like today's gods, belief in many are contradictory. This is belief for belief's sake alone, and in my opinion it has little in common with proof. Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence; belief without empirical validation; belief without knowing what is true.

So I restate my question: Is there any way that you might become an atheist?

CindyB wrote: "What I was getting at (and perhaps stated poorly) was this: Is there *any* way that you could become an atheist, or are you absolutely, positively, dead set against it?"

I think what I said in my original response should answer the question. I'm not a believer because of "impediments" to me being an atheist or because I've simply made up my mind to be a believer. If there is evidence that would convince me God does not exist and that the atheist world view is sufficient explanation for life the universe and everything, I have yet to encounter it.

My whole life has been about change, Cindy. I have been a Baha'i for 35 years. Before that I was a Christian of one denomination or another, though I never actually joined a church. In my late teens, I went through a period of free fall, during which I examined my beliefs deeply, discarded some and acquired new ones. At that point, I seriously considered an atheist perspective. Alas, it made no more sense of the world than the fundamentalist Christian perspectives I had been exposed to.

CindyB wrote: "Faith, by definition, is belief without evidence; belief without empirical validation; belief without knowing what is true."

That may be your definition, it is not mine. My definition of faith is summed up well by mathematician William S. Hatcher. He defines faith as "the process of organizing our emotions around our assumptions" and says further that "We can define an individual’s faith to be his total emotional and psychological orientation resulting from the body of assumptions about reality which he has made (consciously or unconsciously).”

Hatcher suggests that it's a good idea to continually appraise and check our beliefs to keep them as close to reality as humanly possible so that we won't wake up some morning and realize that our belief system is based on blind imitation.

He goes on to say: "In short, when our concepts are grossly unscientific, our faith becomes blind and unreal. We come to expect the wrong things and to be upset when they do not happen as we wish. We become hardened and adamant in our faith. Even when presented with clear contradictions in our conceptions we resist change, for we sense that even though the purely intellectual effort necessary to reconstitute our thought may be small, the emotional reorientation necessary to assimilate the new truth will be great. Thus, we may be led, by our emotions, to act against our own interest. How scientifically did Jesus say, "As a man thinketh , so is he," and how scientifically did Paul say, "The good I would do I do not." The more we persist in our blind faith the greater the inertia against acceptance of a truer picture of reality, and the greater the pain when the larger conception forces itself upon us and we can avoid it no longer. “— William S. Hatcher, “Science and Religion,” Bahá’í Studies Vol. II September, 1977

You mentioned a mental toolkit that's necessary for pursuit of knowledge. When you're setting out to look for evidence of God, you might bear in mind that just as you need the proper toolkit to pursue knowledge in a physical discipline—biology say—you need the proper toolkit for study of spiritual subjects. After all, how likely are you to find evidence for the existence of earth-like planets or black holes if you're using a microscope or the naked eye (and looking down at the planet you're standing on)?

Reason is obviously an indispensable part of the toolkit. And it must be applied to a study of the available materials and ideas. In my study of neuroscience and psychology, I read books and articles by people who were expert in the subject (Oliver Sacks, for example.) When I wanted to learn about physics, I read Hawking, Feynman and the like. When I went about studying religion, I read scripture first, then commentary on same. I did not limit myself to only the religion I was most familiar with. I went out of my way to leave my comfort zone and study unfamiliar faiths: Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, native American beliefs.

When I approached it, I was seeking evidence for or against a certain claim. I had come to the conclusion that, as isolated events, the world's revealed religions did not make any sense. Their dogmas were often absurd and their institutional track record abysmal. Even within the Christian community, one group would insist that it had the real thing and everyone else had zip. It was this, ultimately that set me off in the first place.

I encountered the teachings of the Baha'i Faith and the singular idea that those revealed religions, far from being isolated phenomena were a sequence of events. They were, Baha'u'llah claimed, all part of our education, and that if I looked at the essential spiritual teachings, I would find that they were the same. I would find some differences in the social teachings that were culturally relative, and I would find that the dogmas that dominated the organized or institutionalized religion currently more often than not bore little resemblance to what the Prophet or Avatar said were the essential teachings.

Long story short: When I studied the scriptures and got a sense of the history and cultures out of which they arose, I found exactly what Baha'u'llah said I would find. The picture of religion, as a whole, made sense, whereas before it had made none, whether I looked at it from a "Christ is the only Way" perspective or a "there is no way" perspective. This was not welcome news, really. I really wanted my childhood picture of Christ and faith affirmed. I did NOT want to hear that faith required constant use of reason to judge, as Christ would say, the fruits of things.

For me, that meant questioning all my assumptions about religion. There's a popular ad that pops up on interfaith and science and religion forums that says "The message that changed the world hasn't changed." But even a cursory reading of that cited message (the Gospel) disproves the slogan. We evolve and God's communication with us evolves. Makes sense. I don't speak to my 7 year old the same way I speak to my 15 year old.

My point is that to really get to the core of what religion is and what God is or is not, you have to go back—as much as possible—to the scriptural sources and declutter your mind of all the calcification of dogma. That ad above describes what most atheists I know think of Christianity. But Christianity is not that immutable thing. At least, not according to Christ.

Now, please don't take this as even close to the sum total of my process or the full scope of my search. I just wanted to suggest one possible starting point. Do I expect you to engage in that search? Nope. I think people hunt when they're hungry.

But to restate my answer: There might be evidence that could convince me to become an atheist, but I haven't encountered it. And I've looked.

You're a slippery one, Kaath, but I enjoyed our discussion. Happy New Year!

Now what was slippery about my answer?

You asked: Is there *any* way that you could become an atheist, or are you absolutely, positively, dead set against it?

I answered: There might be evidence that could convince me to become an atheist, but I haven't encountered it yet. To be more specific, I don't have one "thing" about which I can say, "Well, if you can show me X, I'll become an atheist." I just don't operate that way. Sorry. The beliefs I currently have are years in the making and required a fair amount of study and thought. Heck, they still do. As I encounter new knowledge, I assimilate it (because, as we all know, resistance to knowledge is futile) and adjust accordingly.

But, hey, if we all operated the same way, the world would be a deadly boring place, now wouldn't it? Happy Gregorian New Year to you too!

that virtually all religions and their gods and holy books are basically on the same level as unicorns and leprechauns. Like the greek, egyptian, mayan, etc that came before and are no longer practiced*(at least significantly), they are likely to fade away in due time.

If there ever comes to be a plausible evidence in favor of a godlike being it is extremely unlikely that it will be in favor of anything that resembles the one from these tall tales that pass of as holybooks.

that that is a pretty big generalization and is saved only by the use of the ambiguous words "virtually" and "basically."

Let's take sacred texts such as the Dhammapada, the Qur'an or the Kitab-i-Iqan. In what way do those scriptures (or their contents) compare with a unicorn? I believe that's a category error, is it not? You're comparing two things that are not in the same category, logically speaking.

You reference "a godlike being" and "the one" from holy books. Have you read the holy books I reference above? Are you conversant with their descriptions of God? I'm sincerely curious.

The assertion that unspecified current-day religions are going to fade away like Mayan religion is not borne out by historical fact. Hinduism is as old as the Indus Valley culture and is still going pretty strong. Judaism, likewise. The life span of a religion is, in part, determined by its geographical spread before the culture in which it grew is destroyed or falls into decay. A religion that spans cultures isn't likely to die off, especially in the presence of new tools to spread it and connect its adherents.

If you're looking for something to compare to a unicorn, I suspect the hope that religion will simply fade away is right up there with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

@ Kaath
You have a point there, inasfar as mythical beings are in a different category than the myths in which they're partaking. It's a bit of a small-minded argument, but it is an argument.
What is not widely known is that one of the major sources of our beloved mythical Unicorn is the Thora / bible , at least in its Greek septuaginta and Latin vulgata versions.
[Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9-12; Psalm 22:21; 29:6; 92:10]
6th century Cosmas Indicopleustes, another source on Unicorns, only reports from Ethiopian hearsay, and, as a Nestorian, may have known the above cited scripture.
So, the Unicorn is referred to in Judaic/Christian scripture, but it seems safe to say that it does not exist, and everybody knows that it is a myth - a (sacred) narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form. I can't quite see why you insist so strongly that the myths of gods be treated differently...

There is much wisdom in the folklorist stories about unicorns, as is in the Hesiod based Prometheus trilogy of (presumably)Aeschylos or the Thorah or the Apocrypha Discordia - the foremost function of a myth is to establish models of behavior, after all.
And even those Irish Leprechauns, makers of shoes, finders of buried treasures, gifted with a strong sense of practical humor fit in here - ask William Butler Yeats.
But generally it is all a sort of literature - and you, as a writer, should know more about that than you admit here.
Literatures, even those dealing in wisdom and moral, can easily co-exist. Of course there's always discussion, enmity, intrigue and such between authors' supporters, but not outright war and dispensing of suicide vests...
Treating scripture as literature only removes the spiked picket around certain texts, so they can be discussed and criticized just like a text authored by John Locke, Theodore Roosevelt, Kahlil Gibran or Rainer Maria Rilke...

Mary Lee says: "The problem here is that religious belief is the cause of much death and destruction in the world. As author Sam Harris said: "That so much of this suffering can be directly attributed to religion – to religious hatreds, religious wars, religious delusions, and religious diversions of scarce resources – is what makes atheism a moral and intellectual necessity."

Why put religious belief in a different category from political belief or nationalistic belief or racial belief or any one of a thousand other "beliefs" that cause people to join in conflict?

The problem is not religion, itself, but what we do with it. By the Hitchinesque logic that religion poisons everything, one might just as logically say that testosterone or sex poisons everything. It is responsible for all rapes committed by men since the dawn of time. Shall we then propose that testosterone and sex are at the root of the world's problems and resolve to get rid of them?

The problem is human selfishness, greed and desire to control others. Religion, like sex, like resources, like politics, like science, like any other tool is just that—a tool. In the hands of the wise such a tool is useful and beneficial. In the hands of the greedy and foolish, not so much.

MycroftH wrote: "You have a point there, inasfar as mythical beings are in a different category than the myths in which they're partaking. It's a bit of a small-minded argument, but it is an argument."

Nice personal swipe. Not fair, because I think you probably realize I won't strike back. At any rate, the point you picked up on was not the point I was making. I was attempting to get past the simplistic soundbite: "scripture is like a unicorn" and down to what is really being said and about what.

All of what human beings refer to as scripture is not equal. Whether the "Thora" contains references to unicorns is irrelevant. The "Thora" is a collection of texts reckoned by some to be scriptural. Not all of those individual texts claim to be the "word of God" or sacred or even inspired. Some of us have decided to view them in that way for reasons that, to me at any rate, are somewhat mysterious.

There are other texts within the Torah and beyond it—many of them, in fact—that are not folkloric in nature, that speak directly to the behavior and life concerns of human beings. Perhaps these are largely ignored when atheists refer to or discuss scripture because they do NOT contain unicorns or other mythological beasties that are easy to poke fun at.

I think that scripture can be treated as literature especially when it proposes a narrative. But to discard the message of Christ because Luke was a poor writer would be nonsensical. By that standard, we should cease taking moral lessons from the speeches of Martin Luther King and instead critique his use of language or imagery. (A man should be judged by "the content of his character?" Feh. What does THAT mean? Character has no content. A poor use of metaphor, that. Useless drivel.)

My point to the post I responded to was that treating religious texts with broad brushstrokes is simplistic to the point of being meaningless. If you wish to critique the Torah for its featuring unicorns, that's fair. It's neither fair nor logical, however, to state unequivocally (i.e. dogmatically) that because the Torah contains a reference to unicorns (or whatever) all holy books are fairy tales. It's also a logical fallacy.

I'm not proposing to judge the bible by literalistic criteria, kaath.
(Though it would be an interesting task, especially as far as the book of revelation is concerned...)
I'm proposing to treat it and the plethora of existing scripture like any other book. If I find wisdom, love, understanding, empathy in one of them - wonderful. If I find hatred, narrow-mindedness, misogyny, acceptance of slavery, imperialist thoughts - that's bad, and I don't see any reason why I should refer from saying so because some people have put it in their minds that this special class of books contains absolute truth. They're all books, and a wisdom is a wisdom, be it written down in whatever literary form (Textbook, fable, lyrics, whatever). And inhumanity and stupidity are inhumanity and stupidity, where ever they may be found. But you see, the benchmark I use is a rational, humanistic, enlightened one. And it changes as I grow older and, hopefully, wiser and more tolerant.

You are familiar with Socrates' Euthypro dilemma
Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God ?
I won't refer to the trouble this dilemma infers on theists, but for me it seems obvious that moral and reason can't be something a priori declared by a deity.
I understand that, as a Ba'hai you see the development of moral behavior, too - even though for you it is more of a development of recurring avatars.
Moral and behavior changes that accompany societal changes can be observed in history.
Abolition of serfdom (in the Renaissance), Freedom and Democracy, Abolition of slavery, Emancipation, Abolition of Segregation, Gay rights, children's rights... All these societal changes have been - and not only in their beginnings - strongly opposed by the absolute majority of scripture-influenced religions. Quite some societies still don't grant many of those human rights because the state religion prevents their instalment, and some religions openly forbid the rational interpretation of their scripture, hoping to prevent any change.
This clinging to rules for rural communities 500 BC, or 700 AC, that wants to be treated as something else than stubborn backwardness declares itself unassailable because it is based on "Faith" and/or "epiphany", as something superior to hard reasoning and proper analysis.
Now, everybody is free to say that Marx or Locke or Darwin erred, if he provides evidence. It may cause a discussion, but it is legitimate. But whoever behaves the same way towards the, beware, holy book of choice, is treated as trespassing, violating the religious feelings of the devout masses. And as someone who's witnessed devout mass violence I can tell you that's no fun.
I don't mind if you prefer your wisdom with a whiff of frankincense as long as you accept other ways of finding wisdom and, maybe, an approximation to truth... Which is a rare treat in devout people, to my experience.

MycroftH says: “I'm proposing to treat it and the plethora of existing scripture like any other book.... They're all books, and a wisdom is a wisdom, be it written down in whatever literary form (Textbook, fable, lyrics, whatever). And inhumanity and stupidity are inhumanity and stupidity, where ever they may be found. But you see, the benchmark I use is a rational, humanistic, enlightened one. And it changes as I grow older and, hopefully, wiser and more tolerant.”

I absolutely agree with you and my reasons for agreement are twofold. The proposition that we should judge things by their fruits rather than what they call themselves is not only reasonable, it’s an article of faith. The Bahá’í texts put it this way: “Love is light in whatsoever house it may shine and enmity is darkness in whatsoever abode it dwell.” This is true of other virtues as well.

MycroftH quote Socrates: “Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God ? I won't refer to the trouble this dilemma infers on theists, but for me it seems obvious that moral and reason can't be something a priori declared by a deity.”

Can it not? If that deity itself is responsible for the very criteria by which we—projections of its intelligence along with the rest of the Universe—judge what is moral, then the question is irrelevant. The very basis by which we judge what is inhuman and stupid or humane and intelligent is written into our DNA, our minds and our souls by that deity.

Or as Bahá’u’lláh puts it: “The Great Being saith: Regard man as a mine rich in gems of inestimable value. Education can, alone, cause it to reveal its treasures, and enable mankind to benefit therefrom. If any man were to meditate on that which the Scriptures...have revealed, he would readily recognize that their purpose is that all men shall be regarded as one soul...”


MycroftH says: “I understand that, as a Ba'hai you see the development of moral behavior, too - even though for you it is more of a development of recurring avatars.”

I see it as a cycle or a spiral. Like a child in school, we as a species achieve a certain level of knowledge or capacity and a Teacher seeds new ideas into that fertile ground. Some ideas take, others not so much and those must be repeatedly seeded. Using those ideas as a springboard, we learn a bit more, grow a bit more. Another Teacher appears and feeds us some more, maybe expanding or using a different method. We grow some more, incorporating those ideas into our worldview.


MycroftH says: “Abolition of serfdom (in the Renaissance), Freedom and Democracy, Abolition of slavery, Emancipation, Abolition of Segregation, Gay rights, children's rights... All these societal changes have been - and not only in their beginnings - strongly opposed by the absolute majority of scripture-influenced religions.”

And this is why the Avatars continue to come, I believe. Because we stray from the core teachings of the faiths and start creating fantastic dogmas based on our own desire to be “chosen” and “elite” or simply in control. The Founder of the Bahá’í Faith wrote to Queen Victoria praising her for the parliamentary form of her government and for her abolition of slavery. He promoted the seemingly absurd ideas that the unity and peace of the world was impossible unless it was built on the foundation of such things as the elimination of prejudices, the emancipation of women, the universal education of children, the independent investigation of truth, interracial marriage, etc.

I think it's unreasonable to confuse the dogmas of a religious following with the teachings of its Founder. To mistake the doctrines of the Catholic Church for the teachings of Christ or the behavior of so-called Islamic terrorists for the teachings of Muhammad. Is it in keeping with your philosophy as stated above to decry religion generically rather than religious dogmatism?

Don't mistake me, either. I am in no way defending dogmatism or the institutionalized cruelty of any religion or other philosophy. In fact, I abhor them. But neither do I mistake them for the reality of the religion they purport to represent.

MycroftH says: “I don't mind if you prefer your wisdom with a whiff of frankincense as long as you accept other ways of finding wisdom and, maybe, an approximation to truth... Which is a rare treat in devout people, to my experience.”

I’m glad you’ll let me keep my frankincense, Mycroft. That's sporting of you. ;=) Most of the devout people I see on a regular basis are Bahá’ís and my experience is that they are encouraged—no, they are exhorted in the strongest terms—to seek knowledge of the sciences, arts, history, world events etc. so that they can understand the problems the world faces and, as much as possible, work to ameliorate them. This is why on any given weekend at our local Baha'i Center you are as likely to see a presentation on physics or genetics as on scriptural subjects. We frankly do not see those as dichotomous.

Bahá’u’lláh, the Founder of the Bahá’í Faith wrote: “Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age you live in and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.” I believe that sometimes those needs require the application of scientific principles and sometimes the application of spiritual ones.

In the past the idea that miracles, the supernatural, and all sorts of mysteries existed in the world was plausible, even to well read men. The advent of the internet, despite propagating nonsense(new-age, ufos, conspiracy theories, religions, etc), has opened the eyes of people and interconnected them, allowing them to see for the first time that these THINGS ARE SIMPLY NOT A PART OF EVERYDAY LIFE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. NO amputee has had a miraculous regeneration. People are up to date with not only their friends but with news from all over the world, and miracles|the supernatural is shown as not being PART OF REALITY. They just ain't, and while some may dismiss this(as the supernatural basis of many of these beliefs lies in the past), the belief that it did occur at present in rumors, gossip, etc was an important reinforcer of this in many religions.

In this century the true nature of the brain will most likely be exposed, a mechanistic|algorithmic explanation of the mind, it will do away with the remnant of vitalism the 'soul' as presented by most religions. The concept of 'soul' if it remains will be radically altered, and any alternate explanation that's not backed by this new found knowledge, will be in conflict with EVIDENCE and the PHYSICAL TRUTH that can be verified by anyone.

As the genomes of the ageless|negligible-senescent animals are sequenced and compared with closely related species, as our understanding of molecular biology progresses, and as synthetic biology and regenerative medicine advance. AGING and DISEASE will be done away, not by faith, not by healers, but by MAN. The advent of physical biological immortality will deal a deadly blow to the need for an after-life... After all if most believe they'll live healthily long enough to be BORED enough to want death(the most common argument against immortality, boredom, right next to overpopulation.), why would they believe they'd want that option taken away? Extreme lifespans will also allow enough experience to be accumulated to see these books as the fairy tales they are.

There's also the possibility that the theory of everything or a future development of it, may be expanded into a theory of existence, providing a rational argument and explanation for the existence of something instead of nothing. IF the nature of existence is revealed and the theory makes predictions that are found valid, it will simply make alternate non-evidence based explanations look ridiculous by comparison, it will kill the GAPS.

BTW, fairy tales and myths can have valuable lessons, morals and the like. I'm not dismissing that, what I'm dismissing is valuing above being mostly FICTION with good teachings, elevating it and using it to describe something as complex as God. The men that wrote these, are ignorant of the nature of the world, the science of their times lacked all the discoveries we've made since then(and those that have yet to be made)... it is preposterous to presume that they'd arrive at theories that would not conflict with any future evidence, and would be unfalsifiable. A God in the image of man, with man-made characteristics and specifications, is very unlikely to resemble any Godlike being that may or may not exist.

I am happy to assert that there is no god now, and I think this century we will have a fairly good idea how brains work. The "why is there something rather than nothing" question caught my attention. With regard to the issue of why there is something rather than nothing, my view (which won't be too popular is):

All abstractions of anything exist as things in their own right.
You don't need to have a miminimum amount of anything for it to be abstracted.
Physical reality, in its entirety, is an abstraction of nothing.