There are two types of gods presented by theists, interacting and non, so I shall address both.
A non-interacting deity is indistinguishable from a deity that does not exist. If two things are indistinguishable from each other they can be treated as the same, classed as the same and have their labels be used interchangeably. This is akin to having a bird with two different names but are biological the same thing. So a non-interacting god is the same thing as a god that does not exist as both have no verifiable impact on our planet, day to day lives or universe.
Anything and everything that interacts with the world has empirical evidence for it. If one is to claim a god interacts with the physical then that can and will have evidence of said interaction, as this has never been found, using Hitchens razor alongside an example.
What is claimed without evidence ( interacting god/widespread election fruad) can be dismissed without evidence.
So we can logically conclude that an interacting deity does not exist based on this argument.
>So a non-interacting god is the same thing as a god that does not exist
A god that exists is the same thing as a god that does not exist???
I agree that neither has an impact on us but it’s not the same.
One scenario is an actual being while another is the absence of it.
We can’t figure out which of those 2 is true.
I agree with 2 though. If there is a god that is interacting in a detectable way then we should be able to observe that.
If we can’t then god is not interacting in a way that we are able to detect.
You are using logical fallacies and terms that are not clearly defined.
Your conclusion is false, there is nothing to logically conclude from your arguments.
Your argument shows no evidence of their being no evidence. An argument made without evidence can be dismissed with out evidence.
The Kalam cosmological argument is evidence
The resurrection of Jesus is evidence
The existence of consciousness is evidence etc etc
Now you might not find this evidence convincing and we could debate this stuff back and forth all day but whether or not you like the evidence it is still evidence. What I’m saying is, its not a matter of their being no evidence, its a matter of there being evidence that is disputed.
There are historical records of a Jesus figure during the Roman Empire so no this argument cannot work unfortunately even if I believe you.
I’m an atheist but I still disagree with both of your claims. There is a clear distinguishing feature between a non-interacting deity and one that does not exist. That is existence. Look at the watchers from marvel comics (aside from Uatu). They merely watch but do not interact, yet they exist.
As for an interacting god. How do you know there is not empirical evidence for it that we are so far unable to examine. I think you are overestimating our ability as a species to investigate. We are constantly learning new was to explore knowledge but we don’t yet know our limitations on doing so if any.
Yes a claim without evidence like the existence of a god can and should be dismissed without evidence, however, that is simply lacking a belief. Making the claim that a god does not exist also requires empirical evidence and simply claiming that theists can’t prove their claim is not empirical evidence. Both the claims that a god exists and a god does not exist would have the burden of proof.
Let’s make the case that there is a God who has interacted with the universe by maintaining that the mere existence and complex design of nature can’t by explained by nature itself. Nature can’t always explain nature, which this argument assumes is false.
Let’s consider the following argument, stated first in a short form. Then let’s explain it in detail and then cover two standard objections to it.
1. Either the universe has always existed, or God has.
2. But, as shown by the second law of thermodynamics, the universe hasn’t always existed.
3. Therefore, God exists.
A. The point here is that something has always existed because self-creation is impossible. Something can never come from nothing. A vacuum can’t spontaneously create matter by itself. Why? This is because the law of cause and effect is based on the fact that what a thing DOES is based on what it IS. Causation involves the expression over a period of time of the law of non-contradiction in entities. Hence, a basketball when dropped on the floor of necessity must act differently from a bowing ball dropped on the same floor, all other things being equal. Hence, if something doesn’t exist (i.e., a vacuum exists), it can’t do or be anything on its own, except remain empty because it has no identity or essence. This is why the “steady state” theory of the universe’s origin devised by the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle was absurd: It said hydrogen atoms were popping out of nothing! How can a nothing do anything?! Since self-creation is impossible, then something had to always exist. So now–was it the material universe? Or was it some other unseen, unsensed Entity outside the material world?
B. The second law of thermodynamics maintains that-the total amount of useful energy in a closed system must always decline. “Useful energy” is energy that does work while flowing from a place of higher concentration to that of a lower concentration. “A closed system’ is a place where no new energy is flowing in or out of it.
The universe, physically, is a closed system because no new matter or energy is being added to it. The first law of thermodynamics confirms this, since it says no matter or energy is being created or destroyed. Hence, eventually all the stars would have burned out if the universe had always existed. A state of “heat death” would have long ago existed, in which the levels of energy throughout each part of the universe would be uniform. A state of maximum entropy (i.e., useless, non-working energy) would have been reached. But since the stars have not burned out, the universe had a beginning.
In this regard, the universe is like a car with a full tank of gas, but which has a stuck gas cap. If the car had always been constantly driven (i.e., had always existed), it would have long ago run out of fuel. But the fact it still has gas (i.e., useful energy) left in it proves the car hasn’t been constantly driven from the infinite past. The stuck gas cap makes-the-car in this example a “closed system” because no more energy can be added to make the car move. “Heat-death’ occurs when the car runs out of gas, as it inevitably must, since no more can-be added to-it. Likewise, the universe then is like a wind-up toy or watch that has been slowly unwinding down: At some point “something” must have wound it up.
OBJECTIONS: 1. “Who created God then?” The point of the first premise was to show something had to have always existed. At that point, we didn’t know what it was—or who it was. But if the universe hasn’t always existed, then something else–God–has.
2. “The second law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to every part of the universe (or to the whole universe), or else didn’t apply to it in the past and/or won’t apply to it in the future.” This statement is pure materialistic prejudice, because there is no scientific evidence anywhere that the second law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply. It’s circular reasoning by naturalists to assume, “Well, we’re here, and there’s no God and miracles aren’t possible, so therefore the First and Second laws of thermodynamics didn’t apply in the beginning.” This law won’t change in the future because the fundamental essence (nature) of the things that make up the physical universe aren’t changing, so nature’s laws wouldn’t change in the future. That is, unless God intervenes through miracles (i.e., “violates” nature’s laws), it won’t happen and didn’t happen. So a skeptic can’t turn around and say there are places (or times) in the universe where nature’s laws don’t apply which no human has ever investigates or been to. Otherwise, that’s the naturalist’s version of a miracle: Belief in a unverifiable, non-observed, unrepeatable event in distant past is arbitrarily labeled “science.” And to know whether the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable somewhere in the universe, the doubter ironically would have to be “God,” i.e., know everything about everywhere else. So to escape this argument for God’s existence, the skeptic then has to place his faith in an unknown, unseen, unsensed exception to the second law of thermodynamics. It’s better then to place faith in the unseen Almighty God of the Bible instead! Plainly, nature cannot always explain nature: Something—or Someone–to which the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable (i.e., in the spirit world) created the material universe.
Let’s make another argument for God’s existence based on the argument from design using the impossibility of spontaneous generation. Here I quote from the astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, “Evolution From Space,” p. 24.
In context here the authors here are describing the chances for certain parts of the first living cell to occur by random chance through a chemical accident. “Consider now the chance that in a random ordering of the twenty different amino acids which make up the polypeptides it just happens that the different kinds fall into the order appropriate to a particular enzyme [an organic catalyst–a chemical which speeds up chemical reactions–EVS]. The chance of obtaining a suitable backbone [substrate] can hardly be greater than on part in 10[raised by]15, and the chance of obtaining the appropriate active site can hardly be greater than on part in 10 [raised by]5. Because the fine details of the surface shape [of the enzyme in a living cell–EVS] can be varied we shall take the conservative line of not “piling on the agony” by including any further small probability for the rest of the enzyme. The two small probabilities are enough. They have to be multiplied, when they yield a chance of on part in 10[raised by]20 of obtaining the required in a functioning form [when randomly created by chance out of an ocean of amino acids–EVS]. By itself , this small probability could be faced, because one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials as are supposed to have occurred in an organize soup early in the history of the Earth. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 [raised by]20)2000 = 10 [raised by]40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. [The number of electrons within the universe that can be observed by mankind’s largest earth-based telescopes is approximately 10[raised by]87, which gives you an idea of how large this number is. This number would fill up about seven solid pages a standard magazine page to print this number–40,000 zeros following a one–EVS]. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely our of court.”
The theory of evolution has not refuted the argument from design. It’s simply materialistic philosophy masquerading as science. It simply assumes and extrapolates from agnostic premises into the unobserved past. It reasons in a circle, and then proudly and loudly concludes there’s no need for God as a Creator after initially assuming there isn’t one in its interpretations of natural history.
Perhaps more generally it would be helpful as well to read books on Christian apologetics, such as those making the case for belief in the Bible and for faith in God’s existence and goodness, including those by C.S. Lewis, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Henry Morris, Duane Gish, J.P. Moreland, Francis Schaeffer, Phillip E. Johnson, R.C. Sproul, Norman Giesler, Gleason Archer, Stephen Meyer, etc. Stephen Meyer’s book “The Return of the God Hypothesis” would be particularly important for the college-educated skeptics to read with an open mind. There are great reasons for having faith in the bible, such as its historical accuracy, fulfilled prophecies, and archeological discoveries.
Stupid argument for atheists to make. Atheists have a solid position where the burden of proof is fully on the theists, there is no reason to go out of ur way making claims like this and put the burden of proof on urself.
Just because you can’t SEE the invisible teapot orbiting Saturn, doesn’t mean it isn’t real.
Argument 1 doesn’t prove that a non-interacting god doesn’t exist, what it does “prove” is that we can’t observe or detect a non-interacting god. Being unable to detect X doesn’t imply that X doesn’t exist, unless you think that the existence of X is contingent upon being observed/detected, which is fallacious if X is a deity.
Argument 2 doesn’t prove that an interacting god doesn’t exist, because you have no way to distinguish between the absence of interaction and the incapability of understanding/detecting/observing the interaction. At best you could say that an interacting god that has the capability and the will of continuously interacting with us in a way that we can detect and understand does not exist, since we cannot detect nor understand the interaction, but this is not a god anybody claims to exist and it would require much more specific properties than just being “interactive”.
First part. Non-interactionists surely think God created the world, and ceases to interact afterwards. (Alternatively, that God sustains the world, and doesn’t interact with it otherwise).
So, the argument is parallel to this one:
1. There is no difference between a builder who doesn’t work on the house (once built), and no builder.
2. No builder worked on this house once built.
3. So, this house has no builder.
Second part. First, lots of people claim there is evidence of God. Second, it’s true that anything interacting with (on in!) the world will have some effect. It doesn’t follow from this that we will be in a position to correctly identify the source of this effect.
> A non-interacting deity is indistinguishable from a deity that does not exist.
A non-interacting deity is *conceptually* distinguishable from a deity that does not exist. You demonstrate this yourself by writing the sentence I quoted.
> Anything and everything that interacts with the world has empirical evidence for it.
But there’s no guarantee that we’d be able to *recognize* the evidence as evidence for that thing. For example, it’s possible that every physical event occurs because of the direct intervention of a god, but if this were so, we’d still have no way of knowing that it’s so.
>this has never been found
The burden of proof is on you for this central claim.
I dont see where you backed it up. Thus, if I were a theist, I’d reject the argument on this basis.
2. I disagree
Gods are physical beings, they are not creators, but part of the world like evrything else. They are like a virus/symbiont a mind-organism that consist and manifest in the socioeconomic world of humans and influence their everyday life. When someone kills you in the name of their god, this god killed you. Otherwise you must also claim that guns kill people, not people.
When people do something because of religion, they act as this god, even if they believe they do it because of free will, they dont. They are under the control of the god.
If a temple is build, it is also build by the god. The temple itself, is a manifestation, a body part of the god that tries to attract other people to become part of its existence.
The humans are the tools of the gods, they use them to gain influence and manifest themselves, like a virus. Like a symbiont they will give the believers advantages like community, the drive to have more children and moral rules that keep them from sexual transmitted diseases and other things like drugs and bad behaviors. This made religious people better at survival in general till the modern world arouse.
Argument no. 2 only shows that no supernatural/transcendent gods exist.
>A non-interacting deity is indistinguishable from a deity that does not exist……This is akin to having a bird with two different names but are biological the same thing.
The concepts of a deity that doesn’t exist and a non-interacting deity are obviously distinguishable because one necessarily doesn’t exist whereas the other doesn’t. Not only that but ‘deity that doesn’t exist’ includes a non-existent interacting deity. So are you saying that interacting deities and non-interacting deities can be indistinguishable?
>Anything and everything that interacts with the world has empirical evidence for it.
There was a time when we didn’t have empirical evidence for lots of things that we now accept to exist, like a lot of the recently discovered exoplanets. Does that mean they only came into existence when we found evidence for them? Its really silly to be so arrogant as to assume that our sensual filter is the be all and end all of things.
>Anything and everything that interacts with the world has empirical evidence for it. If one is to claim a god interacts with the physical then that can and will have evidence of said interaction
Good thing we do, for example when people undergo divine experiences their brains light up in a way that suggests two-way communication. Millions across all times and cultures report nearly identical experiences with these beings as well. Not to mention our own higher consciousness, randomly jumping forward in the UPR, completely at contradiction with material nature, is evidence too.
Using Hitchen’s razor to conclude the nonexistance of (an interacting) God is a fallacy fallacy.
Rejecting a knowledge claim doesn’t mean you accept the opposite as true. Or to put another way: if you ran a statistical test and failed to reject the null hypothesis, that would not prove the null hypothesis to be true.
You are definitely not disproving a non-interacting god. You are simply making the case that it is not practically useful for our epistemology. This does nothing to prove or disprove it ontologically.
Agreed on the interacting deity part, those can’t exist. But on the non-interacting type, there *is* a difference, and that difference is that it doesn’t need evidence like interacting deities do. I don’t believe in any deity as an atheist but I don’t have any good argument against non-interacting deities since they quite literally don’t interact therefore don’t need evidence.
I wouldn’t say a non interacting god is the same as a nonexistent god. However they are indistinguishable. Therefore the relevance to our daily lives is 0.
1. “A non-interacting deity is indistinguishable from a deity that does not exist.” Not so: they differ in that one exists and one does not. The fact that we cannot _discern_ the difference doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. A non-interactive deity may be no more relevant to us than a non-existent one, but we can’t infer that a deity that we have defined as existent isn’t.
2. “What is claimed without evidence … can be dismissed without evidence.” That doesn’t mean the claim isn’t true, it just means we have no basis for believing it.
> A non-interacting deity is indistinguishable from a deity that does not exist. If two things are indistinguishable from each other they can be treated as the same, classed as the same and have their labels be used interchangeably.
That is semantic sleight of hand, and is incorrect. Undetectable and non-existent are not the same, since one can infer the former without detecting it, but one cannot infer the latter. Moreover, even if you can’t infer the latter doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
> Anything and everything that interacts with the world has empirical evidence for it. If one is to claim a god interacts with the physical then that can and will have evidence of said interaction, as this has never been found, using Hitchens razor alongside an example.
The evidence may be nothing more than the existence of the universe. If God’s ‘interaction’ is to simply begin and maintain the universe, then that would be indistinguishable from a non-theistic worldview.
Moreover, many theists *would* point to evidence that they consider convincing (even if you and I do not). Some point to logical evidence like Aquinas’ *Summa*, others point to historical evidence like the martyrdom of the saints, others point to scientific evidence like how the Vedas got the age of the universe accurately, etc.
I know atheists like to opine that there’s *no evidence*, but evidence is the corpus of observations put forward for a thing. If you find the evidence uncompelling, that’s fine, but to say theists have no response to these questions is just silly.
>What is claimed without evidence ( interacting god/widespread election fruad) can be dismissed without evidence.
>So we can logically conclude that an interacting deity does not exist based on this argument.
That is the so-called ‘fallacy fallacy’ – dismissing an argument is not the same as proving its conclusion false.
>A non-interacting deity is indistinguishable from a deity that does not exist. If two things are indistinguishable from each other they can be treated as the same, classed as the same and have their labels be used interchangeably. This is akin to having a bird with two different names but are biological the same thing. So a non-interacting god is the same thing as a god that does not exist as both have no verifiable impact on our planet, day to day lives or universe.
This seems to assume that the physical world is the whole of existence, which it might be, but its also plausible that interactions happen in a non physical way (i.e. in your thought patterns, dreams, etc.)
>Anything and everything that interacts with the world has empirical evidence for it. If one is to claim a god interacts with the physical then that can and will have evidence of said interaction, as this has never been found, using Hitchens razor alongside an example.
Not at all. The largest measurable force in the Universe doesn’t show any measurable interaction with scientific instrumentation. I guess if you call the math supporting dark matter/energy (or 11 dimensions for that matter) empirical evidence then ok, but I was imagining you
>What is claimed without evidence ( interacting god/widespread election fruad) can be dismissed without evidence.
I assume you mean this in the context of an argument, which I think is fair.
>So we can logically conclude that an interacting deity does not exist based on this argument.
I don’t think that we can. As mentioned above, not all interactions in the physical world are measured and this sort of dismissal would be too conclusive.
1) do you interact with the 30 thousandanth penguin to have ever existed? No. So by your logic, it doesn’t exist.
2) there’s historical evidence, there’s the dancing sun, the miracles of the Eucharist, the miracles of Padre pio.
This second one is an argument from ignorance fallacy.
Comments are closed.