The probability of God’s existence
It seems to me that in the atheism/theism debate, neither side openly professes certainty, for fear that they will look like fundamentalists. If neither side is certain, then nobody can back up their view with real conviction. Let’s look at it this way. If someone were to tell you that object x exists, but that nobody in the world has seen it, your first inclination would be to doubt it, especially if the object has such extraordinary qualities that it would be very surprising if it was even possible to exist. However, you couldn’t say, x definitely doesn’t exist. The most you can say is that it probably doesn’t exist. But how do you accurately assess probabilities in such cases? Given that there are an infinite number of things that x could be, one would have to conclude that the probability, in this grand scheme, that x exists, is very low. As far as we know, God is as likely to exist as a unicorn.
But there are other things that we haven’t seen, yet we have reason to believe exist. The reason we believe that black holes are likely to exist is that they are postulated as a result of calculations which, as far as we know, are correct. There is no equivalent for God. There is no calculation which says the universe must have been consciously created. Scientific endeavour hasn’t led us to a definite conclusion about the beginning of the universe, but the evidence leads us further and further away from conscious creation.
In a world in which the idea that some unseen x might possibly exist is taken seriously, how are we to treat this x? Certainly, we should not treat it seriously according to how it is defined. If I say that x is a being such that if you don’t believe in its existence, you will suffer an eternity of pain (and that is its only property), again you will be disinclined to believe. There could be another being called y which has the property that if you believe in x, you will suffer an eternity of pain. How can you know which to believe in? They are equally likely to exist, and neither x nor y has any presence in our lives in any meaningful way, other than that we are told that they exist by people who have never seen them.
That is the reason why, despite a lack of evidence (if such a thing could ever be produced) that God doesn’t exist, there is no reason to believe. One’s life might be different if the idea of God was removed, but not if God himself were gone.
on 
on 
13 comments
“Scientific endeavour hasn’t led us to a definite conclusion about the beginning of the universe, but the evidence leads us further and further away from conscious creation.”
I don’t think this is true at all.
In fact, based on the fine-tuning of the universe, the specificity required for life to exist at all, much less come into existence, and the increasing knowledge of living organisms as composed of specifically complex information driven machinery, it would seem that the likelihood of any of these elements coming into existence apart from intention is much lower now than when we knew much less about the natural world.
The complex information-driven machinery is of course perfectly explained by natural selection. At the very most, a creationist can argue that God set off the Big Bang and designed the universe in such a way that evolution would eventually happen, and, several billion years later, intelligent life would finally emerge. But how is such a universe distinguishable from a godless one?
The fine-tuning of the universe may seem amazing, but remember that if there were no intelligent life, nothing would be able to comment on how badly tuned it is. There could be an infinite number of universes, and this may be the only one whose constants are so perfectly tuned for life.
“The complex information-driven machinery is of course perfectly explained by natural selection. At the very most, a creationist can argue that God set off the Big Bang and designed the universe in such a way that evolution would eventually happen, and, several billion years later, intelligent life would finally emerge. But how is such a universe distinguishable from a godless one?”
Well, as the information driven machinery in the cell necessarily existed before natural selection could have begun, obviously the existence of the same isn’t ‘perfectly explained by natural selection’
And my point was that nothing in our current knowledge of the universe makes us any less inclined to believe it was designed than any previous knowledge we had. The origin of the universe, it’s finely-tuned aspects, the origin of the earth as a habitat suitable for life, the origin of life and it’s inherent complexities as a well as the origin of consciousness and self-awareness all continue to defy non-teleological explanations. So I don’t think a believer has any less reason to believe today than any time in history.
“The fine-tuning of the universe may seem amazing, but remember that if there were no intelligent life, nothing would be able to comment on how badly tuned it is. There could be an infinite number of universes, and this may be the only one whose constants are so perfectly tuned for life.”
Well, that explains why we are able to comment, but it doesn’t explain why it is finely-tuned. If I awoke and found myself in a warm, sealed, food filled shelter on an otherwise lifeless, airless, inhospitable planet, I would be aware of the shelter because the shelter allowed me to live on an otherwise lifeless planet – but that in and of itself doesn’t explain how the shelter came to be or how I came to be in it.
“Well, as the information driven machinery in the cell necessarily existed before natural selection could have begun, obviously the existence of the same isn’t ‘perfectly explained by natural selection’.”
Are you saying that cells existed before natural selection? Because it seems to me that absolutely nothing existed before natural selection, in that natural selection is not a thing that just starts “existing” at some point. It is simply a law that says whatever is not well-adapted to survive won’t survive for very long. This could apply to stars in black holes just as well as zebra and lions.
By the way, all those things you listed only *seem* to defy non-teleological explanations because you, being human, desire them deeply. There is no logical reason to suppose teleological explanations are necessary at all. What is amazing is just amazing and that is that.
As to your point about the food-filled shelter, again, if you did not awake in said shelter and instead found yourself in an inhospitable, foodless place, you would die and not be able to have these debates. But since we evolved *with* the earth, such things are highly unlikely to happen.
“Are you saying that cells existed before natural selection? Because it seems to me that absolutely nothing existed before natural selection, in that natural selection is not a thing that just starts “existing” at some point. It is simply a law that says whatever is not well-adapted to survive won’t survive for very long. This could apply to stars in black holes just as well as zebra and lions.”
As it pertains to biology natural selection refers how environmental factors act on heritable traits in a population. Any claimed application to ‘black holes’ would be purely figurative, as no other objects have heritable traits.
And those traits that living organisms have are a product of information system driven machinery; which must exist in order for natural selection to act on it.
“By the way, all those things you listed only *seem* to defy non-teleological explanations because you, being human, desire them deeply. There is no logical reason to suppose teleological explanations are necessary at all. What is amazing is just amazing and that is that.”
Actually, I would say the opposite is true – I think, speaking as a former agnostic, non-theists deeply desire what is apparently designed to not be designed, and so they glom onto any idea that appears to explain away what is readily apparent. At least I did.
“As to your point about the food-filled shelter, again, if you did not awake in said shelter and instead found yourself in an inhospitable, foodless place, you would die and not be able to have these debates. But since we evolved *with* the earth, such things are highly unlikely to happen.”
Well, yes, that is exactly my point – any number of things could keep me from making observations, but aren’t in and of themselves explanations for my existence. And earth was suited for our existence long before ‘we’ got here.
By the way, can one do blockquotes around this place? Much neater.
I really don’t think that non-theists desire for things to not be designed. They simply don’t see a good reason why conscious creation is necessary. After all, even if it is necessary, why endow the creator with certain qualities? The only quality necessary for a creator is that he/she understands the laws of physics enough that he/she can fine-tune the constants accordingly. But what if the laws of physics, when fully understood, allow that different universes can have different constants, some which work well together, and some which don’t, and that universes are created without assistance, themselves according to some laws? Where, then, would a creator fit in?
Oh, and as far as I know blockquotes aren’t possible in the comments. Sorry.
I think they do; if the world is created with intent and purpose, then that means we may or may not conform to that purpose – and be constrained accordingly. If the world is not designed for any particular purpose, then I am free to do what I want without being concerned about such constraints, or the fear of consequence, other than perhaps that which is immediately dictated by my survival.
While I think such universe could be imagined, I am not sure how one could ever verify that such universe could exist – not without endeavoring in the same conjecture theists are accused of.
Can you elaborate on this? It seems to me that not wanting to do something is a good enough reason not to do it, without invoking some grand purpose. We have evolved such that we are strongly repulsed by acts of cruelty (because these are not exactly good for the species’ survival), therefore we don’t do them. It seems odd to say that we refrain from hurting each other because we know there is “intent and purpose” to the universe.
Perhaps you don’t see how it can be verified, but that’s not to say it’s not possible in principle. Your answer seems to me to be wavering slightly towards agnosticism, hinting as it does that if such physical laws could be proven to exist, you would drop the need for a creator in one fell swoop. And then what would become of the apparent necessity for intent and purpose in the universe?
Why would you say we evolved to be strongly repulsed by acts of cruelty? Humans can be extremely cruel; we are even capable of killing off entire populations of fellow humans. It would seem to me that even if one believed we evolved, there is still no evidence we don’t have a penchant for cruelty.
I am just saying if this possibility (that universes are created without assistance, according to some unknown laws) is the basis for one’s non-belief, then it isn’t based on a particular scientific fact merely an imagined possibility, giving such a belief no more warrant than a belief in theism. Indeed, in this instance theism is based on what is actually known about the nature of the universe, so there is stronger support for that idea than its alternative.
And to the last point, if it could be shown the universes have an inherent capability to organize themselves, and that these inherent characteristics produced order leading to the origin of life and human consciousness, then there would be strong warrant for agnosticism, at least.
Are you saying you are not strongly repulsed by acts of cruelty? Of course, there have been many incidents of extraordinary cruelty in the past (and today), and evolution does not imply that that’s not the case. However, it’s true that, on the whole we are repulsed by cruelty exactly because our genes want the species to survive. The only time that is overriden is when other survival factors are brought into play. For instance, nationalism can lead to great cruelty because other nationalities are seen as a threat to one’s own nationality’s survival. Unfortunately, that just seems to be what human nature is like.
Let me stop you there. I’m absolutely not suggesting it as the basis for belief, but merely pointing out how ultimately shallow is the view that the universe has some purposeful meaning, as it can be thrown aside so easily with such (hypothetical) evidence. If you introduce God to explain things, invariably you make things more difficult for yourself. For instance, if meaning is the sole reason for belief in a creator, why not just posit a meaning-substance that magically endows meaning on things? If you are really, truly honest with yourself, you must concede an element of wishful thinking in your view. A creator as is conventionally imagined can in fact be replaced with a whole host of alternative possibilities, none of which are generally favoured because they just “don’t *seem* right”.
I certainly think it’s wrong to be intentionally cruel, though I confess that I enjoy seeing Jack Bauer kill bad guys on television as much as the next person. That being said, I like/don’t like lots of things that one would hardly attribute to evolutionary history. Obviously, considering the amount of cruelty in human history, there are millions, perhaps billions, who aren’t repulsed by it.
Well again that does not factually seem to be the case. The fact that the Nazis and Stalinists and Maoists killed and tortured tens of millions of people does not seem to have affected our survival as a species one whit.
Well, if that is ‘what human nature is like’ then by your estimation evolution has made human nature exactly that way – and this contradicts your earlier contention that we are repulsed by cruelty.
I am not sure how ‘hypothetical evidence’ is particularly useful against observable reality. If I say, “I don’t believe fairies exist” and you say, “Hah! It is possible for them to exist in some conceivable universe, therefore your contention that they don’t exist is nullified!” Well no – we can all imagine a universe where something might be true, but this isn’t strong evidence for or against what we observe to be true in the only universe we know to exist. It is not ‘shallow’ for me to suggest fairies don’t exist, and it is not shallow for me to suggest that there is no indication that either the fine-tuning of the universe or life’s complexities can arise unguided absent actual evidence to the contrary.
But I have made it clear meaning is not the only reason for my belief in a Creator – I have many reasons to believe in a Creator. I am just showing that science has not reduced those reasons in any way.
And if I was merely creating a Creator out of a desire for wish fulfillment, I certainly wouldn’t posit the one I do believe exists.
Sorry –messed up formatting on the other post – feel free to delete.
But our genes can’t exactly make accurate calculations of these things. They simply “know” that harming others is not good for the species as a whole, and that helping others and generally doing good things are good for everyone.
I don’t see a contradiction. The world doesn’t operate in absolutes. We can be born with an innate repulsion to cruelty, but due to other aspects of the complex machinery inside us, this repulsion can be completely overriden by other factors, should the circumstances dictate. Hence the nationalism example I gave.
If you replace “fairies” with “God” in the first part of the above, that seems to me a pretty rational attitude. With respect, I still thinking you’re not quite seeing my point. Allow me to illustrate:
The year is 3789. A theologian is arguing with a physicist. The theologian says, “no sir, no matter what you tell me, nothing will change the fact that this universe is a very meaningful one, and that science alone does not account for that meaning. I put this to you: the universe is so fine-tuned for life that it is impossible it could have arisen without a creator intending to create life.” The physicist is then frustrated by his inability to give a good reply. Just then, another physicist runs into the room, shouting, “Eureka! I’ve found it! I have finally proved beyond any shadow of a rational doubt that universes are self-creating according to a higher set of physical laws which I now know in its entirety! And furthermore, there are billions of other universes, only about 0.01% of which have the potential for life! Not only that, but this higher set of laws springs from pure logic, so it can’t be any other way!” Both the theologian and the first physicist are taken aback by this, and he proceeds to write up his proof on several blackboards. The other two men, having a good enough understanding of mathematics, can do absolutely nothing but nod their heads in awe.
The theologian is faced with a bit of a dilemma. Does he hold up his hand in resignation and say, “that as good as proves there’s no God,” or does he say that it was God who designed these higher laws, which doubly proves his greatness? And given that the laws are logically inevitable, where does that leave his idea of the meaningfulness of the universe?
The above may be extremely hypothetical, and it’s *not* used as proof there’s no creator, but the simple point is that if you are convinced the world has some inherent purpose in it, then you must remain convinced *no matter what can be thrown at you*, and the above example shows this is untenable.
Leave a Comment