Why do you believe in God, or why not?

[PointOfViewGun]

It seems to me that when people refer to evidence for God, they invariably refer to testimonial evidence, not scientific evidence.

The evidence for a god's existence is quite scientific in principle, unrelated to seeing Jesus on a toast or hearing a lion roar Allah. It's the creation of the universe, the Big Bang, that is the real evidence. Our scientific understanding indicates that a force beyond our understanding was required for the initial push. Some try to explain this as a mere quantum fluctuation, yet, the sheer smallness of probability of that accounting for the vastness of the energy in our universe that was created in a single moment is likely much smaller than the probability of having all-powerful entity.

[Muizer]

Two comments on that PovG

Firstly, what you describe sounds a lot like the "god of the gaps": We don't understand it, so we'll label it God.

Secondly, the god you describe is not the god of any religion. It can't be, really. As you say it would be a force that set everything in motion. Such a god can't be bargained with. It would not be able to care for us caring about it.

[chriscase]

I think there is the idea that we crave a complete explanation for existence of the universe, but the God explanation really adds nothing. If we are unsatisfied with the idea that perhaps the universe simply came into being due to some natural event or process, or maybe the universe as we conceive it has simply always existed, why would we be satisfied with the idea that the universe was created by God, which we then accept either always existed or came into existence through some entirely mysterious process? All we are doing there is replacing a legitimate unknown with an overly contrived and still unknown story.

[PointOfViewGun]

Two comments on that PovG
Firstly, what you describe sounds a lot like the "god of the gaps": We don't understand it, so we'll label it God.
Secondly, the god you describe is not the god of any religion. It can't be, really. As you say it would be a force that set everything in motion. Such a god can't be bargained with. It would not be able to care for us caring about it.

Taking the "god of the gaps" argument at face value: Would you call the quantum fluctuation argument "science of the gaps" as well? The god I described is the starting point of most of the religion's gods. Much of our scientific understanding and pursuit is driven by our attempts to fill in the gaps. Why should it be different for our faith?

[Muizer]

Taking the "god of the gaps" argument at face value: Would you call the quantum fluctuation argument "science of the gaps" as well?

I'm no physicist so I don't think there's much point in me going into that specific theory. But supposing for arguments' sake that it has no implications that can be tested through experiment or new observations then you might call it that. It's not enough for scientific theory to be merely descriptive of the reality as we know it already, though that is a requirement.

The god I described is the starting point of most of the religion's gods.

It is of course impossible to say that is false for definite. However, the gods of human religion are gods who created our world for us to live in, take an active interest in us in life and death and who, crucially, can be bargained with. A god whose involvement with the universe ended 13+ billion years ago doesn't fit the bill.

[PointOfViewGun]

I'm no physicist so I don't think there's much point in me going into that specific theory. But supposing for arguments' sake that it has no implications that can be tested through experiment or new observations then you might call it that. It's not enough for scientific theory to be merely descriptive of the reality as we know it already, though that is a requirement. It is of course impossible to say that is false for definite. However, the gods of human religion are gods who created our world for us to live in, take an active interest in us in life and death and who, crucially, can be bargained with. A god whose involvement with the universe ended 13+ billion years ago doesn't fit the bill.

I believe its next to impossible for us to create a universe in the sense we understand it, hence, that theory of spontaneous creation is something some scientists assume (first time I heard from Stephen Hawking didn't exactly give the idea that it was thorough though). Many scientific theories are untestable. Many are created with leap of faiths (or assumptions if you wanna call it that) or gaps and not all of them can be effectively tested. Especially those revolving around extreme forces. Pointing out that an unimaginative force must have been at play in creation of the universe doesn't really come with the automatic assumption that its involvement ended at that moment. I do not understand why you assumed that. As I said, its the starting point. It's not even just creation of matter but literal creation of physical rules of our universe.

[Muizer]

I believe its next to impossible for us to create a universe in the sense we understand it, hence, that theory of spontaneous creation is something some scientists assume (first time I heard from Stephen Hawking didn't exactly give the idea that it was thorough though).

Tbh I don't know what this sentence means.

Many scientific theories are untestable. Many are created with leap of faiths (or assumptions if you wanna call it that) or gaps and not all of them can be effectively tested. Especially those revolving around extreme forces.

I don't think it is actually relevant how a scientific theory comes about. It could come about by accident, a hunch or a eureka moment. Doesn't matter. Philosophical discussions about the fundamental reliability of human observation aside, I think it is well established that for a scientific theory to be relevant there must have been observations that are explained by it and no observations that contradict it.

Pointing out that an unimaginative force must have been at play in creation of the universe doesn't really come with the automatic assumption that its involvement ended at that moment. I do not understand why you assumed that. As I said, its the starting point. It's not even just creation of matter but literal creation of physical rules of our universe.

The assumption is that reality is a self-contained. That anything that is 'involved' with it actually has to be a part of it. I suppose it is not beyond imagining that we only inhabit some sort of bubble in a wider reality and that that bubble is largely, but not entirely self contained and subject to occasional external influence by an external actor. But disregarding any wish for such an external actor to be real, is there any good reason to think that variant is more plausible?

[PointOfViewGun]

Tbh I don't know what this sentence means.
I don't think it is actually relevant how a scientific theory comes about. It could come about by accident, a hunch or a eureka moment. Doesn't matter. Philosophical discussions about the fundamental reliability of human observation aside, I think it is well established that for a scientific theory to be relevant there must have been observations that are explained by it and no observations that contradict it.
The assumption is that reality is a self-contained. That anything that is 'involved' with it actually has to be a part of it. I suppose it is not beyond imagining that we only inhabit some sort of bubble in a wider reality and that that bubble is largely, but not entirely self contained and subject to occasional external influence by an external actor. But disregarding any wish for such an external actor to be real, is there any good reason to think that variant is more plausible?

I'm more interested in reasoning for possible outcomes rather than deduction for pre-selected conclusions. It's quite relevant how a scientific theory comes about. It's part of the scientific process after all. Not sure why you'd disregard it for such a subject. The requirement of an external force to create our universe is indeed dependent on observations as well. You may imagine a lot of things but I was under the suspicion that we were supposed to remain within scientific parameters. I love how in these discussions often beliefs become important points to establish a contradicting narrative. Per your question though, is there any other plausible variant than the one I pointed out?

[Muizer]

Tbh, I don't think I understand what you're saying and trying to base my answers on speculations is not working. So I'll just give my views the way they make sense to me. This probably does not address everything in your post though.

About the scientific process: Making educated guesses about what theories to test saves time, but it is not a requirement for their validity.

As for the 'unimaginative force', the assumption I am making is that that which embodies reality cannot also intervene in reality. If we label that force 'god', we'd have to accept our relationship with it is non-transactional. Sure that is conceivable, but I don't know of (m)any actual religions that do?

[PointOfViewGun]

Tbh, I don't think I understand what you're saying and trying to base my answers on speculations is not working. So I'll just give my views the way they make sense to me. This probably does not address everything in your post though.
About the scientific process: Making educated guesses about what theories to test saves time, but it is not a requirement for their validity.
As for the 'unimaginative force', the assumption I am making is that that which embodies reality cannot also intervene in reality. If we label that force 'god', we'd have to accept our relationship with it is non-transactional. Sure that is conceivable, but I don't know of (m)any actual religions that do?

What I pointed out is as simple as it gets but I also understand how it doesn't sit well with the common narrative. Hypotheses are integral to validating a scientific theory. Its nonsensical to try to brush it away when a scientific theory that doesn't sit well with out preconceptions is involved. God embodying reality cannot intervene in reality? Why? Why can't our relationship with god be transactional? I don't see any logic in those assumptions.

[Sir Adrian]

As for the 'unimaginative force', the assumption I am making is that that which embodies reality cannot also intervene in reality. If we label that force 'god', we'd have to accept our relationship with it is non-transactional. Sure that is conceivable, but I don't know of (m)any actual religions that do?

Early Christianity and Orthodox Christianity: God loves you unconditionally and wants you to return to Him and waits for you with open arms. He even helps you along the way, unconditionally, all you have to do is take the firsts steps and get back up when you fall.

[Muizer]

Ok I'm going to drop the discussion of philosophy of science. I don't see much I actually disagree with in what you say on that front.

God embodying reality cannot intervene in reality? Why?

Because logically that statement short-circuits: Nothing that embodies reality can change reality at a fundamental level.

Why can't our relationship with god be transactional? I don't see any logic in those assumptions.

Evidently, the above poses challenges to having a truly transactional relationship with a god that embodies reality. For us to have a transaction relationship with anything, we have to be separate from it. How can we be if god embodies reality that we're part of?

I got to say though all this is a bit of a tangent for me. My skepticism primarily concerns human religion. I'm not particularly interested in saying anything about the possibility of there being some kind of god.

That skepticism has nothing to do with philosophy of science. It is also way more intuitive. It's more like the skepticism we would all feel if we were told a stick figure were a late work of Rembrandt. It would never have occurred to me to consider the possibility. It's not inconceivable, but definitely not plausible.

[conon394]

Nothing that embodies reality can change reality at a fundamental level.

I am unclear why that would be the case.

[PointOfViewGun]

Because logically that statement short-circuits: Nothing that embodies reality can change reality at a fundamental level.
Evidently, the above poses challenges to having a truly transactional relationship with a god that embodies reality. For us to have a transaction relationship with anything, we have to be separate from it. How can we be if god embodies reality that we're part of?
I got to say though all this is a bit of a tangent for me. My skepticism primarily concerns human religion. I'm not particularly interested in saying anything about the possibility of there being some kind of god.
That skepticism has nothing to do with philosophy of science. It is also way more intuitive. It's more like the skepticism we would all feel if we were told a stick figure were a late work of Rembrandt. It would never have occurred to me to consider the possibility. It's not inconceivable, but definitely not plausible.

The highlighted part are all assumptions that I don't really see any logic in their requirement. Especially when we're talking about a force that goes beyond our understanding and everyday physical limitations.



Looking at that, based on the paintings of Rembrandt I had the pleasure of viewing personally, I wouldn't say that its plausible that it belongs to him. But it does. What this tells me is that, based on this comparison, it doesn't really make much sense to pass overreaching judgement on a universal scale based on our very limited understanding of the universe, existence and life in general.

[Muizer]

I am unclear why that would be the case.

I'd say it is axiomatic that in the absence of external agents, any system would be constrained by certain parameters that govern it, however many and flexible they may be.

[MaximiIian]

True, but I was not just speaking of a belief in a god, but about Religion. What I mean is that if your very existence depends on an environment that you do not understand in causal terms, it is not strange to project the only known driver of events you do understand, intent, onto it. Hence looking at the world as a place ruled by spiritual entities that humans can negotiate with in ways similar to the way we negotiate with other people. Monotheistic religions are not fundamentally different in this sense from polytheistic or animistic belief systems. While in the modern world still not everything can be predicted or explained a great deal can. Surely by now we should know better than to think we can negotiate over things that we now understand are governed by unbending principles of physics? So yes, gaps in our knowledge, and perhaps even the complexity of reality still leaves room to postulate a deity, but to think it would be one that can be bargained with in human terms (and thereby be a subject for religion) seems very far fetched.

While I personally disagree with the conclusion that we can't negotiate with those spirits, even if the effects are far more subtle that ancient people understood-- it is worth noting that some ancient polytheistic philosophers had much the same thought process you're expressing here. They didn't deny the reality of the gods, but they did express skepticism on our ability to engage with them. The Epicureans believed in what might best be thought of as "poly-deism". The gods, all of them, while being the bedrock or ground of being for the universe, the minds of all natural phenomena, were seen as passive and not really concerned with human affairs. They simply contemplated their own divine perfection, and let nature take its course; a class of prime movers who were themselves unmoved to any kind of action but resplendent neglect. The Epicureans thus thought a lot of the ritualism and public religion was kinda silly, though many still thought it useful as a kind of societal glue.