Story where a scientist definitively proves there is no god

[Khatti]

I have an idea for a short story where a scientist definitively proves there is no god, that this life is all there is--with disastrous results.Where I'm stuck is coming up with a good McGuffin. Anyone out there have any thoughts on what would prove definitively there is no god or, more importantly, no after life?

 

[Evo]

I have an idea for a short story where a scientist definitively proves there is no god, that this life is all there is--with disastrous results.Where I'm stuck is coming up with a good McGuffin. Anyone out there have any thoughts on what would prove definitively there is no god or, more importantly, no after life?

There is nothing to disprove, it is for the people that believe in things that have no evidence to prove that these things exist.

 

[Khatti]

There is nothing to disprove, it is for the people that believe in things that have no evidence to prove that these things exist.

I see your point--but that hardly moves my story along.

 

[Drakkith]

It isn't possible to disprove the existence of a god and/or an afterlife, so if you're banking on that being the key plot driver then you're going to run into problems. However, that doesn't necessarily stop your characters from thinking they've done so and then possibly exploring the consequences. Unfortunately I'm not sure of any McGuffin that you could use.

 

[Loren]

Easy. The scientist finds out that everyone (or worse yet - himself) is nothing more than a virtual lab rat living inside a computer simulation.

That should work, unless you believe in Silicon Heaven.

 

[Drakkith]

Easy. The scientist finds out that everyone (or worse yet - himself) is nothing more than a virtual lab rat living inside a computer simulation.

That should work, unless you believe in Silicon Heaven.

And how does that disprove the existence of a god?

 

[Loren]

His world is no more real than he is.

He has no afterlife any more than he has a life.

 

[Drakkith]

His world is no more real than he is.

He has no afterlife any more than he has a life.

I think some philosophers would disagree with you. Can you prove that a digital being has no god or afterlife?

 

[Loren]

Actually, the whole question is kind of mute. This is a short story and the author doesn't have to and more importantly, shouldn't, explain that to the reader. The reader just has to accept that as fact.

People read science fiction stories where crews travel faster than light, monsters walk out of walls, and transporters beam people and things all over the universe. None of those stories explain how it works and doing so would bog down the story and alienate a number of readers that know there is no real explanation. They read the story because it is entertaining.

Maybe this scientist discovers the nature of consciousness and it proves there is no soul. Does it matter that the author of the fiction story doesn't have a companion proof published in Nature? Of course not. Just make up something and don't provide any details. You don't owe the reader an explanation. . The reader won't care unless the story and/or writing is that bad, but that's another problem.

 

[Khatti]

The reader won't care unless the story and/or writing is that bad, but that's another problem.

Now that's a vote of confidence if ever I've heard one. Yeah I wasn't planning to go into elaborate explanation. I certainly don't need to feel that what I'm talking about is for real, but I need something to hang things on. I have a sort of time-travel idea I'm not in love with. I threw the question out here to see if anyone had a thought or idea that hasn't occurred to me.

 

[fresh_42]

Easy. The scientist finds out that everyone (or worse yet - himself) is nothing more than a virtual lab rat living inside a computer simulation.

That should work, unless you believe in Silicon Heaven.

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish (Douglas Adams)

 

[Loren]

Now that's a vote of confidence if ever I've heard one. Yeah I wasn't planning to go into elaborate explanation. I certainly don't need to feel that what I'm talking about is for real, but I need something to hang things on. I have a sort of time-travel idea I'm not in love with. I threw the question out here to see if anyone had a thought or idea that hasn't occurred to me.

What's the nut of the story? Let me put it another way, what is the crises that you are trying to create?

For example, if panic and condemnation is the end result you are after, it won't take much to make that happen. Here on Earth people are ready to kill others if you call their god by the wrong name. Claiming proof that they don't exist is almost enough as it is. Backing that up with some mumbo-jumbo about the nature of life and consciousness might be all you need. Or, as I suggested, have him prove nothing is real and that will pull the rug out from everyone's feet.

You probably have to be more concerned about offending your audience's personal beliefs here. Leaving a few holes in this guy's proof might be a better plan unless your story's hidden message is that there is no god. Which brings me back to the question of what the nut of the story is.

 

[fresh_42]

If you want to prove non-existence you have to define an attribute that 'god' must have and then show that this contradicts something true.
E.g. omnipresence in a universe that expands and therefore dilutes god to a non measurable something.

 

[mfb]

It is impossible to disprove the existence of something that does not interact with our world, or does so in sufficiently subtle ways to escape systematic searches.
If you just want to shatter some religious views: let the scientist assemble an adult human from scratch, starting just with some chemicals.

 

[Hornbein]

I have an idea for a short story where a scientist definitively proves there is no god, that this life is all there is--with disastrous results.Where I'm stuck is coming up with a good McGuffin. Anyone out there have any thoughts on what would prove definitively there is no god or, more importantly, no after life?

I can't figure out how to do it. But I never would have figured out Bell's theorem or the Kochen-Sprecker paradox either. Those taught me to be careful about asserting that it is impossible to prove something.

You have to show that if God exists then that leads to a contradiction of known experimental results. Maybe read up on those things then throw out a bunch of physics bafflegab.

 

[heatengine516]

Go around explaining the proof completely and just focus on the aftermath. Belief in God is what keeps a lot of people from doing terrible things. Show us a "world without God" where the fear of judgment doesn't hold people people back from their desires and where everyone is forced to adopt a nihilistic view of life. Could be really interesting if done right.

 

[Khatti]

Go around explaining the proof completely and just focus on the aftermath. Belief in God is what keeps a lot of people from doing terrible things. Show us a "world without God" where the fear of judgment doesn't hold people people back from their desires and where everyone is forced to adopt a nihilistic view of life. Could be really interesting if done right.

That is the whole point of this.

 

[Headway]

I think the honest scientific attitude towards existence of God is this: if the question is such that you can't prove nor disprove it, you should just be wise enough to leave the question open.

You can have faith that God or Creator or something like that exists and you can have faith that He/She does not exist, but nobody has hard knowledge about the question. Scientific theories don't need any kind of God, but that's not an answer or prove to the question itself at all.

I have no clue whether God exists or not and that doesn't bother me at all.

 

[Drakkith]

Actually, the whole question is kind of mute. This is a short story and the author doesn't have to and more importantly, shouldn't, explain that to the reader. The reader just has to accept that as fact.

While that's certainly one way to go about it, astute readers will quickly realize the premise is shallow and makes little sense unless there's a good, in-story reason that the scientist and the rest of the population can't see the impossibility of disproving god.

 

[Khatti]

While that's certainly one way to go about it, astute readers will quickly realize the premise is shallow and makes little sense unless there's a good, in-story reason that the scientist and the rest of the population can't see the impossibility of disproving god.

Actually, the whole question is kind of mute. This is a short story and the author doesn't have to and more importantly, shouldn't, explain that to the reader. The reader just has to accept that as fact.

There are ways of doing this that are occurring to me. Loren does have a point. I'm not interested in proving there is no god, I'm interested in what would happen if you could convince the religious there is no god.

 

[Drakkith]

There are ways of doing this that are occurring to me. Loren does have a point. I'm not interested in proving there is no god, I'm interested in what would happen if you could convince the religious there is no god.

That's fine. But I still think you need a reason for why people would believe this. Religions are inherently resistant to attempts to disprove their gods. You can certainly write the story without ever mentioning why, but I think it would only be detrimental to the story unless done extremely well.

 

[fresh_42]

Belief in God is what keeps a lot of people from doing terrible things.

You're kidding, don't you? Otherwise I read this as an insult on atheists. The categorical imperative is all that's needed.

 

[mfb]

Go around explaining the proof completely and just focus on the aftermath. Belief in God is what keeps a lot of people from doing terrible things.

It is not.

Show us a "world without God" where the fear of judgment doesn't hold people people back from their desires and where everyone is forced to adopt a nihilistic view of life. Could be really interesting if done right.

Scandinavian countries are a good large-scale counterexample.

Relevant recent study. Morale is not linked to religion.

 

[Loren]

While that's certainly one way to go about it, astute readers will quickly realize the premise is shallow and makes little sense unless there's a good, in-story reason that the scientist and the rest of the population can't see the impossibility of disproving god.

I agree, but only to a point. Again, we buy transporters, FTL drive, and other impossible by all understanding of physics stories and don't flinch. No one screams about time machines, we simply suspend our disbelief and entertain ourselves.

You can write the story such that you don't have to explain how god was disproved, only that it was sufficiently proven to cause global despair. As long as you keep the story focused on the aftermath of the "proof" and not on the "proof" you will be fine. In fact I would start the story after the proof was presented and simply have it as a known fact from the start of the story.

The real story is going to be the time bomb of the revelation and that should start loudly ticking on the first paragraph of the story and get louder with each subsequent paragraph. Keep the reader's eye on that time bomb and never let them look back.

This is a short story and it doesn't need the proof as a back story. Even if you could create one it would only slow down the story. This is not a novel, so we expect to be gripped with the horror or suspense of it right from the moment we sit down and until we read that last sentence.

That's a good story and we don't have to be sold on a premise that everyone knows is unrealistic because the story itself was entertaining.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The topic of the disproof doesn't matter. As they say, "you can't prove a negative" - a statement that is not quite true, but that contains an important truth. If I want to prove flying reindeer don't exist, I can take a million reindeer and toss them off a roof one at a time, but all I have actually proven is that these million reindeer can't (or won't) fly. Similarly, how do you prove telepathy doesn't exist?

So given that the premise isn't true, the story has to be "what if the premise were true". Which means you should just accept it as a given and not poke at how it works. Because it doesn't.

 

[rootone]

"you can't prove a negative"

Well if you could get accurate measurements of the state of every particle in the Universe simultaneously you could give it a try.

 

[fresh_42]

Well if you could get accurate measurements of the state of every particle in the Universe simultaneously you could give it a try.

Goedel is easier.

 

[heatengine516]

You're kidding, don't you? Otherwise I read this as an insult on atheists. The categorical imperative is all that's needed.

Why would you assume it's an insult on atheists? Atheists already operate under the assumption that there is no God, so I would imagine that if God was disproved it wouldn't have much of an affect on their lives in general. To have a "fear of God" or fear of the consequences of "sin" you have to believe in God in the first place. My statement has nothing to do with atheists. I am agnostic myself. It's true that people do terrible things in the name of religion. People have gone to war and killed over religion. People were tortured and killed for not converting to Christianity, etc.

I will concede that my statement may not be entirely accurate, badly worded too, but I was talking in the context of this fictional story - exploiting a belief that many people DO hold to be true: the link between religion and morality, even if studies find otherwise, as in the article above. The article even says "it makes sense for religion to promote moral values" - and it does make sense. And many people do make that connection. I personally don't. But it could be believable in a fictional story because there are people who believe that to be true. Even more so if the story is interesting and entertaining to read. I was setting the tone. This is a fiction board right?

It is not.Scandinavian countries are a good large-scale counterexample.

Relevant recent study. Morale is not linked to religion.

I know nothing of the history of Scandinavia. I picture an event such as this hitting say, the Bible Belt harder than anywhere in Europe. That article doesn't say anything about education levels of the people surveyed over those years. When I stated that I was picturing more fire-and-brimstone fear-mongering of the uneducated and poverty stricken that pervades much of the Midwest.

However, as another poster said, religious institutions have historically been steadfast against scientific arguments against their religious systems. People that have faith and believe in God have some need to do so. Religion can give people purpose. Faced with definitive proof that there is no God, I can picture it causing depression and/or suicide in some, but other than that I don't think it would deter many from believing. That's kind of the point in having faith.

 

[mfb]

I don't think it would hit the bible belt at all. A significant fraction of the US population shows that you can believe in a young Earth and various other stupid things despite overwhelming scientific evidence against it. If you manage to ignore basically every scientific result ever obtained, you can easily manage to ignore one more result.

 

[micromass]

The topic of the disproof doesn't matter. As they say, "you can't prove a negative" - a statement that is not quite true, but that contains an important truth. If I want to prove flying reindeer don't exist, I can take a million reindeer and toss them off a roof one at a time, but all I have actually proven is that these million reindeer can't (or won't) fly. Similarly, how do you prove telepathy doesn't exist?

So given that the premise isn't true, the story has to be "what if the premise were true". Which means you should just accept it as a given and not poke at how it works. Because it doesn't.

I agree with V50 here. It is much better for your story to just assume there is a disproof that convinces everybody. I would have no issue accepting that premise at the beginning of a story, as long as the rest of the story is done well. By describing what that disproof would be, that would likely stop my suspension of disbelief and make me dislike the story.

 

[Khatti]

Scandinavian countries are a good large-scale counterexample.

Scandinavian countries (my cousins I should add) are not Appalachia or Saudi Arabia. Scandinavian countries have something that is unique in the world: clear memories and written records of the gods and religion that Christianity replaced. they also have clear memories and written records of what a bloody mess replacing the Aesir with Christianity was. The point that needs to be considered in this forum is what a bloody mess the transition could-- or probably would--be.

You're kidding, don't you? Otherwise I read this as an insult on atheists.

You'll be happy to know that the protagonist is an atheist who is tired of being insulted. The problem is that insulted atheists are just as capable of doing stupid, ill-advised things as any snake-handling bible-thumper from the Smokies.

 

[fresh_42]

The problem is that insulted atheists are just as capable of doing stupid, ill-advised things as any snake-handling bible-thumper from the Smokies.

One thing I've learned in life: each group of people, how ever you may define it, has it's right to contain idiots. That is sometimes forgotten when we try to be too PC.

 

[DaveC426913]

Belief in God is what keeps a lot of people from doing terrible things.

You're kidding, don't you? Otherwise I read this as an insult on atheists.

You shouldn't.

Rephrased:

Belief in God is what keeps a lot of people [who need that sort of thing] from doing terrible things. Those who don't need it don't do terrible things because their right/wrong compass is internalized.

 

[fresh_42]

You shouldn't.

I know. Beside the not to be underestimated placebo effect of comfort in tragic situations it's my favorite argument for the need of religions, too. However, meanwhile I can't suppress the fact anymore, how many really evil crimes have been and are committed in the name of a religion. Just turn on an arbitrary news channel. I'm not sure anymore if the calculation works out.

 

[micromass]

I know. Beside the not to be underestimated placebo effect of comfort in tragic situations it's my favorite argument for the need of religions, too. However, meanwhile I can't suppress the fact anymore, how many really evil crimes have been and are committed in the name of a religion. Just turn on an arbitrary news channel. I'm not sure anymore if the calculation works out.

Can we stop focussing on the evil or greatness of religions? It's strictly forbidden on PF for very good reasons. I was hoping we would get some more answers on the OP's question, but perhaps this thread needs to be locked...