Is the Concept of God Overly Simplistic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holocene
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the notion that the concept of a single deity may oversimplify the complexities of the universe. Participants explore the idea that instead of a singular creator, there could be countless processes at work, challenging the necessity of a god for understanding existence. The conversation touches on the limits of human reasoning and the search for simpler explanations, with some arguing that belief in God is more about comfort than empirical necessity. Additionally, the debate highlights the difficulty of proving or disproving God's existence, emphasizing that belief often transcends scientific validation. Ultimately, the thread questions whether a singular deity is essential for making sense of the universe or if a more complex understanding is possible.
  • #31
There are multiple ways of at least in principle producing scientific facts that could be considered evidence for god(s):

Healing Power of Prayer
Advances in Parapsychology
Scriptural Predictions (before the fact)
Demonstrate that the existence of the universe violates the conservation of energy or 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Falsification of evolution
Falsification of Big Bang
A nonphysical channel of communication that was empirically confirmed by revelation containing information that could not possibly be known otherwise

etc.

There are loads of possible lines of evidence that if not exactly prove an arbitrary god, would at least pose a serious threat to all forms of naturalism.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Moridin said:
There are multiple ways of at least in principle producing scientific facts that could be considered evidence for god(s):

Healing Power of Prayer
Advances in Parapsychology
Scriptural Predictions (before the fact)
Demonstrate that the existence of the universe violates the conservation of energy or 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Falsification of evolution
Falsification of Big Bang
A nonphysical channel of communication that was empirically confirmed by revelation containing information that could not possibly be known otherwise

etc.

There are loads of possible lines of evidence that if not exactly prove an arbitrary god, would at least pose a serious threat to all forms of naturalism.
One of the biggest arguments (for me) AGAINST the existence of God is :

EITHER God wants us to believe he exists based on conclusive evidence, or he does not (ie he simply wants us to have faith instead)

If God wanted us to believe he exists based on conclusive evidence, why not simply provide sufficient evidence (to stop all this guesswork and arguing). It is certainly within His power to do so.

However if God wants us instead to have faith, then why has He slipped up and provided tantalising bits of evidence such as the things referred to by Moridin above? In particular, why on Earth put predictions in Scripture (this in both Christianity and Islam)? What's the point? (the conclusion must be that God has made a mistake in letting these predictions slip through - but how can He make a mistake? Surely such predictions are deliberate information leaks by God... but that goes against Him wanting us to believe on the basis of faith...)

You can't have it both ways. Either God wants to provide evidence that He exists, or he does not. Which is it to be?
 
Last edited:
  • #33
moving finger, that is not really the issue. The issue here is whether or not there could, in principle, be any fact that if they emerge, could be considered evidence.

I'm a philosophical naturalist, so the question is not applicable for me. The theist can simply counter with a free will argument.
 
  • #34
Moridin said:
moving finger, that is not really the issue. The issue here is whether or not there could, in principle, be any fact that if they emerge, could be considered evidence.

I'm a philosophical naturalist, so the question is not applicable for me. The theist can simply counter with a free will argument.
Understood - but my argument is in fact central to the issue.

IF there is a fact emerging which could be considered evidence, then it follows that God wanted that fact to emerge. Now if God wants us to believe on the basis of faith, and not evidence, then it follows that He will not allow such a fact to emerge (and our thinking it is evidence must be our error); BUT if He wants us to believe on the basis of evidence rather than faith, then why not provide conclusive evidence instead of messing about?

Conclusion: If we come across a fact which we consider to be evidence for the existence of God, it follows that either (a) God wants us to believe on the basis of faith, and we must be somehow mistaken in thinking the evidence is correct or (b) the evidence IS correct and God wants us to believe on the basis of evidence, in which case He should be flooding us with evidence...
 
  • #35
False dichotomy between faith / evidence. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
 
  • #36
moving finger said:
However if God wants us instead to have faith, then why has He slipped up and provided tantalising bits of evidence
Think of how parents mentor children. They only step in when things go off track, and even then, as little as possible.
 
  • #37
I believe there is no way to disprove god with humanity's current limited perceptions of reality and existence. If you really think about it, in this vast, HUGE universe (which may be just one of many more), there must be some form of intelligence (accurately depicted in religious texts or not) that fits the general description of "God". That's who I pray to every night. I don't really consider myself a member of any type of religion, I just pray to the god that I reason MUST exist.
 
  • #38
KooCmstr said:
If you really think about it, in this vast, HUGE universe (which may be just one of many more), there must be some form of intelligence (accurately depicted in religious texts or not) that fits the general description of "God". That's who I pray to every night. I don't really consider myself a member of any type of religion, I just pray to the god that I reason MUST exist.

I find this an alarming admission. You pray to an intelligence that's out there somewhere, perhaps having a drink with his God buddies at the local pub, because you think he will listen to and perhaps answer (y)our prayers?

I realize that might sound a bit mocking, but I don't mean it that way. This intelligence that you speak of has its own existence that to have nothing to do with our existence, that it has its own agenda for its own life. What if you did attract its attention and it turned its uninvested eyes upon our little world? At least the God that other believers have is a god that has a reason to care about us...
 
  • #39
DaveC426913 said:
I find this an alarming admission. You pray to an intelligence that's out there somewhere, perhaps having a drink with his God buddies at the local pub, because you think he will listen to and perhaps answer (y)our prayers?

I realize that might sound a bit mocking, but I don't mean it that way. This intelligence that you speak of has its own existence that to have nothing to do with our existence, that it has its own agenda for its own life. What if you did attract its attention and it turned its uninvested eyes upon our little world? At least the God that other believers have is a god that has a reason to care about us...

You may not have meant to sound mocking, but you did anyway. I guess I wasn't specific enough. When I say "general description" I don't mean simply a super powered alien, I mean a creator, who has some form of purpose for each and every one of us. Why would I pray to an omnipotent intelligence if I thought it doesn't care about us?
 
  • #40
Let's say that there was a "god" that created us and he got killed by another god that doesn't give a damn. If I were to believe in a god, the latter god seems the most likely.
 
  • #41
It it can get killed, it's not "god". Simple as that. But if it was killed by another "god", that would create a paradox. Hmmm...
 
Last edited:
  • #42
What if god knew everything there was to know, besides how everything would be provided he did not exist and had an inexplicable urge to know, so he killed himself which resulted in the Big Bang? :biggrin:
 
  • #43
KooCmstr said:
It it can get killed, it's not "god". Simple as that. But if it was killed by another "god", that would create a paradox. Hmmm...
Not true, gods in Norse and Roman mythology could be killed.

Since in a lot of cultures things like fish are gods, you really need to expand your understanding. Monothesim is actually quite recent, for example.
 
  • #44
Evo said:
Not true, gods in Norse and Roman mythology could be killed.

Since in a lot of cultures things like fish are gods, you really need to expand your understanding. Monothesim is actually quite recent, for example.

My perception of "god" is an all knowing, all powerful being. I'm not talking about polytheist types of gods who have tons of human characteristics.
 
  • #45
KooCmstr said:
My perception of "god" is an all knowing, all powerful being. I'm not talking about polytheist types of gods who have tons of human characteristics.
Then you should say "God" not "god". One's the name of a distinct entity, the other is a type of entity. The difference is generally accepted.
 
  • #46
DaveC426913 said:
Then you should say "God" not "god". One's the name of a distinct entity, the other is a type of entity. The difference is generally accepted.

Oh, thanks
 

Similar threads

News Is Democracy Sustainable in the Face of Human Nature?
  • · Replies 70 ·
3
Replies
70
Views
10K
Human evolution - From sperm to ape
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Emergence & Religion: Could We Create a God?
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
10K
The idea of god, faith, and existance
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Is mathematics invented or discovered?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
359
How do you actually take maths notes so that it’s not in vain?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
I A question about a popular example of expansion
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
The Art of Wondering: Realism, Measurements & Becoming Gods
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Are density matrices part of a real vector space?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Book Review: Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
7K