Is the Concept of God Overly Simplistic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holocene
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of God and whether it is overly simplistic in the context of a complex universe. Participants explore various perspectives on the existence of God, the nature of divine beings, and the implications of these beliefs on understanding the universe.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the idea of a single deity may be a reductionist approach to understanding the complexities of the universe, proposing instead that there could be countless processes at work without a singular origin.
  • Others argue that the existence of a superior intelligence is less significant than the question of whether such an entity exists at all, with some expressing skepticism about the need for a divine explanation.
  • A few participants question how many theists would change their beliefs if presented with credible scientific evidence against the existence of God, indicating a potential resistance to changing deeply held beliefs.
  • Some contributions highlight the idea that belief in God may serve as a psychological comfort for individuals, providing a sense of security in an otherwise complex and uncertain universe.
  • One participant introduces the notion of multiple gods, suggesting that they could be perceived differently by humans, akin to how humans view other species on Earth.
  • Another perspective considers the possibility of gods that are not omnipotent or immortal, drawing from philosophical and religious traditions such as Buddhism.
  • Several participants emphasize the challenge of proving or disproving the existence of God, noting that belief often transcends empirical evidence and may remain unprovable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the simplicity of the concept of God, with no clear consensus reached. Some agree on the complexity of the universe and the limitations of a singular divine explanation, while others maintain traditional views of God. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the limitations of their arguments, including the dependence on personal beliefs and the challenges of defining or proving the existence of God. The discussion reflects a variety of philosophical and theological positions without reaching definitive conclusions.

  • #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
11K
Is mathematics invented or discovered?
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
2K
How do you actually take maths notes so that it’s not in vain?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Undergrad A question about a popular example of expansion
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Undergrad Are density matrices part of a real vector space?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
The Art of Wondering: Realism, Measurements & Becoming Gods
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Philosophy: Is God timeless? (NOT A RELIGION THREAD)
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Is Scientific Ontology Essential for Science Practice?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
Why do humans hide behind masks and fake emotions?
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
Treatise on Why We Will Never Make Contact, just my opinion.
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K