Is the Concept of God Overly Simplistic?

[Holocene]

Has anyone ever thought that the idea of a god is simply too simplistic?

We know that our universe is complex, and yet from that, there seems a tendency to reduce it all down to simply having been created from a single deity. Perhaps it is a product of flawed human reasoning; our desire to dismiss the complex in favor of something simpler and more easily understood?

What if there really is no single “being” responsible for all that we see. What if there are simply billions upon billions of process at work, and nothing ever traces back to having originated from a single source?

Hard to understand, yes. But what would be the problem with it?

 

[DaveC426913]

Seems to me that the details of a superior intelligence manipulating the universe is less important to most people than whether or not there is one.

i.e. those who think that God is an implausible answer are not concerned with the various flavours of Godness.

At the risk of being flippant:

"Does God exist?"
"No."
"What if He were not one entity, but a committee? Is that more palatable?"
"Still no."
"But what if..."
"Do you think my answer is going to change?"

 

[out of whack]

What if there are simply billions upon billions of process at work, and nothing ever traces back to having originated from a single source?

I don't see any problem with the universe being a set of infinitely complex processes interacting forever. As humans, we study the parts of it that affect us (the part we happen to be in) and manage to infer a few useful rules about this part. However, this says nothing about what may or may not lie outside the limits of our observable space.

But the search for the simplest understandable answer is natural. For some, God is the concept they can understand. For others, a TOE is the holy grail. For both, the goal is to find whatever explanation satisfies, whatever makes us feel secure.

 

[Moridin]

Seems to me that the details of a superior intelligence manipulating the universe is less important to most people than whether or not there is one.

i.e. those who think that God is an implausible answer are not concerned with the various flavours of Godness.

At the risk of being flippant:

"Does God exist?"
"No."
"What if He were not one entity, but a committee? Is that more palatable?"
"Still no."
"But what if..."
"Do you think my answer is going to change?"

The same general argument can be applied the other way around; how many devout theists do you think would change their mind if credible scientific evidence should arise that points otherwise?

 

[DaveC426913]

The same general argument can be applied the other way around; how many devout theists do you think would change their mind if credible scientific evidence should arise that points otherwise?

Perfhaps, but that's not the point of the OP's thread. S/he seems to be basically asking if it would be more palatable to atheists if we "watered down" the supernatural force.

 

[JoeDawg]

What if there really is no single “being” responsible for all that we see. What if there are simply billions upon billions of process at work, and nothing ever traces back to having originated from a single source?

Sounds like one of those 'irreducible complexity' arguments the creationists try and sell.

 

[Arkarian]

god

it's just one of those questions you can't answer.
We assume that god doesn't exist.
then we can never know whether he does exist or not, just because we haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Let's assume that the universe goes to infinity
but we can never be sure because we have never met a boundary which could exist

 

[DaveC426913]

it's just one of those questions you can't answer.
We assume that god doesn't exist.
then we can never know whether he does exist or not, just because we haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Let's assume that the universe goes to infinity
but we can never be sure because we have never met a boundary which could exist

The question is more practically formulated as "Do we need God to exist in order to make sense of our universe?" We're not saying he doesn;t exist so much as we're saying we don't ned to factor him into our answers.

It's a more conservative application of Occam's Razor: the simplest answer is the one we can work with for all practical purposes - whether there is more to the answer is not really helpful to us.

 

[Laozi]

What if there were more than one god, such as a whole population of them. Maybe their race is are like giants which are omnipotent in our opinion, but in fact in their opinion, not all that great. Perhaps we are like microscopic organisms to them. Think of how we look down upon every other creature on earth. this could be just like that for them. every planet might kinda be like a house and them that one god could customize it however he wants. They would be very different than us. we may be created in gods form but we don't think or act like they do. But I'm only in eighth grade, i might not understand this kind of concept. ths all just came from my imagination.

 

[yasiru89]

It's already been thought of Laozi, but in Buddhism for instance these Gods aren't omni-functional sorts. They're mortal, but under the illusion of immortality(with such ridiculous life-spans that they may as well think themselves immortal) and are free to act in any way(with consequence, perhaps surprisingly to some) they can as any other being.

The infinite descent line argument is fairly old. We may exist in something like a dimensional pocket within another larger dimensional plane and so ad infinitum(in perhaps both ways). If we are observables within the higher dimension they can be considered Godly(even if they may not be able to interact explicitly, near-objective observation is next to Godliness!) But here we come across a basic no no for theists; the thought that God maybe 'victim' to another 'God' and so ad infinitum is simply appalling to them and(seeing no way around it)therefore they mark the argument too simple to be worth their effort and look away.

But this thread does not aim for a critique on the arguments for existence of God. Such are fun(bashing theist opinion always is)but never get anywhere. So is God too simplistic? I say yes, it moves on under our assumption that all things have a creator and helps weak people find sanity with the idea of omnipotency and individual love. The omniscience bit keeps people from asking too much!

 

[ECStoner]

The same general argument can be applied the other way around; how many devout theists do you think would change their mind if credible scientific evidence should arise that points otherwise?

Surely the point is the theists cannot *prove* that God exists anymore than atheists can *prove* God doesn't exist? Belief is something that can't be proven or disproven and there is always going to be a part of religion that is impossible to prove (hence why creastionism cannot be called a theory - it can't be proven or disproven - but i'll leave that for another time...).

 

[DaveC426913]

Surely the point is the theists cannot *prove* that God exists anymore than atheists can *prove* God doesn't exist?

(This discussion has happened before but I'll repeat it anyway.)

Theists most certainly have the potential to prove that God exists, with the right circumstances.

If the clouds parted and a colossal white-bearded man stepped onto the Earth carrying a titanic staff with a "G" carved into the knob, and parted the Mediterranean ocean with a wave of his hand and wrote upon its bed "I am God, hear me roar", I think most people would accept that as adequate proof of God.

Atheists on the other hand, have no such counterpart. There can be no proof of the non-existence of God. Ever. Even in principle. ("Maybe he's just asleep, curled up in some distant galactic arm".)

 

[Moridin]

Theists most certainly have the potential to prove that God exists, with the right circumstances.

That would be a corroboration, not necessarily a proof. The more reasonable explanatory model is that you are simply hallucinating.

Atheists on the other hand, have no such counterpart. There can be no proof of the non-existence of God. Ever. Even in principle. ("Maybe he's just asleep, curled up in some distant galactic arm".)

I would argue that he ability to disprove god certainly exist (some scientists even state that it has already been done to some extent). One or more modus tollens argument(s) will do. We derive testable prediction(s) from it and when they fail, the god also fails. Naturally, you can arbitrarily redefine "god" as ad hoc anything, but note carefully that the god already disproven by science will stay disproven, just like astrology. Your only way out seems to be to argue, like Kuhn, that falsifications don't take place in science, but that would be a somewhat bleak stance.

Also, arguments from theological noncognitivism or materialistic apologetics can work considerably towards the same goal for a strong atheist if he or she chooses to go down that line.

Naturally, as you mentioned before, it is really about whether such a being is necessary to explain anything or not.

 

[DaveC426913]

That would be a corroboration, not necessarily a proof. The more reasonable explanatory model is that you are simply hallucinating.

Seen by billions? I don't mean simply a sighting or an anecdote. I mean if God actually came down and said "hello. I've come to set you all straight."


The most reasonable explanatory model would be that we atheists blew it.

 

[Moridin]

Seen by billions? I don't mean simply a sighting or an anecdote. I mean if God actually came down and said "hello. I've come to set you all straight."


The most reasonable explanatory model would be that we atheists blew it.

Indeed, if you had that much independent corroboration of it, then obviously, like true testable, repeatable advances in, say, parapsychology, it would be counted as strong evidence.

 

[drankin]

God can't be scientifically proven.

 

[Moridin]

God can't be scientifically proven.

Say we set up a controlled double-blind prayer experiment. We have Catholics, Protestants, Hindu, Buddhists praying for different groups with irreligious atheists as a control group. 100% of the patients, say, Catholics prayed for get better, terminal diseases are cured, severed limbs are regrown and so on, whereas the others do no better than the control.

Then what?

 

[drankin]

That just says prayer works. Just as thinking "positive" works. Doesn't scientifically prove God.

 

[Moridin]

That just says prayer works. Just as thinking "positive" works. Doesn't scientifically prove God.

Does thinking positive make severed limbs regrown? Even if it is not a clear "proof", it is strong evidence, don't you agree?

 

[drankin]

I guess thinking positive is powerfull stuff. No, it doesn't scientifically prove God exists.

 

[Moridin]

I guess thinking positive is powerfull stuff. No, it doesn't scientifically prove God exists.

What other possible explanation can there be? I do hope that you do not take this personally, but I think it would be a little bit close minded not to consider it evidence of at least some relevance?

 

[drankin]

Well, I'm not saying God does not exist, just that He cannot be "scientifically proven" to exist. You have to agree with me on that.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, I'm not saying God does not exist, just that He cannot be "scientifically proven" to exist.

You guys are simply stuck in a dogmatic belief that you're repeating rote.

While he can't be proven to exist as it currently stands, it is possible to prove his existence if the right evidence were to present itself.

 

[drankin]

You guys are simply stuck in a dogmatic belief that you're repeating rote.

While he can't be proven to exist as it currently stands, it is possible to prove his existence if the right evidence were to present itself.

I have no idea what kind of repeatable experiment you could come up with to scientifically prove your theory though. Even if He came down and did a press conference complete with miracles, I don't know if that would qualify as scientific proof. Surely it would be enough to make believers out of most but science would have trouble fitting it into logical reason.

 

[JoeDawg]

When someone claims that Odin exists and that I should make sure to die in battle, so that I will join the heroes in Valhalla, so that I can then fight in the final battle at Ragnarök.

Well, that's a claim. Something many people believed despite the total lack of evidence. You need evidence to support a claim or its just empty words. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim. Demanding people to disprove your fantastical claims, is in a word: nonsense. Its not how science works and its not how rational intelligent people work. The only people who think this way are people who are emotionally invested in something they don't even understand.

Now, as to evidence, given the fact that gods are generally defined in conflicted self-contradicting and completely fantastical ways... you would need to actually define what you mean by GOD, not very many people would likely accept *your* definition, because they have their own emotionally invested definition.

And that's not just about finding the 'right evidence', your god may not exist, and probably doesn't.

 

[DaveC426913]

Even if He came down and did a press conference complete with miracles, I don't know if that would qualify as scientific proof.

How could it not?

If we had a theory of underwater volcanic action but had never seen any, and then one day a volcano erupted in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, are you saying that this would not qualify as scientific proof?

 

[drankin]

How could it not?

If we had a theory of underwater volcanic action but had never seen any, and then one day a volcano erupted in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, are you saying that this would not qualify as scientific proof?

Sure it would. We could go underwater and observe it. If there were a press conference held by someone who claimed to be God, it would require a bit of study before the scientific community to be convinced. Would it not?

 

[DaveC426913]

Sure it would. We could go underwater and observe it.

Before the event, we had never seen any volcanoes. This one erupted from the ocean bottom and now is a mile high.

Have we demonstrated that volcanoes can indeed erupt in the middle the ocean. Do we need further proof that a volcano in the middle of the ocean eixsts?

If there were a press conference held by someone who claimed to be God,

I put forth the scenario wherein he presents himself. You can examine at your leisure. He gets bored and lassos the Moon and puts it in your shirt pocket.

 

[Cyrus]

I personally believe that there is a teapot in orbit with the Earth that is too small for our best telescopes to observe it. You can't prove that my tea-pot god is wrong, but that does not make it any less of a false idea.

The fact is, God certainly is something that can be proved by science, and this is because religious texts make scientific claims on the natural world. So please, stop saying you can't disprove god using science out of ignorance.

When you say that Jesus was born a virgin birth, or that the prophet muhammad, after his death, flew to heaven, or that mosses parted the sea, you are making scientific claims your god has performed that are FALSE. There are numerous other examples we could go over that are clearly wrong.

Futhermore, the athiest does not claim that god exists. The onus of proof is on the theist. So produce something. You have had 2000 years now.

In addition, the idea of God being too simplistic is simply wrong. We know all processes that occur are evolutionary in nature. To say that some being created the universe requires that God be a very complex thing. Therefore, it too had to be of an evolutionary nature. What created God, what was Gods ancesstors. It simply brings more questions than it solves. It is not a valid answer.

 

[yasiru89]

What the OP meant with regard to my interpretation was whether the concept of God was too convenient. It doesn't matter the degree of complexity of the being.
Also I find the existence approach very much lacking fibre for either argument. If you must follow it, then consider this; God is defined as a being that is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. This of course restricts his degrees of freedom(with the last two), therefore risking omnipotency being thrown out the door. Also the need that he be a life form does not objectively answer anyone's questions on life- perhaps not even his (but we won't go there, assuming omniscience). Of miracles we see direct interference in our plane, therefore a proof that God DOES NOT exist requires an examination of the conditions for life and its choices to 'exist', and whether omnipotency, omniscience and benevolence can exist in an equilibrium acceptable to those conditions(I think not, eg- can God create a mountain he cannot lift?).
Anything less than meeting those 3 predicates we shall call god as well(sans the capitalisation) but we can then find a threshold with beings above which qualify as gods. Back to the polytheistic religions. I shall always be a Buddhist regardless of 'descending Gods', since it sees the potential within me and is sufficiently atheistic and encompassing the grandest of scales. I'd also not want to go to heaven and would rather return here, but then that's me and one's choices are but their own.

PS- Cyrus has a hot avatar...