Does god exist?
Does god exist? There are 3 basic possibilities:
So either god exists, but his existence is utterly unprovable, or he doesn't exist. The problem for theists here, though, is that both logically and functionally, the two statements are equivalent.
Now, I don't suppose this proves the non-existence of god; after all, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (Is it though? See below.) What it does mean, though, is that there is no difference between options 2 & 3 above. Lacking any evidence as to the existence of god, a universe with a god who keeps proof of his existence a secret looks and works exactly the same as one with no god.
(Oh and before you ask, the bible is not evidence for the existence of any god, much less a christian one. If you believe it is, do you also accept the Koran as evidence for the existence of Allah? Or of Hindu holy texts as proof of Vishnu et. al? You can't pick one holy book and dismiss all others, simply because that's the holy book you grew up with or the only one you've bothered to read & study.)
If one were to throw out the burden of proof and accept that anything--anything at all--can exist, then one quickly runs into contradictions. For instance, the existence of a One Singular God is at odds with the existence of, say, infinite gods. You also can't have anti-matter people walking around, or water that freezes at 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit at 1 ATM of pressure, or a perfectly round square, etc. In fact, for anything one can imagine which can not be proven real (in theory, not in practice), it should be possible to conjure up something else that can negate it which, also having no evidence of its existence, is on equal ground and thus equally valid to the first. So, anything which can not be theoretically proven can not be claimed to exist even beyond theory, as there should always be something else in the same realm of unprovable-existence which could negate it. To put it in math theorem terms, if X can exist without evidence, then there's no reason why -X, "not X", or anti-X can't also exist (again, without evidence).
And finally, there's the odds. If one accepts that some things can exist without any evidence (even in theory) that they existed, there would still be an infinite number of things that could not exist without evidence, and do not exist. The odds that any one of them exists, then, is one out of infinity. And if one recalls his high school math, one divided by infinity is equal to zero. Again, in math theorem terms: if object Xn can exist without evidence, where X is the set of all things that could possibly exist within and beyond our ability to conceive of it without evidence of its existence, then the set X is of infinite size (n=1 to infinity). So the odds that any finite number y of members of that set actually exist, out of the infinite number that for whatever reason can not, is y/infinity, or zero.
To sum it all up, god could exist, but without any evidence, his existence is on equal footing with an infinite number of other possibilities, including ones that would contradict the existence of one particular, or any, god. The odds of his existence then, are infinitesimal.
Addendum: Many more (32, to be precise) "disproofs" of god's existence can be found in this book. Many of those are disproofs against specific versions or qualities of god, but it's all quite strong nonetheless.
- God exists, and although we don't have any firm evidence for it now, such evidence is obtainable at least in theory.
- God exists, even if we can't prove his existence (even in theory).
- God doesn't exist.
So either god exists, but his existence is utterly unprovable, or he doesn't exist. The problem for theists here, though, is that both logically and functionally, the two statements are equivalent.
When making any assertive claim, the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. If person A says, "X exists" and person B says, "X doesn't exist," where X can be anything real or not (gods, the tooth fairy, money, apples, etc.), the burden of proof is on person A. Again, keep in mind that in this statement, X is a variable, and can be anything, real or not. The burden of proof is on person A regardless of what X is. To put the burden of proof on person B, is to say that anything can exist, not just the specific thing represented by X in one particular instance.
If a third person C were to claim that the burden of proof should be on person A for proving some things (e.g. the tooth fairy) but on person B for other things (e.g. proving the non-existence of gods), this would indicate (and indeed, require) that person C have some reason for differentiating between tooth fairies and gods. But the only reason for differentiating between the two would be if person C had some special evidence that favored one over the other--i.e. which would allow A to prove that gods existed, which then would place the burden (disproving the proof) on person B. If this is the case, however, then person C's assertion becomes moot, because person A should then be able to use that evidence to prove that gods exist. So, again, the default should always be that it's up to person A to prove that X exists; if he's right, he has nothing to lose by having this burden.
If there is a situation where the existence of X can neither be proven nor disproven, as is the case with gods, then the statement "X exists" is moot and meaningless. Again, logically, asserting that "X exists" with no evidence to show that that is so, the result is logically and functionally equivalent to "X does not exist."
Now, I don't suppose this proves the non-existence of god; after all, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (Is it though? See below.) What it does mean, though, is that there is no difference between options 2 & 3 above. Lacking any evidence as to the existence of god, a universe with a god who keeps proof of his existence a secret looks and works exactly the same as one with no god.
(Oh and before you ask, the bible is not evidence for the existence of any god, much less a christian one. If you believe it is, do you also accept the Koran as evidence for the existence of Allah? Or of Hindu holy texts as proof of Vishnu et. al? You can't pick one holy book and dismiss all others, simply because that's the holy book you grew up with or the only one you've bothered to read & study.)
If one were to throw out the burden of proof and accept that anything--anything at all--can exist, then one quickly runs into contradictions. For instance, the existence of a One Singular God is at odds with the existence of, say, infinite gods. You also can't have anti-matter people walking around, or water that freezes at 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit at 1 ATM of pressure, or a perfectly round square, etc. In fact, for anything one can imagine which can not be proven real (in theory, not in practice), it should be possible to conjure up something else that can negate it which, also having no evidence of its existence, is on equal ground and thus equally valid to the first. So, anything which can not be theoretically proven can not be claimed to exist even beyond theory, as there should always be something else in the same realm of unprovable-existence which could negate it. To put it in math theorem terms, if X can exist without evidence, then there's no reason why -X, "not X", or anti-X can't also exist (again, without evidence).
And finally, there's the odds. If one accepts that some things can exist without any evidence (even in theory) that they existed, there would still be an infinite number of things that could not exist without evidence, and do not exist. The odds that any one of them exists, then, is one out of infinity. And if one recalls his high school math, one divided by infinity is equal to zero. Again, in math theorem terms: if object Xn can exist without evidence, where X is the set of all things that could possibly exist within and beyond our ability to conceive of it without evidence of its existence, then the set X is of infinite size (n=1 to infinity). So the odds that any finite number y of members of that set actually exist, out of the infinite number that for whatever reason can not, is y/infinity, or zero.
To sum it all up, god could exist, but without any evidence, his existence is on equal footing with an infinite number of other possibilities, including ones that would contradict the existence of one particular, or any, god. The odds of his existence then, are infinitesimal.
Addendum: Many more (32, to be precise) "disproofs" of god's existence can be found in this book. Many of those are disproofs against specific versions or qualities of god, but it's all quite strong nonetheless.
posted by Unknown at
2/18/2006 05:24:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home