The Existence of God

Pro wants to debate the existence of God. His original contention was that God is necessary to explain the existence of the universe. That contention is dead because Pro admitted that there are alternative explanations. Pro further argues: 1. God is necessary to explain the suitability of the universe to human existence. I rebutted that with the argument that there may be an infinity of universes, a theory advanced in science, and so the one we observe is the one suited to us because we could not be in any of the ones unsuited. It is comparable to the situation that we are always dealt a hand of cards despite the vanishingly small probability that we will get the one we got. If Pro has a counter-argument other than that he disagrees, I missed it. 2. Pro asserts that everything has a cause except God. I argued that (a) science allows for spontaneous events without preconditions and (b) making God the exception is less justified than making the universe the exception, because God is more complex and, (c) explanations involving magic are not really explanations. (a) Pro just reasserts that no events can occur without preconditions, and all that science allows is events that have preconditions. I challenged Pro to produce a scientific reference supporting his contention that science says preconditions are required. My understanding is that quantum fluctuation theory has no such requirement. Pro has not produced a reference. Secondly, I challenge Pro's assertion that having preconditions amounts to causation. Thus if the universe exists, it is then acceptable to have things pop into existence whereas the universe itself could not have popped into existence. Why? Anything popping into existence contradicts our everyday experience. We know that there are true things that happen that contradict our everyday experience. So why one and not the other? (b) Pro argues that God is simpler than the universe, so it is more likely that God always existed or popped into existence than the universe having done so. God only appears simpler because "God can do anything" is a short sentence. The universe is simpler because the universe obeys physical laws. Despite the complexity of the universe the number of physical laws is small. God however, is unconstrained by physical laws and can perform magic. God can not only know the position and velocity of every particle in the universe, He can simultaneous comprehend the states of all the particles but command any to new states. Since each particle in the universe has no intelligence of its own, the complexity of God to know and control each particle must be many times greater. Imagine trying to build a computer that just keeps track of all the particles in the universe. There would have to be a tracking device and a datalink for each particle, then there would have to be memory to store the data and software to recognize the particles position relative to other particles. The computer power needed for each particle would be millions of times more complex than the particle. For God to perform the task for each particle, God must be many millions of times more complex. (c) If having a god is a better explanation than a natural one, then we should accept gods (or a God) as controlling the paths of hurricanes and controlling the stock market. For hurricanes and the stock market, and many other things, our understanding is at best incomplete. For those things we assume that there are natural explanation, but that we just don't know what they are. Pro's logic is that if a natural explanation is unknown, we should accept a god explanation as the simplest alternative, so therefore we should accept god explanations for these things as well. It could be argued that the difference is that there are natural explanations for hurricanes and the stock market, but not for the universe. However, we do not know with certainty that there is no natural explanation for the universe. Pro admitted that alternative natural explanations were possible. So our status with respect to hurricane paths, the stock market, and the universe is factual the same: we have at best partial explanations with the rest unknown. Therefore if the logic is to accept a god explanation for one, the same logic logic should compel accepting it for all. We do not leap to god explanations for everything unknown. The reason we do not is that a god explanation is not really an explanation. We want to be able to precisely predict the paths of hurricanes to aid disaster preparation. Claiming that a hurricane god controls the path does nothing but cause as to stop looking for a natural explanation. It doesn't help to suppose that a hurricane god exists up until the point that we have a better explanation. An explanation that gains nothing in understanding the physical world is pointless. 4. Pro claims, "If you believe that God created the universe then at least we do not have to believe that we are living in the unexplainable." What is the problem that is living in a universe that is unexplained? Most people do not understand how their cell phone, television, or computer works and they continue using them without any difficulty. People walking on a beach may notice that wet sand is firmer than dry sand, and so easier to walk upon. This was first explained by Einstein as being due to capillary action. Prior to that explanation, people had walked on beaches for a million years without a problem. People still do so while being oblivious to the explanation. It is human nature to want explanations. I think this is a product of survival instinct, because figuring out how the world works helps one survive in it. In the case of the creation of the universe, a God explanation is of no help in surviving in it, beyond the personal emotional satisfaction that may come from holding an unfounded belief. That is not a rational motivation. 5. People have postulated the existence of many thousands of gods, with as many hypothesized powers. Pro has not raised any argument for the existence of a god other than to explain the existence of the universe. Because there are alternative natural explanations for the creation of the universe and its existence as it is, and because it may be that there is a natural explanation yet to be discovered, there is no need to postulate a god for this purpose. A magical god is less understandable than a natural universe. Therefore, there is no proof of the existence of God based upon the existence of the universe. Deists like Jefferson believed that God created the universe and will return one day in judgment. In the interim, according to the Deists, obeying God's will amounted to being reasonable. The did not believe in prayer, revelation, or miracles. If a God is believed solely based upon a need to create the universe, that says nothing about the nature of God with respect to anything else. Consequently, even if a proof were to be made, it would still be pointless. Pro must prove the existence of God. He has not done so. The resolution is negated.