NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/atheism/24813

Text File | 1993-01-03 | 4.8 KB | 101 lines

Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Path: sparky!uunet!psgrain!hippo!ee.und.ac.za!csir.co.za!phyrql!lucio
From: [e-mail] (Lucio de Re)
Subject: Re: The Bible As A Rorschach
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: MegaByte Digital Communications
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 08:10:22 GMT
Lines: 89

[e-mail] (Joe Beiter) writes:

>True I have not.  Ok here goes: "Joe Beiter's limited personal definition
>of 'God'".  God is a being that cannot be directly observed by any
>current technology, He alledgedly created all of the known universe,
>maintains an active interest on what happens on earth, even has a
>role on the social/political activities on the earth yet still maintains
>'invisibility' to scientifically measureable means.

>unlike the unicorn, there are large numbers of similer belief of the same
>or similer characteristics.

>You say you are sure He does not exist.  why?

Let me analyse this first.  God's properties:

- God is beyond observation (or scientific measurement)
  - altogether
 xor
  - using current technology
- God is the primal cause
  - of everything
 xor
  - of the known universe
- God is actively interested in events on Earth
- God is actively interacting in events on Earth

You make things difficult by being vague, but let's consider matters as
you've stated them.  Firstly, the last two points do not characterise
God as a supernatural being; what I'm trying to say is that I believe
such an entity _does_ exist - for example, I fit that description.  So
I will not even remotely attempt to deny that such a being may exist,
and I doubt that anyone else on a.a would.

That leaves with two (four) points to argue.  The FAQ pays considerable
attention to both but I guess it is not very convincing, merely because
(a) God is beyond observation inherently places itself beyond the
boundaries of experimental evidence (the scientific method or a research
programme), so that no proof _can_ possibly be devised to falsify the
statement.  The best one can do is to demand a counterexample (what
fact or event will invalidate your belief that such a God exists) and
attempt to provide it. (b) God is a primal cause is similarly untestable.

In the context of your beliefs, my atheism states that there is no reason
to believe in a primal cause, given that any such primal cause would
either itself have to have a cause or could be reduced to reality as
we know it (the known universe); putting it in a different way, if we
need a level of indirection at all, why not an infinite number (and an
infinitely remote God), and if we want a finite number, what's wrong
with zero?  I know this is hardly satisfactory to a believer, else
there wouldn't be any believers, but it suffices for me.

Now for the unobservable deity: as I pointed out, this in itself is beyond
the scientific method.  On the other hand, the fact that God may be
observing Earth and in fact interacting with events on Earth changes the
perspective a little.

Note that we remain in the realm of the unfalsifiable: I cannot concoct
an experiment that will force God to reveal itself, as this would
contradict your premiss that God is unobservable.

On the other hand, I may theorise that God _cannot_ participate in any
event on Earth without defeating such a premiss, as its effect could be
measured and it is accepted scientific practice to observe phenomena in
such an indirect manner (subatomic particle collision comes to mind).

It has been suggested that God would have to interact in an omnipotent
manner (by creating the entire history of an event) to prevent itself
from being detected, thus denying claims to free will, but this tends
to reduce itself to the argument of primal cause, which is undecidable.

On the other hand, many religions allow for miracles, which I interpret
as direct interaction of God with events in our observable neighbourhood.
These distinctly bring God within the measurable horizon, but your
definition denies such.

My personal opinion is that an unobservable God serves no useful purpose,
except as a silly answer to "where do we come from?" type questions.
An observable God has not been _reliably_ observed yet, so I discount
such a deity as well.  On the other hand, the scientific method, and
especially Popper's research programme, have answered a greater number
of pertinent questions than all the religious writings combined, with
only a few contradictions in the process (I think quantum mechanics and
general relativity still provide an unresolved conflict), so I'll find
_my_ brand of God in "The Feynman Lectures" rather than in the Bible.

--
Lucio de Re ([e-mail])
The supernatural does not exist, but it gives me the creeps...