Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?

Hi, Straggler. This is a very important topic for me personally. As my training in science progresses, I find fewer and fewer instances in which objective, evidence-based thinking is not needed, and fewer and fewer instances in which my faith-based thinking is helpful at all. I am slowly losing the ability to think like a theist.I have already lost all the naive Christian-lore thinking of my youth, and am currently wading through a phase of contemplating the overlap between my religion and the knowledge given me by science. Someday, I very well may become an atheist, but I don’t see that happening any time soon, as much for my personal testimony as for my fears about family relationships and the point of my existence.I call testify from personal experience that critical thinking hurts a theistic mind. I wish I could say it made me humble... but I’m afraid it would take a literal act of a whole doctoral committee of Gods to accomplish that. When you believe there’s a God, you don’t have to worry about your personal worth or about the state of the universe, because it’s all being taken care of by competent hands. But, when you begin to doubt God, you also lose that foundation of surety: maybe everything isn’t being taken care of, after all. With God, there is always somebody who’s going to give me the answers someday; but, without God, there are things that I may never learn.I go through times when, as every creationist on this website says often, the scientific evidence seems brittle and my adherance to it seems petty, close-minded and ignorant. And, I go through times when I can no longer see a God of any sort. I go through times when it feels like science has illuminated all the frontiers already. And, I go through times when it feels like science doesn’t know anything at all.I have recently settled more on a deistic view of God. As a father myself, with a one-year-old baby boy, I have been able to witness, firsthand, the wisdom of laissez-faire. I have tried, adamantly, to teach my son a lot of things, but have discovered that he simply won't learn from me: he'll only learn from his own experience. A God who sets Himself up as “father” to billions of people would also be aware of this (I'm confident that it's a fairly persistant trend across humans), not the least because He allegedly created us this way.To me, a God who punishes wrongdoers as an example for others, or uses wonders and miracles to convince people to follow Him, is an extremely foolish being who only works towards His ends (obedience), and does not concern Himself with any sort of ethics or the needs of His "children." Since I can't accept the existence of such a God (and, if such a God did exist, I would refuse to worship Him and go to Hell for it out of spite, because such a God doesn't deserve to be worshipped), I prefer to hope that there is a God who understands what I have learned from trying to raise my son. So far, God has not attempted to intervene in any noticeable way, and seems content to let me think and do as I see fit, so it seems that my conclusion is correct: God, if there is a God, is also very hands-off, and prefers ethics over ends.Granted, the available evidence equally supports the complete absence of deity altogether, along with a veritable horde of alternative deities that never appeared in my religious studies.Where a myriad of unprovable and unevidenced alternatives are available, you really only have two choices: choose one, or don’t choose one.

​

Not choosing is the rational choice.But, I still have a lot of things to work through and a lot of confusion to ease before I will be willing to abandon my hard-won feelings and experiences about God.In leaving God, you stand to lose a whole lot if you’re wrong (Pasqual had something to say about this, I think). But, sometimes, I feel like it might be worth it, just to remove all the pressure of thinking that the Almighty Lord of the universe, who can cause torment beyond my imagining, is watching my every move.----- Incidentally, posts like this one make me nervous for weeks: I have no way of knowing whether or when God will decide to zot me into oblivion, and I have been conditioned to believe that doubting is grounds for a good zotting. And, I'm already a nervous wreck with a paper due, a presentation to organize, two discussion sessions to prepare, bills to pay and a baby teething: is it any wonder I'm up in the middle of the night bearing my soul to complete strangers (who, mercifully, at least don't know whether or not "Bluejay" is my real name)?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Onifre. This is one reason why I sometimes wish I was an atheist, too. But, having had my beliefs for so long, and knowing that science isn't infallible and that there are still unanswered questions, I still feel safer hedging my bets and staying where I am.So, my direct answer to Straggler's OP question is that I am afraid to become an atheist because I am not comfortable with the amount of certainty science offers that there is no God. So, no: science can't (or, at least, hasn't yet) refuted the "god hypothesis." Well, it hasn't refuted all of them yet, anyway.----- It's almost embarrassing, too.But, it's not so much the fear of being punished by God as it is the fear that I'd be giving up something wonderful: I have it set in my mind that there's a heaven in store for me, where I can live for eternity in complete happiness, together with everyone I love, and gain all kinds of crazy knowledge and power. And, abandoning my religion would also be abandoning that.What always upsets me the most is that I can't distinguish between the "true" methods that my religion uses and the methods that other people use when they're trying to manipulate people. I can't distinguish between "genuine" feelings allegedly brought by the Holy Ghost, and the obviously "false" feelings that can come from Hallmark tear-jerker movies.The bottom line is that, if no religion existed, and people were all rational, no one would ever decide that religion needed to be started unless some God actually came and showcased the whole thing for a lot of people.-----P.S. What is "onifre" anyway, and how do you pronounce it?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Onifre (sweet name, by the way), I’ve never heard it said so well before.I believe that you’re right. I have spent a lot of time thinking critically, and am trying my best to challenge my own beliefs about God. I have rejected a lot of them, and only tentatively hold on to those beliefs that science can’t completely refute. Essentially, I’m down to a belief that there is something that we would call “God” and that there will be something we would call an “afterlife.” After all, at this stage, it’s really only a yes or no question.But, beyond that, there are too many alternatives, none of which can be examined empirically, and I don’t believe in the power or authority of ancient wisdom any more than I believe in my grandmother’s “wisdom” about the world.By the same token, there are too many “god” possibilities that science currently permits for me to say, categorically, that science is a good reason for me to drop my religion. Granted, it is a great reason for me to drop much of the mystical ideas of my traditional religion, but the refutation of a number of hypotheses is not reason to reject the basic concept.For that reason, I argue that several god hypotheses have been essentially falsified (e.g. God created us 6000 years ago out of the dust), but that the concept of god has not been. Therefore, if I choose to stop believing in God, it won’t be because science has disproven Him, but because I no longer feel that I need Him. So, how much material do you get from EvC?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Double PostEdited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, ICANT.Thanks for your comments. Maybe you'd like to spend some time reading about Mormon beliefs before you say absurd and ignorant things like this.And, by the way, it's spelled "Pascal": where did you get that stupid and utterly incorrect spelling? This is a very good example of why I am having a very hard time keeping my belief in God. It sounds to me like you are claiming that I can do everything God asked me to do, and he'll still withhold the reward. I humbly submit that such a God does not deserve my worship, even if He does exist and can give me what He claims. Thanks for caring.I feel like I am under pressure because I really have no way of knowing if what I am doing is a sin or not, because everybody I talk to seems to have a different opinion as to what is sinful and what is required of me in order to achieve salvation. In the end, I am told that I must make my own decision through careful thought and prayer. But, being of a sound, objective mind, I am naturally allergic to making decisions without supporting evidence, so I naturally (and stupidly) asked for lots of people’s input. Now, thanks to you, I have one more interpretation of scripture that, naturally, contradicts pretty much every other interpretation of scripture that I have ever heard.All I have to go on is the little blurbs the scriptures have, along with the infinite commentary from a lot of people, and the only tool I’ve been given to make this decision is my own personal feelings. And, by the way, my recent past includes two years on Zoloft for the failure of those very feelings on which I am supposed to be relying. It’s hereditary. Well, that’s my story. Your story is probably that it’s a punishment for my lack of faith.And, here’s the clincher: if I make the wrong choice, I’ll probably spend eternity in Hell.To sum up: if the screwed-up emotional centers of my brain can’t decide between the myriad different perspectives on the Bible and come up with real truth in the absence of any sort of reliable, physical evidence, I’m going to spend a literal eternity in burning torment beyond my mortal comprehension.Does anybody see any reason for me to feel like I am under pressure?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, ICANT. That was a joke: you obviously got your erroneous spelling of "Pascal" from my erroneous spelling in the post you replied to.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Agobot. Well, you're never guaranteed that. Unlike religions, they/we'll let anybody in!

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Straggler.You know, speaking as one who has spent a lot of time trying to think my way through this problem, the only conclusion I can really make is that critical thinking cannot, in any way, really answer the questions of whether God exists, what He expects of me and whether I should devote any significant amount of time or effort to following Him.It seems (to me) like you almost have to refuse to think to actually get an answer, either way, as to the existence of God. After so many opinions from so many people, and so little for me to use to discern between them, the only rational choice I can make in the end would just be something that is "the right one for me personally," as you put it. In other words, I can pretty much believe whatever resonates with my personal feelings, and it wouldn't be my fault if I got it wrong, because that's how God told me to figure things out.In the end, a purely rational, thinking personal becomes functionally atheist, essentially going at each problem as if he is not going to get any divine help, even if he believes that divine help is possible. The Mormon church has a well-known quote that comes up in at least a few meetings each year: "Pray as if everything depends on the Lord, then work as if everything depends on you." To me, that's functionally atheist: I don't even have to acknowledge that God is doing anything to apply that wisdom.-----From now on, I'm going to be both theist and atheist on this forum, because I could count as both under the above logic. This way, I can be purely a scientist and logician, and I can still pretend to be offended when people say things about Mormons.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Agobot. I think you are being far too casual with your usage of the word "sure."On what grounds do you state this with such surety? Can you provide the math that backs up your claim that energy cannot produce all the material structures of the universe?----- Laws are not physical entities that must exist somewhere, Agobot. The “laws” are only descriptions of how physical entities interact. Neither I nor anybody more knowledgeable than I can give you a reason why these interactions happen (it may be the manifestation of greater intelligence, for all we know), but we can tell you that the interactions follow very specific patterns, and that there is no reason to believe that those patterns can’t cause matter, and even life, to develop.----- I would include numbers as artifacts of the physical universe, not as agents of the universe's physical formation.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Agobot. No. I want to argue against what appears to be your main argument, which is that some form of intelligence is required to make things happen. Was that not the point you were making with the above sentence? If that wasn't the point, it seems that this sentence just amounts to an admission that you don't actually have a case for the requirement of intelligence.Is that the case?----- So, is it your argument that the laws of physics couldn't have been in place before T=0^-43? My understanding is that nobody really knows what was going on during the first Planck epoch, so I'm not sure I buy your argument that the laws must have arisen later.Looking at this in the broader context of your overall argument on this thread, you would seem to be saying that a structured system of physical behavior (i.e. physical laws) necessarily implies the work of an intelligent agent.Is this correct?If so, doesn’t this also imply that that intelligence was similarly the work of an intelligent designer? After all, what is intelligence if not a structured system of physical behavior?This all leads up to the nonsensical conclusion that the existence of intelligence predates the existence of intelligence.-----At any rate, I find it glaringly obvious that the "god hypothesis" cannot be supported or refuted by objective, rational thinking, and that such concerns should be properly removed from all practical usage, except for those cases in which the religious insist on the injection of these issues into legal battles, or in which the religious are willing to pay generous grants to philosophers who cannot, by other means, feed their families.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Agobot. First, this is only proof that the physical laws are integral to the function of the universe. It is not support for any hypothesis as the underlying motivations or purposes of the laws and four forces.Second, the argument that you are combatting here is that the singularity doesn't, in fact, "know" how to make a universe, and didn’t, in fact, have anything to do with creating the universe. The argument is that this universe happened because the sequence of events simply led in this direction. Forethought is simply not required for results to happen.----- Why does it need a blueprint? Intelligence doesn't even need a blueprint, Agobot. Why can't energy just "make it up as it goes along"? Knowledge of the results and implications of a particular action isn’t even required to perform that action, as is evidenced by the development of lead cookware in the 1800’s and nuclear bombs in the 1940’s and 1950’s.----- Your theory is purely about what conditions must be met before the phenomenon can happen (i.e. intelligence must predate order). Since the prerequisites for the phenomenon to happen include the phenomenon itself happening, your phenomenon cannot happen (that is, since intelligence itself is order, it must be predated by intelligence).However, your turning the tables on my theory is a strawman for the simple reason that I do not have a theory for you to turn the tables on. As any true scientist should not be afraid to admit, I do not know the answer to this question. But, I am not required to know the real answer before I can know when a proposed answer is wrong: it doesn’t take a genius to realize that anything that won’t happen until after it happens is not going to happen.Obviously, then, I can conclude that intelligence cannot be required before order can occur, even if I don’t have a logical alternative.-----This is getting dreadfully off-topic, and I would like to respect Straggler’s efforts to discuss science and atheism. However, I might be interested in a topic about First Cause (though I’m not sure how much I could contribute to it, given my lack of background), if you are interested in starting one.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Agobot.I feel a bit like you're not understanding me at times. Such as this: In Message 186, I wrote this: And, in Message 198, I said this: I have not said that the physical constants exist without a reason, yet you still think that this is what I am saying. All I have done is point out that your argument is not consistent with logic.----- What option do we have? If you’re dissatisfied with the current level of scientific knowledge, go get a degree in physics and find the solution yourself. But, don’t make up solutions that can’t be shown with current science, because you’d be effectively doing the same thing as invoking Jesus or Allah.----- First, I have not invoked a multiverse, Agobot. I have not said that all possibilities must happen in order to make any one of them happen. All I have said is that one possibility happened. In other words, all I have said is that something happened. That shouldn’t be too hard for you to accept.Second, you are exaggerating when you say “trillions of different laws and constants.” Most physical equations don’t represent distinct, independent phenomena. For instance, Newton’s laws of motion are not three different principles, but descriptions of three different consequences of a single principle. In fact, most of physics results from a very small set of underlying principles. Gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces (I understand that the weak force is sometimes conflated with the electriomagnetic force) are nearly sufficient to explain all physical phenomena (as far as I know: correct me if I’m wrong), and the formulas and laws are all just consequences of this small handful of actual principles.----- Actually, Stephen Hawking doesn’t say anything about balance or about what must have caused it. All he says is that things would have been different if something different had happened.The mere fact that something improbable happened doesn’t mean it had to have been intentional. Flipping 100 heads is statistically just as probable as flipping 50 heads and 50 tails. There are 100 possible combinations of heads and tails in 100 coin flips, and every possibility has a 1% chance of happening. So, whatever happens, it will be extremely unlikely.So, if the universe’s expansion rate had been different from what it actually was, it would still be unlikely, and you would still say, “Wow! It required a lot of balance to hit that exact value” (ignore the fact that you would not exist under these conditions: I'm using a bit of literary license).Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, JungEinstein. Welcome to EvC! This is a very gross mischaracterization of scientific philosophy. There is no appeal to science or to scientists in the process. The appeal is to the universe at large, which we regard as generally unlikely to lie to us and generally unlikely to behave in a manner that is at odds with reality, and therefore, generally likely to yield reliable evidence. Where people's testimonies contradict the universe's testimony (i.e. the evidence), we generally consider the universe to be a more reliable witness.Do you think this is unreasonable?----- Where did this quote come from?Is the point of this quote that laser beams, superconductors and transistors are, in fact, faith?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Agobot. You keep saying this as if you think it somehow has something to do with my argument. Do you think I am arguing that the laws of physics need not exist during the Planck epoch?I'm going to try something different here: why don't you spell out for me exactly what you think my argument is. Maybe then we can see where it is that we're talking past each other.-----To make it fair, here is what I think your argument is:

1. Energy cannot create a universe without physical laws, nor can it create physical laws, so both physical laws and energy must have existed at the beginning of the universe. (I have no problems with this part of your argument.)
   ​
2. Laws cannot have happened by chance, so there must have been a directing agent (i.e. an intelligence) that made them in the beginning of the universe.

----- I will reiterate what Straggler asked. What other universes are you talking about?I have not hypothesized the existence of other universes. All I have hypothesized is that our universe happened among an indeterminate number of possibilities. The number of possibilities could be anywhere from 1 to infinite, but it makes no difference to my argument, because I have not invoked any sort of probabilities to explain our universe.My argument simply consists of the following: In no way have I argued that atheism is logically sound.
In no way have I argued that the universe must be the result of random processes.The only argument I have offered is that you are making an argument that suffers from many logical problems. You must focus your efforts on addressing these logical problems, rather than continually repeating what you perceive to be the strengths of your argument, because your argument's strengths do not simply make the weaknesses go away.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, JungEinstein. Ah. I see.The problem really isn't that evidence for the unseen spiritual world couldn't exist: it's really that none appears to be forthcoming to those who would be interested in attacking the subject from the perspective of critical thinking. And, what evidence there is has so far failed to lend itself to rational inquiry, meaning that the only information so far gleaned from spiritual research is highly person-specific and has shown the potential to produce enormous quantities of false positives.Thus, the method really shows no promise for obtaining objective results that can usefully answer questions in a “real world” situation. So far, objective, materialistic inquiry is the only method that has accomplished that.-----Let me ask you a question: would you expect evidence for an unseen, spiritual world to be spiritual or physical (or both) in nature? In other words, could you see the evidence for an unseen, spiritual world?----- Oooooh!! Now I get it!Well, the distaste comes from the inability to know how accurate a given faith-based proposition is.Surely you have had discourse with people whose faith leads them to different conclusions than you?
What was/would be your method for determining which faith-based conclusion is correct?Edited by Bluejay, : Formatting.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.