Re: help with "proof" for non-existence of God

Geoff Smith (
Mon, 10 Mar 1997 19:37:07 -0800 (PST)

On Mon, 10 Mar 1997, Dan Hook wrote:

> I am aware that this might be a little off subject but it is one of my
> hobby's to argue with theists. I am aware that I do not have a chance of
> changing their views. Right now my current goal is having someone say,
> "That's a good argument, but I still believe."

I think the problem with your argument is that even though we define the
universe as everything, I find theists generally consider god to somehow
be "outside" of the universe. I don't think you're going to change their
opinion on this.

However, one argument I see theists constantly using is that of teleology.
They will point out that if anything is complex, it must be made by
someone. If we see something complex like an airplane, it must be made
by an intelligent creator( in this case, human beings) Then the theist
will ramble on about how amazingly complex the human body is, how if the
human genome was in book form, it would fill the grand canyon multiple
times, etc., etc. Anyway, if you are making a precise map of the
mandelbrot set, it will overflow an infinite number of universes, so the
human complexity thing is a bit of a silly argument meant to awe people
into a faith in a higher power.

Anyway, if a theist ever tells you that the universe is too
complex to have just "popped" into existence, you've got them nailed. The
problem with saying that complexity must have a creator is that it has no
end. If the a deity created the universe, then logically this deity is
more complicated than the universe. For this deity to be THAT
complex(according to theist logic), it MUST have a creator. So there has
to be a God version 2 basically that created version 1. And it goes on,
and on, and on. To what end? Wouldn't it be simpler to just to let the
universe stand on its own, or to have multiple universes popping into
existence like virtual particles?

I disagree with Johnny Carwash's statement that some are too pious
to be swayed from their faith in god, or that faith and science can
coexist(although I think he actually said faith and nanotechnology) I do
not see how faith and Pancritical Rationalism can exist together, and PCR
is really what is necessary for a workable scientific method. An
unshakeable faith in god means that you could just as easily have an
unshakable faith in lamarkism. Of course, thinking that god probably
exists, and that god irrefutably exists are two entirely separate things,
as separate as science and faith.

The dynamic optimisit in me tells me that no mind is closed, since all
minds are in constant flux, and where that flux will lead is too chaotic
to predict. Even the strongest belief can be a temporary thing.