arndt@smurf.DEC (03/28/84)
What's all this about no evidence for the existence of God??
Of course there's evidence! As good as evidence for anything else!
Remember Godel, remember Heisenberg, remember the second law of thermody?
There are limits (above) to our knowledge and it appears that we cannot
know anything for certain, in an absolute sense.
SO EVERYBODY LIVES BY FAITH!!! Their assumptions I mean, their presuppositions.
EVEN mathematics. Read Morrows Cline, MATHEMATICS:THE LOSS OF CERTAINTY,'83.
The point is that after you have chosen your presuppositions you see where
they lead. That helps to verify, again as much as is possible, the per-
suppositions. Weight of evidence is what counts! Not PROOF in an absolute
sense which appears to be beyond our grasp.
----------------------------------------
How to start?
Well, what tools are we to use. I contend that we are already using the tool
of reason as soon as we string two words together to even start to ask the
questions. Therefore I would take up the tools of logic, realizing their
limitations as stated above of course.
A is not non A, etc.
-------------------------------
What is the problem?
Perhaps Sort said it best. "The basic philosophical problem is that something
is there, rather than nothing being there."
(Sorry I lost the ref.)
Einstein said, "It has a particular form." (paraphrase)
Ok. So what best (simplest, most reasonable, weight of evidence) explains
the world being here in this form?
What else?
Well, what about me? The observer. The thinker.
In other words, what best explains man, consciousness, my thought forms,
hopes, desires, etc. (I'm only talking about what might be common to all
men, everywhere, at all times- generic man. Ex. the desire to know.)
----------------------------------------
Note the following assumptions in the above:
- the world is THERE
- reason is a (the?) best first tool
- I exist
Also note: Even these assumptions are picked because they seem reasonable.
The point is they rest on less evidence than what comes after them being built
upon them.
---------------------------------------------
SO. If I exist and the world exists and we go with reason, what have we
got for candidates for an explanation of it all?
Remember we're talking about evidence for God(which/who we haven't defined yet)
being behind it all.
Allow me to quote from: Paul Davies, GOD AND THE NEW PHYSICS,Simon & Schuster,
1983. pg.188-9 (capital letters are my italics)
The point here is that while Davies does not feel the need to appeal to a God
as an explanation, he does NOT think it is unreasonable to do so . . . but read
on.
"The list of numerical 'accidents' that appear to be necessary for the observed
world structure is too long to review here. (The reader is referred to my book
THE ACCIDENTAL UNIVERSE for a complete discussion.) Opinions differ among
physicists as to the significance of these coincidences. As with the
apparently contrived initial conditions of the universe, recourse could be
made to anthropic considerations and hypotheses of multiple-universes in
which, for some reason, the fundamental constants assume different values.
Only in those universes where the numbers come out just right would life
and observers form.
Alternatively the numerical coincidences COULD be regarded as EVIDENCE OF
DESIGN. The delicate fine-tuning in the values of the constants, necessary
so that the various different branches of physics can dovetail so felicitously
MIGHT BE ATTRIBUTED TO GOD. It is hard to resist the impression that the
present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor
alterations in the numbers, HAS BEEN RATHER CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT. Such
a conclusion can, of course, be ONLY SUBJECTIVE. IN THE END IT BOILS DOWN
TO A QUESTION OF BELIEF. IS IT EASIER TO BELIEVE IN A COSMIC DESIGNER THAN
THE MULTIPLICITY OF UNIVERSES NECESSARY FOR THE WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
TO WORK? It is hard to see how either HYPOTHESIS could ever be tested in
the STRICT SCIENTIFIC SENSE. As remarked in the previous chapter, if we
cannot visit the other universes or experience them directly, their possible
existence MUST REMAIN JUST AS MUCH A MATTER OF FAITH AS BELIEF IN GOD.
Perhaps future developments in science will lead to more direct evidence
for other universes, but until then, the seemingly miraculous concurrence
of numerical values that nature has assigned to her fundamental constants
must remain the most compelling EVIDENCE for an element of cosmic design."
Davies is only one of several scientists who, while not believing in a
God, talk about "evidence" that exists that could point to the existence
of God.
Robert Jastrow is another. In his GOD AND THE ASTRONOMERS, he makes the
statement that the idea of mind being behind the physical world is not
inconsistent with what we now know about the physical world.
I highly recommend Davies book for anyone concerned with these questions.
Remember, we are only talking about God vs. non-God, not what is God or
the Christian God.
I'd like to send more about the Anthropic Cosmological Principle but I
have to go.
Let's get off the flame track (name calling) and try to advance light
on the subject.
I really don't think that the claim that there is NO evidence for the
existence of God stands up. I have resorted only to the statements of
those who do NOT support God as the best explanation. Of course there
is more to the discussion than this, so let's get on with it.
Regards,
Ken Arndt