An argument for the likely existence of God
By: dgun
April 13th, 2012
10:01 pm
I have never quite understood the point of trying to convince atheists there is a God by quoting scripture. Well, hardcore atheists anyway. I suppose some atheists can be inspired by various religious texts and messages and therefore change their views.
But arguing for the existence of God based on scripture, which must be accepted on faith, is circular reasoning. And as such, should never sway someone from a rational point of view.
It is not my goal nor desire to change anyone's opinion in regard to the existence of God with this article. Rather, it is simply an outline of an argument that occurred to me some time ago which I hope some will consider. In particular, there are those who have a rather haughty opinion of their atheistic beliefs and see themselves as dedicated to a superior evidentiary centric and rational world view. It is chiefly these individuals I wish to influence into considering the possibility that the existence of God/god may not be nearly as impossible as they imagine.
Firstly, I do believe in God. Not only that, but I profess a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and as he is described in the New Testament. There is absolutely no logical or rational reason for me to hold these beliefs. I can not support nor substantiate my belief with evidence in anyway. And I have no desire to do so. I believe it simply because I want to. Do I have motivations? No doubt. Don't we all? I cannot say that I know what mine are. I certainly did not grow up attending Church. I can also attest that this is not a case of Bokononism.
I believe in God because I choose to, based solely on faith.
But like I said, an argument based on faith is worthless in most contexts. The following argument does not represent my personal belief as to the nature of God. My belief in God is anchored strictly in faith. This argument should also not be taken as applying specifically to the God of the Abrahamic faiths. For that matter, it should not be taken as applying strictly to monotheism. The argument is intended in regard to the general concept of god(s).
So here it goes:
Although most of us consider the universe to be infinite, there is serious debate about this point among physicists. For the sake of this argument it does not matter much if the universe is finite or infinite, as long as it is sufficiently large and old enough, or if not old enough yet will be one day. But if the universe is finite, then it must be limited. These limits cannot necessary be thought of in the same way we consider geographic boundaries. Boundaries, after all, are artificial demarcations conjured from our imaginations. But nevertheless, if the universe is finite it is limited to a finite space. Notice that nothing outside of this space need be defined. In other words, considering what is outside of a finite universe is likely as nonsensical as considering what is outside an infinite universe.
Anyway, if you reject the universe as finite and accept an infinite universe, you must also accept time as infinite. In this case, the existence of God/god(s) is not that unlikely.
Carl Sagan in his famous book 'The Cosmos' made the point that human beings are stardust, not only stardust that has come alive, but stardust that is self aware and now ponders stardust. In other words, humans are a piece of the universe with consciousness.
And we have witnessed on this one tiny blue planet in the boring boondocks of an average spiral galaxy the enormous complexity that the various self aware pieces of universe (people, animals) can obtain over a relatively small time through the various forces of nature and probabilities (evolution).
Now consider that we are familiar with life only in terms of what we see here on our tiny blue speck of dust. Isn't it possible, even if in some far off corner of the universe we couldn't possibly ever detect or understand, that pieces of the universe could become conscious in ways that are extremely alien to us?
Continuing on this line of thought, and considering how various species and various forms of life on this planet have come to dominate during various periods, is it just absolutely inconceivable that a similar process could have occurred elsewhere?
Given a less fragile form of life, individuals of these less fragile forms could have much longer lifespans. Armed with longevity and consciousness, these individuals would have a shot at discovering how to perpetually rejuvenate. If not, maybe this hypothetical form of life could simply evolve to this point. Either way, among such beings, given infinite time, any individual that had even the slightest advantage over all others could eventually obtain characteristics we consider godlike.
And given infinite time, why should it be so outrageous to consider that such a being could become a master at manipulating and controlling the universe? Or creating one?Given infinite time and infinite space, wouldn't the probability of god(s) be greater than some would initially consider?
To demonstrate what I'm getting at, let's examine a roulette wheel. The American version of the game has 38 numbers: 1-36, 0, and 00. What is the probability that with 38 spins of the wheel you have 38 unique results? What is the probability that with 38 spins you land on the number twelve 38 times? Although each spin of the wheel is an independent event with each number having a 37 to1 shot every time the wheel is spun, over any short series of spins results will vary. The more spins of the wheel the more likely that each number will eventually appear. If we double the number of spins, the chance of seeing the correct distribution increases. What if we spin the wheel every ten seconds for a hundred years? The probability that only 37 numbers would appear during that 100 year period would not be zero, just so close to zero that it doesn't really matter. What if the roulette wheel spun for eternity or, barring that, several billion years?
If time and space are pretty close to what we think they may be, whether infinite or finite, and the possible sequences for stardust waking to consciousness is somewhat small in comparison to the number of spins we get on our cosmological roulette wheel, then the possibility of god(s) is not at all outrageous.
I mean, we do have very good evidence that the universe has come alive and evolution has produced enormously complex pieces of stardust at least once, right?
For a humbling look at a small portion of our very large and old universe, check out these Hubble ultra deep images.
Post Reply
25 comments on "An argument for the likely existence of God"
April 13, 2012 at 10:11 pm
So your point that it is possible for evolved beings to become gods and we are in their snowglobe to so speak?
April 13, 2012 at 10:27 pm
So your point that it is possible for evolved beings to become gods and we are in their snowglobe to so speak?
Given randomness, infinite time (or a very long time), infinite space (or a very large space), and the fact that the universe has already proven it produces small self aware pieces of itself, wouldn't the possibility that an entity coming into existence that most would recognize as having the characteristics of god(s) be less absurd than some would consider?
April 13, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Sure.
Given randomness, infinite time (or a very long time), infinite space (or a very large space), and the fact that the universe has already proven it produces small self aware pieces of itself, wouldn't the possibility that an entity coming into existence that most would recognize as having the characteristics of god(s) be less absurd than some would consider?
April 13, 2012 at 10:37 pm
lol. I did have a couple of beers.
April 14, 2012 at 12:02 am
I suppose it is possible , but the problem I have with a supposedly all knowing, all powerful god especially the Christian god is that people are supposed to believe that it exists simply upon faith from a book written thousands of years ago. If such a powerful being does exist and is so concerned with this planet and it's people you would think he would make an appearance from time to time, but this does not happen. The people who do believe in a god seem to believe in this god because they hope there is one simply because they are mortal and will one day die and the Christian god supposedly promises an eternal live if they simply will believe. Personally I really don't like to be manipulated to believe something exists because of a fear of death. I would rather come to terms with my mortality through acceptance and contemplate the possibility of a god or advanced alien life form that has become god-like through observation and personal experience, and if I never find any evidence to convince me, I really won't be disappointed.
April 15, 2012 at 6:17 pm
I suppose it is possible , but the problem I have with a supposedly all knowing, all powerful god especially the Christian god is that people are supposed to believe that it exists simply upon faith from a book written thousands of years ago. If such a powerful being does exist and is so concerned with this planet and it's people you would think he would make an appearance from time to time, but this does not happen. The people who do believe in a god seem to believe in this god because they hope there is one simply because they are mortal and will one day die and the Christian god supposedly promises an eternal live if they simply will believe. Personally I really don't like to be manipulated to believe something exists because of a fear of death. I would rather come to terms with my mortality through acceptance and contemplate the possibility of a god or advanced alien life form that has become god-like through observation and personal experience, and if I never find any evidence to convince me, I really won't be disappointed.
The one good thing about the loosening of direct dependence between individuals (which in a previous article I bemoaned) is that it has shrunk the influence of religious institutions over the lives of individuals. Much of the influence of a religious institution is based on how much individuals need to be a member. If there is nothing much to lose by staying out of the group, or dropping out of the group, the institution just doesn't have that much power.
April 17, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Now consider that we are familiar with life only in terms of what we see here on our tiny blue speck of dust. Isn't it possible, even if in some far off corner of the universe we couldn't possibly ever detect or understand, that pieces of the universe could become conscious in ways that are extremely alien to us?
Continuing on this line of thought, and considering how various species and various forms of life on this planet have come to dominate during various periods, is it just absolutely inconceivable that a similar process could have occurred elsewhere?
And given infinite time, why should it be so outrageous to consider that such a being could become a master at manipulating and controlling the universe?{ Or creating one?
Outrageous to consider that it is possible? No. Not outrageous to consider that it is possible.
Given infinite time and infinite space, wouldn't the probability of god(s) be greater than some would initially consider?
Let me ask a probability question, while we are on them... Given the thousands of different religions there are and have been on earth, and the fact that they are many times mutually exclusive, which do you think is more likely? That they are based on truth (or even that one of them is based on truth), or that they are made up? There is the old quote (I'll paraphrase) that, "You and I are both atheists, I just believe in one less God than you do". You believe some of those stories out there were just made up, I'm sure. Do you think more likely that a god-like alien came down and was admired by people and became the basis of your religion, or that all religions were made up?
To demonstrate what I'm getting at, let's examine a roulette wheel. The American version of the game has 38 numbers: 1-36, 0, and 00. What is the probability that with 38 spins of the wheel you have 38 unique results? What is the probability that with 38 spins you land on the number twelve 38 times? Although each spin of the wheel is an independent event with each number having a 37 to1 shot every time the wheel is spun, over any short series of spins results will vary. The more spins of the wheel the more likely that each number will eventually appear. If we double the number of spins, the chance of seeing the correct distribution increases. What if we spin the wheel every ten seconds for a hundred years? The probability that only 37 numbers would appear during that 100 year period would not be zero, just so close to zero that it doesn't really matter. What if the roulette wheel spun for eternity or, barring that, several billion years?
If time and space are pretty close to what we think they may be, whether infinite or finite, and the possible sequences for stardust waking to consciousness is somewhat small in comparison to the number of spins we get on our cosmological roulette wheel, then the possibility of god(s) is not at all outrageous.
I mean, we do have very good evidence that the universe has come alive and evolution has produced enormously complex pieces of stardust at least once, right?
For a humbling look at a small portion of our very large and old universe, check out these Hubble ultra deep images.
April 18, 2012 at 7:31 pm
Now, you are talking about probability and mixing definitions of what "gods" are.
Also, if I did not mention this, any entity, being, or whatever, that has the characteristics of god, a god, the God -- whatever, is a good enough definition.
Is it possible that there are more advanced beings than us who, if we happened to meet one, we might mistake for being a god? Yes...that is possible.
Of course, there is no way to calculate that probability.
But we know that there are many who would put the probability at ZERO. Some would put it a little more than zero.
However, let me suggest this:
The probability that part of the universe has become animated: 1 (life on earth)
The probability that evolutionary forces are at work in the universe: 1 (again, earth)
The "natural goal" (for a lack of a better term) of the little animated pieces of the universe is to survive (evolution, continue the species, continue life). So it is not completely illogical to conclude that a evolutionary process could result in a being which would have the characteristics we accept as godlike. Once an intelligence achieves a certain longevity and attains a certain mental capacity, (once the intelligence hits a certain threshold) an infinite lifetime (or an extremely long lifetime) is not unreasonable IMO.
Let me ask a probability question, while we are on them... Given the thousands of different religions there are and have been on earth, and the fact that they are many times mutually exclusive, which do you think is more likely?
That they are based on truth (or even that one of them is based on truth), or that they are made up?
Do you think more likely that a god-like alien came down and was admired by people and became the basis of your religion, or that all religions were made up?
Again, I'm not sure that "gods" is a right term for what you're talking about. Perhaps, "aliens", but so far as the major theologies that I've known, they don't believe that their "gods" are "aliens".
Again, it's POSSIBLE. But, to tell you the truth, I'm not all that interested in what is merely possible. It is POSSIBLE that there are invisible purple dragons doing the tango on my forehead.
Would you say the probability is 0?
.5?
.98?
1?
Given forever? And forever?
We can't calculate that probability of course. But those who consider the probability 0 or very small, should look up those images from Hubble that I linked to and reevaluate. Given the size and age of the universe and what natural forces have done on this planet in the blink of an eye, they may wish to push their estimates to somewhere between .25 and .49, or whatever.
but again, I don't have specific reason to believe that your hypothesis is actually true.
April 20, 2012 at 7:42 am
No, I think I specifically stated that this was not about a particular god.
Also, if I did not mention this, any entity, being, or whatever, that has the characteristics of god, a god, the God -- whatever, is a good enough definition.
MY definition goes along with what the dictionary generally defines "God" as; namely, a being that is the creator and governor of the universe.
Would an alien meet that definition? I'm not so sure it would.
Right, but let's take the next step here. I'm not talking about your typical alien. What I'm getting at is GIVEN infinite time and space (or barring that, A LOT OF TIME AND SPACE), and the forces that cause matter to become animated, followed by the evolutionary forces like those we have seen on this planet, shouldn't the probability of a being meeting the general characteristics of god coming into existence be much closer to 1 than most atheists would consider?
Of course, there is no way to calculate that probability.
It's just a whole lot of fuzzy math. I fully admit that it's possible. But since you admit that there is no way to calculate that probability, I'm not sure why I should be admonished, as an atheist, for not considering the probability of such an event.
But we know that there are many who would put the probability at ZERO. Some would put it a little more than zero.
I guess you'd have to talk to them. I'm not one of them, however, but I am still an atheist.
However, let me suggest this:
The probability that part of the universe has become animated: 1 (life on earth)
The probability that evolutionary forces are at work in the universe: 1 (again, earth)
The "natural goal" (for a lack of a better term) of the little animated pieces of the universe is to survive (evolution, continue the species, continue life). So it is not completely illogical to conclude that a evolutionary process could result in a being which would have the characteristics we accept as godlike. Once an intelligence achieves a certain longevity and attains a certain mental capacity, (once the intelligence hits a certain threshold) an infinite lifetime (or an extremely long lifetime) is not unreasonable IMO.
Well, that is a complicated question. I'm sure there is truth in all of them.
Like I explained, my argument really wasn't about any particular religion or a particular God, god.
Yes, but it really doesn't matter, does it? Because that all comes down to definitions. The general definition and understanding of "god", "gods", "God", will do. If not, we can come up with a more specific definition, but it is more or less beside the main point.
In some ways, you're not talking about a God or set of gods, at all. All of the religions that I know has a God or set of gods that are responsible for the creation of the universe. That is one of the fundamental questions that religions try to address: why is there evil in the world, what happens when I die and, of course, how did everything come to be.
In your alien scenario, the aliens are the product of the universe...not the other way around. It's hard for me to view those beings as Gods or sets of gods.
But in terms of probability?
Would you say the probability is 0?
.5?
.98?
1?
Given forever? And forever?
Let's take it as a given that there are an infinite number of facts that are true about the universe. If so, then for each and every fact in this universe, there are an infinite number of things that could of have been true, but actually aren't true. So, unless we have good reason to believe that something is actually true, we shouldn't believe it.
We can't calculate that probability of course. But those who consider the probability 0 or very small, should look up those images from Hubble that I linked to and reevaluate. Given the size and age of the universe and what natural forces have done on this planet in the blink of an eye, they may wish to push their estimates to somewhere between .25 and .49, or whatever.
That doesn't work.
Right. I'm not talking about certainties here. I'm not trying to convince anyone that god(s), God exists. I'm just trying to move people to properly consider the affect the size and age of the universe has on the "probability" that such could be true.
Hell, given the size of the universe (look through that Hubble telescope), are you saying that invisible purple dragons couldn't have evolved? That they couldn't be dancing a quite intricate tango on my forehead, right now?
April 20, 2012 at 8:29 am
Given that we have only one example, it is hard to assess the probability of any intelligent life developing anywhere else in the universe.
What we do know, however, is that what we consider to be intelligence has existed for maybe 5 million years, and that humans for less than a quarter of a million years.
And we have come fairly close to wiping out our species a few times already. There is no real evidence that intelligence is a viable adaptation, long term.
So it would be just as logical to assume that if intelligence develops, that it likely does not exist for more than a few million years, which is a blink of an eyelid in the age of the universe. If intelligent life, even life more intelligent and powerful than we are did evolve elsewhere, it may already be dead and gone, either by their own hand, or by natural causes.
Or they may have sufficiently evolved that we do not show up on their radar.
In either case, assuming a large probability of development of intelligent life, we must also assume a probability that such life has died or will not care about us.