-2

Suppose you observed a pattern in the stars that spelled out “Hello, this is God talking to you. I am the God of Christianity.” Many would find it ludicrous to suggest this happened through the blind assortment of stars operating through physical laws. Many, in turn, would suppose that it is, after all, the Christian God who did this.

But what about the probability of the Christian God existing Himself? Dawkins argues that there is nothing more complex than this Christian God given His capabilities and attributes and deems Him to be improbable. Clearly, the “probability”, or atleast “plausibility”, of this type of God matters. If He is impossible or extremely implausible, His existence may be even more implausible than those stars aligning in such a way to produce those words. If He is less implausible, then it seems rational to prefer this explanation over blind laws creating that star pattern.

Now, the traditional conception of the Christian God is that He is eternal. Suppose instead He began to exist. Does this reduce or increase His likelihood? Something about this kind of God coming about randomly seems to be even more implausible/improbable than Him just always existing.

Is this a mistake? If not, which idea of God is more plausible or probable?

  • 1
    "Dawkins argues that there is nothing more complex than this Christian God" - the context of this AFAIK is as a response to theists arguing that complexity requires a creator. If you accept that God is complex and wasn't created, then "complexity requires a creator" would be invalid (some claim that God is "perfectly simple", but this is merely asserted without justification, and is contrary to reason on every level). Similarly, theists argue that all that exists began to exist, but make an exception for God. It's not about what's more likely, it's about the special pleading from theists. – NotThatGuy Sep 06 '23 at 08:53
  • Well what if one argues that great complexity for things that begin to exist require a designer (such as the origin of life), not things that always exist. One may argue that it is too improbable whereas god in a sense is not or atleast has no notion of probability since He always exists. In this case, it wouldn’t be special pleading since god always exists. I’m not saying that I endorse this but I can’t think of a rebuttal either –  Sep 06 '23 at 08:57
  • You could argue that the cosmos is complex and has always existed in some form. You could argue that there's some external cause that needn't be the Christian God. Such arguments for God's existence often implicitly sneak in the assumption that God exists eternally. Without that, they often wouldn't conclude anything meaningful. – NotThatGuy Sep 06 '23 at 09:09
  • I suppose you can. But taking the example of life: let’s say you have two options. a) a universe always existing that eventually produced life and b) god creating life. How can you say that a) is for example more likely than b)? A universe always existing may be more probable than god always existing but there is a whole host of other things that have to happen for life to eventually arise given physical laws in a). Whereas with b) god just has to make the decision to create life. So can a) still be more improbable? –  Sep 06 '23 at 09:13
  • We know the universe exists, so the God hypothesis requires 2 additional claims: 1) the universe began to exist, 2) it was caused, and 3) God was the cause. Theists like to claim #1, and point to the Big Bang, but actual physicists tend to not agree that there was nothing prior to this. So we don't have #1 (even if we can't be entirely sure about it), but even if we did, we still wouldn't have #3. #2 may or may not be trivial. If one wants to assign the "God" label to whatever caused the universe to begin to exist (if anything), that wouldn't really say anything about any given religion. – NotThatGuy Sep 06 '23 at 09:25
  • I think I understand what you are saying but I am not sure if it directly addresses my point. Forgive me if I’m wrong but let me rephrase. If life exists without god, then regardless of whether the universe began or didn’t begin to exist, a whole myriad of physical processes cumulating over billions of years had to result in the origin of life. This seems remarkably improbable. If life started by god, then none of those initial conditions matter. God could have simply intended directly or indirectly by “guiding” those processes in a way to create life. This still seems more plausible no? –  Sep 06 '23 at 09:32
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. –  Sep 06 '23 at 09:34
  • This is a bit of a straw-man, you're introducing an unusual theodicy and then defeating it. Congrats? – Chris Sunami Sep 06 '23 at 15:19

1 Answers1

1

Since there is nothing you can compare it against, I would suggest this question comes down to personal belief. What you personally think is more plausible.

The question is basically asking whether you should still reject belief in God even if it seems he makes himself known to you in the most undeniable fashion you were able to think of.

Should you reject an idea that you think is utterly implausible, even if evidence so overwhelming existed that there is nothing more anyone could ask for? That is a question you have to answer for yourself, but I think at this point it stops being reason and starts being ideology. This is no better than what Flat earthers and Young Earth Creationists are doing. Rejecting overwhelming evidence because it goes against their world view.

kutschkem
  • 2,290
  • 11
  • 17
  • There are some other historic definitions of "ideology", but as per modern usage, it means little more than a set of ideals or beliefs. The idea that everyone should have equal rights can be part of an ideology. When people use it pejoratively, I have absolutely no idea what they mean, and I suspect most of them have absolutely no idea what they mean either. – NotThatGuy Sep 06 '23 at 11:04
  • @NotThatGuy I don't think I mean anything else than "worldview/set of beliefs". – kutschkem Sep 06 '23 at 11:59
  • But a set of beliefs can still be based on reason, or not based on reason. If it's not based on reason, then it's based on something else. That something else is not "ideology" if ideology means a set of beliefs, because that would just be circular. – NotThatGuy Sep 06 '23 at 12:13
  • @NotThatGuy Hmm what other word do you suggest then? Belief rather than ideology? Pure ideology? I don't need a negative word here. – kutschkem Sep 06 '23 at 13:16
  • @NotThatGuy Is Dogma a better word here? One rejects the idea for which there is evidence because of Dogma? I don't like the connotation of dogma being normally connected to some school of thought rather than just personal. – kutschkem Sep 06 '23 at 13:32
  • 1
    Irrationality ? – NotThatGuy Sep 06 '23 at 14:16