GOD NOT NEEDED: An analogy

46 posts / 0 new
Last post
ʝօhn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
GOD NOT NEEDED: An analogy

It’s not uncommon to see arguments stating that God is not necessary to explain the natural world. That one could just as easily give explanations using nothing but naturalistic processes. I agree that one could explain things without such an entity; but providing such explanations is not an argument against God. Here’s why:

Imagine you are working with a computer. You input some numbers and recorded the following outputs:

1 = 1
2 = 2
3 = 3
4 = 4
5 = 5
6 = 126

You attempt to figure out the rule with which it responds, and after some thought come up with the following:

If n, then (n - l) (n - 2) (n - 3) (n - 4) (n - 5) + n

You then proceed to test the rule with numbers 7 and 8 and get matching results. However, the programmer now comes and tells you that your rule is wrong. The rule is actually:

If n, then (n - l)(n - 2)(n - 3)(n - 4) (n - 5) + (2n - n)

Notice that both equations are logically equivalent. However, only one represents the reality of the transformational procedures (Flanagan, 1991).

Conclusion: Explanations are always abundant. You can explain the whole of reality without putting God into the equation; but having done so does not mean you have accurately represented reality. To claim victory because you can predict or explain a phenomenon, does not imply it is the explanation by which reality has produced that phenomenon.

References:

Flanagan, O. (1991). The science of the mind (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
*sigh* I was just getting

*sigh* I was just getting used to peace and quiet then...he's back.

Hey John, did you bring all your sock puppets?

ʝօhn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
I brought as many sock

I brought as many sock puppets with me as the amount of explanations I received for those accusations: zero.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
ʝօhn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy

ʝօhn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy

I brought as many sock puppets with me as the amount of explanations I received for those accusations: zero.

So, you say the admins were lying? Is this the Pell defence?

ʝօhn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy's picture
For as much as the word

For as much as the word evidence is tossed around by atheists; I don't recall anyone asking for it. Did you?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ John

@ John

Fuck me, two posts and we are back to obfuscation by the Johnny boy. Screw it.

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man

@Old Man

Some things never change. Would definitely explain the sudden influx of recent trolls, at least.

Sheldon's picture
I'm more interested in why he

I'm more interested in why he hasn't published his objection to evolution in a worthy peer reviewed scientific journal?

After all this time and his many grandiloquent claims about his scientific prowess, and his paradigm shifting denials of evolution, what on earth can it all mean?

Ahem, and they say portraying sarcasm isn't easy in an internet forum...eyefangew..

Pirate Jack's picture
God is not necessary to

God is not necessary to explain anything.

Sheldon's picture
"God is not necessary to

"God is not necessary to explain anything."

No fictional things are necessary to explain reality, that's axiomatic. None of our evidenced explanations of reality require deities anymore than any other unevidenced idea, and as we learn more about reality through science, the fact none of it needs or evidences a deity is absolutely an argument against the existence of such a deity.

Absence of evidence absolutely is evidence of absence, it may not be proof, but as we find the God claim to be unjustified in each new discovery so it becomes a more compelling reason to disbelieve it. Though of course, the absence of any objective evidence is sufficient reason alone for any objective person to withold belief.

Breezy is implying the oft used fallacy that atheism cannot be justified without proof that no deity exists. He is basically pointing out that you cannot falsify an idea if it is in fact unfalsifiable. He's right of course, but given his showboating over his scientific credentials on here you'd think he'd understand that science rightly rejects unfalsifiable claims as unscientific, and they are often labelled "not even wrong" because they're so useless we can learn nothing from them.

As is the case with the God claim, which has failed to inform our objective explanation of reality with a single solitary fact.

One last observation, what exactly does evidence for the non existence of something look like, if it isn't not finding any objective evidence where we should expect it to be?

Tin-Man's picture
What the-... *doing a double

What the-... *doing a double-take*.... John???... *rubbing eyes with knuckles of index fingers*.... How the-..... Huh?... *shaking head vigorously*... Am I hallucinating?.... *blank stare*....

CyberLN's picture
Bye bye, John.

Bye bye, John.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cyber

@ Cyber

I thought I heard the sounds of a galloping horse as I held him at bay! Thank you Kimosabe!

Tin-Man's picture
Re: "Bye bye, John."

Re: "Bye bye, John."

Yaaaaay!!!... *throwing confetti*... *blaring air horn*.... All hail Cyber! Drinks are on me!.... *throwing wads of money at bartender*...

Talyyn's picture
Thanks Cyber, he has not

Thanks Cyber, he has not learnt a SINGLE thing since the last time we saw him.8

Nyarlathotep's picture
Breezy - 1 = 1

Breezy -
1 = 1
2 = 2
3 = 3
4 = 4
5 = 5
6 = 126

The bold part is pretty funny.

Tin-Man's picture
Re: "6=126"

Re: "6=126"

Ha-ha! I got it! Yay me!... *patting self on back*...

Cognostic's picture
AWWW FUCK: Breezy is back

AWWW FUCK: Breezy is back with more inane nonsense. Okay child, lets see what you are spouting this time.

"I agree that one could explain things without such an entity; but providing such explanations is not an argument against God."

You just agreed...... Discussion is over. No one has to say a damn thing against god. HOW IS IT YOU DO NOT YET UNDERSTAND ATHEISM? JUST HOW DENSE CAN YOU BE?

No atheist has to make an argument against god. The Burden of proof is on the believer.

The break was really nice. I really don't get why you are completely unable to grasp a simple concept like "Atheism," The nice people on this forum have explained it to you thousands of times.

Talyyn's picture
@Cog,

@Cog,

But..but..you are nice too lol.

Cognostic's picture
It's only a rumor!

It's only a rumor!

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: "It's only a rumor!

@Cog Re: "It's only a rumor!"

Kinda like this?....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3dZl3yfGpc

arakish's picture
Aww... Fuck!!

Aww... Fuck!!

It is back?

Why in hell has Breezy Dodger been allowed back? These forums have actually been quite nice without him. One question dodger is one too many. Now we have two. Damnit!!

rmfr

Tin-Man's picture
No need to stress, Arakish.

No need to stress, Arakish. Cyber booted his ass again.

arakish's picture
@ Tin-Man

@ Tin-Man

Yeah. I saw after I made the post. Jumped when I saw Breezy Dodger had made a new thread.

The old jumping on assumptions.

rmfr

Cognostic's picture
"Cyber booted his ass again."

"Cyber booted his ass again."
Yea!!!!!!!!!! Now if we can just get rid of the other presuppositionalists who argue dishonestly and are not interested in having any sort of conversation at all.

Calilasseia's picture
Oh look, another individual

Oh look, another individual who doesn't understand that when testable natural processes are demonstrated to be sufficient to explain a given class of entities and phenomena, then supernatural entities are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Skeptical Kevin's picture
The two equations are

The two equations are MATHEMATICALLY equivalent, one is simply unsimplified, so this works as a poor analogy.

"You can explain the whole of reality without putting God into the equation; but having done so does not mean you have accurately represented reality."

I wholeheartedly agree. At one point, the explanation for the feelings of lust in men was witches. This clearly didn't reflect reality. The best option is to form a cogent, testable hypothesis, test it, gather evidence, and then have that process duplicated and peer reviewed. God may very well be a part of how the universe formed, but until we have a way to test for his existence and then test for his influence on anything in reality, the null hypothesis is the most reasonable route. As it would have been regarding the origins of lust.

"To claim victory because you can predict or explain a phenomenon, does not imply it is the explanation by which reality has produced that phenomenon."

Also agree. Christians often explain the universe by way of intelligent design. This is not a victory until we can form repeatable tests to back up this explanation, which has not yet occurred.

John 6IX breezy's picture
Right, they are

Right, they are mathematically equivalent, but only one describes the actual transformations undertaken by the computer (i.e. the unsimplified equation). It is a great analogy, because it illustrates the difficulty of attempting to understand the natural world. There are many predictively equivalent explanations for things out there, and they cannot all be correct.

The point of the analogy is to not confuse one thing with another.

Nyarlathotep's picture
It is interesting he created

It is interesting he created multiple duplicate accounts, to continue to make gibberish statements about mathematics, yet failed to address what has to be in the running for the dumbest thing ever posted on AR:

breezy:
6 = 126

Fallen's picture
A product of imagination that

A product of imagination that was created to compensate for our ignorance, needs deliberate ignorance to survive in a reality that doesn't need it anymore.

aperez241's picture
Fallen:

Fallen:

This is so good that I am stealing it!

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.