4 ms·

There is a very old joke which I will try to paraphrase. A scientist is having a debate with God and he says "I have discovered the recipe for how life is creat

There is a very old joke which I will try to paraphrase. A scientist is having a debate with God and he says "I have discovered the recipe for how life is created, I no longer need you". God says "Oh, really, please explain it to me". The scientist says "Well, first you take hydrogen atoms ..." and God interrupts him asking "from where do you get those hydrogen atoms?" That is, there is some property of the material of the universe that makes complex life possible. It's a bit like saying "I know how to build a computer" because you can buy parts online and put them together. There is a sense in which what you are saying is true - but without TSMC you are not going to be able to build a computer.

acyou 3y ago
The scientist replies: "Well, I got those hydrogen atoms from the Big Bang. It's this explosion that created everything in the beginning". God replies: "No, I bought those hydrogen atoms from ASML."
thomastjeffery 3y ago
Just like any story about God, this presents a circular argument. The only reason God exists to answer is that God is a character in the story.
- jamilton 3y ago
  It's not a circular argument, the argument isn't "God exists because he gave that answer". It's not really presenting an argument at all, it's merely a framing device for something like "God created everything natural".
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    The argument is, "You can't prove to God that he doesn't exist." The argument wouldn't exist if you weren't already proving something to God. The presence of the God character in this story has no foundation other than the presence of the God character in this story. > it's merely a framing device for something like "God created everything natural". That is the very position that the God character in this story takes. In order to support this position, the God character points out that he exists in the story. The story itself does nothing to prove for or against the existence of God, but it clearly intends to leave the reader believing in the existence of God.
    - kamray23 3y ago
      The story would be no different if the scientist was talking to a priest, and neither would its message be. The point is that for logical arguments, about matter or philosophical, you must always start with some set of a priori content to work off of – axioms in logic and the universe in physics. Any physical process by definition can only work when given a universe to work in, you can't possibly derive the universe from nothing because all scientific models by definition describe how the world evolves, and a lack of the world can't. A naïve person would then argue that hydrogen must have been created by their God, that the existence of the universe must be the doing of their God and that proves that their God must exist. A scientist would interject, as that's a whole load of assumptions which are untestable and the simpler theory, that the universe just exists as an assumption in itself, is a much better one. A less religious person, however, would argue that God is that abstract fact of pre-existence, a pre-existence that all the scientific investigation in the world could never get rid of. All philosophy of science starts with the set of assumptions known as materialism: the world exists objectively, and its phenomena can be measured and explained. We can't possibly ever escape the assumption that the world exists with any scientific theory and therefore must accept some kind of pre-existence. The argument does not actually support the existence of a conscious, material God any more than just saying that you believe in him. It simply argues that science can never explain the existence of the universe, just its development. Intelligent design is pretty much excluded.
      - thomastjeffery 3y ago
        There is absolutely no reason to assume God as an axiom. God is not a priori. God only exists after being declared to exist. To contrast, the ground under my feet existed before I started writing about it just now. It existed before I looked at it. It existed to other people. It existed to the objects that were dropped on it. It continues to exist under experimentation. There is nothing wrong with the argument - alone - that science cannot prove the origins of life. We already know that it hasn't proven any yet. But bringing a God character into that argument is just as absurd as claiming that science has found the answer. > The argument does not actually support the existence of a conscious, material God any more than just saying that you believe in him. Bullshit. To say that you believe something exists, but it doesn't really exist to other people, is to blatantly and directly contradict yourself.
ASalazarMX 3y ago
> A scientist is having a debate with God Who cares about the origin of life, this scientist just proved that God is real and finally speaks back when addressed.
JamesLeonis 3y ago
This argument is known as God of the Gaps [0] and it has serious logical and theological flaws. > Detractors argue that this perspective is problematic as it seems to rely on gaps in human understanding and ignorance to make its case for the existence of God. As scientific knowledge continues to advance, these gaps tend to shrink, potentially weakening the argument for God's existence. Critics contend that such an approach can undermine religious beliefs by suggesting that God only operates in the unexplained areas of our understanding, leaving little room for divine involvement in a comprehensive and coherent worldview. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
- Technotroll 3y ago
  Your assumptions seems to be that there is a limit to what is knowable. Picture a spotlight shining down on an infinite field. The surface which is lit up by the spotlight represents our collective knowledge about reality, and the further up you move the spotlight, the more of the field you will light up, and thus know about. Except, how much is it left to know about outside of circle that the spotlight lights up? With that said, I think it's pointless to speak about God in the realm of science, because there is no way of scientifically proving that he's real or not. In the realm of science, we have to abide by the rules thus set, and how we define what is knowable. The rules are quite good, and they have served us well thus far, so there is no need to question it's validity or usefulness outside of strictly philosophical limits. And under those rules, God is not knowable. Thus you may believe in God, the Universe or only in the things you can scientifically prove; it matters not, because you still exist and perceive. Hopefully!
- hurril 3y ago
  It's not even that, it's a call to enter a never-ending recursion. How is it that that god is permitted to exist without reason where the hydrogen atoms somehow needs an origin? Please assemble your god or accept my eternal hydrogen.
- namero999 3y ago
  They don't really shrink. They simply move the goalpost. The unknown is infinite, so we can recursively explain something in terms of something else which is more fundamental, but we simply don't know where/when the rabbit hole ends. It's not that the discovery of quantum mechanics shrinked anything, on the contrary expanded it beyond our understanding. So we are faced with 2 choices: - we keep on playing this game forever. Effectively, we have explained nothing, but provisionally everything works due to theoretical models. We have tech, we have understanding and ability to interact with scales that are enough for human life and progress, everything is merry but we have _truly_ explained nothing. We don't know if the next "level down" will completely wrap around our understanding. And the next "level down" might as well be God, we won't know. - we consciously pick an informed primitive. The "one free miracle" philosophers (and scientists) blabber about. Now, _if_ we can build a consistent model out of that assumption, _then_ we might have a chance to actually explain something. And there God is not really needed. Nature is obviously what nature is, why can't we accept that something simply is without being created? The very question betrays an entrapment in a space-time mentality where "there must be a before where nothing was, hence divine intervention" but we already know, form physics, that that is not the case.

acyou 3y ago

The scientist replies: "Well, I got those hydrogen atoms from the Big Bang. It's this explosion that created everything in the beginning". God replies: "No, I bought those hydrogen atoms from ASML."

thomastjeffery 3y ago

Just like any story about God, this presents a circular argument. The only reason God exists to answer is that God is a character in the story.

jamilton 3y ago
It's not a circular argument, the argument isn't "God exists because he gave that answer". It's not really presenting an argument at all, it's merely a framing device for something like "God created everything natural".
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  The argument is, "You can't prove to God that he doesn't exist." The argument wouldn't exist if you weren't already proving something to God. The presence of the God character in this story has no foundation other than the presence of the God character in this story. > it's merely a framing device for something like "God created everything natural". That is the very position that the God character in this story takes. In order to support this position, the God character points out that he exists in the story. The story itself does nothing to prove for or against the existence of God, but it clearly intends to leave the reader believing in the existence of God.
  - kamray23 3y ago
    The story would be no different if the scientist was talking to a priest, and neither would its message be. The point is that for logical arguments, about matter or philosophical, you must always start with some set of a priori content to work off of – axioms in logic and the universe in physics. Any physical process by definition can only work when given a universe to work in, you can't possibly derive the universe from nothing because all scientific models by definition describe how the world evolves, and a lack of the world can't. A naïve person would then argue that hydrogen must have been created by their God, that the existence of the universe must be the doing of their God and that proves that their God must exist. A scientist would interject, as that's a whole load of assumptions which are untestable and the simpler theory, that the universe just exists as an assumption in itself, is a much better one. A less religious person, however, would argue that God is that abstract fact of pre-existence, a pre-existence that all the scientific investigation in the world could never get rid of. All philosophy of science starts with the set of assumptions known as materialism: the world exists objectively, and its phenomena can be measured and explained. We can't possibly ever escape the assumption that the world exists with any scientific theory and therefore must accept some kind of pre-existence. The argument does not actually support the existence of a conscious, material God any more than just saying that you believe in him. It simply argues that science can never explain the existence of the universe, just its development. Intelligent design is pretty much excluded.
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      There is absolutely no reason to assume God as an axiom. God is not a priori. God only exists after being declared to exist. To contrast, the ground under my feet existed before I started writing about it just now. It existed before I looked at it. It existed to other people. It existed to the objects that were dropped on it. It continues to exist under experimentation. There is nothing wrong with the argument - alone - that science cannot prove the origins of life. We already know that it hasn't proven any yet. But bringing a God character into that argument is just as absurd as claiming that science has found the answer. > The argument does not actually support the existence of a conscious, material God any more than just saying that you believe in him. Bullshit. To say that you believe something exists, but it doesn't really exist to other people, is to blatantly and directly contradict yourself.

ASalazarMX 3y ago

> A scientist is having a debate with God Who cares about the origin of life, this scientist just proved that God is real and finally speaks back when addressed.

JamesLeonis 3y ago

This argument is known as God of the Gaps [0] and it has serious logical and theological flaws. > Detractors argue that this perspective is problematic as it seems to rely on gaps in human understanding and ignorance to make its case for the existence of God. As scientific knowledge continues to advance, these gaps tend to shrink, potentially weakening the argument for God's existence. Critics contend that such an approach can undermine religious beliefs by suggesting that God only operates in the unexplained areas of our understanding, leaving little room for divine involvement in a comprehensive and coherent worldview. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Technotroll 3y ago
Your assumptions seems to be that there is a limit to what is knowable. Picture a spotlight shining down on an infinite field. The surface which is lit up by the spotlight represents our collective knowledge about reality, and the further up you move the spotlight, the more of the field you will light up, and thus know about. Except, how much is it left to know about outside of circle that the spotlight lights up? With that said, I think it's pointless to speak about God in the realm of science, because there is no way of scientifically proving that he's real or not. In the realm of science, we have to abide by the rules thus set, and how we define what is knowable. The rules are quite good, and they have served us well thus far, so there is no need to question it's validity or usefulness outside of strictly philosophical limits. And under those rules, God is not knowable. Thus you may believe in God, the Universe or only in the things you can scientifically prove; it matters not, because you still exist and perceive. Hopefully!
hurril 3y ago
It's not even that, it's a call to enter a never-ending recursion. How is it that that god is permitted to exist without reason where the hydrogen atoms somehow needs an origin? Please assemble your god or accept my eternal hydrogen.
namero999 3y ago
They don't really shrink. They simply move the goalpost. The unknown is infinite, so we can recursively explain something in terms of something else which is more fundamental, but we simply don't know where/when the rabbit hole ends. It's not that the discovery of quantum mechanics shrinked anything, on the contrary expanded it beyond our understanding. So we are faced with 2 choices: - we keep on playing this game forever. Effectively, we have explained nothing, but provisionally everything works due to theoretical models. We have tech, we have understanding and ability to interact with scales that are enough for human life and progress, everything is merry but we have _truly_ explained nothing. We don't know if the next "level down" will completely wrap around our understanding. And the next "level down" might as well be God, we won't know. - we consciously pick an informed primitive. The "one free miracle" philosophers (and scientists) blabber about. Now, _if_ we can build a consistent model out of that assumption, _then_ we might have a chance to actually explain something. And there God is not really needed. Nature is obviously what nature is, why can't we accept that something simply is without being created? The very question betrays an entrapment in a space-time mentality where "there must be a before where nothing was, hence divine intervention" but we already know, form physics, that that is not the case.