Which is more rational? God is real or imaginary?

[otseng]

Proposition: God is a real actual thing, not something merely imagined or written about. God is intelligent and has intentionally created the universe.

Otseng will argue that belief in the truth of the above proposition is more rational than disbelieving it. McCulloch will argue that disbelieving the truth of the proposition is more rational than believing it.

[McCulloch]

Let's take an example. Languages evolve.

If you're going to generalize evolution to things that change, then this will apply to everything. And I'll repeat your statement: "I agree with Popper who said, "a theory that explains everything explains nothing"."

Go back and check. I am not applying evolution to all things that change. Evolution works when certain very specific conditions occur. Lots of things change without an evolutionary process happening. But when you have a population of self-replicating entities with variation along with a selection mechanism, then evolution will occur. That is what evolution is.

Those who believe in the evidence and the power behind the evolutionary explanation for the diversity and development of life, see no reason to exclude life's origins.

Abiogenesis doesn't follow from evolutionary theory.

No it does not. However, evolution has a lot to say about the origins of life. Here are a few. It happened a very long time (billions of years) ago. The original life forms were not like modern life forms. The process may have been something like the process that has been working with life since its origin. The line between life and not-life may not be as distinct as we would like it to be.

Even Darwin did not theorize how the first life form(s) came about.

He did hypothesize. But he did not have access to information and research that has been done subsequently. His contribution to biology was great. But, unlike the revealed religions, science marches on, finding new discoveries, not necessarily tied dogmatically limited to the edicts of those who have gone before.

Further, many believe in aspects of evolution, but do not posit that life naturalistically arose (including myself).

Yes, I acknowledge that there are those who believe that way.

There would not have been a first cell any more than there was a first human or first fish or first English speaker.

Comparing languages to life would not be entirely accurate. Simply because something changes doesn't mean that it's comparable to life. And with your argument, there'd be no such thing as a first anything (star, planet, car, book, tree, computer, etc).

Not all change is evolutionary. Cars, stars, books and computers do not evolve. Language does evolve. The point I am making is that in an evolutionary system of change, there is no distinct first of a new emerging type of entity. If living cells evolved from proto-organic substances, then there would not be a first cell and calls for the explanation of the first cell would be as fallacious as calls for an explanation of the first English speaker. It is not a strawman but an analogy.

There was no first cell according to evolution.

Do you have a source to back this statement? I've never heard this before.

If cells evolved, then there was not first identifiable cell. That is how evolution works. If cells came together magically and quite improbably then there would have been a first identifiable cell. I think that a process somewhat like the processes we already know about is more likely than magic. You apparently disagree.

[otseng]

If cells evolved, then there was not first identifiable cell.

I would disagree. One of the oldest life forms in the fossil record is the cyanobacteria. Yet, there is nothing to suggest in the fossil record that there is a continuum of intermediate steps that gradually leads to the cyanobacteria (or any other cell).

At issue is not precisely identifying what is the first cell, but how did it go from non-life to life? One cannot simply extrapolate evolution in reverse time to demonstrate that life came from chemicals.

[McCulloch]

If cells evolved, then there was not first identifiable cell.

I would disagree.

With what do you disagree? That there is no first identifiable cell or that if cells evolved from something else that there would be no first identifiable cell?

One of the oldest life forms in the fossil record is the cyanobacteria.

It is amazing that there are any fossil records at all, let alone fossil records for cyanobacteria.

Yet, there is nothing to suggest in the fossil record that there is a continuum of intermediate steps that gradually leads to the cyanobacteria (or any other cell).

The fossil record is necessarily incomplete. There is nothing in the fossil record to suggest that there is a continuum of intermediate steps between many life forms. Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. The fossil record, important as it is, does not help much here.

At issue is not precisely identifying what is the first cell, but how did it go from non-life to life? One cannot simply extrapolate evolution in reverse time to demonstrate that life came from chemicals.

Did I mention that I don't actually know how cells originated? Well, I don't. Neither do you. Neither do any of the many biologists researching that very topic.

One possibility is that it was an evolutionary process whereby self replicating entities, not strictly life forms, evolved into cells. If this possibility were true, then there would be no first cell. Just as there was no first mouse.

Another possibility, raised by creationists, is that it happened by supernatural agency. We don't know how it happened so we'll attribute it to God. It is a heck of a lot easier than doing the research to look for the answers and it is much more comforting than an honest, "I don't know."

[otseng]

If cells evolved, then there was not first identifiable cell.

I would disagree.

With what do you disagree? That there is no first identifiable cell or that if cells evolved from something else that there would be no first identifiable cell?

There is no evidence to suggest that there is a gradual sequence of steps from chemicals to cell that would blur the distinction of what would be the first cell. Cells appear fully formed, with no precursors. They are fully identifiable in the fossil record. They might not be the first cell, but they are not found in a gradient of evolved forms.

The fossil record is necessarily incomplete. There is nothing in the fossil record to suggest that there is a continuum of intermediate steps between many life forms. Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. The fossil record, important as it is, does not help much here.

So, if we are to look at the evidence, it would reveal that there is not a gradual evolution of life (including the origin of life). Obviously, there is a disconnect between the theory of evolution and the fossil record. It would then be more reasonable to question the theory than to question the evidence.

Did I mention that I don't actually know how cells originated? Well, I don't. Neither do you. Neither do any of the many biologists researching that very topic.

One possibility is that it was an evolutionary process whereby self replicating entities, not strictly life forms, evolved into cells. If this possibility were true, then there would be no first cell. Just as there was no first mouse.

Another possibility, raised by creationists, is that it happened by supernatural agency. We don't know how it happened so we'll attribute it to God. It is a heck of a lot easier than doing the research to look for the answers and it is much more comforting than an honest, "I don't know."

Yes, you've mentioned all of the above more than once.

[McCulloch]

There is no evidence to suggest that there is a gradual sequence of steps from chemicals to cell that would blur the distinction of what would be the first cell.

There is no evidence to suggest any particular process regarding how cells first developed. If it was an evolutionary process, then there would be no distinct first cell. Since an evolutionary process is the only viable, verifiable process that has been proposed, it would seem likely that this is how it happened.

Cells appear fully formed, with no precursors.

Whatever precursors there may have been, do not appear in the fossil record. There are lots of things not in the fossil record. It is amazing to me that there are any form of bacteria in the fossil record.

So, if we are to look at the evidence, it would reveal that there is not a gradual evolution of life (including the origin of life). Obviously, there is a disconnect between the theory of evolution and the fossil record. It would then be more reasonable to question the theory than to question the evidence.

You would be right, if the fossil record was the only and primary evidence of evolution. However, we would have a complete and valid justification for evolution without any fossils at all.

Before Darwin, we had no explanation for the diversity of life forms on earth. Creationists claimed that God made the various life forms. With the advent of modern biology, there is now an adequate explanation of the variety of life forms on earth so the creationists have retreated to the origins of life. If we eventually discover how cells were formed, then creationists will retreat to the formulation of pre-biotic elements or to the creation of the universe. Invoking the miracle of God's direct creation is not an explanation for anything but the admission that we have not got an explanation.

[otseng]

We can spend a long time discussing evolution. But since it's not related to anything that I'm arguing, let's move on.

I think I've completed presenting my side for the arguments to support that God exists. Is there anything else that you want to add for your position that God is imaginary? If not, we can then present our closing statements. I suggest each side having one summary statement and then a final closing statement.

[McCulloch]

Unless I have missed something important, otseng's main thrust is that he believes that "God did it" is for some reason a superior answer than "I don't know".

Why is the universe apparently fine tuned? How did life begin?

In the entire history of science, the "God did it" answer has been significantly less useful than the "I don't know" answer. "I don't know" allows one to seek, if not an answer, more information that may lead to an answer. "God did it" says, you might look for an answer, but unless God reveals it to you, you won't find it. God works on a different plane than we do.

Otseng seems to ignore or to forget that "God did it" had been the answer to why people get sick, why earthquakes happen and why crops fail. He is willing to abandon his theistic forefathers now that we have better data, but he is all too willing to continue making the same mistake.

Which view is more rational? That God is real and at any time might intervene in the universe? That those areas where we cannot currently find an answer, we abandon the search and leave it to God. No, the rational and pragmatic answer is that God is imaginary, unless there is some tangible evidence to the contrary.

[otseng]

In this thread, I have presented the case that it is more rational to accept that a deist god exists than that such a god is imaginary. The starting assumption is that there is equal probability that it exists or does not exist. There is no presumption at the onset that it in fact does exist.

My approach was to look at things in the natural world and explore all the explanations (either natural or supernatural) and weigh them against each other. I have also presented ways to falsify my arguments. Further, I did not appeal to any religious literature.

The first area explored was the fine-tuning of the universe. I gave one example, the critical density value. It had to have a value of exactly 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016 gm/cc at 1 ns after the Big Bang. Any other value would result in a universe where observers would not be here to even consider what the correct value should be. Later, I presented a list of 93 such fine-tuning parameters.

I believe we ended up with 3 possible explanations for fine-tuning:
1. Creator
2. Multiverse
3. Only one universe with some unknown law(s) that only permit the fine-tuning parameters that are found

For a multiverse, no evidence (either direct or indirect) was presented that they exist. Further, multiple assumptions are required to be made for a multiverse to be an explanation:
- other universes exist
- mathematics is the same
- physical laws are the same
- only the parameters/constants vary
- if a finite number of universes, then a very large number of universes
or
- infinite universes

Occam's razor states:
"When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

For a creator, the only assumption made is that such a god could exist. Also only one entity is proposed for a creator explanation, whereas an infinite number (or massively large number) of universes is proposed for a multiverse. So, the creator explanation would be superior to a multiverse explanation.

For the third explanation, an underlying unifying law of fine-tuning parameters has not been found (or if it even exists). But, if such a law is found, it will falsify my fine-tuning argument.

The second argument was the origin of the universe itself.

Here there are only two answers given:
1. Creator
2. Do not know

If a naturalistic answer is eventually found, it will then falsify my argument.

The third argument I gave was refuting the mediocrity principle. The mediocrity principle states that "there is nothing special about humans or the Earth." My argument in disproving the mediocrity principle is that I claim that we are the only observers in the universe. That is, extraterrestrial lifeforms do not exist. My argument for this is that no evidence (either direct or indirect) exists for aliens. And there is an extremely remote chance of having another habitable planet in the universe. This argument can be falsified by detecting the presence of any ET in our universe.

The fourth argument I presented is the origin of life. There are two answers proposed:
1. Creator
2. Do not know

One major piece of evidence against a naturalistic answer ever being found is that it is against the law of biogenesis.

"The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material."
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionar ... biogenesis

Again, if a definitive naturalistic explanation is found, then it would falsify my argument.

These four arguments constitute my reasons for why a creator exists. They are grounded in empirical evidence and laws/principles. They are falsifiable. And they have the greatest explanatory power compared to the alternatives, esp when compared with "do not know".

Let's now look at the arguments for God's non-existence.

An argument presented to argue against God's existence is the who created the creator argument? (used by Dawkins). My response is that this question is only valid iff such an entity exists. If it does not exist, it is meaningless to ask the question. Suppose I ask, "What caused Jessica Alba to fall in love with me?" This question is pretty much meaningless because Jessica Alba is not in love with me.

Further, it is erroneous to reject an explanation because there is no explanation for its cause. Nobody rejects quarks because we don't know what causes quarks. Or rejects evolution because we don't know what caused the first cell. Or rejects the Big Bang because we don't know what happened before the first Planck time. Similarly, because we don't know what caused god does not invalidate god's existence.

One issue brought up, though it's not really an argument against God's existence, is that invoking God is simply a god-of-the-gaps argument. I maintain that the arguments I gave is not a god-of-the-gaps because if a naturalistic answer is found for any of my arguments, I will not then move god to another gap. Rather, it would falsify my argument. Also, I'm not using God as the answer for everything that we do not know the answer for. I'm only claiming God as a cause for only the arguments I've given.

So, when comparing the arguments for and against God's existence, I believe it is clear that it is more rational to believe that God exists than is imaginary.

[otseng]

I'd like to thank McCulloch for the debate. It gave me a chance to think about the arguments for and against God from different angles.

After McCulloch gives his closing comments, I'll then close this thread.

I will soon create a followup debate thread to argue for the next step - from a Deist God to a Theist God.

[McCulloch]

There is some unfinished business.

And I also believe that people are not simply physical entities, but spiritual entities. So, extrapolating ourselves to a higher being is "not too much of a stretch".

Your personal religious beliefs should not count as evidence.

The statement that humans are only material beings would also be considered an opinion.

That humans are material beings, I hope, is not up for debate. We both agree that humans are a material life form. What is merely opinion is your assertion that there is something beyond that. That humans are spiritual entities, as well as material beings. Is there going to be a definition of spiritual entity or are we dropping the use of that term?

That's why I emphasized only. Yes, humans are made of matter. But, I believe there is also a non-material aspect to humans. Basically, I believe in a form of dualism. My point is that one cannot prove that humans are strictly comprised of only matter.

I can drop the term spiritual entity. I'll present the term "dualism" instead.

"Dualism is the concept that our mind is more than just our brain. This concept entails that our mind has a non-material, spiritual dimension that includes consciousness and possibly an eternal attribute."
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/dualism.htm

I'm not really sure that this helps a whole lot. What is it that you mean by spiritual dimension? Are you assuming that consciousness arises from something other than our brain?

How about let's put this on hold until later so that we can focus on fine-tuning and the cause of the universe for now?

I have to think that the concept of dualism is an important aspect of whether to believe in God is rational. If it can be shown that humans have a spiritual aspect then believing in a completely spiritual being makes more sense. On the other hand, if humans' alleged spirituality is merely an accident of our material self, then a spiritual realm with a spiritual God seems less likely.

What is meant by spiritual being? What is the non-material, spiritual dimension of humans which includes consciousness? Can it be shown that consciousness arises from something other than our brain? Can it be shown that there are any eternal attributes to humans?