Hey guys,
I just spent the afternoon writing an argument against the existence of god and would like to know what you think about it. I'm sure much of this has already been said by others (for example, I just found a similar argument called the "Transcendent-Personal Argument" on infidelguy.com) but I hope its at least somewhat original. Anyway, tell me what you think, especially possible objections.
Here it is:
This argument aims to demonstrate the non-existence of god by showing that no valid, non-disprovable statement about god is possible. Specifically, I propose that it is very likely that any possible statement about the nature of god in the context of knowable reality (especially in terms of a conscious intelligence at work in the course of the universe) can and will be proven false, and that any statement about the existence beyond reality is impossible by default, leaving no "ontological space" for god to exist in. It is therefore not necessary to directly disprove god because to disprove anything, it would first be necessary to have a definition of what needs to be disproved.
Before we start any discussion about the existence of god we have to make some sensible assumptions. Importantly, from today’s point of view it is safe to say that the events within the universe follow a static set of rules, and that no form of intervention by a god is required to explain any of the events unfolding within the universe. That is, while we cannot be sure if and how the existence of the universe itself will be explained, everything that has happened and will happen within it can be explained by the rules inherent in its nature. Even if god exists, he/she/it does not perform miracles that violate the rules physics, read human being’s minds and so on. This follows from the fact that no proof for any such intervention has ever been produced.
So what kind of god is even worth discussing about? In a universe that seems to be ruled by cause and effect (a notion that is disputed by some) it is highly counterintuitive to say that something may come into existence without a cause. Therefore it is natural to assume that some kind of consciousness and intention be involved. So if we discuss about the existence of god, we are mainly asking if a conscious entity, or "intelligent designer", was involved in creating the universe, or if the process of creation is in itself somehow conscious and intentional (god somehow is the universe).
The question about god therefore becomes a question about the nature of consciousness. Arguably, some aspects of consciousness pose equally hard problems. However since the term consciousness includes so many aspects we have to be very clear what we mean when we talk about god's consciousness. A human being's kind consciousness is different than the consciousness of a bat (we would grant a bat qualitative experience but not the ability to reflect about itself) so what kind of consciousness would we attribute to god?
God-consciousness would have to include self-awareness, intention and the ability to plan (in order to create the universe with all its apparently finely tuned rules). So when we ask if god exist, we really ask about the existence of an intentional, self-aware instance of consciousness that is actively involved in the creation and course of the universe. We don't really need to ask the question if this conscious instance has qualitative experience - however, I think this is usually implied if we talk about an intelligent creator.
Now, while qualitative experience might pose a difficult question, it is very likely that we will be able to map 100% of the functional processes of consciousness to information processing functions performed by the brain. This includes the processes responsible for self-awareness and planning. I would further argue that these functional processes ARE the underlying information processing functions. The only really "hard" question here (in the sense that we cannot say yet if it is even answerable) is what kinds of information processing is needed to also produce (or include) qualitative experience.
Whatever the details of consciousness may be, it is safe to say that some specific kind of information processing is required for the functional aspects of consciousness we usually attribute to god. Information processing however implies the existence of information, which is something inherent and intimately connected to the physical world. If we agree to the reasonable assumption that consciousness requires information processing, this would mean that consciousness is also tied to the physical universe. There is no basis, requirement or reason for conscious entities to exist in absence of information processing or even "outside" the the knowable reality of the universe.
It is perfectly natural for people to ASSUME conscious processes as a cause or property of the universe. It is however not at all reasonable or necessary for conscious processes to actually EXIST in the absence of information processing and information itself.
Since at least the functional aspects of consciousness are likely to be perfectly explainable in terms of the knowable universe, I think that the ultimate argument for the existence of god within the context of known reality will be fact that qualitative experience ("qualia") - a "mysterious" phenomenom that does seem to escape any formal explanation - exist in conscious processes. Personally, I think that the question of qualia will be solved as well, probably by figuring out different ways of thinking about the problem. Ultimately however, the question if qualia exist outside the mind of living beings or even in absence of information processing may turn out to be negligible if we want to answer the question if a planning, intentional mind is involved in creating and steering the universe.
It is very likely that it will be possible to disprove any particular definition of god within the context of knowable reality. In fact, the number of possible definitions of god within the context of knowable reality has been reduced significantly, and for any serious discussion about the existence of god we have to define him as intentionality and consciousness in the workings of the universe. Since functional processes of consciousness must be a critical part of a definition of god, and it is reasonable to assume that these processes depend on specific kinds information processing that are most likely only found in the nervous systems of living creatures (where it makes sense!), but do not take place in the essentially "random" processes that govern most of the physical universe, we can already be fairly sure that a conscious creator does not exist within the scope of the knowable and observable universe. Definitions of god that contain consciousness "as we know it" will be shown to be empirically impossible.
This would practically preclude the existence of a conscious "component of god" in the knowable universe. As a first layer of defense it could be said that god may exist BEYOND the knowable universe. Since we cannot know anything about the unknowable, it might as well include an intelligent agent that created the universe. There might be some other form of existence beyond the knowable universe and this might include a different form of consciousness unlike the one knownable by us, even a form of consciousness not dependent on information (-processing).
But does that really make any sense at all? Terms formed based on the nature of the knowable universe are not valid outside the scope of this universe. To say that "some form of consciousness" may exist outside knowable reality is the same as saying "some form of sausage" could exist. Whether sausages actually exists in reality is an ontological question, but when we talk about sausages, we are talking about a certain grouping of particles existing in space and time (usually until eaten). Sausage is a concept that is based on and can only be applied within knowable reality. Every descriptive account explaining sausage only consists exclusively of properties found in that reality.
We cannot produce a definition of ANYTHING outside knowable reality. Anything we would propose to exist outside knowable reality could not have any describable attributes at all. In other words, "god" outside knowable reality is the same as "sausage" outside knowable reality - an object without any tangible properties (note: This is not proof that god is a sausage).
The point is: It is impossible to say anything at all about an entity beyond the knowable universe because the perspective from which we form all and every statement about such an entity would have to be based on knowable reality. Such a god CANNOT have any of the properties we attribute to him, because these properties - such as "being conscious" - do not exist indepentently of knowable reality. Since it is impossible to come up with any valid definition of god outside the scope of knowable reality, there is simply nothing to disprove here.
The final argument usually brought forward is that god simply is "beyond understanding" and that it is not possible to make any statement for or against his existence. This is maybe the most crucial point in the whole debate: We cannot disprove what is beyond our understanding. It is always possible to propose god as an unexplainable, mystical entity that is beyond words to describe and therefore impossible to disprove.
But in order to believe in any form of god we need to have SOME definition of god - otherwise there is nothing to believe in. In other words, if it is impossible to say anything about god, the denotation "god" for this object without properties is as good as any other. It is impossible to say that god is beyond understanding because an object beyond understanding does not have any properties, let alone those required for it to be named "god".
To sum up: While it is clear that none of the naive definitions of god as proposed by any of the existing religions have any basis in reality, there is still room for the notion of some kind of conscious intent involved in the creation and course of the universe. But while much of the universe is not fully explained and our models of reality are far from complete, it is very likely that we will be able to invalidate the remaining possible notions of god - especially by explaining consciousness. Since it is already possible to predict with some certainity that the functions of consciousness usually attributed to god will be completely explained in terms of information processing tied to knowable reality, and a definition of something resembling "god" outside knowable reality cannot be given, it is fairly safe to say that there is no room left for the existence of god.
Thanks for reading this far - I hope it was interesting enough
I just spent the afternoon writing an argument against the existence of god and would like to know what you think about it. I'm sure much of this has already been said by others (for example, I just found a similar argument called the "Transcendent-Personal Argument" on infidelguy.com) but I hope its at least somewhat original. Anyway, tell me what you think, especially possible objections.
Here it is:
This argument aims to demonstrate the non-existence of god by showing that no valid, non-disprovable statement about god is possible. Specifically, I propose that it is very likely that any possible statement about the nature of god in the context of knowable reality (especially in terms of a conscious intelligence at work in the course of the universe) can and will be proven false, and that any statement about the existence beyond reality is impossible by default, leaving no "ontological space" for god to exist in. It is therefore not necessary to directly disprove god because to disprove anything, it would first be necessary to have a definition of what needs to be disproved.
Before we start any discussion about the existence of god we have to make some sensible assumptions. Importantly, from today’s point of view it is safe to say that the events within the universe follow a static set of rules, and that no form of intervention by a god is required to explain any of the events unfolding within the universe. That is, while we cannot be sure if and how the existence of the universe itself will be explained, everything that has happened and will happen within it can be explained by the rules inherent in its nature. Even if god exists, he/she/it does not perform miracles that violate the rules physics, read human being’s minds and so on. This follows from the fact that no proof for any such intervention has ever been produced.
So what kind of god is even worth discussing about? In a universe that seems to be ruled by cause and effect (a notion that is disputed by some) it is highly counterintuitive to say that something may come into existence without a cause. Therefore it is natural to assume that some kind of consciousness and intention be involved. So if we discuss about the existence of god, we are mainly asking if a conscious entity, or "intelligent designer", was involved in creating the universe, or if the process of creation is in itself somehow conscious and intentional (god somehow is the universe).
The question about god therefore becomes a question about the nature of consciousness. Arguably, some aspects of consciousness pose equally hard problems. However since the term consciousness includes so many aspects we have to be very clear what we mean when we talk about god's consciousness. A human being's kind consciousness is different than the consciousness of a bat (we would grant a bat qualitative experience but not the ability to reflect about itself) so what kind of consciousness would we attribute to god?
God-consciousness would have to include self-awareness, intention and the ability to plan (in order to create the universe with all its apparently finely tuned rules). So when we ask if god exist, we really ask about the existence of an intentional, self-aware instance of consciousness that is actively involved in the creation and course of the universe. We don't really need to ask the question if this conscious instance has qualitative experience - however, I think this is usually implied if we talk about an intelligent creator.
Now, while qualitative experience might pose a difficult question, it is very likely that we will be able to map 100% of the functional processes of consciousness to information processing functions performed by the brain. This includes the processes responsible for self-awareness and planning. I would further argue that these functional processes ARE the underlying information processing functions. The only really "hard" question here (in the sense that we cannot say yet if it is even answerable) is what kinds of information processing is needed to also produce (or include) qualitative experience.
Whatever the details of consciousness may be, it is safe to say that some specific kind of information processing is required for the functional aspects of consciousness we usually attribute to god. Information processing however implies the existence of information, which is something inherent and intimately connected to the physical world. If we agree to the reasonable assumption that consciousness requires information processing, this would mean that consciousness is also tied to the physical universe. There is no basis, requirement or reason for conscious entities to exist in absence of information processing or even "outside" the the knowable reality of the universe.
It is perfectly natural for people to ASSUME conscious processes as a cause or property of the universe. It is however not at all reasonable or necessary for conscious processes to actually EXIST in the absence of information processing and information itself.
Since at least the functional aspects of consciousness are likely to be perfectly explainable in terms of the knowable universe, I think that the ultimate argument for the existence of god within the context of known reality will be fact that qualitative experience ("qualia") - a "mysterious" phenomenom that does seem to escape any formal explanation - exist in conscious processes. Personally, I think that the question of qualia will be solved as well, probably by figuring out different ways of thinking about the problem. Ultimately however, the question if qualia exist outside the mind of living beings or even in absence of information processing may turn out to be negligible if we want to answer the question if a planning, intentional mind is involved in creating and steering the universe.
It is very likely that it will be possible to disprove any particular definition of god within the context of knowable reality. In fact, the number of possible definitions of god within the context of knowable reality has been reduced significantly, and for any serious discussion about the existence of god we have to define him as intentionality and consciousness in the workings of the universe. Since functional processes of consciousness must be a critical part of a definition of god, and it is reasonable to assume that these processes depend on specific kinds information processing that are most likely only found in the nervous systems of living creatures (where it makes sense!), but do not take place in the essentially "random" processes that govern most of the physical universe, we can already be fairly sure that a conscious creator does not exist within the scope of the knowable and observable universe. Definitions of god that contain consciousness "as we know it" will be shown to be empirically impossible.
This would practically preclude the existence of a conscious "component of god" in the knowable universe. As a first layer of defense it could be said that god may exist BEYOND the knowable universe. Since we cannot know anything about the unknowable, it might as well include an intelligent agent that created the universe. There might be some other form of existence beyond the knowable universe and this might include a different form of consciousness unlike the one knownable by us, even a form of consciousness not dependent on information (-processing).
But does that really make any sense at all? Terms formed based on the nature of the knowable universe are not valid outside the scope of this universe. To say that "some form of consciousness" may exist outside knowable reality is the same as saying "some form of sausage" could exist. Whether sausages actually exists in reality is an ontological question, but when we talk about sausages, we are talking about a certain grouping of particles existing in space and time (usually until eaten). Sausage is a concept that is based on and can only be applied within knowable reality. Every descriptive account explaining sausage only consists exclusively of properties found in that reality.
We cannot produce a definition of ANYTHING outside knowable reality. Anything we would propose to exist outside knowable reality could not have any describable attributes at all. In other words, "god" outside knowable reality is the same as "sausage" outside knowable reality - an object without any tangible properties (note: This is not proof that god is a sausage).
The point is: It is impossible to say anything at all about an entity beyond the knowable universe because the perspective from which we form all and every statement about such an entity would have to be based on knowable reality. Such a god CANNOT have any of the properties we attribute to him, because these properties - such as "being conscious" - do not exist indepentently of knowable reality. Since it is impossible to come up with any valid definition of god outside the scope of knowable reality, there is simply nothing to disprove here.
The final argument usually brought forward is that god simply is "beyond understanding" and that it is not possible to make any statement for or against his existence. This is maybe the most crucial point in the whole debate: We cannot disprove what is beyond our understanding. It is always possible to propose god as an unexplainable, mystical entity that is beyond words to describe and therefore impossible to disprove.
But in order to believe in any form of god we need to have SOME definition of god - otherwise there is nothing to believe in. In other words, if it is impossible to say anything about god, the denotation "god" for this object without properties is as good as any other. It is impossible to say that god is beyond understanding because an object beyond understanding does not have any properties, let alone those required for it to be named "god".
To sum up: While it is clear that none of the naive definitions of god as proposed by any of the existing religions have any basis in reality, there is still room for the notion of some kind of conscious intent involved in the creation and course of the universe. But while much of the universe is not fully explained and our models of reality are far from complete, it is very likely that we will be able to invalidate the remaining possible notions of god - especially by explaining consciousness. Since it is already possible to predict with some certainity that the functions of consciousness usually attributed to god will be completely explained in terms of information processing tied to knowable reality, and a definition of something resembling "god" outside knowable reality cannot be given, it is fairly safe to say that there is no room left for the existence of god.
Thanks for reading this far - I hope it was interesting enough
![[Image: Wall-of-Text-Run-Away-13837154357.jpeg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=images.sodahead.com%2Fprofiles%2F0%2F0%2F1%2F9%2F9%2F7%2F4%2F8%2F3%2FWall-of-Text-Run-Away-13837154357.jpeg)
![[Image: Evolution.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk619%2Fjcincain%2FPublic%2FEvolution.png)
