In part
one of The Absurd God I demonstrated
that if a god created The Universe then he must
have created time. Therefore he created not
only us, but also all our actions roughly fourteen
billion years before we were born. Logically
this leaves no room for freewill. The absurd
conclusion is that what you are reading here
and what you are thinking now are both created
by this god, and not by us! Enjoy part two.
Part two
If a god created the universe, then that god
is 100% responsible for whether people believe
in various religions and superstitions or don't
believe in a god at all. If a god created the
universe then it does not matter one iota
what
you believe, because it isn't your fault. For
this god is 100% responsible for
everything.
Everything includes all injustice, crime and
suffering. God is 100% responsible for war time
atrocities, torture, disease, misery, the lot.
Such a god made all events, including evil events,
"happen" at least fourteen billion
years before you were born (the date of the
Big Bang).
There is an argument that god created evil so
that good could come out of it. But the problem
here is, why would a god have to create evil
in order to create good? It makes more sense
to say that a god invented the concepts of good
and evil and the relationships between them.
So if a god wanted to have good exist without
spoiling his creation with the horrors of evil,
then he could. Otherwise this god is constrained
by laws outside of his control - namely that
you can't have good without evil. Which is fine,
but if god did not create the concepts of good
and evil then who did? Maybe it was the creator
of god. But this creator of god would be the
real god right? Not necessarily. He too might
have a creator. And he in turn might have been
created, ad infinitum. Oh dear. Either god gratuitously
created evil or it is back to square one.
The
god created the universe but what created
god? question stems to the question of cause
and effect. Perhaps such a god created cause
and effect but if so, what caused god to invent
cause and effect? Logical arguments this are
countered by many religious people, who say
that god doesn't need to use logic because he
is all powerful. I argue that god, if he exists,
would be subject to logic and cannot alter logic.
After all, could a god make all of the numbers
odd? Or could he make all numbers even? Or could
he make it so that all numbers are neither odd
nor even?
Can a god make:
1 + 1 = 2839668432942394239784923784293784263985923.8921050192374?
Could god make
1 +
1 = 0?
Could god make
1 +
1 = infinity?
The religious might counter that if god had
made it so that
1 + 1 = infinity then
we would not be asking the question. But this
is simply too absurd to accept as a plausible
explanation. After all, where is the evidence
to back up such preposterous claims? It is simpler
to assume that god cannot change logic, that
mathematics is independent of a god.
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 will always be that, the
first ten positive integers. This implies that
if a god created the universe then mathematics
is not a subset of the universe in the way that
energy, time and space are.
I am dabbling in metaphysics here, but I propose
that logic and mathematics exist beyond reality.
Numbers don't physically exist, they exist as
concepts. Numbers cannot be created. Numbers
cannot be transformed. Numbers cannot be destroyed.
Not even by a god. If a god really did create
the Universe then he owns it, but he does not
own the numbers.
Looking at the question from a different angle,
mathematics can only be done if something exists.
Outside of the Universe, by definition is emptiness,
there is no space, no time: no things exist
outside the universe. Outside the Universe there
is nobody to count. Does mathematics exist if
there is is nobody to count?
Nevertheless, I conjecture that mathematics
is separate from the Universe. The laws of physics
are mathematical principles. Mathematics is
just *there*, the framework upon which reality
is built.
That's not the same as saying mathematics is
a god, because believers perceive a god as a
being, as an entity, a
thing, usually
possessed of a super-intelligence. Where as
mathematics is logic, mathematics is not a tangible
entity.
It might be stated that god created logic but
I disagree, I think that logic must come first,
and any higher entity like a god can only exist
within a framework - logic. I will explain why
later.
First I will tackle the objection that a god
who is defined as all-powerful would have been
able to create logic. The fallacy here is the
concept of an all-powerful god. The concept
of an all-powerful god gives rise to a swarm
of condemning paradoxes. For example, take the
famous philosophical question that asks, "
Can
an all-powerful god make a fish that it cannot
catch"? If he can, then he cannot catch
it, he is not all-powerful. If he can't then
he is not all-powerful.
Those who say that our minds cannot handle understanding
god, that our minds are limited and cannot be
used to give attributes to god are disingenuous.
Their objection is an ironic fallacy because
they themselves give attributes to gods: that
he is beyond human comprehension, for example,
or that he is all-powerful, or that he created
the universe. (And must therefore transcend
it). Worse, they use their minds that cannot
handle the understanding of such a hypothetical
super-being such as a god to actually surmise
that he exists! Which, to put it mildly, is
wild speculation based on zero evidence. Evidence
for a god would be thrown out in an erudite
and unbiased court of law. Yes, I know there
is
no such thing :)
There is no evidence that Nature has a plan.
Nature is matter and energy following physical
laws. But from even simple laws spring incredible
complexities and subtlety, as lab experiments
and computer simulations have shown. For example,
the complex number equation Z^2 + C gives rise
to a beautiful and infinitely intricate pattern
called the Mandelbrot Set. Never underestimate
the ability of the simple to generate the complex.
A complex cause (such as a god) is not necessary
to account for a complex Universe. There is
no reason to doubt that a simple cause would
serve just as well. This simplicity is actually
suggested by the physics. In the earliest moments
(during the Big Bang) of the Universe it was
very hot. Experiments have shown that the laws
of physics simplify at very high temperatures.
Ultimately physics - hence Nature - gets simpler
as temperature rises. Complexity and structure
is a side effect of symmetric simplicity cooled
down.
Others argue that they see god in events, they
see some kind of plan, which they perceive as
a divine plan, emerge from the happenings in
the world around them. There are usually unable
to elucidate what the plan may be, but they
sense that everything is connected, that everything
is woven together into a tapestry. They see
an intelligence weaving the tapestry, making
events conspire to a higher scheme.
However events and people are interconnected
in more ways than most people think possible
by chance alone. There is a phenomenon known
as the
small world theory that says that
we are all remarkably linked. For example it
is likely that two or three people connect us,
dear reader, via a chain of friends or friends
of friends who happen to know each other. One
potential link might be that one of my cousins'
ex's might know a friend of yours from your
school days.
The human brain is wired to look for patterns,
for example the pattern of a predator hidden
in the leafy forest. But as a side effect it
often sees patterns and co-operations that seem
real but really are coincidence. Such patterns
generally help us to make sense of the world,
even if sometimes they can lead to mistakes,
to illusions. We've all seen faces in clouds.
Some illusions may give us insight, and that
is serendipity. Most illusions are pointless
and merely deceive us about reality for they
are no more meaningful than errors in a computer
program. Nature operates without a plan yet
humans are always attaching "meaning"
to meaningless things. Applying meaning and
significance to phenomena that have no meaning
and significance is a human vice that is a major
cause of countless religions and other misunderstandings.
It might be argued that these illusions are
necessary to apply meaning, without which we
would not learn. People
do apply meaning
but that meaning is not necessarily useful,
and may easily be utterly false and misleading.
After all, attaching meaning to illusion may
serve only to convince one the illusion is reality.
I see this mechanism of applying superfluous
meaning as a reinforcing delusional feedback
loop in the religious mind. The more one "sees"
meaning, the more one looks for it, and the
more one looks for it, the more one "sees".
Those faces in the clouds were painted by a
god to please us, a believer might argue. When
a sceptic points out that the brain is fine
tuned to recognise face-like patterns, and this
explains the faces, the believer's response
may be a request to have faith that the faces
are real.
We can look at meaning to the orbits of the
planets around the sun. In the past, "spiritual"
people have attributed the motions of the planets
as angels shoving heavenly bodies around the
sky. Then Newton and Kepler came along and modelled
the orbits using calculus and elliptical equations.
Many people are not satisfied with such predictive
models because the models are not
human
enough. Gravity - a mindless force - is intuitively
less pleasing to many people than angels. People
yearn for "spiritual" explanations.
But why
should the marvels of the Universe
have cuddly teddybear meanings? There is no
objective reason to believe so! Yet people like
to think a proxy for mankind
makes the
planets orbit our star. They demand that a god
make the planets move through the sky.
The god explanation is superfluous to everybody
except those with an emotional need to have
a deity pilot the planets. Any explanation involving
non-living forces has no "meaning"
to satisfy their preconceived ideas of how they
think things
should be.
And where people look for a meaning, they will
surely find their meaning, and will cheerfully
embrace falsehoods (or, to put it less politely,
they're gullible suckers). This is where that
wishful thinking mechanism called faith comes
in handy for them. Such beliefs in meaning make
people happy, hence they are more likely to
seek meaning. This is another feedback mechanism
that is a recipe for religions and superstitions
galore.
If a theory of reality invokes something supernatural,
then there is good reason to be very suspicious
of it, otherwise there is no reason
not
to believe in an infinity of gods and goddesses
and unicorns and pixies and goblins and fairies
and things that go bump in the night and. If
you don't believe in all those, then why see
a reason to believe in any of them? Why believe
in your particular god or superstition? Could
you be making the same mistake?
Most religious people I've chatted to do not
seem to find it strange that they are comfortable
dismissing all the gods that mankind believes
in except the one that they were brought up
to believe in. There are many different beliefs
in the supernatural that the only real commonality
is the ability of the brain to sincerely, unquestioningly
believe in total bollocks.
That is why it is wise to stick to physics and
science in general, where no claims for absolute
truth are made, although many are beyond reasonable
doubt. Science differs from faith in that its
ideas are conjectures backed up by repeatable
experiment, or at the very least, that stand
and fall by testable predictions.
It is possible to argue that science is flawed
because even the interpretation of repeatable
experiments depends on your mind. This is a
defeatist argument because if it is true then
it implies that if science is wrong then we
are insane. Ultimately we could all be insane
yes, we all must accept that it is possible
we are utterly insane. (That is plausible, now
I think about it). But it is more constructive
to assume that we are sane and we are conducting
the theory and the experiments correctly. Besides,
this is a disingenuous argument in
favour
of religion for it admits that one can be wrong
about religion, whereby faith demands that you
cannot. Therefore if you denounce science by
saying we might be wrong about everything, you
are actually denouncing faith, because religions,
not science, tend to try to claim absolute truth.
People might defend faith by saying that science
is right AND faith is right too, and even that
all faiths are correct. I prefer the
starting point that everybody is wrong. Looking
back into historical times beliefs held before
science seem naďve: our ancient ancestors were
convinced the earth is flat; Hell is in the
center of the Earth; Heaven is just above the
sky (and reachable from tall mountains); angels
shuffle the planets around the sky and the heart
was responsible for thought. You can find people
with such beliefs today too: millions of living
people cherish beliefs Noah's arc, creationism,
that you go to Hell or Heaven when you die,
that Jerusalem is holy, that Mecca is holy,
etc, etc. The fact that millions of people believe
in something does not make that myth true of
course. Even religious people do not fall for
that fallacy. If they
did believe
that sheer numbers of believers add credibility
to a belief, then they would convert to the
religion with the most followers. (Yet they
are keen to
emphasise
how popular their own religion is, usually with
wildly exaggerated claims).
Others argue that any idea must have some truth
in it or we would not have come up with that
idea in the first place. The underlying assumption
is that people are truth machines. But as we
all know, people are very good at telling downright
lies and often believe their own bullshit. People
are
anything but truth machines. Not
convinced? Observe the bare faced lies uttered
by politicians every day. Let alone the machine-gun
fibs routinely uttered by lawyers. Think statistics!
(It is sad that our society tolerates liars
to the ugly extent that it does).
Another way to look at this matter is to realise
that there are many more paths to falsehood
than to truth. In fact there are
infinitely
more, just as an equation may have only one
correct solution and an infinite number of wrong
ones.
For example, I can come up with a true statement:
1 + 1 = 2
or I can come up with an infinity of false statements:
1 + 1 = 3;
1 + 1 = 4;
1 + 1 = 5;
1+ 1 = n where n <> 2
...
1 + 1 = infinity
This is not just a definition thing either:
in mathematics truths are not negotiable. Now
that Fermat's last theorem has been proven true,
no one can change that. Ever. The only truth
is in mathematics.
And mathematics is backed up by experiment.
You can measure the ratio of the circumference
to the diameter of a circle and get Pi. You
can do it yourself. That is the beauty of experiment.
You don't need to rely on fallible human intuition
or, worse, "faith".
If someone said to you that if only you had
faith that 1 + 1 = 5 then it would be
true, would you believe them? Only evidence
can allow us to find islands of fact in an infinite
ocean of fiction.
Add your comment to this page
 | | | | |
| From: |
black and silver | Subject: | 2002-08-11 09:07:01 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Sól | Subject: | 2003-01-05 10:37:58 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Sól | Subject: | 2003-01-05 10:39:20 |
| | | | |
| From: |
jorge | Subject: | 2003-03-09 22:33:08 |
| | | | |
| From: |
djcrom | Subject: | 2003-04-01 18:35:06 |
| | | | |
| From: |
ascetic rationalist | Subject: | 2003-06-23 21:02:31 |
| | | | |
| From: |
David | Subject: | 2003-08-06 15:35:47 |
| | | | |
| From: |
David | Subject: | 2003-08-06 15:36:31 |
| | | | |
| From: |
David | Subject: | 2003-08-06 15:37:07 |
| | | | |
| From: |
cosmicstargoat | Subject: | 2003-08-16 23:27:12 |
| | | | |
| From: |
cosmicstargoat | Subject: | 2003-08-26 13:35:06 |
| | | | |
| From: |
cosmicstargoat | Subject: | 2003-08-31 10:37:45 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Carrie | Subject: | 2003-10-18 11:06:16 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Jim | Subject: | 2003-11-07 12:21:07 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Mike Haynes | Subject: | 2004-02-09 01:54:37 |
| | | | |
| From: |
simplyput Jesus Saves | Subject: | 2004-03-15 12:32:17 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Ari Wilson | Subject: | 2004-04-23 04:22:27 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Rachel | Subject: | 2004-09-21 05:14:00 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Tommy Grayson | Subject: | 2005-10-02 07:08:30 |
| | | | |
| From: |
Hannah | Subject: | 2005-10-29 00:38:29 |
| | | | |
help: how to add your comment Page hits: 4899
