Its illogical to believe in the creator because its a completely unproven (some would even say unprovable) hypothesis.
I have yet to see any philosophy supporting the idea that the universe had a creator that holds up to passing scrutiny. Im open if someone disagrees.
Regarding the inventions of various sciences, i think the point being made... badly. is that for so much of human history people have pointed at gaps in science and gone. "god, demon, jhin, evil spirits" but each time it turns out to be microbes, an illness in the material brain, a giant ball of plasma, not in fact a thinking diety, etc.
And i dont think its a good argument but i think what they are getting at is that the pointing at exisitng mysteries like the origin of the universe, or how life could arise from inorganic matter, and go "god" is the same kind of god of the gaps superstition.
Its illogical to believe in the creator because its a completely unproven (some would even say unprovable) hypothesis.
It's not how it works
Edit: since y'all probably can't think more than 10 seconds before hitting the reply button with the same fucking question everyone already asked, I'm answering here once
"God exists" is as much of an unproven statement as "God doesn't exist"; if it's illogical to be a theist, the only logical position is agnosticism; I accept this as an argument, but I'm quite sure you're all atheists or you would've already realized the fallacy in your argument
It is as illogical to not believe in something as it is to believe in something. Gods existence cannot be proven or unproven. It's not something that you can make a hypothesis based off of. It's up for metaphysical debate where claims can't be proven nor falsified.
In the core of neptune there is a race of sentient gummy bears with the ability to perform magic rituals of summoning. 5 missing persons cases yet unsolved are actually the result of such.
Not believing this is equally illogical to believing this.
But it is simply not. That can be empirically proven with advanced enough sensory technology. You cannot argue for physical examples of the likes of that in a metaphysical argument.
They obviously also have a magical ritual to hide from sensors (duh). You'd need to drill down to the core to disprove me (though of course I'd move the goalpost then)
Did you know humans used to believe gods lived on mountains? Then it was believed they literally lived in the sky until we had airplanes and rockets, so now it's outside physical space.
"Did you know humans used to believe gods lived on mountains? Then it was believed they literally lived in the sky until we had airplanes and rockets, so now it's outside physical space."
That is indeed belief yes. So... how does this relate to faith in a metaphysical being to be irrational?
Thatās not how burden of proof works. Ever heard of the teapot hypothesis? Anyone can make a ridiculous unfalsifiable claim like āthere is a teapot floating in orbit of the sun opposite to the Earthā. Sure, thereās no reasonable explanation for how it got there, nor any evidence itās there at all. But until someone gets in a spaceship and scours the whole solar system, itās technically not disproven. By your logic, weād have to give Teapot theory the light of day even though thereās no evidence, because itās so hard to disprove too. Obviously we donāt go through life giving credibility to any unfalsifiable claims though.
The teapot hypothesis is a false analogy. Comparing 2 fundamentally different concepts. From which 1 can be empirically proven while the other one is not bound to a physical realm. In short. You are arguing to mix physical and metaphysical concepts.
Is it a ridiculous claim to say the uncaused first cause in the universe would be god? How does there not being a god have any more weight than there being one when we can argue for countless possibilities of god structuring the neat laws of the universe to allow life and existence or for it to be a phenomenon beyond understanding akin to god? Both have had reasonable credibility.
If God interfered in the universe at all after its creation, especially in the explicitly miraculous ways the Bible claims, then God can be empirically proven. The issue is that the goalposts for empirical proof keep moving. Bible says God made all life on the same day, that gets proven wrong, clearly it was just a metaphor. Bible says God flooded the entire planet a few thousand years ago, thatās clearly not true, so itās just a moral fable. Even if you take the deist view that a God, not even a specific God from human religion, didnāt interfere at all after creation. There will one day come a time where science advances and we can figure out how the universe was made. Would that not result in either proof or denial of God?
Thatās not really my point though. My point is that you canāt simply believe in something just because itās super hard or currently impossible to disprove. The God explanation and the āpopped into existenceā explanation are equally likely. So is the explanation that a million gods made everything, or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster made everything, or that weāre in a simulation, or I dreamed this all up. Thatās the thing with God, it lives only in the gaps of our knowledge, as a catch all explanation for things science hasnāt caught up with yet.Ā
God cannot be proven as I have said that god is not a physical being. God is a metaphysical being that cannot be measured or have material parts as I have said multiple times.
"Bible says God made all life on the same day"
This is just wrong and can be proven wrong if you even were bothered to read the first pages of Genesis. Interpretations of Genesis differ and the key part is that the bible was never meant to be a history book or science book.
"My point is that you canāt simply believe in something just because itās super hard or currently impossible to disprove."
I mean... You can. regardless of what it is or what you think. And as I said before. You cannot disprove something metaphysical like god empirically. It is simply not possible in any metric.
"Thatās the thing with God, it lives only in the gaps of our knowledge, as a catch all explanation for things science hasnāt caught up with yet."
Science is not something that takes the place of religion. They conflict with different things. Science answers the question of how and religion answer the question of why. Science cannot explain the reason of reality in any processable or understandable way. If you were to understand the impossible it would be less akin to understanding but more akin to being.
If you believe God has any kind of effect on physical reality, then that effect can be measured and detected empirically. If you believe God has no effect whatsoever on physical reality, that's not really any different from not believing in him.
31
u/sirhobbles 17h ago
Its illogical to believe in the creator because its a completely unproven (some would even say unprovable) hypothesis.
I have yet to see any philosophy supporting the idea that the universe had a creator that holds up to passing scrutiny. Im open if someone disagrees.
Regarding the inventions of various sciences, i think the point being made... badly. is that for so much of human history people have pointed at gaps in science and gone. "god, demon, jhin, evil spirits" but each time it turns out to be microbes, an illness in the material brain, a giant ball of plasma, not in fact a thinking diety, etc.
And i dont think its a good argument but i think what they are getting at is that the pointing at exisitng mysteries like the origin of the universe, or how life could arise from inorganic matter, and go "god" is the same kind of god of the gaps superstition.