Scientifically, God Does Not Exist: Science Allows us to Say God Does Not Exist

Austin,

Your article expressing that “scientifically God does not exist” is interesting but, I believe, incorrect in its conclusion.

I just published a book that I spent 10 years creating. It presents a comprehensive theory of human life.

Among the problems that I solve is to show that theism and atheism are both rational.

Here’s a brief summary that leaves out a host of details.

The concept of God means that reality has a mind.

Since we can’t observe the mind of another person, practically speaking all that matters is that we are able to accurately predict their behavior. Thus, we can assume or not assume that a person has a mind independent of our ability to predict their behavior.

Applying this idea to God implies that both theism and atheism are rational.

But like I said, the summary leaves out a host of details.

I introduce my book at http://www.philipbitar.com. Section 2.3 addresses theism.

More specifically, in chapter 1 I establish that knowledge consists in the simplest, most accurate model for predicting our observations.

Since we can’t observe the mind of another person, we assume its existence, not in order to improve the accuracy of our model, but in order to simplify the model.

Applying this idea to God, we assume the existence of God, not in order to improve the accuracy of our model, but in order to simplify the model.

The question remains, then, as to whether or not the assumption that reality has a mind simplifies our model. I analyze this problem in section 2.3 on theism, where I show that practically speaking, the theism model and the atheism model have equal complexity, thereby implying that both are rational.

Philip Bitar

Philip, resorting to “god of the gaps” is *not* a sane position. Just because something cannot be completely explained by naturalistic Hypothesis A doesn’t mean that God Hypothesis B is automatically true. It could be that another alternative C, one that doesn’t involve a god but one which haven’t we yet discovered, is the correct one.

If you don’t have a solid answer, then the best position is to be agnostic, not theistic. However, all the evidence we currently see in the natural world points to a universe without a personal god.

I find it odd that you characterize a belief system that makes extraordinary claims without proof as “rational.”

A.Ou,

Thank you for your thoughts.

The proof is a highly abstract line of reasoning that has nothing to do with a god-of-the-gaps or extraordinary claims.

I briefly summarized the proof above, and I encourage you to reread the summary to see why your comments don’t pertain. Beyond that, I refer you to the book.

Philip