Thursday, June 07, 2007

Does 'God' Exist?

Well, in the perception of certain individuals, 'God' does exist, even though they disagree amongst themselves on their precise perception of 'His' qualities, attributes and requirements. Nevertheless, it is true to say that for some,'God' exists in their perceptions, that is to say subjectively, even though there is little consensus regarding the qualities that 'He' is credited with. What it is not true to say, however, is that the subjective existence of 'God' means that 'He' also exists objectively and apart from their subjective perceptions. Despite that caveat, those who subjectively perceive 'God' to exist DO claim that 'He' exists objectively, even though no one over the past couple of millennia or so that these claims have been uttered has ever been able to produce any corroborative credible evidence whatsoever to substantiated the objective existence of 'God'.

Thus, 'God' exists only subjectively and, consequently, 'He' is absolutely indistinguishable qualitatively from Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Cthulhu, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any of the other 199,367,401 or so fanciful inventions that the human mind has subjectively credited with existence over the past couple of millennia. Furthermore, given that it was only over the past couple of millennia or so that homo sapiens first perceived subjectively of 'God', and that 'He' was unknown and unheard of during the previous 250,000 years from homo sapiens' first appearance, not to mention 'His' complete non-existence during the couple of million years previous to that when the genus homo first appeared, even 'His' subjective existence is insignificantly recent.

Interestingly enough, the problems caused by entities existing only subjectively and not objectively was recognised in the 18th century by theologian George Berkeley, who some also considered to have been an empiricist philosopher. Berkeley maintained that we cannot know if entities exist objectively, but instead one can know only that they are perceived in one's mind, that is, we can only know directly that entities exist subjectively. To counter the objection that the subjective existence of entities does not prove their objective existence, and to rebut the objection that entities would cease to exist if there was not a mind perceiving them, that is that they must have an objective existence outside one's mind if they are real phenomena, Berkeley argued that there is always a mind perceiving them, and that mind is none other than that of 'God'. Furthermore, Berkeley opined that it was 'God' who' actually causes the subjective perception of an entity to appear in one's mind in the first place. Strange, is it not, that Berkeley did not appear to consider the logical conclusion: that 'God' only exists objectively if there was yet a greater mind subjectively perceiving 'Him'. But then that would have been seen as an admission that if Berkeley's argument had succeeded in proving his 'God's' objective existence (which it had not), then his 'God' was a mere minor objective 'deity' at best in the panoply of so-called 'deities', and consequently 'He' did not merit the claims that Berkeley and others had made for 'Him' being the supreme omniscient, all-powerful one.

So, we are now in a position to answer the question in the title with a resounding 'NO'. 'God' does not exist objectively, and those who maintain otherwise have completely failed to provide any credible empiric evidence to support their psychopatholigical 'belief' in this entity that they claim to worship and revere. Indeed, there is statistically as much probability of proving that any one of the myriad of other so-called 'gods' and mythical creatures that mankind has invented exists, objectively, as this thing which the dysfunctional and manipulative amongst us refer to as 'God'.

7 comments:

Alan Mackenzie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Merchant of Menace said...

Looks like someone had second thoughts.

Alan Mackenzie said...

I deleted the previous comment, because I omitted something.

'He' is absolutely indistinguishable qualitatively from Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Cthulhu, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any of the other 199,367,401 or so fanciful inventions that the human mind has subjectively credited with existence over the past couple of millennia.

Fantasies such as the Tooth Fairy would be conditioned phenomenon, if they existed. That is, they are contingent upon the physical structure of the universe. The "God" of theology, however, is said to be unconditioned, and necessary. In other words, "God" does not require anything before it, and so is exempt from probabilistic arguments (either for or against "His" existence).

This is why the cosmological fine-tuning argument doesn't work: if "God" is unconditioned, then the improbability that the universe emerged in the way it did, does not raise the probability of a fine-tuner, since an eternal "God" is not dependent upon something existing before
or after "Him". You cannot raise the probability of something which has always existed. Many physicists fail to notice this, but then again, the fine-tuning argument is a superficially plausible delusion to statuminate the presuppositions of "sophisticated" theists.

Regardless of this, what is the difference between an imaginary contingent, and a fabulated necessary?

The Merchant of Menace said...

Sorry. Wrong. The Tooth Fairy et al are not conditioned phenomena - since there is no evidence that their existence is contingent on the physical structure of the universe.

What's more, 'God' is himself conditioned, since 'He' only exists in the mind of homo sapiens - and a relatively few of those, considering how long we have trod the Earth - and has no existence outside our cognition, if at all.

Mind you, I recently heard another risible 'proof' that 'God' existed, viz: (a) science cannot explain how the universe was created out of nothing, (b) science cannot explain why the cosmos is so 'beautiful', (c)science cannot explain what life is, and (d) there is no evidence that the human mind existed prior to 35-40K years ago.

The foregoing drivel was uttered in an interview which can be heard here by no less than Gagdad Bob, AKA Robert Godwin, the self-styled 'cosmic integral philosopher'.

Alan Mackenzie said...

Sorry. Wrong. The Tooth Fairy et al are not conditioned phenomena - since there is no evidence that their existence is contingent on the physical structure of the universe.

What's more, 'God' is himself conditioned, since 'He' only exists in the mind of homo sapiens - and a relatively few of those, considering how long we have trod the Earth - and has no existence outside our cognition, if at all.


I was simply playing the reasonable, sensible, open-minded agnostic, carefully considering the possibility, that if the God of theology existed, then it would be unconditioned. You can't get any more moderate than that! What's more, since we can't disprove the Tooth Fairy, therefore there is a 50/50 chance that...I'll shut up now!

Alan Mackenzie said...

The foregoing drivel was uttered in an interview which can be heard here by no less than Gagdad Bob, AKA Robert Godwin, the self-styled 'cosmic integral philosopher'.

Gosh, don't sociopaths sound soooo phonetically normal, except when the content of their dialogue transfigures into the kind of tosh uttered by Robert W. Godwin.

The Merchant of Menace said...

And not single word he uttered proved 'God's' objective existence, and neither was any of it valid nor original.

In short, the grotesquely inappropriately named Mr Godwin simply regurgitates the usual irrational nonsense, non sequiturs, invalid logic and tired sophistries that religious apologists and psychopathological personalities have bleated on about for years - and none of it is any more valid just because he chooses to pass it off as his own original thoughts.