Expert: Philip A. Stahl - 1/30/2009

Question
IF you say that there is no God, Then how come propechies has been fulfilld in a certain religios scripture? How can you scientificly prove that there is no God? There is a religios scripture with science then why do yuo say tehre is no God? Are you confident and sure that there is no God?
People have seen and experienced things that are beyond science.

Answer
Hello,

First, no one claims (at least I do not) that one can "scientifically prove" there is no God. In effect, this is tantamount ot proving a negative, which is logically impossible.

What I say, is that there are no arguments I have seen that show me the claim is in any way credible or probable. In the same way, I would say a claim for elves or fairies is neither credible or probable.

This is not to say or assert that I can say with 100% ceritiude that an inivisible elf is not spying on me right now as I type this, but I am not going to lose sleep over it. I instead ignore there is anything substantive there.

Let's take this in more depth.

Let us examine it from the perspective of a conundrum (for lack of better term) posed by the mathematician Leibniz (co-discoverer of the Calculus).

WHY is there something rather than nothing?

If “nothing” be the simpler state, in which an invisible deity could still exist as “spirit”,  then why “create” a universe? Especially one which would be fraught with violence, despair, “sin” and all the rest. Also one which an ominiscient deity would have to know (IF it was judgmental) that it would have to condemn billions before he even created them.

This itself makes the act of creation an act of violence against those created- who would not be able (for whatever reason, including where born) to live up to its standards.

Thus, we would have to question on an a fortiori basis any "judgmental" (recognizing "right" or "wrong" acts etc) deity that created the cosmos. It could not have good will at its core, since it would know its act would condemn billions it would have to know about before it even began.

Leibniz himself used two premises: 1) the principle of sufficient reason, and 2) an a priori argument from simplicity for the presupposition that – spontaneously – the universe feature nothing contingent at all, because the Null universe (nothingness) is the most natural of all.

As he put it:

“the great principle of sufficient reason holds that nothing takes place without sufficient reason…a reason (or condition) to determine why it is thus and not otherwise”

Thus, the principle having been laid down the first question one must ask is: Why is there something rather than nothing?  (For ‘nothing’ is simpler, easier and less problematic than something. NO need for pain, sacrifice, crucifixions, saviors, death, sin, horrors etc. so why create something that in effect destroys an already PERFECT world and Being?)

Let us also bear in mind that if an all perfect Being already existed, it would have no need to create at all. It would be complete, perfect, self-sufficient and non-contingent. In effect, by creating it really **adds something** (universe) to itself – so it cannot be “infinite” in the true sense, unless it and the universe are one and the same. Worse, it adds imperfection to itself so it is no longer perfect. (If one argues the universe is a separate creation from the deity, then one is saying the deity is not infinite)

Thus, Leibniz solved his conundrum by reverting to the Null hypothesis: that there ought to be nothing rather than something.

However, the external evidence points to something, and hence this something is unexpected from the Principle of sufficient reason. Therefore, the actual existence of this something cries out for an explanation.

Hence, it is the job of the deity believer to explain **why** there is this actual existence in addition to positing his God. This also underscores his principle of sufficient reason to account for why we have something rather than nothing.  Or to put it another way:

Why wasn’t ‘nothing’ (no creation- pre-perfection) good enough for the creative force or deity?

Why perform an act of creation that renders it imperfect?

Why the need to invoke the principle of sufficient reason to justify a God claim? Because it provides the optimum a fortiori basis for accepting the claim. Without it one is expected to adopt a simple, “received” communication as truth, and hence concede one’s own truth position is inferior to the claimant’s.

This is true irrespective of whether the claim issues from the communicator’s mouth or a book (e.g. Bible). In either case, the recipient is expected to make his own truth position subservient. Of course, such action also amounts to committing the logical fallacy of “appeal to authority”. (Another reason I do not accept any so-called "prophecies" or claims of such from the bible, since: i) they amount to appeals to authority, and ii) as Bart D. Ehrman has noted, one cannot be 100% certain of what those ancient words really mean or if they were translated or copied with 100% faithfulness)

Applying all the preceding to the ontology of “non-contingent creator”, it must be shown it exists **independently of being thought of**. (E.g. there must be the case it has positive presence independent of the existence of human brains which might get tempted to confabulate it.)

Here’s another way to propose it: If one demands that this entity is not susceptible to independent existence, and therefore the mere announcement or writing of the words incurs validity, then the supposed condition has nothing to do with reality. It is like averring we all live inside a 12-dimensonal flying spaghetti monster. I would be laughed into oblivion, especially as I incur no special benediction (as you do) by invoking the G-noun.

In effect, if the proposed “non-contingent creator”  isn’t subject to independent existence, then its alleged “truth” is separated from verification. Truth then becomes what is communicated to us by proxy (or proxy vehicle, e.g. bible writers, or theologians)  with the existent (abstraction “God", "Yahweh")  in the mind of the communicator who deems himself qualified to make the “truth” exist.

But such a “truth” is fraudulent and cannot be a valid expression of the condition. What it means is there is little assurance the communicated secondary artifact has all the elements and particulars needed to be an affirmed REAL entity. The truth is dispensed according to our needs (in this case the need to believe humans are seen after by a Cosmic Daddy) – all we need ignore is the constellation of evidence that refutes it.


How to escape from this ontological problem? Short of the pre-recognition (and acceptance) of the entity in the mind of the other – the only alternative for the ***communicator*** (believer) to show at least ONE sufficient condition (reason) for the existence of his claim.

A sufficient condition is one which, if present, the entity must exist.

For example, a sufficient condition for the existence of a hydrogen emission nebula in space would be proximity of the nebula to a radiating star. (The necessary condition is the nebula exist in the first place). In this case, the star’s radiation causes the hydrogen atoms in the nebula to become excited – cause electrons to jump to higher energy levels- then go to lower with the emission of photons)

Can you provide me with a necessary and sufficient condition for your God to exist?

If you are unable to do so, it is not incumbent on me to take the claim any more seriously than if you assert you have ten dimensiona aliens inhabiting your attic.

Hopefully, you see where I am coming from here!