Expert: Austin Cline - 7/7/2009

Question
QUESTION: How can we be sure that no god exists anywhere in this whole universe. Scientists usually can't tell about something which is beyod their limits. Many areas far from this earth are beyond the limits of science so how can one be so sure that god can't exist in any way and in any form. Also i want you to please give me some logical or any other evidence which cleary proove that god doesn't exist and there is no controller of this universe who writes the destiny of all the living beings

ANSWER: "How can we be sure that no god exists anywhere in this whole universe."

Depends on how "god" is defined. When undefined, it's not an entity or force worth worrying about.

"Also i want you to please give me some logical or any other evidence which cleary proove that god doesn't exist and there is no controller of this universe who writes the destiny of all the living beings"

Again, depends on how "god" is defined; however, the burden of proof lies with those making the claim - in this case, you the believer. Without a clear proof that "god" exists (however you define it), it's just a waste of time to worry about.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: I don't have any proof of god and i am not a believer. I am a agnostic who is inclined towards athiesm. Personally, i don't want god to exist as it is the source of superstitions and fear. However before completely renouncing the religion, i want to be sure that no god exists in any way and any form because i don't want to be penalised in this life or any life for disobeying religions(incase they happen to be true).

Secondly i would like to give you the definition of the god, i was talking about.
God for me is a consious or unconsious force which regulates the good or bad things done by the humans in the world. This force checks the actions of the human beings and punish them or reward them for their deeds. For example if a person tells a lie and if something bad happens to him due to the ill effects of his lie, then the force that is regulating this happening can be defined as god.

ANSWER: "However before completely renouncing the religion, i want to be sure that no god exists in any way and any form because i don't want to be penalised in this life or any life for disobeying religions(incase they happen to be true)."

1. There is a difference between being an atheist and being irreligious. There are theists who are irreligious and atheists who are religious.

2. Do you plan on investigating every religion that has ever existed in order to "be sure"? If not, how can you follow any religion while knowing that you might be following the wrong one?

"God for me is a consious or unconsious force which regulates the good or bad things done by the humans in the world. "

Well, there clearly aren't any forces (outside of us) which regulate anything we do. We do good and bad things without any outside interferences. So, this "God" definitely doesn't exist.

Also, you said you are "not a believer," but here you give a definition of "God" for you. If this is a god you believe in, then you are a believer. If this is just a hypothetical definition raised for the purpose of discussion, why *this* definition? Where did it come from? What causes you to attribute these particular characteristics to it and no others? You should stop to ponder those questions and the degree to which you are contemplating a concept created from elements in your surrounding culture rather than based on any independent, objective reasons to think it might exist.

"This force checks the actions of the human beings and punish them or reward them for their deeds. "

Well, it's clear that there are on punishments or rewards beyond those we impose, so this "God" doesn't exist.

You can forget punishments and rewards in an afterlife. First, who you are is based entirely on your memories and personality — if they were destroyed, you'd be a different person. They are entirely dependent on your physical brain, though, so when the brain dies then so do you - there will be no more "you" to be punished or rewarded. There is no reason to think that anything like an immortal, immaterial, supernatural soul exists, but if it does it's not "you."

Even if we ignore all this, though, eternal punishment and rewards for temporal deeds is unjust no matter how you look at it. Moreover, punishment and reward in the afterlife is pointless because they are unable to modify behavior. We punish and reward here and now to modify future behavior, but an afterlife is completely removed from this and therefore is removed from the point of punishment and reward.

"For example if a person tells a lie and if something bad happens to him due to the ill effects of his lie, then the force that is regulating this happening can be defined as god."

If you lie to me, I'll stop trusting you and interacting with you. Therefore, I'm god. If you lie to your neighbor, they'll stop trusting you. Therefore, your neighbor is god.

Based on this definition, every person, every institution, and every social force is "god" to you. That's hardly sensible or useful.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Austin, thanks a lot for your reply. Your reply was truely helpful and great. However, i request another follow up to conclude this debate.

"There is a difference between being an atheist and being irreligious. There are theists who are irreligious and atheists who are religious."

It's amazing! I never heard about athiests who are religious. Sir, kindly inform me more about the religious athiests. What kind of persons they are? Do they believe in god or not? How are they different from irreligious athiests?

"Do you plan on investigating every religion that has ever existed in order to "be sure"? If not, how can you follow any religion while knowing that you might be following the wrong one?"

No sir, I am not planning to probe all religions. As you know most of the religions don't differ a lot on the basic concepts of God, hell and heaven. Most of the religions believe that God is an almighty force that has created everything that exists. They also believe that this supernatural force punishes and rewards the human beings for their actions and to carry out this it has created hell and heaven.
So, for my personal satisfaction i just want only these basic myths to be wiped out of my mind as all the advanced concepts of all religions are based on these common myths.

"Also, you said you are "not a believer," but here you give a definition of "God" for you. If this is a god you believe in, then you are a believer. If this is just a hypothetical definition raised for the purpose of discussion, why *this* definition? Where did it come from? What causes you to attribute these particular characteristics to it and no others? You should stop to ponder those questions and the degree to which you are contemplating a concept created from elements in your surrounding culture rather than based on any independent, objective reasons to think it might exist."

Sir i told you that i am an agnostic, so i cannot be a believer. The definition i told you is just for the discussion. The above given definition of God is similar to the definition proposed by most of the contemporary world religions. I don't believe in this definition but i am not sure about if it is 100% false and that's why i termed myself agnostic.

"You can forget punishments and rewards in an afterlife. First, who you are is based entirely on your memories and personality — if they were destroyed, you'd be a different person. They are entirely dependent on your physical brain, though, so when the brain dies then so do you - there will be no more "you" to be punished or rewarded. There is no reason to think that anything like an immortal, immaterial, supernatural soul exists, but if it does it's not "you." "

Now the most serious part sir!
Our physical brain stores our memories and personality. I agree. However, as you know that we can transfer data stored in the hard drive of mobiles and computers to other devices - So why can't the memories and personality stored in our brain(hard drive) can get transfered or remain alive even after we die. Can't they be in form of waves which are free to travel in air as waves from mobiles do?
One more question i have is where this consiousness came from. Is it a result of cause and effect relationship? If yes than how? I am not saying that there is a god behind it. I just want to know its origin because there are many unconsious inorganic things, which have been here in the earth for so many years without any need to aquire consiousness. Cause and effect relationship works everywhere and on everything but why only we living beings aquired the consiousness.

"If you lie to me, I'll stop trusting you and interacting with you. Therefore, I'm god. If you lie to your neighbor, they'll stop trusting you. Therefore, your neighbor is god"

Last but not the least, i would like to tell you that here i am talking about the ill affects which one cannot reason. For eg. I told lie that i didn't drink liquor. Nobody came to know about my lie - niether the person whom i told nor my neigbours. So what do you think will happen to me? Will i be punished in some supernatural way or will i remain unscathed?

Thanks  

Answer
"I never heard about athiests who are religious. Sir, kindly inform me more about the religious athiests. What kind of persons they are? Do they believe in god or not? How are they different from irreligious athiests?"

Not all religions are theistic.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/AtheismReligion.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/p/AtheistReligion.htm

"No sir, I am not planning to probe all religions. As you know most of the religions don't differ a lot on the basic concepts of God, hell and heaven."

Actually, most religions differ tremendously. Some don't have gods. Some have many gods. Some don't have hells. All have different belief and practice requirements. Religions vary so much that scholars have had trouble developing a consistent, useful definition of what "religion" really is — some definitions are so narrow that they exclude some obvious religions while other definitions are so broad that they include things like baseball.

http://atheism.about.com/od/religiondefinition/

You can't be a good Christian, good Muslim, good Hindu, and good follower of Odin all at the same time.

"The above given definition of God is similar to the definition proposed by most of the contemporary world religions."

It is a very superficial summary of some basic characteristics which are common in the modern West. It leaves out many characteristics considered important for many religious believers in the West and isn't at all like what is believed and has been believed elsewhere.

As a point of comparison, these are the characteristics typically assumed and used in what one might call "Western Philosophical Theism":

http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/u/AtheologyReligionCriticism.htm#s2

These aren't accepted by all who call themselves Christians, but they are accepted as orthodox by most traditional Christians. They aren't all accepted by Jews and Muslims. Few are accepted by Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, etc.

"I don't believe in this definition but i am not sure about if it is 100% false and that's why i termed myself agnostic."

You could say the same about almost any randomly selected set of possible characteristics. Can you be 100% sure that Shiva doesn't exist? Odin? Can you be 100% sure that the deity of Process Theology is false?

"Our physical brain stores our memories and personality. I agree. However, as you know that we can transfer data stored in the hard drive of mobiles and computers to other devices - So why can't the memories and personality stored in our brain(hard drive) can get transfered or remain alive even after we die. "

I didn't say that they can't be transferred, but if they can be transferred it will only be to some material system that has the requisite structure and capacity. Even then, it's an open question whether the differences from the original organic brain would be enough to mimic the effects of brain damage, thus resulting in an essentially different "person."

"Can't they be in form of waves which are free to travel in air as waves from mobiles do?"

Our memories and personality are dependent on particular brain structures which cannot be replicated directly in energy waves. It is the structure of the brain with its particular connections (and lack thereof) which helps constitute what we are.

"One more question i have is where this consiousness came from. Is it a result of cause and effect relationship?"

It is created by the operation of the physical brain, rather like digestion. "Consciousness" is simply the brain operating.

"I just want to know its origin because there are many unconsious inorganic things, which have been here in the earth for so many years without any need to aquire consiousness."

They also have no need to acquire digestion. Do you wonder as much about that? Singling out consciousness betrays that one is assuming from the outset that there is something special about consciousness. Instead, you should be treating it like other natural, biological phenomena and only think it is special when there is particular, specific evidence for that conclusion.

"I told lie that i didn't drink liquor. Nobody came to know about my lie - niether the person whom i told nor my neigbours. So what do you think will happen to me?"

Nothing that isn't from yourself.

"Will i be punished in some supernatural way"

Of course not. First, there is no evidence for anything supernatural - you might as well wonder if fairies will punish you. Second, it's bizarrely arrogant to think that there would be creator-god that set up a supernatural system to punish lies like that - as if any deity cared enough. Neither you nor your lies are important enough for such a being to set up such a system.

I notice that none of this has had anything to do with any "surity of athiesm."