Statement: I believe the chance of being alive _or in better wording being conscious_ by accident is so low that we have no other option to believe in a creator.
Discussion: Obviously, this is not a scientific statement. Because it is not testable. Wait a minute; or it is?
Actually, it is testable. All you need is a computer simulation _sometimes you don’t even need that. It is enough to compute the probability of you being born if all we know is that your grandmothers married your grandfathers; leave it alone the probability of your father and mother bring you into being if all we know is that Adam has met Eve or that the Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago. Do you want me to compute these probabilities for you? Short answer: absolute ZERO.
Any scientist _no matter which field of science_ with a background in theory of probability can confirm that there is a God. However, you probably need to bring the topic up after midnight when he is alone, reclining on a sofa.
It doesn’t matter that you are a biologist or an astronomer; just think about a bacteria or the earth. Then compute the probability of its emergence with all its necessary conditions after the Singularity point. You believe in God even if you are not aware.
Of course, this statement does not have the other necessary condition of a scientific proposition: making falsifiable predictions. But do we really need this condition to hold? I say no. If you have the following two conditions, then no we don’t need to check for falsifiable predictions: being a scientist familiar with probabilities and being brave.
Note: Let me clarify that probably we do not need God to explain the physical phenomena of nature. There is a chance that science will cover this regime better and better as we go through the time. But we need God to explain the whole “being”. God is not something to use to cover the gap; probably, there exist no gap in the universe. But God is what explains the “fact” of existence of the universe.
2 thoughts on “What is science? Who is God?: The two necessary conditions”
“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight… I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!”
― Richard P. Feynman, Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics By Its Most Brilliant Teacher
There is no point in calculating the probability of the events that have already happened. If my grandparents hadn’t met, I wouldn’t even be here let alone contemplate the likelihood of my existence
If the conditions for the start of life were not met, it wouldn’t start and we wouldn’t be here.
If the language instinct had not evolved in us, we wouldn’t be holding our current special place in nature
Unlikely is simply not the same as impossible
It doesn’t matter that you are a biologist or an astronomer; just think about a bacteria or the earth””” Then compute the probability of its emergence with all its necessary conditions after the Singularity point. You believe in God even if you are not aware.”””
So openly non-theist/religious scientists are all pretending to be non-theists, and in their hearts know that God is real? Even if they have repeatedly stated their beliefs about a creator? Why not just accept their statements as sincere
“If we are honest — and scientists have to be — we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality. The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination”
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one
” We are each free to believe what we want, and it’s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that I am extremely grateful.”
““It doesn’t seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different planets, and all these atoms with all their motions, and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil – which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama.”
Thank you for your great comment. I wish I had more comments like this one in this blog. You are providing 2 arguments in your comment which I prefer to discuss them separately.
-“There is no point in calculating the probability of the events that have already happened”. I’m aware of this. And this is exactly why the idea of this post is not testable, as I clearly mentioned. I’m not providing scientific proof nor pointing to an evident fact, here. This writing is just an invitation to wonder and perplexity. Science and physics have limitations. They cannot answer each and every question _if they could why we are still discussing the most important question of humankind?_ However, it can still be helpful; even if science cannot explain everything it can give us insight. I’m trying to exploit the power of science to bring the reader to the border of perplexity, where science doesn’t work anymore, and then invite her to think out of the very huge, still limited, box of science. I believe this is the only way of answering all the important questions we’re struggling within our life.
-Of course, a large portion of scientists do not believe in God, not even in their hurt. I agree with you that I exaggerated it; not all of the scientists choose to think out of the box.