Musings of a Teenager

So, finally, we have the final part of this series:

Pascal's Wager
This is an 'argument' (if you can call it that) by Blaise Pascal, hte famous French mathematician. It states that it is a better bet to believe that God exists than to believe he doesn't. This is because if God doesn't exist it doesn't matter. If he does, however, and you believe in him, then you will go to heaven. If you don't believe in him, you will go to hell. There you are, for believing in him you have +1 and for not -1. Simple. But we are assuming that heaven is better than hell. Do all people think that way? And, that believing in him automatically gets you past St Peter but if you don't you're out on your ear. Is this correct. I thought it was more 'Have you been naughty or nice?'. This is a nice idea, one of my favourites but it doesn't change my viewpoint.

So, Do I believe in God?
No. This is because I, as I have said before, 'know' in science. I feel that science explains everything better. I think that religion was early sceince. A way to explain things that we couldn't. This is seen in the Creation story and the Tower of Babel. Explaining the creation of the universe and language respectively. Then you have people or events in the public memory who were slightly special but who's stories grew in the telling. For this I would cite Noah's Flood and the prophets. I know some people believe in God. This is fine. I would be the first person to stand up for you. But, for me, it just isn't right.

We are now on the highly successful bloghares.com site. The site is a fantasy stockmarket where you buy and sell shares using fictional money in blogs!

The following is the second part of my ramble into the existence (or non-existence) of God. This was inspired by reading the book: The Science of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. A book which I firmly recommend. It is very easy reading and a brilliant introduction to various key topics in science and religion today.
As I have said this is inspired by H2G2 and so I am going to start with a quote from the same:
"Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
The above is a statement by God during a discussion with man about his existence. It revolves around a creature called the babel fish which, when inserted into the ear canal, can help you understand anything said to you in any language. It is used by man to prove that God can't exist, God then promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
If you read my article (The (Non-)Existence of God #1: 3 Simple Proofs) you will have read some classic 'proofs' of the existence of God. Therefore, by Adams logic, God cannot exist. Simple. Except that this is a paradox. He does not exist because we can prove he exists. This is obviously what Adams was hoping the reader would notice and not take any further. So I shall. We have made several assumptions with the above paradox. #1: Proof denies faith: If we remove this for a moment we can proof he exists and therefore he exists. But not everything proves he exists, we have 'proofs' to the contrary. If we assume for the moment that the proofs are correct then we 'know' he exists. But this is religion, not science. You only 'know' in science, you 'believe' in religion. If this were to be reversed, or changed in some other form, then the world would collapse and we would be back to square one. #2: We have proof. This is simple, if we don't have proof he either exists, or doesn't. #3: An argument = a proof. This is slightly more profound. We only, so far, have arguments, or logic to prove he exists, no measurements or 'proper proof'. This is once again blurring the boundaries of science and religion but bare with me. If an argument does not equal a proof then God is once again in a state of fluctuation. He could wither exist or not as in #2. However, If an argument = a proof we are back to the paradox. This has proved that an argument does not equal a proof. So once again God is in limbo.
Above I mentioned about knowledge and believing and how I believe one is for science and the other religion. This might seem to some like the difference between truth and lies, black and white. But it is more likely shades of grey. As Adams' original statement shows, they are not the same. But can they be compared? Can they be used in the same context? Science and religion have a weird relationship. If religion is true then a lot of science isn't but if science is true then religion may or may not be. Can we use the same terminology for each? This is where I was coming from when I said last time that 'I know in science'. How would the logic change if we had an argument instead of a proof or we didn't mix proof and faith? I for one have had enough of philosophy for one day and so am not going to discuss it.
Chance. The original argument in H2G2 is about chance. The babel fish is proof of your existence. As such, we should probably have used the complexity of the universe in our analogy but nevermind. This is of course assuming the universe cannot have evolved by chance. Again, I think we are mixing things here. The abstract concept of God's existence with the physical object that is the universe. Is this possible. Only if he exists is one possible argument, again producing a paradox. Back to chance. Some scientists may state quantum mechanics or chaos theory for the complexity of the universe, and I would agree. But is it as complex as it seems? It may be that it is governed by a few simple laws. If not of physics, then of maths and logic. To quote Einstein 'Make physics as simple as possible, but not simpler.' This is a very interesting subject and one which I will go into more detail about at a later date.

This Wed: The (Non-)Existence of God #3: Notes and Addendum.

In Klatchian Fields

People join the Klatchian Foreign Legion to forget. To all intents and purposes it is very good at its job.
But, when you have forgotten your mission and are under seige from your own reinforcements, Death, is your only friend. Unfortunately, he is otherwise engaged.

Features: Death, Susan, the Auditors, the Hogfather, the Tooth Fairy, plus a wide selection of new and exciting characters.

Against God:
1. Everything would prove the existence of God (I'll come back to this next time)
2. All religions would be the same, and have the same number of Gods, etc. This could be explained by different interpretations and changes over time but I'm not so sure.
3. Transcendental numbers, why would God make everything else so perfect and yet these numbers so, strange?
These above three I have created for this article. By this I do not claim to be their inventor. Someone else may have postulated them before or I may have read something similar.

For:
1. The Universe is so complicated that it cannot have developed just by chance (again, I'll come back to this in the future.
2. Cause and Effect. Every effect must have a cause. Eg, This blog is caused by me. I am caused by my parents. They were caused by their parents, etc. Something must be there to start this chain going as it cannot go back to infinity. There must therefore be a first cause: God. (but who caused God?)
3. I exist. I can imagine God. I am imperfect. Imperfect beings cannot invent the idea of God. Therefore God must exist.
The second idea was postulated by a monk named St Thomas Aquinas whilst the third, and least successful, by French Philosopher Rene Descartes. There is a story behind the first which goes. A man was walking over the hills one day and found a pocket watch. When he looked inside at it he saw how complicated it was and 'knew' it had to be made. Then he realised this could be used to prove the existence of god.

I don't think I can believe in God. This is because I 'know' in science. I will come back to this difference next time in: The (Non-)Existence of God #2: Douglas Adams, Paradoxes and Shades of Grey.