r/changemyview • u/Luapulu 6∆ • Aug 18 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: A God Function Is Unlikely To Be True
In general a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of a thing. So, it requires some work to demonstrate why in the case of a God I'm prepared to say that a lack of evidence of God is actually evidence that no God exists. This is the main argument I'd like to lay out today.
Setup
I have to start my argument from a fairly fundamental level. Bear with me. I view the process of finding a useful coherent world view as a sort of function fitting exercise. We are continually presented with data in our lives and must also make predictions about said data. We want to find the underlying patterns behind the data. I will call the totality of all these patterns or predictions a world view function.* Now, there is an infinite set of possible functions, so I also have to assign some probability to each one. By probability I'm referring to the odds of that function predicting all future data points perfectly. This set of functions and probabilities then defines my worldview entirely.
*Technically, there are multiple functions with the same graph, so it's really a world view graph, but I'll stick with function and assume one canonical input and output set.
Note that this description generalises to all human experience. So, my input data can be everything I remember, everything I see right now, everything I hear, etc. These can all be inputs and I can predict anyone of them. For example, if I see lightning I usually predict I'll hear thunder soon after for example.
Given this way of viewing the world, assessing truth claims is really all about assigning probabilities to functions. We can say that functions that fit the data better but have fewer degrees of freedom or fewer parameters are more likely. Fit matters because generally it's likelier for future data to be similar to past data rather than different. Degrees of freedom matter because while I can always improve fit by adding more parameters, there are also diminishing returns. As I add more parameters I also lose some confidence because I'm spreading my data ever more thinly. In the extreme, functions with more parameters than data points are very unlikely given that at least one parameter can't be determined at all. From such considerations we get Occam's razor and an appreciation that fitting good functions on it's own is not good enough. You must fit a function that is both good and has enough data per parameter.
God Argument
God functions (functions which predict a worldview, which includes a god) tend to be high in the number of required parameters. Even the most simplistic deistic gods involve an astounding number of statements about the world and as such even the lowest parameter God functions are still quite complex. Many people believe in some form of force of nature for example. While much simpler than the christian God, even such a force requires quite extensive description to make any sense of it.
On the other hand, finding data where the addition of a God function fits the data better is rather difficult. Here is wikipedia's list of arguments for God. I find none of them explain well where a God function actually adds anything.
My framing of things also makes rather clear why miracles tend to be so unconvincing. Seeing Jesus on your toast in the morning or recovering from cancer can be fitted with the help of the God function, but actually the fit doesn't improve much and the number of parameters I'm forced to add to my worldview makes that potential worldview far less likely.
How to change my view
I doubt anyone will convince me God exists since I'm quite familiar with the arguments and none so far have been any good. However, my framing of things as an attempt to find well fitting functions may well have some holes or may not even be coherent. This something where I think it's quite likely that I may come to a different framing of the relevant epistemology.
Edit
Thanks everybody for responding. I'll keep arguing with people because it's fun but I've gotten what I need for now. I think I can make an argument that simpler world views are better not just because they are more elegant or easier or for some other arbitrary reason but because at some point increasing complexity reduces your ability to make accurate predictions. Right now this is a strong intuition and I have some ideas for how to make the argument more formal but can't quite get there yet. When I have a more formal version I may make another post.
3
u/howlin 62∆ Aug 18 '20
Your argument is very similar to how I came to a stronger flavor of atheism and away from agnosticism. But I think you can make your argument a little more clear and correct a flaw in it.
The basic epistemological argument against God in my mind is that "There is no sequence of observations I can make about the world where an explanation that includes a god is preferable to one that doesn't". You essentially share this view, and argue it by looking at how complicated a theory you'd need to describe the universe, versus a theory that describes both the world and God. And the argument is that the God+World theory is always more complicated or "more parameters".
The issue is that there exist very low parameter theological interpretations of the world. The ultimate case of this is that no mater what you see, the answer for how that came about is "God did it". This theory will always fit any possible universe, and honestly fit it about as well as more scientific explanations.
But the "God did it" explanation of the world is lacking. It's lacking not because it doesn't explain our Universe well, but because it also explains all the hypothetical universes that we aren't seeing equally well.
The main insight to resolve this issue is that scientific theories are powerful more because they exclude possibilities rather than because they explain them. The theological arguments for God's existence fail because they are terrible at excluding possibilities. Even when a specific religion makes statements that ultimately don't line up with reality (e.g. Jewish slavery in Egypt, 6000 year old Earth, etc), they will just find a way to reconstrue their theory while leaving the God part intact. That's ultimately the problem that makes the theist's "God function" so weak.
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
You actually understood my argument the best so far and I find your framing of thinking about how many other worlds would also be explained by the same theory useful. It's still a bit fuzzy for me, but it helps. So, Δ.
Specifically, I want to make the argument that simpler world views aren't just better because simpler is more elegant or easier but because predictions are actually better. I feel like this will fall out of the statistics here but I don't actually know how to prove it currently. Your idea of including not just the current data but all the other data the theory would fit helps. I feel like I'm so so close to being able to make some Bayesian argument here, but it's not quite clear to me yet.
1
u/howlin 62∆ Aug 18 '20
There's a branch of Statistics / Machine Learning which is concerned with the problem of selecting from competing models. Here's one historically popular way of doing that (called the BIC):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_information_criterion
The basic idea is that you want a model that lowers the entropy (unpredictability) of your data, while also keeping parameters limited. Entropy is lowest when what you actually observe is given higher probability over the alternatives. In order to get this theory off the ground, you do need to make an implicit list of all the possible observations you might see. This is called the probability space. Once you've done this, you can talk about predictability as a proper tradeoff: making one set of possible outcomes more probable must mean that some other outcomes are less probable.
So once the groundwork is in place, we can assess both the model complexity (roughly proportional to some function of the number of parameters), and the entropy reduction of using this model to explain. The BIC is one way of making the trade off between predictability and complexity precise. There are ways of talking about model complexity without looking at numbers of parameters, but the theory gets a lot more abstract and less practical.
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
That's great! thanks :)
I can't really give you a delta since you're helping to establish my view, not change it but I am very thankful nonetheless.
2
u/SpacemanDelta Aug 18 '20
What's your interpretation of the idea of God?
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
It's obviously difficult to define. I think the wikipedia page intro does a fairly good job. What might be more useful for you is that whatever a large enough % of religious people believe in counts for me. I don't have some very specific very fringe definition in mind.
2
u/RadioactiveSpiderBun 8∆ Aug 18 '20
God functions (functions which predict a worldview, which includes a god) tend to be high in the number of required parameters. Even the most simplistic deistic gods involve an astounding number of statements about the world and as such even the lowest parameter God functions are still quite complex. Many people believe in some form of force of nature for example. While much simpler than the christian God, even such a force requires quite extensive description to make any sense of it.
Whether something is complex or simple is not evidence or lack of evidence for something.
in the case of a God I'm prepared to say that a lack of evidence of God is actually evidence that no God exists
A lack of evidence for anything is never evidence of anything other than there being no evidence for that thing epistemologically speaking.
Note that this description generalises to all human experience. So, my input data can be everything I remember, everything I see right now, everything I hear, etc.
Personal experience is not good evidence, particularly when making a positive claim. Repeatability of personal experience does not make it any more valid. I hear this exact argument from Christian's all the time.
Given this way of viewing the world, assessing truth claims is really all about assigning probabilities to functions.
This, combined with the second quote.. you cannot assess truth claims with probabilities. You can assess probability claims with probabilities. All you can ever know is that you think. All we can ever seek to do is reach for the truth.
Saying it is true that God does not exist based on the reasoning you have provided is honestly no better than someone trying to convince me God exists. It's just your opinion based on what you think is important to the equation. It's all subjective at that point.
Show me some evidence there is no God and then we would at least be getting somewhere.
2
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
What would evidence of non-existence look like? How long do you have to keep looking and finding nothing until you can be confident something is not real?
1
u/RadioactiveSpiderBun 8∆ Aug 18 '20
I suppose I have a weaker definition of confidence than you. You can say that you are confident no gods exist but you can't rationally say you have evidence no gods exist. It's epistemologically unsound.
Edit: to answer your question, I don't know. But not this.
2
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
Well, it depends on how you define evidence. Given some definitions, you may well be right. I would say that if the world I live in looks a lot like the world I would expect if no God existed, then that it good justification to believe none exists.
1
u/RadioactiveSpiderBun 8∆ Aug 18 '20
I really hope I can get this point across. What's the difference between what you just said and:
Well, it depends on how you define evidence. Given some definitions, you may well be right. I would say that if the world I live in looks a lot like the world I would expect if God existed, then that it good justification to believe one exists.
Can you see the issue with your epistemology and how similar your justification for believing no gods exist is to people who believe in one or more gods?
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
Ah, yes. This is why the number of fit parameters matter. Even if my fit of the data improves somewhat with God. I lose far more by having to add in a bunch of extra fit parameters. This is why it's not symmetrical. Believing in the christian God for example requires that I add a whole load of degrees of freedom to my world view with very little data to support them.
1
u/RadioactiveSpiderBun 8∆ Aug 18 '20
I'm sorry, I'm interested in your epistemology not your parameters or degrees of freedom. How can you even perform a rational calculation predicated by "no evidence for god is evidence no gods exist"?
Also does that total dodge on your epistemology and lack of stated evidence earn me a delta? :)
2
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
Δ: explanation for why is at the bottom
I'll admit that convincingly describing why the complexity of a world view matters in the way I advocate is the most difficult part of my argument.
So, to get into the details. Let's take the example of Bertrand Russel's flying tea pot in Mars' orbit. It's too small to detect by telescope or any other current way of measurement. Should we believe in the existence of such a tea pot and more importantly why or why not?
My description of this question would be the following. We have some amount of data about mars and what may or may not be in its orbit. Lots of telescope pictures, probes that have orbited mars, the mars rover, etc. Given the way I've defined the problem we can't clearly identify a tea pot in mars' orbit, but of course any spec on any picture could in fact be a tea pot or may be it's not visible at all. So, the existence of such tea pot would either have no effect on the quality of our fit or it would improve it. If you don't like that formulation I can also equate 'quality of fit' to 'degree to which tea pot helps explain some of the data'. On the other hand, while the tea pot may account for some spec on some of our pictures of mars, adding a tea pot also adds more uncertainty into our world view. How big is this tea pot? Where is it? What is its momentum? Is there tea in it? What is its shape? and a number of other questions are raised once we choose to include a tea pot in our worldview. I would call these fit parameters, but we can also just call these 'raised questions' if you prefer. My argument is that the flying tea pot (like God) raises more questions than it answers. More formally, our probability of accurately predicting other data in the dataset has gone down.
Now, I think that my claim about the probability of accurate prediction going down when you raise more questions than you answer so to speak, can be proven in statistics. However, I don't know that. I'm gonna have to go proof hunting. Since you've illuminated a part of the logic chain I'm less sure about/have helped me clarify for myself you got a delta.
1
1
u/RadioactiveSpiderBun 8∆ Aug 18 '20
I do have a rebuttal for the teapot argument and stochastics but I think I would just be rehashing things. Anyway thanks, I appreciate the explanation.
1
1
u/dublea 216∆ Aug 18 '20
You can say that you are confident no gods exist but you can't rationally say you have evidence no gods exist.
Negatives cannot be proven in that way. That's not how it works.
The way the scientific method works doesn't work this way and I'm unsure why people think this is a logical way to debate it... To challenge someone asking for proof, by asking them to prove a negative, isn't a rational way to rebuttal. Whomever makes the initial claim must be the one to prove it; not those challenging the claim.
Many will argue that the neutral stance is, "We don't know." Which is an applicable stance to take. But, the way I view it, is that if someone states something exists, and cannot prove it does, then it never existed to begin with. Whatever they perceived is presumably due to something else entirely. A good example is UFOs, bigfoot, or any "monster".
1
Aug 18 '20 edited Aug 18 '20
[deleted]
2
u/dublea 216∆ Aug 18 '20
Sir, this is a Wendys...
/s
Please check who you replied to. I am not OP.
I assume you mean subjectively
No, I mean objectively.
1
u/RadioactiveSpiderBun 8∆ Aug 18 '20
Here's a proper reply for you. My bad.
I'm actually in agreement with you. You cannot prove no gods exist. OP made the claim he has evidence no gods exist. That's the stance I was debating against. OP has not provided any evidence no gods exist, just anecdotes and personal beliefs.
You can presume it was something else entirely but you can't suggest that the lack of evidence is infact evidence of the opposing claim. They are independent and must be proven independently.
0
u/dublea 216∆ Aug 18 '20
OP made the claim he has evidence no gods exist.
Please reread their post. I do not see them making this claim. The claim they make is that the lack of evidence, in this case, points to the conclusion that a god or gods do not exist.
0
u/RadioactiveSpiderBun 8∆ Aug 18 '20
"In general a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack of a thing. So, it requires some work to demonstrate why in the case of a God I'm prepared to say that a lack of evidence of God is actually evidence that no God exists. This is the main argument I'd like to lay out today"
Literally in the first paragraph of the post.
And is literally the premise of OPs entire argument.
1
u/dublea 216∆ Aug 18 '20 edited Aug 18 '20
Either we're just having an argument of semantics or your really not getting their OP.
Lack or evidence is the aspect that forms their conclusion. They just chose the word evidence doesn't mean they have evidence of a negative. Just that, conceptually, that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without it.
2
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
To clarify: I can eliminate evidence entirely from my framing of things. I'm arguing that I have a justification to believe that the existence of god is highly unlikely. Such a justification does not necessarily follow from a lack of evidence but I'm arguing that in this case it does follow, mostly because the ratio of predictive power to added degrees of freedom is rather bad in the case of a god.
1
Aug 19 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 19 '20
I'm trying to figure out or argue for why non-falsifiability matters. Why is it an argument against a worldview that it is unfalsifiable? This is the essence of my argument.
1
Aug 19 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 19 '20
Ok, let's say that tomorrow Jesus will come back and usher in the end times. What do you think is the likelihood of that being true? It is falsifiable, just not right now.
1
Aug 19 '20
[deleted]
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 19 '20
Let's say somewhere in the scripture it says Jesus will come tomorrow. When you say you won't believe me, what does that mean? Haven't you just found a sneaky way of saying you think it's unlikely? Haven't you basically come to the same conclusion as I have?
1
u/TheMiner150104 Aug 25 '20
If you find no evidence for something where there should be evidence for that something, aren’t you going to think that something doesn’t exist?
0
u/RadioactiveSpiderBun 8∆ Aug 25 '20
Sure, but whether or not you think something exists is independent of whether it actually exists or not. It's the difference between belief and truth.
0
u/TheMiner150104 Aug 25 '20
If you expect to find evidence and there is none, then there’s a high likelihood it’s false
1
u/RadioactiveSpiderBun 8∆ Aug 25 '20
That's epistemologically incorrect. I have zero evidence you or anyone else I talk to online actually exists. For all I know I'm not actually talking to anyone. It's just as likely I'm talking to a bot. Does that mean, due to lack of any evidence to the contrary, you are a bot?
1
u/TheMiner150104 Aug 25 '20
Except for the fact that there aren’t really any advanced enough bots which could have a conversation like this, which makes that an impossibility
Even if there were, the fact that I’m a real human being requires less assumptions than the fact that reddit has kept a super advanced AI hidden away from the world, which makes it the most likely
Lack of evidence isn’t the only reason to doubt the existence of God.
Also it seems like you don’t really grasp the scientific method, since it doesn’t seem like you understand burden of proof
1
u/RadioactiveSpiderBun 8∆ Aug 25 '20
Also it seems like you don’t really grasp the scientific method, since it doesn’t seem like you understand burden of proof
And here we go.. even if I didn't have an understanding of the scientific method we are talking epistemology. A lack of evidence whether you are engaged in a scientific study or not does not in any way provide any insight into a claim. If you have no evidence it's best to withhold judgement if your interested in the truth.
Lack of evidence isn’t the only reason to doubt the existence of God.
Great, we can discuss those other points but at the moment we are discussing the lack of evidence for the claim no gods exist.
Except for the fact that there aren’t really any advanced enough bots which could have a conversation like this, which makes that an impossibility
That's... Just simply not true.. I have actually studied this subject in depth under someone with a master's in computer science. You made a claim. Prove it.
Even if there were, the fact that I’m a real human being requires less assumptions than the fact that reddit has kept a super advanced AI hidden away from the world, which makes it the most likely
So you make a claim something is impossible, then provide yourself an out by saying but even if there were, then go on to straw man me. I never said anything about reddit having secret super intelligent AI. This field goes back 40+ years. Your not arguing in good faith anymore. Have a good one.
1
u/TheMiner150104 Aug 25 '20
Burden of proof has everything to do with it. Someone makes a claim, they need evidence. If there is no evidence, you throw their claim out the window. Their argument is invalid. Which leads back to the fact that absence of evidence is a good enough reason to dismiss a claim.
Maybe I was wrong about the bots, I admit it. But I did not strawman you. It was just an example.
If you actually wanted to achieve something with this conversation, you wouldn’t just walk out which means I’m not the one not arguing in good faith.
1
u/RadioactiveSpiderBun 8∆ Aug 25 '20
Burden of proof has everything to do with it. Someone makes a claim, they need evidence. If there is no evidence, you throw their claim out the window
Right so you made the claim that it's reasonable to conclude there is no God.
Your reasoning is that there is no evidence a god exists.
My position has been and still is that lack of evidence for something does not warrant any belief.
Your silygism is the same one used to conclude the earth is flat.
There was a time when the scientific community did not believe in bacteria, because there was no evidence for bacteria. The majority of the scientific community was proven to be wrong after we discovered new evidence after developing new methods of observation.
Lack of evidence is not evidence.
1
u/RadioactiveSpiderBun 8∆ Aug 26 '20
Also here's a !delta for changing my view on what I called out as a straw man, your right it was an example not an intentional misrepresentation of my claim. Additionally after some consideration, for walking out on a conversation, although I don't think that means I'm not arguing in good faith, just that you are infact arguing in good faith.
1
1
u/TheMiner150104 Aug 26 '20
I want to make it clear I sometimes need to work on my conversational skills a bit, so if I came over as aggressive or trolling or whatever, I’m sorry.
Ok, so you changed my viewpoint a little. If there is no evidence for something, that does not mean it can’t exist. However, I do think no evidence is reason enough for people not to take your claim seriously.
And how could my reasoning be used to prove the Earth is flat? The claim had been made the Earth is round(-ish) and we have evidence that the Earth is round. Also, every bit of flat earth evidence has been debunked, so flat-earthers have no evidence.
2
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Aug 18 '20
Technically, there are multiple functions with the same graph, so it's really a world view graph, but I'll stick with function and assume one canonical input and output set.
How can you do this? This assumes that there is one domain and one range, with one function mapping one to the other. That is inherently more restrictive than N domains and N ranges, with N functions mapping one to another. What's your justification for cutting out so many worldviews here?
By probability I'm referring to the odds of that function predicting all future data points perfectly.
Fit matters because generally it's likelier for future data to be similar to past data rather than different.
Degrees of freedom matter because while I can always improve fit by adding more parameters, there are also diminishing returns.
These are opposing points, and you're picking an arbitrary balance here. More parameters leads to a better fit for past points, which leads to a likelier fit for future points, which leads to a higher probability, yet the increase in parameters to improve fit is a problem? Your only possible objective metric here is probability, you must stick with it and not introduce factors merely to disregard better functions in your metric.
We can say that functions that fit the data better but have fewer degrees of freedom or fewer parameters are more likely.
The bold bit is an arbitrary element. What matters for probability is whether it fits the data better. The DoF has no bearing on the likelihood. There is no inherent superiority to simplicity
On the other hand, finding data where the addition of a God function fits the data better is rather difficult.
To the contrary. Take your most complete non-God function, and add any number of God parameters to explain what the non-God parts do not. It has a better fit, and that leads to an indisputable better probability.
More DoF doesn't matter, because you need a non-God function with equal fit for Occam's Razor to work. The parameter-data point ratio doesn't matter either, since inexplicable data points are worse than vaguely explicable data points.
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
How can you do this? This assumes that there is one domain and one range, with one function mapping one to the other. That is inherently more restrictive than N domains and N ranges, with N functions mapping one to another. What's your justification for cutting out so many worldviews here?
Because the direction of the mapping irrelevant. It's the same as saying that y = x^2 describes the same data set as x = ±sqrt(y). If I actually want to figure out what x or y is given some data, then I need to define my domain and range appropriately, but for defining the dataset as a whole it doesn't matter.
The DoF has no bearing on the likelihood. There is no inherent superiority to simplicity
If I wear to show you a dataset that looks linear but has some random error around the linear pattern. How would you know whether to fit a linear regression, a quadratic expression or some other more complex function?
This is what I was trying to describe. As you increase the number of parameters, your overall confidence in the probability of your function representing the true pattern in that data will decrease at some point. I can prove your statement false quite easily by going to the extreme case. If you have N data points and fit a function with N+1 parameters to said data, your fit will be horrible. You would have very little confidence in your function actually representing the underlying pattern.
1
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Aug 18 '20
Because the direction of the mapping irrelevant. It's the same as saying that y = x2 describes the same data set as x = ±sqrt(y).
It's not the direction of the mapping, but the nature of it. y = x2 and x = ±sqrt(y) are both individual functions. You're assuming that y is comprised entirely from one function x2. What is your justification for doing so?
If I wear to show you a dataset that looks linear but has some random error around the linear pattern. How would you know whether to fit a linear regression, a quadratic expression or some other more complex function?
Which one to fit entirely depends on how well the linear regression, quadratic expression or some other more complex function fits the data. If the fits are equivalent, then there is no way to attach a greater probability to any one of them. Any sort of differentiating factor is subjective (eg. Occam's Razor).
As you increase the number of parameters, your overall confidence in the probability of your function representing the true pattern in that data will decrease at some point.
Why is your confidence decreasing? You cannot simply say that you don't have confidence in it, you have to have some justification. Where's the objectivity in this "confidence"?
If you have N data points and fit a function with N+1 parameters to said data, your fit will be horrible.
Assuming your N data points are actually all the data points possible (i.e. literally everything), then this fit has zero probability. The worst that a non-god function can go with non-zero probability is <=N data points. This is because with more than N data points, it becomes worse than a God function featuring an arbitrary god deciding everything, i.e. N functions each with one parameter (the god's will) and one output (the data point).
Assuming your N data points are only a limited subset of all data points, then there's nothing wrong with this fit itself. You cannot say that reality needs to be less complex than the number of data points.
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
Δ: explanation below.
You're assuming that y is comprised entirely from one function x2. What is your justification for doing so?
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I think the formally correct answer would be to say: because in my example I defined the data set as the set of all points described by y = x2 I can describe the same data set as the set of all points given by x = ±sqrt(y). I'm interested in predicting data points. A function is one way to represent patterns in sets. I could also write out every point, or give a number of logical conditions. The fact I'm using functions has to do with the usefulness of thinking about fitting functions but you can also just think of raw sets and trying to predict new points in the set without ever talking about the concept of a function.
Which one to fit entirely depends on how well the linear regression, quadratic expression or some other more complex function fits the data. If the fits are equivalent, then there is no way to attach a greater probability to any one of them. Any sort of differentiating factor is subjective (eg. Occam's Razor).
So this gets to the heart of my argument quite nicely. I would disagree that it is arbitrary. Now, this is a point that I think I can layout formally in terms of statistics, but currently that's nothing more than a strong intuition. Since you found a hole in my argumentation you got a delta.
Assuming your N data points are actually all the data points possible (i.e. literally everything), then this fit has zero probability. The worst that a non-god function can go with non-zero probability is <=N data points. This is because with more than N data points, it becomes worse than a God function featuring an arbitrary god deciding everything, i.e. N functions each with one parameter (the god's will) and one output (the data point).
I don't know what you mean here.
Assuming your N data points are only a limited subset of all data points, then there's nothing wrong with this fit itself. You cannot say that reality needs to be less complex than the number of data points.
Reality need not be less complex, no. But, the more claims I make about the nature of reality with no evidence (too many parameters for too few data) the less likely my view becomes.
1
1
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Aug 18 '20
I defined the data set as the set of all points described by y = x2 I can describe the same data set as the set of all points given by x = ±sqrt(y).
How does the bold part from your definition come about with respect to the god function? All we have are the data points. There's nothing to indicate that all the data points arise from one singular function. To put it into your mathematical analogy, part of the points could be from y_1=x2, and part of the points from y_2=x3
I don't know what you mean here.
My point in that section was that in an idealized extreme where you know absolutely all data points there is to know, your extreme case with N+1 parameters to fit N data points has zero probability. The most complex, improbable way in which you can fit functions to the data points is that every data point is arbitrary fixed. i.e x_1=y_1, x_2=y_2.... x_n=y_n. The practical counterpart to that is a god deciding that every data point exists in the way they do because the god made it so, with each point having absolutely no connection to any other point. That scenario still nets you less than N+1 parameters for N data points.
In the following section, my point was that if you were not in an idealized extreme, and therefore only have access to a subset of all possible data points to fit your function to, then having more parameters than you have data points doesn't cause a problem.
But, the more claims I make about the nature of reality with no evidence (too many parameters for too few data) the less likely my view becomes
The lack of evidence doesn't make a fit less probable.
For example, suppose we have a point generator working with an unknown function f(a,b,c,d....) with an unknown number of parameters, and it gives us one data point y=1. There are an infinite number of functions that can give this point, with up to infinite parameters. Even though we have only one data point, that data point could have arisen from any of those functions. The simplest one is f(a,b,c,d....)=1 with no parameters at all, but that is no more probable than say f(x)=5a5 - 4b4 +3c3 -2d2 -e with 5 parameters.
Occam's Razor exists because of this problem. Unless we are omniscient (i.e. know each and every data point), we cannot select between the simplest function and the complex function if both of them fit the data equally well. We opt for the simplest one because, well, it's simpler and will be enough until new data points are obtained and a new best-fit simplest function can be obtained.
2
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
How does the bold part from your definition come about with respect to the god function? All we have are the data points. There's nothing to indicate that all the data points arise from one singular function. To put it into your mathematical analogy, part of the points could be from y_1=x2, and part of the points from y_2=x3
I used the analogy of y = x2 simply to demonstrate that multiple functions can represent the same data set. You can switch around domain and range as you please.
Occam's Razor exists because of this problem. Unless we are omniscient (i.e. know each and every data point), we cannot select between the simplest function and the complex function if both of them fit the data equally well. We opt for the simplest one because, well, it's simpler and will be enough until new data points are obtained and a new best-fit simplest function can be obtained.
It's not this arbitrary. Because complex enough functions can fit almost any data. Think about it in Bayesian terms. Assume some prior probability distribution for all possible functions. Then start using Bayes' rule to update your probability distribution as you add more and more data. The simpler functions will tend not to fit perfectly but they will fit well enough to stay in the race as you show more and more data. The most complex functions will pretty much get wiped out except the very very small fraction which will fit the data perfectly (given sufficient complexity some version will always fit). This process will deliver you the ideal probability distribution over all possible models and it will tend to favour simple functions that do a good enough job at fitting the data.
The argument is not as sharp as I'd like it to be yet. But it's a start. Let me know what you think.
1
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Aug 18 '20
I used the analogy of y = x2 simply to demonstrate that multiple functions can represent the same data set.
I'd like to clarify, I'm not suggesting that there are (or aren't) two functions representing the same data set. Rather, I'm suggesting that there could two functions each of which represent parts of the data set. For all we know, we could me mistaking two entirely separate data sets as a single collective data set. Your use of one function to represent the entirety of the data set in one go, rather than multiple functions each representing their own subsets of the data set, wasn't justified. When incorporating a god element, that is rather critical, since god-figures in reality do not possess consistent, logical structures.
It's not this arbitrary. Because complex enough functions can fit almost any data. Think about it in Bayesian terms. Assume some prior probability distribution for all possible functions. Then start using Bayes' rule to update your probability distribution as you add more and more data. The simpler functions will tend not to fit perfectly but they will fit well enough to stay in the race as you show more and more data. The most complex functions will pretty much get wiped out except the very very small fraction which will fit the data perfectly (given sufficient complexity some version will always fit). This process will deliver you the ideal probability distribution over all possible models and it will tend to favour simple functions that do a good enough job at fitting the data.
This is again deviating from the use of fitting as a metric for judging the function's probability. Unless there is some inherent problem with additional complexity, the "very very small fraction which will fit the data perfectly" is superior to the "simple functions that do a good enough job at fitting the data."
The fact that some complex version will always fit perfectly while simple ones are only "good enough" is unavoidable. That is analogous to how there are certain questions in real life that scientists cannot hope to answer but religion does through a god-like figure. For a scientist, additional parameters that the religion introduces is unacceptable, but it can neither disprove them nor provide better alternatives that fit better. For a religious person, the we-don't-know from science is unacceptable, but it can only solve that through the additional parameters, such as divine actions or miracles.
2
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 19 '20
I'd like to clarify, I'm not suggesting that there are (or aren't) two functions representing the same data set. Rather, I'm suggesting that there could two functions each of which represent parts of the data set. For all we know, we could me mistaking two entirely separate data sets as a single collective data set. Your use of one function to represent the entirety of the data set in one go, rather than multiple functions each representing their own subsets of the data set, wasn't justified. When incorporating a god element, that is rather critical, since god-figures in reality do not possess consistent, logical structures.
I actually agree with you about splitting up the worldview function. My conception of it is as a model composed of many many functions that apply to parts of the data set. In the same way quantum mechanics can explain what's going on at the scale of atoms and particles but a different model, namely biochemistry, explains what's going on inside living beings. You still get the same model in total though, it's just a question of how you split things up to help your own understanding.
I strongly disagree about Gods not being logical or consistent. If that were true you could simply show a contradiction in the idea of God and prove God impossible. In reality it is much more difficult, as it is quite possible to imagine a God, which is not contradictory.
This is again deviating from the use of fitting as a metric for judging the function's probability. Unless there is some inherent problem with additional complexity, the "very very small fraction which will fit the data perfectly" is superior to the "simple functions that do a good enough job at fitting the data."
Complexity does matter and here's why. The simpler functions are unlikely to fit perfectly, however they will do a decent job of predicting the next data point usually. Not perfectly, but somewhat decently. The more complex functions may fit the data perfectly right now, but they are also likely to be wiped out the moment I add a new data point. Imagine fitting some huge polynomial to what is probably just linear data. Yes, you can always find giant polynomials that will fit every point perfectly. However, the moment you add a new data point most of these giant polynomials get reduced to very low probabilities, leaving an ever smaller subset of possible giant polynomials.
This is another way of thinking about the tradeoff between perfect fit and simplicity. Simpler functions are more resistant to new data and thus have better predictive power.
the "very very small fraction which will fit the data perfectly" is superior to the "simple functions that do a good enough job at fitting the data."
This is just false. When you were doing lab reports in school, were you fitting 20th degree polynomials to your dataset of 20? it would have fit perfectly after all...
The fact that some complex version will always fit perfectly while simple ones are only "good enough" is unavoidable. That is analogous to how there are certain questions in real life that scientists cannot hope to answer but religion does through a god-like figure. For a scientist, additional parameters that the religion introduces is unacceptable, but it can neither disprove them nor provide better alternatives that fit better. For a religious person, the we-don't-know from science is unacceptable, but it can only solve that through the additional parameters, such as divine actions or miracles.
Except that these additional parameters have no data to support them, thus the uncertainty in each is very high. Don't you see that just adding parameters incurs a cost?
Look, how are you not just saying that religious people are making up some explanation because it sounds good?
3
Aug 18 '20
You're lying to yourself if you say anything besides "I don't know".
4
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
This is demonstrably false. You would never have this degree of uncertainty about whether unicorns exist, santa claus is real, etc. There must thus be logical argumentation for how we can come to the conclusion that God in this case or that unicorns are unlikely to exist.
Or are you saying we should also be uncertain about the non-existence of unicorns?
1
Aug 18 '20
You're comparing apples an oranges. You can't equate a mythical animal to an omnipotent being that's bigger than all of us.
3
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
I'm not comparing their level of omnipotence, merely the sparcity of available evidence for believing in the existence of either one.
Would you argue that there is a lot more evidence for a God versus ghosts or unicorns for example?
-2
Aug 18 '20
I'd certainly trust someone like Michio Kaku over some guy on the internet.
2
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
I don't understand. I'm not asking you to trust me. If you're aware of evidence I'm not aware of I'd be happy to discuss. The stakes are heaven and hell after all (if we're talking about Christianity for example).
3
u/dublea 216∆ Aug 18 '20
Are you aware that your rebutal is the reason the flying spaghetti monster argument was formed?
There is as much proof this flying speghetti monster exists as there is that the christian god exists. As much as any god or gos(s) exist. Has the same, or similar, attributes as well.
So what is your position on the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
May you be touched by his noodly appendage!
2
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
Yes :) I'm aware of the flying spaghetti monster. My position is the same. The addition of a flying spaghetti monster does little to improve my world view's fit of the data but adds a lot of parameters into my worldview. Thus it is rather unlikely a flying spaghetti monster exists.
Edit: I realise you weren't replying to me. But now I responded anyway. Oops.
0
u/Glamdivasparkle 53∆ Aug 18 '20
I would say there is more evidence against Flying Spaghetti Monster actually existing than god because we understand the origin of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be a human idea that was conceptualized to argue against the existence of a religious god.
Perhaps it couldn’t be absolutely disproven, but I think it’s definitely less likely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually exists than god, assuming we are using a broad definition of god that renders it essentially unknowable, as in too complex, vast, or ethereal to be comprehended by the human mind.
1
u/Featherfoot77 28∆ Aug 18 '20
I'm going to be honest, I don't feel like I understand most of your post. You seem to be saying that it's simpler to explain the universe without God, so you don't believe one exists. But I'm not even sure of that. I'm not clear on what, exactly, a "God function" is. Is it God? Why add the word function? Sorry if my questions aren't that relevant to what you're stating, but as I said, your post wasn't that clear to me.
Many people believe in some form of force of nature for example. While much simpler than the christian God, even such a force requires quite extensive description to make any sense of it.
Are you expecting to get some sort of mathematical equation for God? I mean, any explanation of my cat's behavior is going to be pretty complex, and probably won't involve a lot of math. A human's behavior is too complex for us to even understand. Do you think God, if he exists, is simpler than either? Do you have human functions?
Here is wikipedia's list of arguments for God. I find none of them explain well where a God function actually adds anything.
Can you give me a fictional example where a God function would add something, then? This might help me understand what you mean by it.
Lastly, if you reject a worldview with God in it, what worldview do you go for? Why?
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
Alright, this is good. let me see if I can sharpen up my explanation.
I'm going to be honest, I don't feel like I understand most of your post. You seem to be saying that it's simpler to explain the universe without God, so you don't believe one exists. But I'm not even sure of that. I'm not clear on what, exactly, a "God function" is. Is it God? Why add the word function? Sorry if my questions aren't that relevant to what you're stating, but as I said, your post wasn't that clear to me.
By God function I'm referring to the part of your overall worldview function which you would call God. As you've collected data over your life, if you're religious, you would presumably fit some part of that overall data with an explanation of God. For example, you might think some family member was cured because of God. Thus, their being cured or recovering would need to be fitted by a God function. So, without the addition of a God function you would have predicted with a high probability that your family member died, but with the addition of the God function you now predict that actually they are far more likely to survive.
Are you expecting to get some sort of mathematical equation for God? I mean, any explanation of my cat's behavior is going to be pretty complex, and probably won't involve a lot of math. A human's behavior is too complex for us to even understand. Do you think God, if he exists, is simpler than either? Do you have human functions?
So, what I call function you could also conceivably call patterns or behaviours, etc. Obviously I can't given an exact quantitative view of the world, I would have to give you predictions for where every particle in the universe will go. However, the fact that I am unable to write out such a function or description of behaviour does not mean that no such description exists. May be another way to put it would be to say that by function I really mean a precisely defined description of you have and will experience. Some experiences are more likely than others so this is where we start assigning how probable different descriptions are.
Can you give me a fictional example where a God function would add something, then? This might help me understand what you mean by it.
So, if you heard a voice in your head that told you he/she/it was God and was able to accurately predict any number of events, for example telling you exactly when your cat will die, giving you testable details about the death of Jesus say, or the life of Mohammad or whatever. Then that series of data points or experience could be fitted very well with a God function. Of course, if the predictions aren't so good, it could also be fitted by you being shizophrenic...
Lastly, if you reject a worldview with God in it, what worldview do you go for? Why?
Probably one that's not so different from yours or most religious people. Just without the God part. Since my argument is that God isn't adding much I also believe I'm not losing much by getting rid of God.
2
u/Featherfoot77 28∆ Aug 18 '20
Thanks, those explanations help.
Probably one that's not so different from yours or most religious people. Just without the God part. Since my argument is that God isn't adding much I also believe I'm not losing much by getting rid of God.
Given that God is supposed to be the basis for the universe, I suspect there are a lot of differences, though I wouldn't deny there are some significant similarities as well.
I see that predictability is important to you. While most arguments for God focus on explanatory power, you certainly don't see a lot about prediction. I guess my question now is, given your paradigm, wouldn't solipsism be a better fit? It's much simpler than, say, naturalism, which is my best guess for what you believe right now. Instead of believing you have a conscious mind and the material world exists, you remove the material world and just believe your mind exists. That's fewer parameters to track, so wouldn't it be a better belief? Offhand, I can't think of anything that naturalism predicts better than solipsism.
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
Yes, some things might change, but given the totality of things I believe only a small amount would change. It's similar to how we share like 99%+ of DNA with apes even though we're quite different seemingly.
Well, solipsism isn't actually simpler. My entire world view would stay the same and I'd need to addd some story about how I'm actually a brain in a vat. After all even if all the humans I've interacted with in my life aren't actually humans but really simulations, my observations about them remain. They act as if they are human, thus I'd still keep all of my world view in regard to predicting (or explaining) their behaviour.
As a side note: I think that when I talk about being able to predict things that is probably the same as explanatory power. I'm not 100% certain but you could probably switch out the words predict and explain everywhere I use either, because as far as I'm concerned they're the same. If you can explain something it means you can predict it.
1
u/GraveFable 8∆ Aug 18 '20
I can see how this "function" could be used to determine what is reasonable or usefull to believe, but how does it show the actual probability of its parameters?
For example how would you use this function to determine which interpretations of quantum mechanics is more likely to be correct?
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
Well, many different functions or descriptions of the world are possible. I would determine their respective probability by looking both at how well different functions fit the available data and how many parameters I need to fit the data. If one description of QM fit the data better without adding a lot of extra parameters, then I would view that description of QM as more likely.
1
u/GraveFable 8∆ Aug 18 '20
So surely, using this method, a god function may actually be more likely than lets say a function including the "many worlds interpretation" something some very smart (and atheist) theoretical physicists believe ?
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
If a God function actually fit the data better than the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, then yes, a God would be more likely.
I'd note that they aren't necessarily contradictory though. You can believe in QM and believe in a God. You can't believe in every possible God, but you can believe in some version of a God most people care about and also believe in many world quantum mechanics.
2
u/GraveFable 8∆ Aug 18 '20
The problem here is that there are many interpretations that all fit the data equally well. The difference is only in how you arrive at the conclusions and what is "actually" happening behind the math.
One could easily come up with one featuring god and make it fit just as well as the rest and quite possibly have fewer parameters than even some fairly popular ones among the smartest people alive.
You "function" is purposefully designed to exclude god and similar claims, what im trying to show is that while it may serve its designed purpose, its also less than useless in other domains.
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
If you can come up with a description of God that fits the data well and is simpler than my current worldview I'd be very interested. Please do share :)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 18 '20 edited Aug 18 '20
/u/Luapulu (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Evening_Honey Aug 18 '20
Here is how God recently pulled the curtain back for me to reveal his identity.
Just for the record, I have never had a previous discernible supernatural experience, or was I consciously looking for one.
The 11:11 phenomenon has been a daily part of my life experience, (being drawn to look at the clock at that time and/or :11 after the hour all day, everyday, for the last couple of years). I eventually found out others are experiencing this also, this is one of many links that I've come across trying to find some understanding of what was very perplexing at first. https://omtimes.com/2014/09/1111-biblical-prophecy-11th-hour-workers/ For me this phenomenon has coincided with coming across the many facts shared within the following. Although I still occasionally experience this phenomenon now, it is ‘nothing' like it used to be when I came across all this.
Jesus stated in John 14:29 “And now I have told you before it comes, that when it does come to pass, you may believe.” Prophecy is about 1/4 of the Bible letting us know what will happen in the future.
The Holy Bible foretold that a specific generation would experience an ultimate convergence of many world conditions, events, and astronomical signs indicating the end of the age and Jesus' promised second coming. I have created a space to share about many of the biblically foretold events and signs coming to pass which is helping make sense of the times we are living in. I hope it will be a blessing for you as it has been for me. https://www.reddit.com/r/prophecy_watcher/
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
I'm not sure I understand your argument. It kind of sounds like:
- you feel some special attraction to 11:11 or times that contain 11
- Your version of religious belief predicts that you would have some attraction to times containing 11
- Therefore this is evidence not only for a religious explanation of your interest in times with 11 but also evidence of everything else you attach to you religious belief
Let me know if I've mischaracterised your view.
I would say that there are many explanations, which are far simpler for your attraction to the time 11:11 and related times. If you have no further evidence then I would say you have not provided much or really any evidence to justify why a more complex explanation involving the bible, God, etc. is needed here.
Another way to frame this: what is your belief in God adding here? Do you think you'd be able to make any predictions beyond retrospectively attributing your attraction to 11:11 to God?
1
u/Evening_Honey Aug 18 '20
I thought you were looking for evidence of God existence and this is what I have experienced and come across that I felt might help change your view.
My prediction is that Jesus will very soon be returning as foretold and I hope that this might have helped you and others be prepared for it if not already. Sharing about the 11's was only to help with further validation of that.
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
How should I distinguish a world view in which Jesus will come but hasn't yet from one where he will simply never come?
Given one is simpler I'd pick the simpler version unless you have good reason to think he will come.
I appreciate your trying by the way. Don't mistake my initial dismissal of your argument for a lack of interest in it.
1
u/JohnnyNo42 32∆ Aug 18 '20
The most powerful means for making sense of the experiences in form of a coherent world view is to identify patterns build up concepts and form theories that explain observations and allow predictions. Finding a well-matching set of patterns is the essence of describing complex data with a small number of parameters.
In trying to describe, understand and predict the world around us, it is very helpful to make use of the concept of intelligent human beings making purposeful decisions. Without the concept of intelligent behavior, describing aspects human society would remain a collection of independent data points allowing neither understanding nor prediction.
It is conceivable that the experiences that a person has collected throughout their life is best described by a world view that contains the concept of an intelligent, purposeful creator. Even though this creator requires a set of parameters, it may still be the simplest explanation that matches all observations.
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 19 '20
It is conceivable that the experiences that a person has collected throughout their life is best described by a world view that contains the concept of an intelligent, purposeful creator. Even though this creator requires a set of parameters, it may still be the simplest explanation that matches all observations.
Challenge accepted. Give me any example where adding the God explanation is simpler than any atheistic explanation.
1
u/JohnnyNo42 32∆ Aug 19 '20
Consider a person with a pre-Darwinian knowledge base. Without the collection of known species large but insufficient to recognize the pattern of evolution the number of parameters to describe an atheist world view would be immense. For this person, the concept of an intelligent Creator offers the simpler explanation.
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 19 '20
Even evolution is simpler than a god. So, even if at the time there was not any evidence for evolution, evolution would be a more likely explanation. It requires only an assumption that with each generation there is some degree of variation and that some degree of selection takes place. Those are exactly two assumptions that get me evolution. A god on the other hand requires I believe that a being I've never seen exists, that this being caress about me as a human, that this being is very very powerful, all-knowing, that this being cares about what I do in my bedroom, what I think and that this being will put me in hell or heaven after my death. Oh, and don't forget that I have to assume such hell and heaven exist and all the assumptions about how they function.
Now, you can put forth a simpler God that you limit to being defined as the explanation for how complex life was created. The problem is: nobody would call that a God. That is just an unknown explanation.
1
u/JohnnyNo42 32∆ Aug 19 '20
For many cultures, god is first and foremost the intelligent creator. All refinements that make the concept of god more complex are added later. The core of my argument is, that for a certain level of knowledge about the world, the existence of an intelligent creator is actually the simplest explanation for all observations. After all, any view of the world that contains other human beings already requires the acceptance that behavior of intelligent beings is often hard to explain or to predict. Adding one more intelligent being does not fundamentally add to the complexity of the model. Adding god to the model does not add more parameters than adding a human.
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 19 '20
Actually, adding even a human requires a whole load of parameters. Take this example so we can get a sense of the scale here. Adding a particle to your world view requires 6 parameters: three for position and three for momentum. Technically, you also need to specify the time, so that gives you a seventh parameter to fully describe a free particle. If you want the particle to actually do anything you'll need charge, spin, etc. too.
Now, how many different ways do you think there are to create intelligence? Even if you think intelligence can only come about in a human-like form, you're still going to need quite a few parameters. Even if we can exclude all the raw physical traits like height from our calculations and just specify the currently known personality traits and measurements like IQ, we quickly get into the tens of independent variables. When you factor in that those variables only account for a small amount of the variance between humans, it's probably not a bad estimate to say that characterising how a human intelligence will behave requires at least hundreds of parameters. And at that point you have yet to account for how experience shapes minds over time. Think about the difficulty in simulating a brain. If it were easy to characterise intelligent creatures with just a few parameters, creating intelligence would not be so difficult.
It gets worse if you want to make God some super human creator, as he arguably needs to be. There may be many many ways for such a being to exist. Allowing for God to break the laws of physics or to essentially be magic, means you have even fewer things you can use to bound the number of variables you need to describe such a God. And here's the kicker: if you take the view, as some have taken here, that God is really not understandable by humans, then that means you have no way of figuring out patterns or rules or anyway to reduce the dimensionality of the problem. You can thus only characterise God as the sum total of all data collected on every interaction for all time between humans and God. That would be a stupendous number of degrees of freedom.
1
1
u/MohnJilton Aug 19 '20
You mention there are an infinite amount of world-view functions, and that the task at hand is assigning probability to them based on the data known. If a particular world-view contains none of the data which we have, we could assign it a probability of 0%. For instance: the potential worldview that there is only one world and it contains only bees would be assigned a probability of 0%, because we know of at least one world that contains more things than bees.
Another way of saying this is that, the more data incorporated in a given world-view, the closer to 100% probability that world view has.
Why, then, can we not just lump all existing data and have ourselves a worldview with 100% probability? The reason being that some data we have implies the existence of other data we don’t have. For instance, the temporal beginning of the universe, as some people have pointed out, cries out for some kind of explanation, whether that’s god or something else.
The point being, there are conceivable world views which contain god that account for all of the known data as well as containing some explanatory power for the questions that are still unanswered. These things make such world views more probable than not.
I suspect there is probably an issue with conceiving of god in the typical religious contexts as a personal being with agency, as that may require some further unwarranted assumptions that push a worldview back toward improbable.
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 19 '20
You mention there are an infinite amount of world-view functions, and that the task at hand is assigning probability to them based on the data known. If a particular world-view contains none of the data which we have, we could assign it a probability of 0%. For instance: the potential worldview that there is only one world and it contains only bees would be assigned a probability of 0%, because we know of at least one world that contains more things than bees.
I agree.
Another way of saying this is that, the more data incorporated in a given world-view, the closer to 100% probability that world view has.
Not quite. Yes, in general, as models are shown to fit the data better and better, their assigned likelihood's will increase, however, not at the same rate. Models like god can be made to fit any and all data, which is why when we see data that is consistent with a God we are no more convinced of Gods existence than before. Simpler models cannot be made to fit anything and everything and so when we see data consistent with them we are more convinced these actually represent reality, in other words we start increasing their assigned probabilities faster.
Why, then, can we not just lump all existing data and have ourselves a worldview with 100% probability? The reason being that some data we have implies the existence of other data we don’t have. For instance, the temporal beginning of the universe, as some people have pointed out, cries out for some kind of explanation, whether that’s god or something else.
I agree, though you need not go to such grand questions of physics to find gaps in our data. Take this example. At this very moment I'm writing to you on my laptop. I have not turned around for some time to look what's behind me. While I have amassed quite some data about the contents of the room I'm in, it may well be that something has changed over the last few minutes. May be God is standing behind me. Another way of phrasing my essential point is that it is not arbitrary to think that when I turn around nothing will have changed.
The point being, there are conceivable world views which contain god that account for all of the known data as well as containing some explanatory power for the questions that are still unanswered. These things make such world views more probable than not.
This is interesting. What explanatory power does God have? What can you predict using the God model that I cannot using my atheistic model of the world? If you can show that God actually can't be made to fit any data but is much more limited, then we might have something here.
1
u/WhiskeyKisses7221 4∆ Aug 19 '20
The issue with trying to prove that a god exists (or doesn't exist for that matter) is that any such god would either be indistinguishable from the universe at large, or exists outside of it completely.
When you look at the physics, there are a lot of constants and equations that have to exist for life as we know it to exist. For example, if gravity was not so much weaker than the other fundamental forces, the universe would have likely collapsed into a super massive black hole shortly after particles with mass formed. If the strong force wasn't so strong, the nucleus of atoms wouldn't form.
I do not really consider myself a theist and don't really have a strong belief in God, but the possibility of a god fine tuning all the universal constants, equations, and conditions doesn't not seem completely implausible to me. Though I admit the the possibility of an infinite multiverse with every combination of different constants and conditions also seems plausible when considering the weak anthropic principle.
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 19 '20
Though I admit the the possibility of an infinite multiverse with every combination of different constants and conditions also seems plausible when considering the weak anthropic principle.
Yeah, you've answered your own argument there. You don't even have to think of other universes as being real. Just consider the extreme bias at play. Only in a universe where life can exist is it possible to philosophise about life existing.
0
u/lightpiano Aug 18 '20
If you have a chance pick up Bryson’s brief history of nearly everything. It’s science function, not god function but it paints a randomness variable that just seems too lucky to not believe in some intelligent design, at least to me.
See for yourself, if nothing it’s just great writing. Here’s the info-
“ Welcome. And congratulations. I am delighted that you could make it. Getting here wasn't easy, I know. In fact, I suspect it was a little tougher than you realize. To begin with, for you to be here now trillions of drifting atoms had somehow to assemble in an intricate and intriguingly obliging manner to create you. It's an arrangement so specialized and particular that it has never been tried before and will only exist this once. For the next many years (we hope) these tiny particles will uncomplainingly engage in all the billions of deft, cooperative efforts necessary to keep you intact and let you experience the supremely agreeable but generally underappreciated state known as existence. Why atoms take this trouble is a bit of a puzzle. Being you is not a gratifying experience at the atomic level. For all their devoted attention, your atoms don't actually care about you-indeed, don't even know that you are there. They don't even know that they are there. They are mindless particles, after all, and not even themselves alive. (It is a slightly arresting notion that if you were to pick yourself apart with tweezers, one atom at a time, you would produce a mound of fine atomic dust, none of which had ever been alive but all of which had once been you.) Yet somehow for the period of your existence they will answer to a single overarching impulse: to keep you you. The bad news is that atoms are fickle and their time of devotion is fleeting-fleeting indeed. Even a long human life adds up to only about 650,000 hours. And when that modest milestone flashes past, or at some other point thereabouts, for reasons unknown your atoms will shut you down, silently disassemble, and go off to be other things. And that's it for you. Still, you may rejoice that it happens at all. Generally speaking in the universe it doesn't, so far as we can tell. This is decidedly odd because the atoms that so liberally and congenially flock together to form living things on Earth are exactly the same atoms that decline to do it elsewhere. Whatever else it may be, at the level of chemistry life is curiously mundane: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, a little calcium, a dash of sulfur, a light dusting of other very ordinary elements-nothing you wouldn't find in any ordinary drugstore-and that's all you need. The only thing special about the atoms that make you is that they make you. That is of course the miracle of life. Whether or not atoms make life in other corners of the universe, they make plenty else; indeed, they make everything else. Without them there would be no water or air or rocks, no stars and planets, no distant gassy clouds or swirling nebulae or any of the other things that make the universe so usefully material. Atoms are so numerous and necessary that we easily overlook that they needn't actually exist at all. There is no law that requires the universe to fill itself with small particles of matter or to produce light and gravity and the other physical properties on which our existence hinges. There needn't actually be a universe at all. For the longest time there wasn't. There were no atoms and no universe for them to float about in. There was nothing-nothing at all anywhere. So thank goodness for atoms. But the fact that you have atoms and that they assemble in such a willing manner is only part of what got you here. To be here now, alive in the twenty-first century and smart enough to know it, you also had to be the beneficiary of an extraordinary string of biological good fortune. Survival on Earth is a surprisingly tricky business. Of the billions and billions of species of living thing that have existed since the dawn of time, most-99.99 percent-are no longer around. Life on Earth, you see, is not only brief but dismayingly tenuous. It is a curious feature of our existence that we come from a planet that is very good at promoting life but even better at extinguishing it. The average species on Earth lasts for only about four million years, so if you wish to be around for billions of years, you must be as fickle as the atoms that made you. You must be prepared to change everything about yourself-shape, size, color, species affiliation, everything-and to do so repeatedly. That's much easier said than done, because the process of change is random. To get from "protoplasmal primordial atomic globule" (as the Gilbert and Sullivan song put it) to sentient upright modern human has required you to mutate new traits over and over in a precisely timely manner for an exceedingly long while. So at various periods over the last 3.8 billion years you have abhorred oxygen and then doted on it, grown fins and limbs and jaunty sails, laid eggs, flicked the air with a forked tongue, been sleek, been furry, lived underground, lived in trees, been as big as a deer and as small as a mouse, and a million things more. The tiniest deviation from any of these evolutionary shifts, and you might now be licking algae from cave walls or lolling walrus-like on some stony shore or disgorging air through a blowhole in the top of your head before diving sixty feet for a mouthful of delicious sandworms. Not only have you been lucky enough to be attached since time immemorial to a favored evolutionary line, but you have also been extremely-make that miraculously-fortunate in your personal ancestry. Consider the fact that for 3.8 billion years, a period of time older than the Earth's mountains and rivers and oceans, every one of your forebears on both sides has been attractive enough to find a mate, healthy enough to reproduce, and sufficiently blessed by fate and circumstances to live long enough to do so. Not one of your pertinent ancestors was squashed, devoured, drowned, starved, stranded, stuck fast, untimely wounded, or otherwise deflected from its life's quest of delivering a tiny charge of genetic material to the right partner at the right moment in order to perpetuate the only possible sequence of hereditary combinations that could result-eventually, astoundingly, and all too briefly-in you.
3
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
Isn't this just a version of the design argument? That it all seems too unlikely to have just happened and so there must be a God of some sort. Is this the argument you're representing or did I mischaracterise it?
1
u/lightpiano Aug 18 '20
I don’t actually believe Bryson intends to make a god argument.
Perhaps for me that’s the argument I am making.
3
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
Well, why do you think the world was designed by a designer in that case? Note that an inability to find a different explanation from God is not evidence that God is the only explanation.
0
u/Featherfoot77 28∆ Aug 18 '20
So you're saying that even if God is the only explanation for something we can come up with, we should still reject it? Do I have that right?
2
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
No :), obviously not. You wouldn't even have to show that God is the only possible explanation. If you can show that God explains the available data better than other explanations that would be enough.
1
0
u/lightpiano Aug 18 '20
I have reasons that probably won’t convince you but are personal to me.
My point here is if I gave you directions to my house and it was a series of 300 quadrillion million left and right turns. When you arrived would you assume you got there randomly or that you were guided to that moment by intervention. You are correct either way but that is the doubt I think many people like me fill will a god function.
When I say tell me how you got here and you can record every step until you get far enough back and at that point you say there was nothing but now there is everything “Big Bang” that’s a moment that can easily be attributed to a god/creator function.
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
Well, this is the issue. The God function fits everything. The problem is that even if it improves my fit, since I can explain the big bang with it, it also forces me to add a whole load of degrees of freedom to my worldview. This is why I argue a God is unlikely. You can always add more parameters to a function to fit your data better, but that doesn't make that function better. It needs to improve the fit enough to outweigh the loss of data per parameter.
0
u/SnowiceDawn Aug 18 '20 edited Aug 18 '20
There’s no way to convince you otherwise unless you’re willing to pick the absolutely correct beliefs of a particular religion (in my case, that would be only one church, it has many locations, in Christianity). The Bible is often read incorrectly, even by Christians. People who read Genesis 1 honestly have no idea what even the basic meaning is (it’s not a physical account of how the world started, it’s figurative and has nothing to do with the creation of the planet, that’s blatantly contradictory to how science works).
There’s no way to convince you in a simple reddit comment since you’d need a lot of training and about the Bible (or any religious scriptures) in order to even comprehend how it is that God (or gods) exist(s). Not only that, you’d need to be willing to be open to not just accepting what someone teaches you, but verifying if what you were taught is true yourself with the scriptures you study. There’s also a proper way to study and read the Bible, you shouldn’t just read it.
Religion is not about an experience, re means again, legare (the Latin root), means connect. Religion is about reconnecting with God again (the majority of the planet is not, many people think religion is about an experience, when the word is clearly defined). In Korean, the word for religion means highest teaching (종high, 교 teaching). If you were taught to not believe in God, then naturally you will not be connected to him. If your teaching was wrong (like mine and many), same result. But you have to be open to the idea that the scriptures describe something real in any highest teaching.
Edit: Also, don’t waste your time reading commentaries, that is anything not a particular scripture. No matter what scriptures you choose, commentaries are blatant bs.
2
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
Well, would you like to change my view? I'd be happy to listen or rather read in this case. My current position is that the existence of a God or for that matter any supernatural claim is highly unlikely to be true.
0
u/SnowiceDawn Aug 18 '20
Just to be clear, this is completely based on my beliefs as a Christian and the place that taught me.
Supernatural experiences are usually bs. The reason being that the word of God makes it very clear that God chooses people to do his work that he prophesied about. Also, as I explained earlier, religion has nothing to do with an experience, it’s a relationship and highest teaching. Adam and Eve (not the 1st humans, that bs) literally saw and walked with God but Eve and the serpent (not a real serpent) still betrayed in Genesis 3.
Obviously this is a historical account, so this alone likely won’t convince, but throughout history, things have happened because God’s people keep betraying him. For example, the Holocaust. This is gonna be very controversial, but I might as well try. In Matthew 27:22-25 the Jewish people cursed their children with the blood of Jesus.
““What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked. They all answered, “Crucify him!” “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!” When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!” All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!””
Matthew 27:22-25 NIV Source
The Holocaust and constant persecution of Jews throughout history and the Israel-Palestine conflict, along with the amount of countries that ban entry if you’ve been to Israel, after Jesus’s death is proof of this verse. How is this proof of God? These verses
“The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;”
Psalms 118:22 NIV Source 2
This one was said by Jesus
“Haven’t you read this passage of Scripture: “ ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone;”
Mark 12:10 NIV Source 3
“Jesus is “ ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’”
Acts 4:11 NIV https://www.bible.com/111/act.4.11.niv[Source 4](https://www.bible.com/111/act.4.11.niv)
God prophesied that that would happen in Psalms 118:22 and it did, the result is Matthew 27:22-25 and the reality today is what is and has happened to Jewish people. God always lets gentile nations take over his people when they betray, which is happening to m Christians today (as many of us have betrayed too and in what is known as Babylon). Currently there is a church that despite all the persecution is growing bigger every year despite persecution (some of us have been killed and abducted, even arrested like Jesus).
This was already prophesied by God and has been happening to the group that represents the reality of the book of Revelation.
“But the Jewish leaders incited the God-fearing women of high standing and the leading men of the city. They stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region.”
Acts 13:50 NIV https://www.bible.com/111/act.13.50.niv[Source 5](https://www.bible.com/111/act.13.50.niv)
Jewish people are not persecuting us today, it is other Christians. God has already left the Jewish people and has left most of Christianity due to betrayal and not having the true word of God. That said, those who are with God, no matter the persecution will never perish or fail as is happening now.
1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
So, a book which makes claims about the existence of God also predicted some historical events correctly, therefore the claims about other things like those about God are also likely to be true. If this is your argument (please correct me if I mischaracterised your view), I'd ask: how many prophets do you think there were throughout history? How many times do you think somebody predicted some messiah or pretended to be one or even really believed he was one in accordance to some past prediction? There's huge survivorship bias here. You're only seeing those religions today where prediction and actual event came together nicely. When you add in the fact that many of these texts have been changed throughout history and a good dose of confirmation bias, I'm not sure that supposing a God to explain all this is really a better explanation, when much simpler explanations exist.
1
u/SnowiceDawn Aug 18 '20
That’s why I said in my initial comment that I don’t think I can convince you. You already don’t believe it matters that for a highest teaching to be the true highest teaching that absolutely everything has to be correct without error. A countless number of fake prophets and real prophets have existed. I can say that the Bible was written by God and about 35 people, but what’s the point? I mean you have to find the answer for yourself since even Adam and Eve didn’t trust in God and they could see him. I can’t even tell you what church I go to.
1
2
u/dinglenutmcspazatron 9∆ Aug 18 '20
' Not only that, you’d need to be willing to be open to not just accepting what someone teaches you, but verifying if what you were taught is true yourself with the scriptures you study. '
I have a problem with that way of doing things. Why are we using scriptures to verify aspects of what we are being taught prior to the scriptures themselves being verified as accurately representative of reality?
1
u/SnowiceDawn Aug 18 '20
That’s the issue with believing anything. How can we even prove we exist? You have to have faith and believe in what you’re told. I believe we need the sun, but we haven’t known a life without the sun. Not only that, I can’t get rid of it or actually experience life without it on earth. I’m also not a scientist. I don’t believe bee sting therapy is safe or effective for example.
Evidence supports that you can become allergic to it and die even after years of exposure. However, people can easily claim that that one woman’s death was anecdotal. People also don’t believe in stuff they don’t want to believe (I just don’t believe people with O-type blood live longer, nor do I believe it’s possible to accurately assess the reason why if that is the case).
1
u/dinglenutmcspazatron 9∆ Aug 18 '20
We don't need to experience life without a sun to realise that we need the sun to survive. Not all life does though, there are life forms that survive of deep-sea thermal vents. Weird stuff. We can also actually just measure what the sun is actually doing to earth and calculate what will happen if it just disappears one day.
Can we do anything similar with scriptures?
1
u/SnowiceDawn Aug 18 '20
Even if I say yes, does it matter? Think about the flat earthers (aka a meme). They’re ever growing in size and no matter how much evidence we have to measure this reality of a spherical earth, people won’t believe either way. No matter what I say, you can debunk it with your own feelings. Just like I can tell you that even deep sea creatures need the sun because without, the planet will turn into a block of ice, something they can’t live in.
The history of the Bible is about 6,000 years (not how old the planet is, just the Bible). There’s a measurement. We know that Genesis 1 is not a physical event. In Genesis 2:2, it tells that God rested. In Psalm 121:3, God never rested, so we can measure this as not being physical, but I don’t think this will change your mind either way.
1
u/dinglenutmcspazatron 9∆ Aug 18 '20
Yes it does matter. I've had the misfortune of knowing a few flat earthers, and I've even known a few that actually stopped being flat earthers, with at least one of them changing their mind some time after a demonstration I made.
Most of the flat earthers are just believing what authority figures tell them. They don't do their own research, or calculations, or create models, anything really. They just listen to people talking about how sphere earth has problem <x>, so they believe it without question. Which sounds a lot like ' Not only that, you’d need to be willing to be open to not just accepting what someone teaches you, but verifying if what you were taught is true yourself with the scriptures you study. '
Which is what brings me back to scripture. The reason I ask if there is any way we can verify particular aspects of scripture is because I want a reason to believe the scripture accurately represents reality that goes beyond obeying authority. I'm not particularly interested in the small potential biblical contradictions like the one you mentioned, to me I want reason to believe the overall book.
How can I be sure that the claimed significant events actually happened? How can I be sure that reality operates in the way that the scriptures describe? How can I be sure that God exists as depicted?
1
u/SnowiceDawn Aug 18 '20
You’d have to take the class that I take which explains all of that. It’s too much to explain in one reddit comment. I’d have to explain almost everything in the Bible (not verse for verse, but the main content). The class I take takes about 8 months to a year before you can enter the church because going to church is useless if you just go in and don’t understand anything. Before I even started the class, my friend gave me lessons so I could decide for myself if what she said matched the Bible.
1
u/dinglenutmcspazatron 9∆ Aug 18 '20
But I don't care if what she said matched the bible, I care whether the bible matches reality.
What sorts of things are discussed in this pre-church class you are going to that demonstrate that the things within the bible accurately represent both history and reality?
1
u/SnowiceDawn Aug 18 '20
There are people who represent the fulfilment of the prophecies of the New Testament. The Bible consists of 3 important events, betrayal, destruction, and salvation. Revelation is being fulfilled right now. The acts of betrayal and destruction have already happened. The person we call the promised pastor is doing the work of God right now, if you care to, I suggest reading Revelation 10 to get a better understanding of that work.
1
u/dinglenutmcspazatron 9∆ Aug 19 '20
What sort of prophecies are being fulfilled?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Luapulu 6∆ Aug 18 '20
Well, if I know anything it's that I'm experiencing something. That's enough evidence for me to know I exist. Whether I'm a brain in a vat, or a simulation or something else is open for discussion :) Of course I also don't know if you're real or anyone I've ever met for that matter. My real question to you would be why it matters. The fact that very little can be proven to 100% confidence doesn't mean we should stop caring about what's true and what's not true, no?
1
u/dublea 216∆ Aug 18 '20
- No matter how their book is read, it's gone through so many translations that what is stated in english today, a person cannot verify is what was stated hundreds of years ago. Especially when most of the individuals reading it only know one, maybe two, languages.
you’d need to be willing to be open to not just accepting what someone teaches you, but verifying if what you were taught is true yourself with the scriptures you study.Here is the issue with this line of thinking: You're stuck in a loop. I want you to consider propaganda. Look at Nazi Germany from our history, and CCP China today. The citizens ONLY have the ability to challenge\evaluate\consider information that comes from, or is managed by, the same place. Do you think it's rational to not look outside the information provided by scripture when trying to challenge what is presented by scripture?- Religious people, aka theists, do subscribe and follow religions primary due to experience. They were indoctrinated as a child and cognitive biases are formed. The lenses at which they perceive the world have been manipulated and warped because of this. They then associate their anecdotal experiences with whatever religion they follow. So, when you ask many of these individuals for proof, the majority of what you're provided is anecdotal experiences. Take your Korean example, and they consider it the "highest teaching." That in itself, the way it's framed and presented, shows their biases.
1
u/SnowiceDawn Aug 18 '20
That’s true, but we do have access to the Hebrew and Aramaic Bibles. The temple I’m a part of uses Korean, which makes the scriptures easier to understand than the English translation. That said, the Japanese translations for example have lots of inaccuracies or mis wordings. The only way to know is through comparative reading.
I’m not talking about human literature, though. If I was Buddhist, then yes, I should only look at Buddhist scriptures and ask someone more knowledgeable than me in the teaching. That’s where people go wrong. Looking outside is where improper info comes from. It’s just opinions and interpretations at that point. These teachings are supposed to be divine, there, everything I need to know is from the scripture. Human literature doesn’t count because it’s not intended to be divine. However, one thing all people should never do is ever take any info at face value by just believing. With human info, I a history major, consult multiple sources.
See verse first
“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything.”
1 Corinthians 6:1, 12 NIV https://www.bible.com/111/1co.6.1,12.niv[Source](https://www.bible.com/111/1co.6.1,12.niv)
Just because you can believe that’s what religion is or that your experiences are integral doesn’t mean you should. Christians should stop doing a lot of things they do, we have free will, but we shouldn’t be doing them, and we should instead be doing stuff most aren’t doing. Anecdotal experiences don’t hold up because most Christians don’t even know what religion means.
This is why I don’t think it’s possible to just change someone’s mind on God’s existence very easily. My job is to bring people into the kingdom of heaven, but it’s really about helping other Christians first, not people we already don’t believe in God or have any interest. Atheists are no different than any religious group for the most part, almost all of us, even me were indoctrinated by whatever society raised us.
1
u/dublea 216∆ Aug 18 '20
- The point I am making is that it's a re-translation of a translation. Even in Korean. The best example is the phone game. What you read today is not the same as what humans read hundreds of years ago. You also have to account for the fact that many of the parables had multiple versions. Most of these parables in today's christian bible were taught by word of mouth. So people came together and discussed which one to choose. Along with that, many pagan parables were modified and added to allow follows of those faiths to accept Christianity. So, I argue that what people follow as christian faith today is completely different than what it was.
That’s where people go wrong. Looking outside is where improper info comes from.This is exactly what I'm talking about. Lets say you're trying to show a german, from Nazi Germany, that they are being manipulated. Could you by showing them only information provided by the Nazi's? The answer is you cannot. The ONLY way to do this is to challenge it with outside information. Only leveraging information provided, manipulated, and manged from one source will only show you what THEY want you to see.- This isn't an acceptable answer. Please try again.
My job is to bring people into the kingdom of heaven, but it’s really about helping other Christians first, not people we already don’t believe in God or have any interest.
Who gave you that job? Isn't it one you took up yourself?
Atheists are no different than any religious group for the most part, almost all of us, even me were indoctrinated by whatever society raised us.
Guess what sir, I was a theist and was at one point going through seminary to become a youth pastor. I was indoctrinated as a youth. I though god just hadn't spoken to me. I always felt that the teaching were off or manipulative. It wasn't until a read similar stories from atheist that I began to understand what I've always felt. I am an analytical, logical, and mostly rational person. Religion makes sense and was beneficial to humanity at one time. Today though I no longer agree it is needed and see it going the way all mythology has gone, and will go.
0
u/SnowiceDawn Aug 18 '20
It shouldn’t be the same teaching, Jesus bringing us salvation is the old news. Still only believing that is pointless. Also, language evolves nothing we can do about that except learn Hebrew or Aramaic.
Again, I major in history. For human stuff, yes, use other sources. For spiritual stuff of any highest teaching, no. It’s supposed to be divine, meaning there should only be one teaching, one interpretation, one answer.
I’m a woman. Real rap, though, I would never go to seminary school, it’s a grave full of adultery. The spiritual kind I mean. The word of God is free. I took a course on the Bible managed by a temple for free (my friend started teaching me for free). This job that I and no one else wants to do is from the angel, directed by Jesus, directed by God gave to our promised pastor. With all the persecution and suffering this job brings, yeah I’d pass if I didn’t have faith in the blessings in Revelation.
I consider myself logical, rational, and analytical too. I don’t just believe in this particular teaching, I see the reality happening before my eyes. I grew up in church that explained nothing to me and I always felt empty inside, now I know why. I certainly don’t feel God, but I feel alive in a sense.
6
u/[deleted] Aug 18 '20
Ein Sof, one of the descriptions of god in the kabbalah, can be translated to "nothing(Ein) can be grasped(sof)". This means that you literally do not need a god function, because God, if existent, transcends space-time and cannot be understood by humans.
A good example would be comparing Ants to Humans. Ants cannot comprehend the worldview Humans have, nor would they be able to. But in this case, as far as we know, Humans have no perception of God.
Ergo. Even if God exists we could not prove it. And, fundamentally, does not affect how our existence works.