The problem with this line of justification, Aria, is that we know science—which is a methodology for learning, not a belief structure—works. It’s what’s resulted in all of the technological advancement that’s gotten us here. So until it stops working, it’s a methodology we can trust. And the scientific method says you don’t assume anything. So there’s basically two types of things we think exist:
- The set of observed data. These are the things we directly measure. We know a Loki exists because I’m sitting in one.
- The set of implied phenomena. I know someone made this Loki because the Loki’s existence requires outside action, even if I didn’t directly observe the fabrication.
That’s it. Anything not directly observed can only be expected to exist if the observed data demands it. Note the subtle terminology: the set of implied phenomena, not inferred phenomena. If is the observed data that tells us what must be implied, not us drawing inferences.
If there are multiple possible explanations implied, the one that requires the fewest assumptions of unobserved components must be considered most likely until demonstrated otherwise. In the example of my Loki, there could be a guy out there with a factory who made the Loki… or God could have done it. Direct observation tells us people exist. Direct observation tells us factories exist. Direct observation tells us people use factories to make things. God’s existence remains an unfounded assumption. Thus, we are required to determine God probably didn’t conjure my Loki into existence.
The existence of the known universe is a similar matter. We have multiple theories for the origins of the universe, including (for example) the ideas that the universe as we know it exists as a 3-dimensional ‘shadow’ on the event horizon of a singularity existing in as many as 17 dimensions, or the entire universe is inside a single quantum fluctuation in the fabric of another universe. Or, you know, God.
We know the potential for such shadows on a mass horizon exists from our own observations of the edge of a 3-Dimensional event horizon. We know quantum fluctuations exist from theoretical models, implications from our technologies like jump drives and stargates actually working, and direct observation. God remains unobserved, and an assumption.
Now, the obvious and constant rejoinder to this is ‘well, what made the universe that singularity/quantum fluctuation is in? Where’s the First Cause?’ This is brought out as though we have hit a wall where religion has an answer that the scientific method cannot provide. Yet, it ignores one tiny log in the believer’s eye:
What made God?
Expecting this, the believer will usually calmly (and often smugly) reply that God has always been. God is Eternal. It’s an interesting quality to assume for an entity believed to have created Time, of course—if God made Time, how could God exist before there was ‘before’? But that can be set aside.
The far simpler response is: There is more evidence that existence has ‘always been’, in some form or another, than there is to make that claim for God. That evidence is blatant, it is obvious, and it is inescapable: We have direct observation of existence. We can demonstrate—existential philosophy aside—that existence in some form exists.
We cannot do that for God.
This is a perfectly reasonable question. The problem is that religion’s answer of ‘God did it’ is directly meant specifically to stop attempts to expand those limits. ‘God’ is an unobservable, unmeasurable quantity. It’s an appeal to authority—which, in the end, is what religion is: a means to present a source of authority.
Because God says so.
Why does God want me to do X?
You’re questioning GOD? Shut up and do X!
It’s a means of controlling people. God’s Will, after all, is always presented by people. And somehow, God’s Will is always beneficial to those same people. The True Amarr have a bunch of books that say you should obey the True Amarr? Shocking.