Atheist Under Ur Bed continues to attempt to discredit the concept of God over at AnAtheist.Net.
AUUB’s next objection is that God is neither deducible or detectable.
Deducibility
As I discussed in Reason, Philosophy, Science, and Faith the complaint that God and similar premises are not fully deductive is due to the nature of deduction not the fallacious nature of divine claims.
AUUB does not deal with many of the proofs of God, he does specifically mention several objections to the first cause argument.
First, he repeats the classic objection that if everything requires a cause, what caused God? The flaw in this objection is that it misunderstands the basic nature of the argument. The first cause argument is essentially that everything we observe in the natural world has a cause, not incidentally, but necessarily. Therefore, a cause is required to start the kind of things we see, which must itself be significantly different from the things we observe. The immediate conclusion is that this thing must be uncaused. One can also reasonably posit that this thing must be powerful in order to be the initial cause of all effects, etc.
Second, AUUB denies the premise that nothing comes from nothing. There is no reason to believe such a thing is possible and every reason to believe it is impossible. AUUB attempts to bring up vacuum energy, but the vacuum energy example does not apply here because empty space (or space-time) is not nothing.
Third, AUUB argues that positing causes outside the natural order is an absurd excercise in the first place. This really seems like a different way of stating the first argument. The basic observation here is that everyone we see in this universe, including the universe itself, requires a cause. There is nothing particularly absurd about this observation.
Fourth, AUUB objects that the impossibility of infinite regress is an unwarranted assumption. Even if this is true, it seems irrelevant given the present consensus regarding the finite nature of the universe.
Finally, AUUB is correct that if we accept the first cause argument it does not itself imply any specific religious tradition. It merely demonstrates that some supernatural thing is implied by nature. More argumentation is required to arrive at particular details regarding this thing.
Detectability
It is interesting that AUUB should mention that some planets were hypothesized before they were discovered. These hypotheses posit the existence of entities which were not directly observed, but are indirectly implied. Consider the design and first cause arguments. Both begin with an observation (design is a product of a designer, cause and effect) implying an unknown (source of design, start of the cause and effect chain) and posit an implied entity as the best explanation. Most arguments for the existence of God follow precisely this line of reasoning. While AUUB may disagree with those arguments and their conclusion may not be 100% certain, but that does not mean that the premise of God is as utterly vacuous as AUUB claims.
In this way, the premise of God is not “untestable”. For example, if one could prove that the universe had always existed, the first cause argument would be discredited. If one could prove that the design inherent in living things and the fine-tuning of the universe actually were accidental or inevitable, the premise would be disproven.
Furthermore, the contention that the “God hypothesis” renders all meaningful explanations impossible is, frankly, bogus. Some people may treat the premise that way, but as long as one accepts God, not as the direct cause of all things, but as a rational first cause who established a logical order to the universe and occasional intervenes, there is plenty of room for meaningful, logical, and scientific inquiry with the goal of understanding God’s established natural order. That some people propagate a divine view which leads to the conclusion of an irrational and incomprehensible universe does not mean all divine views do so.
Occam’s Razor
Occam’s razor or the law of parsimony, as AUUB concisely states it, is that “assumptions ought not to be multiplied unnecessarily” (emphasis mine). The real question here is whether God is an unnecessary premise or not. As such, applying Occam’s razor is a circular argument which assumes God is unnecessary in the first place.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the concept of God is not a parallel to a unicorn (a plausible entity for which no evidence exists) because indirect evidence exists which supports the claim. Neither is God like an invisible unicorn (an entity for which no evidence can exist, untestable) because conceivably true premises would contradict the premise of God. Nor is God like a four-sided triangle or a round square (a definitionally absurd and illogical concept), because His various attributes are not absurd (see my response to AUUB’s first series of objections).
