Atheism Stack Exchange Archive

Would proof of determinism be tantamount to a proof there’s no god?

Say there’s proof that we exist in a deterministic universe–or that impossible, proof that a deterministic universe indistinguishable from ours must exist in spite of any supernatural cause, like with a computer simulation1–would that constitute a final proof of the nonexistence of any god?

Reasoning goes: if deterministic, then the universe is isomorphic to a number (that is, you can represent the state of the universe as an integer–however enormous that number is), and God is not necessary for the integers to exist. Also, if deterministic, then no supernatural entity outside of the system can intervene and change the course of events in it.

1 - The computer simulation would not be the cause of the proof-universe, but proof that such a universe can exist.

Answer 1890

No, moreover it wouldn’t even be a telling defeat for an intricate religion with bold claims such as Christianity. Christians were quick to suggest a determinism for reasons that have nothing to do with science, enter Calvinism, and to a lesser degree even Lutheranism. The main reason for determinism in both of these theologies is because of the requirement for predestination. These branches argue that at some level predestination is required for god to be all knowing and infinite. The opponents argue of course that god needs to be able to change his mind to be all powerful.

Calvinists don’t believe in the effects of prayer. I’m not sure how a Calvinist reconciles the rest of the Bible with determinism… Read the History of Calvinist–Arminian debate if you’re interested in knowing specifically of how Christians deal with determinism.

I’m not 100% sure of what you’re asking, but if you’re trying to disprove God by proving determinism rest assured there already a line of people ready to combat such a magnificent discovery with nonsense.

Answer 1876

  1. Something (e.g. a god) can be unneccesary and still exist.
  2. Such a proof obviously wouldn’t prohibit an X (e.g.an god) that is part of the system.

The first, and most severe problem with “proof that there is/are one/several/no god/-s” is the definition of “god”. There are basically hundreds of definitions, many of which contrary (or at least you can’t merge them easily). And I bet that a good portion of these definitions don’t require “god” to be. So unless you get the theists to agree on one definition (or a set of definitions that are disproven by such a proof), such a proof would not disprove the existence of god/-s.

Answer 1879

A few objections:

All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.