About this video

• Video Title: CPDEP #37 ft Óscar Teixidó | Ciencia y Filosofía CONTRA la EXISTENCIA de DIOS
• Channel: ConPdePodcast
• Speakers: Luis (host), Óscar Teixidó (guest)
• Duration: 01:52:31

Overview

This podcast episode features a discussion between Luis, the host, and Óscar Teixidó, a guest with expertise in plant improvement and philosophy. The primary focus is on examining arguments from science and philosophy against the existence of God, particularly the monotheistic concept. They explore various philosophical arguments, definitions of God, different types of atheism, and critically analyze common arguments used to support the existence of God, such as the cosmological arguments, the argument from design (fine-tuning), and the problem of evil. The conversation also touches upon the nature of ethics and aesthetics in a world without God.

Key takeaways

• Defining God is Crucial: Before discussing existence, it's essential to clearly define what "God" means, as different interpretations lead to different arguments and conclusions. The discussion primarily focuses on the monotheistic God.
• Atheism and Agnosticism: The conversation differentiates between atheism (lack of belief in God) and agnosticism (uncertainty about God's existence), with the guest suggesting agnostics might be "closeted believers."
• Burden of Proof: The guest argues that the burden of proof lies with the believer, as they are making the extraordinary claim of God's existence.
• Critique of Traditional Arguments: Several arguments for God's existence, including the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas, the ontological argument of Anselm, and the argument from fine-tuning, are critically examined and found to be lacking or based on flawed premises.
• The Problem of Evil: This is discussed as a significant challenge to the concept of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God, with a distinction made between the general problem of evil and the problem of unnecessary evil.
• Ethics and Aesthetics Without God: The podcast explores the idea that morality and the appreciation of beauty can exist and be understood without recourse to a divine being, grounding them in naturalistic and philosophical frameworks.
• Science and Philosophy Synergy: A strong emphasis is placed on the importance of integrating scientific knowledge with philosophical reasoning to form robust arguments and a coherent worldview.

The podcast discusses several arguments against the existence of God, drawing from both science and philosophy:

Philosophical Arguments:

• The Problem of Evil: If God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, why does evil and suffering exist? The podcast highlights this as a core challenge, particularly the "problem of unnecessary evil" (suffering that doesn't seem to serve any greater good).
• Critique of the Five Ways (Thomas Aquinas): These arguments, aiming to prove God's existence through concepts like motion, causation, and contingency, are critiqued for relying on outdated philosophical frameworks and not necessarily leading to the monotheistic God of major religions.
• The Ontological Argument (Anselm): The argument that God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived, and since existence is greater than non-existence, God must exist, is dismissed as a "bad argument" based on flawed reasoning and potentially begging the question.
• Argument from Fine-Tuning: The idea that the universe's physical constants are so precisely calibrated for life suggests intelligent design. The podcast counters this by suggesting that the premise might be false (slight variations might still allow for life) or that alternative explanations, like a multiverse, could be at play, though the speaker ultimately refutes the "fine-tuning" argument by pointing to scientific simulations that suggest the parameters are not as finely tuned as often claimed.
• The Simulation Argument: While acknowledging it's not logically impossible, the argument that we might be living in a simulation is deemed "infecund" (unproductive) and "trivial," adding complexity without explanatory power.
• Causality and the First Cause: Arguments suggesting God as the uncaused first cause are challenged by scientific understanding, where concepts like quantum mechanics suggest randomness and inherent properties of matter that might not require a singular, external first cause. The idea of an "uncaused cause" itself is questioned.
• The Argument from Morality: The claim that objective morality requires God is refuted by arguing that ethical systems can be grounded in naturalistic, materialistic, and even fictional frameworks that are objectively useful due to their practical consequences.
• The Argument from Aesthetics: While acknowledged as more difficult to argue against naturally, the podcast implies that aesthetic appreciation doesn't necessitate a divine source.

Scientific Considerations:

• Big Bang and Origins: The common misconception that the Big Bang implies creation from nothing is addressed. The scientific models suggest a material origin, governed by laws, rather than a supernatural creation event. The idea that the creator must be outside of space-time is questioned due to a misunderstanding of cosmological models.
• Conservation of Energy: The principle that energy cannot be created or destroyed is used to support the idea that the universe's material components are conserved, not created from nothing, contradicting the idea of a divine "ex nihilo" creation.
• Quantum Mechanics: While not fully explored, quantum mechanics is mentioned as introducing elements of randomness and probabilistic events that challenge strict deterministic causality, which is often associated with a divinely ordered universe.
• Naturalism and Materialism: The overarching scientific perspective presented is naturalism/materialism, suggesting that reality is fundamentally composed of matter and governed by natural laws, without the need for supernatural intervention. All observable phenomena are seen as explainable within this framework.

The podcast critiques several traditional arguments for God's existence:

Against the Five Ways (Thomas Aquinas):

• Obsolete Frameworks: The arguments are based on Aristotelian philosophy, which is considered substantially obsolete given modern scientific understanding (e.g., Newtonian mechanics, relativity, quantum physics).
• Lack of Cohesion: Even if the premises were accepted, the five ways do not necessarily demonstrate the existence of the personal, monotheistic God that religions typically worship. They might only suggest a "first cause" or "unmoved mover" that is inert and not conscious.
• Flawed Premises/Vagueness: The guest implies that each of the Five Ways has issues with their premises or vagueness, making them unconvincing even within their own philosophical context.
• Insufficient Conclusion: The arguments, at best, point to an immaterial, necessary, first cause, but do not prove it has attributes like benevolence, consciousness, or personality, which are central to the monotheistic God.

Against the Fine-Tuning Argument:

• Premise is Questionable: The claim that the constants are so finely tuned that life would be impossible with minor variations is challenged. Scientific simulations suggest that variations in constants might not necessarily preclude life, or that the extent of this "fine-tuning" is overstated.
• Multiverse as an Alternative: While not fully endorsed, the idea of a multiverse is presented as an alternative explanation, suggesting that in an infinite number of universes, it's not improbable that one would have the right conditions for life.
• "No Adjustment Needed": The most potent criticism offered is that scientific simulations and analyses suggest that the parameters of the universe are not finely tuned in the way the argument claims. If all fundamental constants were varied simultaneously, the structure of the universe and the conditions for life would still be possible, suggesting the "tuning" isn't as precise or deliberate as proponents believe. This undermines the core premise of the argument.