I'm revising **** I wrote for my comic books, and I found this in my archived notes.
Any attempt to disprove God would most likely be centred around recreating fundamental events or ideas of God.
Take for example the creation of the Universe. If we could recreate this event and define every element of the equation it would be evidence in favour of a
hypothesis against intelligent design.
Although there is still the argument that it could have been God's will for
us to discover this method, it would be physical evidence for an argument against Divine belief or any form of divine/almighty
existence.
But there is a problem even with evidence of how the Universe began. To be in possession of this
evidence and to practically apply it to create for example "a parallel Universe" to demonstrate it's validity,
a calculation and action needs to be taken for the event to occur. It can't be proven unless it's calculated and put into action
but by putting the calculation into action it is proven that a Universe can't be created without
the intervention of intelligence. In order to justify the unbiased recreation of the creation of our Universe, there would have
had to have been an intervening force, just as you intervene to create a new Universe.
To suggest calculation is a purely Human creation is to suggest you can control what you calculate; but
proof that this is not true is the simple sum 1+1=2. Calculation cannot control the outcome of a sum.
To say the Human calculation is eternally flawed to x degree because of our involvement or limited intelligence, and that the Universe
in reality needs no calculation is to ignore the involvement as a factor and is simply an admittance of failure, creating our flaws into the new Universe.
What is your rebuttal?
