(18 votes, average: 4.56 out of 5)
Loading...I don’t think you can disprove the existence of God. And I don’t think you can prove it. There are some things that by their very nature are not susceptible of proof, at least at this stage of our knowledge, including some things that theoretically exist or not. If you want to insist that one of the universes within the multiverse is an exact replica of ours down to the very molecule – so that my cosmic double is typing these very words the moment I am – I have no way of proving it or disproving it. (some will argue it’s likely, esp. if there is an infinite number of universes – in which case in another one of them my cosmic virtual double is typing these words but changing one of them; and in another….)
Even so, that kind of thing could in theory be proven or disproven if human knowledge expands geometrically in the future, since we would (probably) be talking about a physical entity that exists. But when it comes to God, we are not talking about a physical, measurable entity located in some kind of time and space, and so, with that kind of thing, empirical data (those that can in theory be observed) are not involved. Maybe our geometric progress in knowledge will blast off and make even such things possible in a couple of thousand years. Who knows. But it’s not possible now.
That’s why I don’t think “arguments for the existence of God” make any sense. I’m not simply saying
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Wonderful, Professor. I’m in awe of how well you express yourself.
This needs more reading and cogitating.
Thank you.
This lines up nicely with the way I’ve heard you distinguish between agnosticsm and atheism. (What we can know, and what believe based on what we know.) Of course, I agree we cannot prove anything outside the domain of the natural world, and those boundaries continue expanding with scientific progress. So we are all on equal footing when it comes to our inability to prove or disprove the supernatural (existence of God, life after death, miracles). That’s when we have to look to what we know (evidence) and draw our own conclusion. I was raised fundamental Christian, so realizing I cannot give anyone but myself a reason to have faith is quite a mental shift! I should be able to give my reasons for believing (or not), but I can’t tell you yours. Thanks, Bart! Enjoyed the post!
Thank you for this!
In the Gospel according to John, Jesus does a bunch of miracles so that people would believe in him and his words. If something like that were still going on, I’d at least pay close attention. But, AFAIK, it isn’t.
For me an even bigger problem is that even if you believe in the concept of God, how are we supposed to know who he/she/they is/are and what they want from us? The religions of the world, mostly derived from writings of relatively primitive societies, all have significant disagreements about this. I haven’t found any description of god that makes sense to me. Of course, some will say that we puny humans can’t make sense of the divine, but then where does that leave us? Just pick your religion and run with it and hope in the end you picked the right one. Or you can ask the Homer Simpson question: What if we picked the wrong religion and every week when we go to church we just make God madder and madder?
It looks to some people that we *are*. 🙂
My Christianity that I studied & God I worshipped was fully developed In Europe & the USA [- S AFRICA].
New Testament material chosen in Rome, developed in Rome, Germany, France, England, the USA- all Global preeminent powers when I read those authors]
BTW I had a near death experience before I turned 12, [I was in a coma for 6+ weeks] & I can absolutely not attest to any of those best selling books.
Finally how can humans properly convey what they perceive as divine?
Good morning Dr Ehrman. I look forward to your posts and especially this one. I do fall into the group who must believe that a higher power a god had to create this world. It’s the only thing that makes sense in my mind. I don’t believe you can get something from nothing, and I’m not sure that man can even conceive the idea of nothingness. However, I think everyone must choose for themselves what to believe on this subject. What I struggle with is the suffering, judgement, hatred that us humans do or are subjected to. It seems to me even some of our religious leaders do things they know full well they shouldn’t be doing and influence people who trust them to suffer due to that influence. However, I remain hopeful that in time mankind will learn and it will be for the betterment of the world. Thanks for helping us learn, RD
What I do not understand is why we take such precautions and humility on the question of the Christian god in particular, but we have no such problems about the Shiva Hypothesis. One billion people today are pretty sure that Shiva is real in some way, and the other 7 billion people are pretty sure that he is not more of a real being than Jupiter. Very few people call themselves agnostic about Shiva.
Who really knows? Who in this world may declare it! How this creation arose? The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe. Maybe it formed itself, maybe not. The Supreme, in Highest Heaven – maybe he knows. Maybe not!
– Nasadiya Sukta, Rigveda Hymn 129
A problem with questions like this is that the questioner seldom defines what he means by god. Does a god have to be a creator? Does a god have to be conscious? Does a god have to be self-aware? Does a god have to have a language? Does a god have to be all-knowing? Does a god have to be all-powerful? A Christian fundamentalist would probably say yes; a Buddhist would probably say no. So what is a god?
The same problem seems to occur with those who claim Jesus did not exist. What do they mean by Jesus? By exist? Are they claiming that, in first century Roman Galilee and Judea there was not a single Jewish male named Jesus? Probably not. That there was not a single Jewish male named Jesus who was a teacher? Again, probably not. At the other extreme, are they saying they do not believe Jesus turned water into wine? Probably, but that does not mean he did not exist. It is a lot easier to win a debate if you never state what your exact position is.
Before debating God’s existence, we must define what we mean by “God.” Most people see God as an omnipotent, benevolent, and perfect being, but this idea collapses under the Epicurean paradox:
If God is willing to prevent evil but unable, he is not omnipotent. If he is able but unwilling, he is not benevolent. If he is both able and willing, then why does evil exist? If he is neither able nor willing, then why call him God?
This argument challenges the idea of an all-good, all-powerful God coexisting with evil.
Modern discussions focus on the idea of a Creator, not a traditional God. A Creator could be an advanced civilization or an unknown force, but it wouldn’t require omnipotence or moral perfection.
With today’s knowledge, we cannot confirm nor refute the existence of a Creator. However, there is a vast difference between a Creator and a God—one could be a natural phenomenon or an intelligence within our universe, while the other demands absolute power and perfection, which contradict the existence of suffering and imperfection.
I totally agree with your argument as to why we shouldn’t arbitrarily invoke God to explain whatever we can’t wrap our heads around at any given time, and I’ve been making the same argument for years.
One thing I would add to your arguments against those 6 bullet points is that invoking God doesn’t really explain any of those things—it addresses a mystery by postulating a greater mystery (and thereby stops explanation in its tracks). They’re just kicking the can down the road. We can say that God caused the big bang, but then what caused God? We can postulate that God is the explanation of life, but then how do we explain where God came from? The only process we know of that can generate intelligent life is evolution by natural selection, so what lower lifeforms did God evolve from? Apologists will insist that God doesn’t need a cause because he’s outside the causal order. But observe what they’re doing here: they’re MAKING SHIT UP. It’s an ad hoc hypothesis that goes against everything we know about how the universe works, and the only reason to assert such a hypothesis is the desire to believe in God.
I completely agree with you. God-of-the-gaps arguments don’t and can’t explain anything. Sometimes I think the ultimate “reason” for the existence of “life, the universe, and everything”, to borrow the title of a popular book by Douglas Adams, isn’t even amenable to our logic or anything resembling a rational explanation. Like love or peach ice cream (which is much better than chocolate, btw), that sort of preference doesn’t fall within the realm of logical reasoning. Your three “big” questions are indeed three of the biggest (though some biologists think we may be closing in on the life from non-life puzzle). Perhaps the universe exists because of some ontological “necessity”, such as Plato’s concept of “the Good” – beyond or above reason or logic. The physicist Max Tegmark has a four-level multiverse idea, the “highest” of which is a realm of pure mathematical forms similar to Plato’s world of forms. An interesting (and quick to read) book you might check out is Why Does the World Exist? by the philosopher Jim Holt.
An interesting article was published recently on the ARXIV.ORG server, History and Philosophy of Physics, this February in regard to God and the universe entitled “Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Tell Us Anything About God?” by Adam D. Hincks. The link to this 19 page discussion can be found at:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.12083
Every once and a while the head of the Vatican Observatory will publish an article concerning how various astronomical discoveries verify God’s existence.
The Adam D. Hincks article makes for allot of heavy thinking. I think his fine tuning idea is interesting but it is not a proof of God by any means. How about the various functions of matter and the Universe being intelligent or conscious in and of themselves. No need for a nasty attitude Abrahamic God.
Buddhist believe that the best way find God is to deny His existence. I have found this to be true because most atheists are closer to God than are most believers.
That’s a very interesting way of putting it and it reminds me of the “God of the gaps” concept. I would say that it all makes a lot of sense and would have been where I landed had I not received a very confusing, but direct answer to my “God, do you exist?” question.
When it comes to this topic, how hard do you lean into your non-belief of God? e.g. On a scale of 1 – 7, 1 being absolute certain there’s no God, 7 being absolutely certain there is, where do you land?
If in the future, we figure out the natural order of all things, do you think there’s still space to be held for those who believe in a God?
Also a personal question if you don’t mind me asking: If you were to have a modern-day event similar to Saul’s Damascus road encounter (and as time went on you realized you weren’t going crazy or scizophrenic), would you take that as evidence of a God or would you go the route of Richard Dawkins and say that you’d think aliens were playing a trick on you? (e.g. “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”)
I’m not sure. I guess I’m a 2-3? More like 2? 1.5? And yes, I imagine there will always be lots of people who believe in God.
As to transformative experiences, the thing about them is that no one knows how they would interpret them.
Thank you!
The observable universe is said to span 93 billion light years. Seems we haven’t a clue to where or if it ends. Modern science has many advanced tools, however,
it hasn’t located another living creature out “there. “. Kant pointed out there are limits to reason . We cannot figure out how we got here on this speck of a planet,
is there a purpose for us and what happens ,if anything, after we die. Myths and
religions help us get by but usually fail if we critically examine them. We have advanced so much in our knowledge and then again not at all. We still haven’t a clue how we got here or even our location in the universe.
I’m no astronomer, but I thought that the expansion of the universe was happening everywhere at once in relationship to everything else at once so that, weirdly, there’s not actually a way to talk about “location” in the way we normally think? That is, the conceptoin that there is a “center” from which everything else is moving away is not really how it works. Everything is moving away from everything, not everything from a point in the middle. But someone can correct me on that!
I don’t believe in the supernatual. I feel if someone tries to prove the existence of God, it on them not me to prove (his, her, its) existence. Like Sean Carroll, I am open to God being proved but the arguements seem so poor. Fine tuning is probably the best arguement but I find it unconvincing.
My feeling is that such a presence is beyond our comprehension. Humankind has strived for a long time to explain something beyond them. Where did this sense emerge? Is it a natural imperfection within us to seek such an answer, or is there something in that deep sense that touches on a morsel of truth?
I have long abandoned the notion of heaven or God as first imaged and taught to me when I was younger. I believe in something more, but I try not to give it definitions. After all, if God is all… all is everything, and despite what I may think I know, I’m a long way from everything.
I have also found that learning about Christianity made me less Christian in the religious sense. Yet, at the same time, I am all that much more fascinated by how Christianity came to be. Is that ironic? I don’t know…
A pile of rubble does not become a mechanical car on its own. A mechanical car cannot even think yet, drive itself, nor reproduce itself. The computer is more complex than a mechanical car (car without electronics and a computer). The human brain is more complex than the computer, and not made of the same materials. For some reason we can’t recycle dead brains into becoming usable again as like a computer or any kind of data calculation device.
I think it’s sensible to assume there was a Creator God(s) of it. But yes, the idea still remains scientifically unfalsifiable. Whatever belief helps anyone to create good is alright with God.
Notion of God:
Eternal
Amoral
Quantum Consciousness
Omnipresent in the multiverse
More than the god of our Solar System
More than the god of our three-dimensional reality
A physicist who invented touch screen technology, Federico Faggin says:
“NEW Quantum Science PROVES Consciousness GENERATES Reality!”
For God to exist, God must have consciousness.
We can no longer say an omnipresent consciousness does not exist.
One can no longer be agnostic or atheistic against an omnipresent consciousness.
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
I’ll consult with my my cosmic virtual double and let you know.
But seriously every time I consider the universe(s) and how we are spinning on a rock with a star blasting us with heat and light I have a panic attack.
Then again Jesus said not to worry. He must have known something we don’t know.
Couldn’t God only exist in the gaps? The only redeeming aspect of the god of the gaps, is that the only intellectually honest ‘idea’ of God is that he is unknown, cannot be comprehended, cannot be defined, not a species within a genus, what Thomas would call the simplicity of God, not composite, ie, apophatic theology. As Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (very much a believer in God) said, ‘it is more true to say that God does not exist than to say that he exists’. Apophatic agnosticism. If God cannot really be known, how could we know if God is real? I’m not agnostic because I can’t decide if God exists or not, but because every conceivable view of God is not God. I can only know what he is not. My son believes this too, but it’s too time consuming for him to explain this, so he just tells people he’s an atheist. Somehow I just can’t bring myself to call myself an atheist, even ‘though I know for certain that the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent god of classical philosophical theism does not exist. I’m an agnostic zealot! Better than being an atheist? What do you think, Bart?
I think you have a theological training. 🙂 But as you know, I differentiate between honestly knowing or not knowing something and haveing a belief; on the first score I’m an agnostic and the second an atheist, and by my definitions, so are you! But I very much like the line about “cannot really be known and therefore can’t be known to be real.” I would say, though, that few people without a massive amount of thought and reading would be driven to apophatic agnosticism … And I suppose a real question is, in the end, what does it give you? Possibly a sense of wonder? Not a bad thing to have….
What does my apophatic agnosticism do for me? It helps me to integrate everything I lived in my past religious life and learned in my studies, all of which still fascinates me to no end, thus nothing lost in leaving religious life. In my Licentiate public lecture, I tried to combine apophatic agnosticism with the continual scientific search for understanding of the universe, especially the quest for the Big TOE (Theory of Everything), in comparison with the ever shrinking god of the gaps. Certainly not because I believe in a god of the gaps, but I think theology must continue its search for the unknown God in much the same way science continues to seek explanations and develop hypotheses beyond older inadequate theories. Apophatic theology can never be satisfied with any theories about God, for all of them are inadequate, for God cannot be defined or comprehended, hence this is the biggest theological gap of all. Now, I will be more than content with whatever ultimate answers humanity may find, if they ever can, scientific, theological, none, but I certainly don’t expect to live that long so I’m happy to stare into the void in the meantime.
When I was in seminary I had a friend who was so insistenty apophatic that he would not use the term “God” but would say “the reality we call God” EVERY FLIPPIN’ TIME. I got the point but found it a bit irritating after a while. Part of this was not just his theology but his view of language as being inadequate to capture the reality it was trying to express. I got that too. So I suggested that he use the phrase “the reality we call…” for every noun, just for the sake of consistency….
With regard to the main point of your really interesting post, I fully agree: I don’t think it is possible to definitively prove or disprove the existence of God.
From my experience here in Greece, I tend to think that what ultimately drives people to believe there’s God (that would be the God of the Greek Orthodox Christianity course) is a combination of them wanting really bad for Him to exist and a failure to explain things without Him.
A last point I would like to make. If we ever get to the point that we can prove there’s actually a multiverse, that still would not be sufficient to prove or disprove God in general, but I can’t see how it wouldn’t disprove a lot of religions (and as a result, the existence of the God they’re attached to) that are heavily dependent on the premise that our world is a really unique entity, designed for us, who are really special. I really believe the discovery of multiverse will turn a lot of people to atheism.
I remain in the hope that philosophers will eventually come up with a watertight case for the existence or otherwise of God but we are no nearer that now than we have ever been. I think the William Paley ‘watchmaker’ argument (to which you alluded) is the best, (for intelligent design, at least), except that it still fails to be totally convincing. For example, humans are arguably ‘machines’ like watches, but watches don’t ‘grow’ from ‘watch seeds’. But thank you for a very thought provoking article.
It would certainly be interesting if God existed, if only because maybe then you could hope to eventually get answers to so many imponderable questions.
But I’ve never seen any evidence of such a being’s existence and I find the lack of any verifiable communication from it quite disappointing. So why should I postulate its existence?
It would also be interesting if a woman resembling Emma Peel (played by Diana Rigg) from the old British TV show “The Avengers” had a crush on me, but no such woman has ever appeared or contacted me. I might fantasize about such a person, but I’d be a fool to convince myself she must exist.
Your stance appears to rely on empirical verification as the sole means of proof. However, this perspective is undermined by a fundamental flaw: the assertion “only physical entities that can be empirically verified are provable” cannot itself be empirically verified. This creates a self-refuting paradox, revealing that your worldview rests on an assumption that contradicts its own claims.
I’d love to hear your option! 🙂 In any event, I’m not stating it as an empirically verifiable assertion, and never ever would think of it in that way.. I’m stating it as what I think is most plausible.disabledupes{1238b39740dd50092f5ecfc772d18ea6}disabledupes
I apologize if my previous message came across as blunt. I sometimes struggle to gauge the tone of my written words.
Not a problem. Or rather, a problem I also have!
I was thinking about the non-arrival of the End Of The World, and how it doesn’t affect people’s thinking.
There is a relevant article in yesterday’s Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/02/26/ai-research-conspiracy-theories/ about this. Basically, nothing a friend can do will change their minds. But A.I. can.
One possible reason is that A.I. is not human. If your identity and your group-think are tied up with a conspiracy/apocalyptic theory, then anyone who asks you to change your mind is asking you to choose *their* group over your own group. But A.I. is a machine and so not a threat to your identity.
(That’s my paraphrase; the article says, “When you’re interacting with AI, you’re not arguing with a human being whom you might be standing in opposition to, which could cause you to be less open-minded.”)
For those who cannot access the Post, here’s the original paper: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adq1814)
I found this interesting because the topic of The End comes up on the blog from time to time.
The God Hypothesis: I think it’s all about the fear of non-existence after death that controls so many people. Belief in God, the immortal human soul, and judgement of eternal life of happiness or eternal life of punishment by fire (aka eternal torture) are components of a fantasy that many people need to believe in order to minimize that fear.
As you say, there is no way to prove the existence of God, or of the immortal human soul, or of eternal life after death. In place of proof, we have fantasy. And belief in that fantasy has caused untold amount of misery to the human race.
I think you’re making God way too complicated. You’re saying you don’t believe in the very thing that put you here. What put you here? A cosmological force. That’s God. Why would it be anything else? People have experiences with this cosmological force daily. I have my experiences with it, and you have yours. When we gain knowledge, we are literally learning about God. It’s as simple as that.
Should that cosmological force be shown gratitude through festivals of thanksgiving?
What happens if that cosmological force put us here via other beings more advanced than we were 200,000 years ago.
The Sumerian creation and flood epic, Atrahasis, said we were bio-engineered by Aliens. We were part earthling hominid and part Anunnaki Igiggi.
See YouTube Channel, Matthew LaCroix, video: Everything You Know Is Wrong Lloyd Pye – Human Origins, Anunnaki, Evolution
YouTube Channel, Gregg Braden, video: Why Recent DNA Evidence Doesn’t Support Theory of Evolution?
YouTube Channel, Danny Jones Clips video: #1 Genetic Evidence Humans Were Created (We Did NOT Evolve) | Gregg Braden
God ended the old covenant. The ever required temple necessary to keep the “law” was destroyed, at a time predicted when it would. In 2000 years it has never even come close to being reestablished. That is proof of Him being existence and, His control over this world.
Bart,
Thank you for prompting your audience to think about God.
I gave my working notion of God.
I did a quick survey from Aquinas to the 21st century of the Arguments for God’s existence.
Two arguments that hold up for me are from the 21st century:
1) The Information Argument (Federico Faggin) – suggests that consciousness precedes the material world.
and
2) Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) and Consciousness Studies (Bernardo Kastrup) – reality is fundamentally mental supporting a God-like consciousness for existence.
If these arguments for God of the multiverse are lacking, the Sun and its Solar System can be the God through whom we have life. That God over a specific location in the Milky Way has the intelligence of the field of knowledge of Astrology people study.
Since Science says there are 11 dimensions to reality. God cannot only be the cause of the Big Bang in only a 3 dimension reality.
Human consciousness which is not omnipresent, in a state of incarnation and after incarnation, would have access to the third dimension of reality but not necessarily to all 11 dimensions. So, humans cannot validly deny the existence of God in dimensions to which we do not have access.
The “argument from incredulity” fallacy is one of my favorites to use when people present the “how do you explain …” statements.
Well, I think the Aristotelian/ Thomistic argument makes a lot of sense (Aquinas’ First Way).
The best explanation of it is in Ed Feser’s Five Proofs of the Existence of God.
The existence of God can be proven philosophically, not scientifically.
I wonder if “proven” is too strong a word? Since most philosophers aren’t convinced, but “proof” suggests they would more or less need to be?
I am eagerly anticipating our meeting in Greece. I look forward to engaging in theological and philosophical conversations with you all day while exploring ancient sites and enjoying delicious food and drinks. I am very excited to meet you in Greece. Let us question the mysteries! BTW, Im moving to Greece next year.
What about this approach? I must be honest and admit I do not know if God exists; but if he does, he has lots of questions needing answers just as he might have lots of questions for me to answer. What if I just pretend he exists and look at him as a father of some sort or a father-mother entity that I would not want to disappoint. So I look at myself as an agnostic who can neither say God exists or doesn’t exist. One problem for me comes when Christians (I used to be one) point to the Bible and proclaim that God must exist because the Holy Bible says he does. But I find that the Bible God of the Jews is one whom I consider to be like a war criminal if the story of Joshua and the battle of Ai be true. The way I see it if the Jews’ God is what I call their Tribal God this leaves me asking if that was Jesus’ God. If it was then Jesus believed in a Tribal God. My pretend God would be at a higher pay grade so to speak. Am I making sense?
Yup. Especially if it makes sense to you.
Myself I am comfortable with needing some sort of evidence for everything, and I am comfortable saying “I don’t know,” when I don’t know. Made-up, convenient stories just don’t interest me.
We seem to have an innate desire to want to know “why” (Oops! God must’ve made us this way! Ha!). So humans developed the God Hypothesis (or “God in the gap”) to explain the, as yet, unexplainable. It bemuses me that some eminent scientists, such as Francis Collins (physician, former head of the Human Genome Project, and former Director of NIH), adhere to such beliefs. Is that faith, or the same reason people stay in cults?
Hi Bart,
You have discussed many issues here that I want to address, and this would take two days (2 comments per day – Sorry for that):
1# You mentioned that the Multiverse is something that cannot be proved or disproved.
Let us discuss the following example:
Let it be a politician named Simon that claimed that the Pope is the one who ordered the assassination of John Kennedy; because Kennedy was a catholic who refused to obey the Pope, which enraged the Pope, therefore the Pope ordered this assassination.
Suppose a Journalist was discussing this claim and he said: although this claim cannot be proved, but unfortunately, it also cannot be disproved!
What do you really think of this Journalist?
I think he is subtly trying to undermine the Papacy, because Simon’s claim can easily be rejected.
How?
——>
——>
——>
Because it has been observed that Humans can easily present unfounded inaccurate and dishonest claims that are much much more than the accurate ones, therefore, we have the golden rule that a claim without sufficient evidences/indicators can be rightfully rejected.
Now … The multiverse is not a scientific theory, it is not even a scientific hypothesis. It is a pure philosophical construct that lately gained popularity among the atheist scientists to counter the fine-tuning hypothesis; because this hypothesis presented a valid explanation for the “Vacuum Catastrophe” in Quantum Physics. I did discuss this matter in the linked Document that I will present at the end.
2# There are no certain proofs even in Mathematics. For example, if you proved a mathematical theorem, then this proof is certain according to the agreed axioms. But the basic axioms in mathematics were derived from induction, and induction is not a certain method.
However, if we have a statement that A is B, and there are many likely independent evidences for it, and there are no opposing evidences, then we can say that it is *highly likely* that A is B. This type of conclusions is sufficient for many.
——>
——>
—–>
3# Let us suppose that God does exist. But still, we cannot prove this existence through direct methods; because this existence is beyond our *physical senses*. To prove this existence, then we need to analyze the universe:
Is this universe created or infinite?
If created, then was it created by external entity or by chance?
If it can be proved that the universe was created by external entity then this is the prove for the existence of God!
So, the process of proving the existence of God is based on our analysis to the universe.
4# You are convinced that Jesus did exist, and you think that you have sufficient evidences for this claim; although, there are many people who do reject this claim and these evidences. This is exactly the same for many: They are convinced that God does exist and there are many sufficient evidences for this claim; although, there are many people who reject this claim and these evidences.
——>
——>
—–>
However … Let me highlight the following superficial argument:
We can initially start saying that there is 50% probability that the universe was organized by an external entity (God) and 50% that the universe was organized by chance. This initial distribution was based on the notion that we can see many organized systems that were pre-designed (as cars, watches, etc.), and other organized systems that we cannot physically sense an organizer for them (as rain, wind, etc.).
However, there are no logical proofs that God cannot exists. There are many questions, but questions are not proofs.
On the other hand, there are many “claimed” proofs for the existence of God.
Therefore, the distribution of probabilities needs to be adjusted: There is 50% *or more* that the universe was organized by an external entity, and 50% *or less* that the universe was organized by chance.
5# I have collected some of the evidences for the existence of God in chapter 2 in the following document:
https://omr-mhmd.yolasite.com/resources/61-EvidencesOfGod-15.pdf
.
Bart, there’s no need to apologize for your analogy being imperfect. No analogy is. That’s why it’s they are analogies!
God the Explainer. If that’s what it comes down to, then the whole thing is an argument from incredulity — I can’t explain it any other way, so this reason, God, in our discussion, HAS to be it. The answer “I don’t know” does not automatically default to the existence of a God.
Perhaps we have questions we can’t answer because the mind of the human species is not developed to point where we can (after all, my cat cannot solve the equation 2x + 5 = 37). Check again in 300,000 years for the emergence of a species with an intellect that makes us seem cat-like. If we now have the intellect to eventually answer these questions, why do we need God the Explainer?
Explanations are only one line of reasoning for the existence of God. See 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction, by Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, a novel with an appended discussion of each of the thirty-six arguments and reasons why each one fails.
A long time ago an 18 year old risked ridicule at an MYF event by saying …. It all seems a bit too pat….
I am the master of my fate,
I am the captain of my soul.
Hi Dr Ehrman,
I’m a believer, I believe in God; I think ancient israelites couldn’t have invented all the Torah, the great foundation of their nation through the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy for instance, the mystery of the presence of God in the tabernacle. How easy was it then, the face to face discussions between Moses and God, and yet the people rebelled all the time. No such things ever happened afterwards, and even when priests tell us to “listen” to what God is saying, I don’t hear…
Believing in Jesus is even more difficult; the man Jesus was really great, but IS he God ? As a christian, that is what I should believe, but I’m realising that in fact I’m always praying to God, and wonder if it is the right way to do? Can one still be called a christian without considering Jesus as God ? I wonder what conclusion would come out of a 2025 council of Nicea ?
Thanks very much
I’m not sure there’s anything in the Torah that could not have been a human invention; lots of other ancient narratives, law codes, and religions are similar in many ways. As to believing in the divinity of Jesus, yup, that’s a big obstacle for many. I know lots of Christians who do not think Jesus was a pre-existent divine being or feel comfortable calling him God.
I agree, can’t be proved. But it’s important to believe one way or the other. Ones lives life differently based on that state of belief
I’ve adopted a Bayesian epistemology. Given the argument from evil and the argument from divine hiddenness, I find it highly improbable that a god similar to the biblical god exists
I’m willing to concede the “something from nothing argument” that is filled by a deist’s god of the gaps. Mostly to end any conversation about it. There are models from physics that could explain it, but none seem very robust. Ask me in about 1000 years (assuming we don’t kill off all the physicists).
That leaves me in your atheist/agnostic camp
It was self-evident that God existed – that he, say, intervened daily in our affairs, then we would not need to have epistemic doubts. It would just be a fact. So I don’t think it is logically necessary that Gods existence be hard to prove or disprove.
However, the kinds of doubts about the provability of Gods existence we have in *our* world are at least a product of:
1. How Our understanding of the natural world progressed
2. God became increasingly abstract of a concept
Suppose that this year, humanity provably encountered a supremely powerful being (but not technically all knowing and all powerful).
That would fit the bill for “God” or “a God” for much of the ancient world. But it is not “GOD” in the philosophical sense.
When the bar for both proof and what God is are so high, I think there’s good reason to have epistemic kinds of questions.
For example, how could we prove that this “Gos” is “GOD”? We’re back to proving a negative (of absence of an ability rather than a being)
Until you define what you mean by “God” in a precise way, what is it, what its properties are, the question is essentially meaningless. What does it mean to talk about whether some ill defined entity exists or doesn’t exist? Even the word “exists” is problematic, existence suggests particles and stuff.
My analysis so far:
For the existence of God:
1.The cosmological argument of Thomas Aquinas that there had to be some “first cause” that started creation. The universe could not have just started from nothing, But then where did God come from?
2. The teleological argument that such a complicated universe had to have a Designer.
Against the Existence of God:
Why would God make the last years of life so awful? Surely, He/She could do better.
I am totally comfortable with your style of thinking, and only have a couple things to add. One problem with the “God must have done it” hypothesis is that it can stifle creative thinking and scientific testing. If the answer to the question “what makes the rain fall and the winds blow” is “God must do it”, then there is no point in pursuing meteorology and we would have no weather forecasts. And if “God created…” all the species in the world, there would be no point in trying to search for common ancestors to different species and really try to understand evolution.
My 2nd point is that even if “God” is somehow proven to exist, what can we really know about such a being? Does it automatically follow that everything in the Bible is true? Of course not. And are philosophical ideas about God being all knowing, all powerful, and all loving necessarily true? Of course not. God could have created the universe then left it to do its own thing, not been involved in creation of stars or life or “evil” or anything attributed to God. We really have no way of knowing.
Interesting perspective.
Though some weak “proofs” for the existence start from a premise of “We don’t understand something scientifically…therefore it’s God;” I think there are some proofs that start with a more reasonable premise without making assumptions of what we do not know.
I think a strong argument can be made that God exists necessarily because either there is an external or internal explanation for existence. An internal explanation for existence (ie. the universe caused itself) creates contradiction because it requires non-existence to initiate existence, which is logically impossible. Thus, an external explanation for existence is required. Existence cannot be explained by something that is also contingent on something else for existence, because that contingent thing would also require an explanation, creating an infinite regress. Therefore, existence must be explained by a non-contingent foundation –– a necessary existence, what classical theists think of God.
This proof does not attempt to fill in gaps in scientific knowledge. I would argue it follows from logically valid premises that prove that there must be a necessary foundation of existence, or else nothing could exist.
I’m open to any differing perspectives on this argument! It is my own wording of the “Contingency Argument.”
The universe itself may be noncontingent. The law of conservation of matter-energy holds that matter-energy cannot be destroyed or created, and the total amount of matter-energy in a closed system always remains the same. The universe is such a closed system. Matter-energy within the universe can change form, which is the basis for the contingent nature of everything within the universe. But the universe itself is the totality of all matter-energy. Physicists don’t have as much problem with “infinite regress” as philosophers of religion, but even if they did, regress requires the progression of time, and time is a dimension in space-time which (in many cosmological models) had no measure prior to the Big Bang.
So the universe need not be contingent and may well not have experienced an arrow of time prior to the Big Bang. These are not just armchair suppositions, but rather the basic predictions of many, if not most, cosmological models today.
On the other hand, the notion of something being “outside the universe”, while having some sort of creative power over the universe, is vague, unexplanatory, and has no evidence or scientific basis whatsoever.
I think it’s important to define contingency. By contingent, I mean something that exists but could have failed to exist, and whose existence requires an explanation beyond itself. Something non-contingent must necessarily exist, meaning its non-existence is logically impossible, and that it is self-sufficient.
The universe being a closed system in which all matter-energy is conserved doesn’t suggest that the universe exists necessarily (non-contingently). Using modal logic, it is logically possible (ie. does not create logical contradiction) for the universe to not exist. Therefore, the universe must be contingent (Deductive argument).
The infinite regression I was using in my argument does not assume the progression of time (“A-Theory of Time”) as the cosmological argument does. I was rather saying that for every contingent explanation for another contingency, it would imply an additional explanation. So if existence is just filled up with contingent things infinitely causing other contingent things, that wouldn’t provide an explanation for the totality of contingent things as there would be no foundation for why contingent things exist at all (Contingencies require explanation).
It seems that you are approaching my argument through a scientific lens, when my argument wasn’t a scientific one –– it was a rational/deductive one.
Neil deGrasse Tyson used a similar argument to make a statement (something along the lines of) “if we claim God as the reason for things we don’t understand, then we must accept that our idea of God is shrinking as our understanding expands”.
Ah, it’s a good point, as one would expect.
I tend to agree with you. As an aside, suffering/evil may be a reason for not believing in God, but it is only a reason for not believing in the particular God you imagine. A more encompassing God could resolve the evil/suffering problem.
Yup, I agree. And then one would need reasons to believe in *that* kind of God (as opposed to some other kind, or none at all)
If someone would ask me “Do you believe God exists?”, I would ask him/her to “define God”. That may end the inquiry abruptly. If (s)he could not, I would offer that I am “open to the possibility of the supernatural” and go on from there. Ultimately, I would stress that the term “belief” tacitly acknowledges that I have no “proof” and offering “arguments” would be futile. However, I could elicit “reasons” for my belief.
I would posit we are all agnostics. Some are “theistic”, others are “atheistic”, and we all have our reasons. Furthermore, there is a spectrum of intensity of belief between the two. I would describe myself as a moderate “theistic”, recognizing I could be wrong.
BTW, a hand cranked homemade Elberta peach ice cream would be my preference over a Food Lion chocolate any day!
As with the word ‘religion’, all usages of the word ‘God’ has a load of baggage and it needs to be clearly defined and consistently used in a context. A range of what people are thinking about when they use this word
– A creator of the universe
– A deistic God
– An intelligent creator of the universe
– An omnipotent and omniscient God
– An intelligent creator of the universe who has interests in what individual humans do
– God the father, first person of the Trinity
– Allah who revealed himself to Muhammad
…
There are the Gods hypotheses, not the God hypothesis. Some of the hypotheses are disprovable, some are not deserving of more consideration.
Prof Ehrman,
I strongly share your view. It reminds me of an intriguing statement by renowned astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson when addressing the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument. He remarked that if one’s argument for the existence of God relies on gaps in scientific knowledge, then “God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”
It’s a statement that deeply resonates with me, as it highlights how our understanding of the universe continues to expand, gradually illuminating what was once shrouded in mystery.
People think they want to live forever and God is necessary for that.They have no idea,what they’ll want or. do
apart from their time,place and history which made them what/who they are which is constantly changing.What will we be in 500 years ? A million?What if we don’t like it? Also read “Incognito” by David Eagleman.(or his book “The Brain
Heavens on Earth” by Michael Shermer
There are lots of folks who say that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. I can say without doubt that the existence of the Christian God as defined in the Bible can definitely be disproven by simple observation of the world around us. One common argument is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, the absence of evidence that SHOULD BE THERE if this – or any – God exists does it for me. If he is out there, he is staying deliberately hidden, and in this context that makes him immoral if he wants us to have a relationship with him. So rather than posit a silent, invisible, immoral god I’ll accept nonexistence with a clear conscience.
Belief in God is a choice we make based on evidence (imagined or not) and our needs. At least I think so. If belief in God and Church is what gets folks through their day, well have at it! Based on my evidence and needs I choose not to believe. As far as apologetics goes I find that sort of talk singularly unappealing and often outrageously arrogant. It seems to me that all apologetic arguments assume a belief in God. I like to point out that you can´t just skip over a crucial part of your logic. Since I don´t believe in God, in my mind that means most apologetic arguments fail. But pointing this out makes no difference. It seems to me that apologists are not really concerned with my belief or lack there of so much as they are trying to convince themselves that the absurdity of their own belief can easily be circumvented.
Rather large question. First, what counts as a proof, or argument? (Why isn’t giving a reason an argument?)
There are two kinds: a priori and a posteriori. And two modes: deductive and inductive/abductive. The second operate in the sphere of probabilities. Deductive/a priori: the Ontological Argument. Anselm’s version(s) is/are unsuccessful. Modern variants (Godel, Alex Pruss) use math logic and remain controversial (and peculiar). Inductive/a posteriori: Cosmological Arguments, Design arguments, arguments from Morality, from Evil, lots of others. All are debated; doesn’t mean one can’t arrive at probabilities. God of the gaps reasoning has a point, in terms of probability theory – if there really is a gap and no serious alternatives or reason to believe they’re “out there”. (Lots of people think God, and only God, can explain lots of things, but the “explanations” are vacuous: e.g. God can do anything, and did thus and so. One problem: omnipotence is virtually impossible to define non-circularly. Another that divine action (if God has no mass/energy) would violate local laws of conservation. Saying God made the laws and can abrogate them
Talking about the existence or otherwise of extraterrestrial life, Arthur C Clarke said, ‘either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Either possibility is equally terrifying’. I feel that the same thing can be said of God.
requires, first, articulating some ontology of laws (hotly contested). A divine-command theory won’t do.
I don’t see that the persistence of a question makes thinking about it futile or mis-directed. Lots of questions have persisted since God made Plato: political, scientific, moral, etc. We call it philosophy. Of course, new knowledge might be relevant or hoped-for. But impossibility? (William Craig’s “proof” that the universe had a beginning, appeals to cosmology, to theories now under serious question by physicists.) Logical Positivists thought many such questions were simply confusions. But *their* arguments haven’t withstood the test of a few decades.
I do have serious doubts about the view that much religious belief arose to fill gaps in human knowledge, essentially by making up stories. The ancients had plenty of good sense, perhaps more than we do. Fishermen knew that you can’t walk on water; Archimedes figured our why. Maybe the *point* of the Sea of Galilee stroll had nothing to do with miraculous showmanship?
A few responses to life’s (and Bart’s) persistent questions.
1. Cosmology is in a state of rapid flux right now. All sorts of theories are in the air, including ones that essentially get rid of the Big Bang altogether. Stay tuned.
2. The field of abiogenesis is making very rapid progress. I predict an answer within a decade, maybe less.
3. Well, how does ‘God did it’ explain the order of the universe? There are truly fundamental problems with this “explanation.” (See previous post for just one.)
4. A lot of it is not “chance.” Also lots of current work on this; see above. It helps if you add the existence of abstracta – e.g. numbers, propositions, states of affairs, and a bunch of other items that are not particulars.
5. Mind-blowing theories are a lot better than ‘God did it’ explanations that don’t explain at all. *How* could a God do it? Mind-blowing theories are a lot better than vacuous ones.
6. See 2, 4 above.
7. That’s a *really* hard one. See e.g. Russel Powell, “Contingency and Convergence.”
Word-police knocking on door.
There are three Classical Proofs for the Existence of God:
1. Cosmological Proof (argument of Being and beings)
2. Teleological Proof (argument by Design)
3. Ontological Proof (argument by Perfection)
The first two are ancient. Anselm (~1000 CE) produced the third. Immanuel Kant tore into all three of these in his first book, “Critique of Pure Reason” (1775). He claimed to demonstrate that they were all useless. Most modern philosophers tend to stick with Kant.
More than 50 years later, GWF Hegel showed the flaws in Kant’s work and firmed up the ancient arguments. Hegel’s final book was, “Lectures on the Proofs of the Existence of God” (1831). He wrote chapter 1 on the Cosmological Proof and then died in a cholera epidemic.
In that chapter Hegel criticized Kant, Jacobi, and Schleiermacher — who had agreed that our finite human mind was too weak to grasp the infinity of God.
Wrong, replied Hegel; we can conceive of Infinity. and a Mystic Union with God is possible (e.g., Meister Eckhart). Their flaw, argued Hegel, was that they compared the finite and the Infinite side by side, as equals, instead of recognizing that the finite is included inside the Infinite.
To petrejoe: There’s also a classical moral argument (in Plato’s Euthyphro) – ostensibly against polytheism, but sub rosa an implied case for monotheism. That one has since been shown to provide a serious problem for traditional Christian monotheism as well. (At least by Medieval lights; it’s unclear to me whether the Bible itself anywhere preaches literal omni-perfection – or even monotheism strictly speaking, until quite late in the game.)
As an interested lay person, I start with an observation that is not mystical and may even be generally accepted: The universe is infused with change; nothing is permanent. Theoretically, the universe might have been created as frozen perfection, but that’s obviously not the case. We need not understand this change-power to know its reality. Some change is successful, in that it can last a while or be replicated. This change need not have intentionality or any ultimate goal. But what we observe today — nature in its differences and complexity, our ability to experience life as a thoughtful organism — is due to a long chain of successful changes. This can inspire awe and gratitude. I name this change “God.”
How many thousands of gods has humanity made up. When unintelligent Homo sapiens don’t understand why something happens they make up some god that is doing it. That boom after a flash in the sky well that’s Thor’s hammer. The sun moving from east to west every day well that’s Helios dragging it in his chariot. But as Neil deGrasse Tyson says just because you can’t explain something doesn’t mean you can explain it! I’m not religious but if I was my patron saint would be Doubting Thomas. If you want me to believe something provide evidence. As Richard Dawkins points out the strongest argument against the existence of god is the same as the strongest argument against the existence of leprechauns. There is no evidence of either.
I suppose the difference is that leprechauns are imagined as physical creatures in our world. In theory they could be disproved if we have a photograph of every square inch on earth and the things in them.
The “something from nothing” argument says that something cannot come from nothing by itself, so there must have been an agent that made it happen. But if this is an argument that makes sense to you, realize that now we have introduced two more things that we have to explain the origin of. Where did the pre-existing state of nothing come from? Where did the agent come from? If we try to get around that by saying those two were just there, but not the something, that’s kind of cheating.
You can’t argue something into existence. That was just one example. The Higgs boson was proposed in 1964, and it explained a lot, but it wasn’t accepted as real until one was found in 2012. I can argue for the existence of crows until I’m blue in the face, but only until I take you to the city park and show you some will you agree that they are real. God? Don’t talk. Show me.
As for showing that God does not exist, I’ll appeal to the general idea that proving a negative is almost impossible no matter what it concerns.
Dear Bart
I’m a muslim ex-christian that belives that the problem isn’t religion but religious people. I’m not sure but Prof Javad Hashmi said in those lectures that you did together about the quran stating that religion isn’t compulsive and also states that we’ll be all judged by our actions and not by our faith. I have been trying to find a theological common ground amongst all faiths. I would say that the quran expresses the same moral lessons that we see on the good samaritan and in the tale of the sheep and the goat.
Regarding the topic, I have used the same fact, no one can prove or disprove God until we know all the secrets of the universe or I use the argument of silence and use the example of the coelecanth that was though extint until some fishermen caught a live one.
I believe I remember you saying historians can’t prove the resurrection of Jesus but can’t disprove it either so I see your point. I prefer to view it more from a scientific point of view, after all who can disprove the Pastafarian deity the Flying Spaghetti Monster? So I agree with Christopher Hitchens – that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Thank you for your work. My first introduction to it was The Historical Jesus that I got from the Great Courses more than 15 years ago. I’ve been watching your courses ever since and have obviously learned a lot.
Thanks!
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll has many videos about naturalism that I found informative
Sean Carroll debates William Lane Craig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0qKZqPy9T8
https://www.youtube.com/@seancarroll/featured
I was sure the cosmological argument proved God. He destroyed it for me. These arguments seem persuasive because our knowledge of physics is limited.
I’d bet my house that William Lane Craig came out of the debate thinking he creamed him….
I learned a lot from this video. We tend to think like Aristotle and Newton. Reality is Einstein and Quantum. I can’t wrap my head around that. Reality is actually very strange compared to my every day experience. But I live in the everyday world. Sean Carroll is fascinating to me, as you have been. Lots of new things to ponder that I never was aware of before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JsKwyRFiYY
There seems to be a difference between Science/History and Theology. Theology wants to assert certainty, because the knowledge supposedly comes from God. Science / History assert probability. Induction never yields certainty. If certainty is the standard of proof, then Science / History never “prove” anything. Individuals will always differ on how much “evidence” is compelling. I stopped talking about “proof” long ago, and started talking about evidence being compelling. What do I think is most likely?
I think mathematical equations can be proven. Many scientific claims can be proven in different ways. History cannot be proven at all; it works with different issues/criteria/assumptions/methods/and goals. Most other things can’t be proven either. It’s not necessarily a problem!
I put science and mathematics in different categories. I am in the camp that mathematics can be proven, where “proven” means certainty that when repeated the same result will happen. I am in the camp that science can never guarantee that the next time you do the experiment, it is impossible to get a different result. Science gives probability, but it is never 100%. I guess the point I am trying to make is that it all depends on what “proof” means.
Exactly right. Experimental science “proves” things principally in the sense of establishing *predictive* probabilities.
Theology was never about truth or certainty. Though its etymological meaning is the study of God, it’s really the study of what people believe / have believed about god(s). Your ‘supposedly’ is key. There’s no evidence that god(s) ever communicated anything to humans. History is full of claims by shamans / seers / prophets that God said. Claims don’t make it true. Outside of religions, no one today believes that dreams / daydreams / visions are a source of truth or knowledge.
Very late to the discussion as usual. I agree. God can’t be proven or dis-proven. Ultimately, the only evidence I accepted or even cared about was the historical resurrection of Jesus. Once convinced that likely didn’t happen and combined with finding other plausible evolution-based explanations for love, truth, beauty, morality, justice, etc. I was able to let go of God. If the deity exists, whatever it might be, it’s not likely Abrahamic and it’s not making any effort at definitive direct communication with us. I no longer care either way. Regardless, I still like my religion, have no desire to impose my non-theism on sensitive fellow Christians, and will continue my PIMO (physically in, mentally out) participation in it. Happy Great Lent to all who practice!
Dr. Ehrman,
Was the God of Jesus, The God of Temple Judaism, God ACROSS Advanced Civilizations on Earth?
Was the god of Temple Judaism, the god of Jesus, God across advanced civilizations on earth?
I would say no. The god of the Old Testament and the New Testament was not the god of Gobekli Tepe, Easter Island, the Nazca culture with its “ancient runways,” Puma Punku, and Ancient Sumer where Enki and Belet-ili in the Sumerian creation of humans account, Atrahasis, genetically engineered humans with a lower Anunnaki god, an Igiggi.
The Greeks, knowing about Atlantis, should have come up with a God ACROSS Advanced Civilizations.
Second, Genesis is saying God created the beings on Earth, but science telling us the building blocks of life on Earth have been found on an asteroid?
Do you agree the Holy Bible is centered around our current civilization and the Earth with Jesus talking about the afterlife of Heaven?
The Holy Bible inadequately covers prior advanced civilizations?
Steefen
“Do you agree the Holy Bible is centered around our current civilization and the Earth with Jesus talking about the afterlife of Heaven?
The Holy Bible inadequately covers prior advanced civilizations?” — I know you didn’t ask me.
Torah was about Judaism. The New Testament was about one segment (the proto-orthodox) Christianity, a relition of the greater Roman Empire. Neither is about current civilization.
Saying these (and other world religions outside the ‘world’ of the Ancient Near East) are about different gods is an unnecessary conclusion. But we can honestly say that all these religions in all their variants encompass different ideas about god(s).
No, I don’t think Jesus ever refers to what we think of as “heaven” as a place for people to go after death.
chatGPT:
So, while Jesus does speak of being with God after death (like in John 14:2-3, “I go to prepare a place for you”), he doesn’t explicitly describe “heaven” as the final destination in the way many modern Christians imagine it. His focus was more on resurrection and the coming reign of God on earth.
I love when you get philosophical like this. I hope to see more posts like this where you share your non belief, as you have great insight into why you don’t believe.
In the science meaning, the existence of God doesn’t deserve to be called a hypothesis. It’s not based on ANY evidence. It should better be called a conjecture. There’s no path for it to be tested and advance to a theory or much less be claimed as a fact.
Yup. And talking about God ain’t science… 🙂 (But “hypothesis” does not normally mean the same thing outside the sciences; so too “theory”) (Hey, gravity: you know, it’s JUST a theory!)
I would like to propose a “God Hypothesis” of my own.
Firstly, a quick layout of my inspirations and sources:
Mircea Eliade “The Sacred and the Profane”
Jordan Peterson “Maps of Meaning”
William James “The Varieties of Religious Experience”
The Tanakh
The Tao te Ching
Albert Camus “The Myth of Sisyphus”
Joseph Campbell “The Hero With a Thousant Faces.
and various lectures, debates, podcasts, and seminars of the likes of Alex O’Connor, Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrman, and others, but most importantly the recent debate between Peterson and Dawkins moderated by O’Connor.
My hypothesis is as follows (bear with me): God, the concept that is, as well as spiritual experiences and archetypes, are an evolved trait in humanity. The best way to explain this in few words is with some examples. The human desire to be a part of something bigger than oneself can be explained not by god but because when in a hunter/gatherer environment, a single human is much more likely to be successful with other humans help. Archetypes train our brain to think in ways we otherwise wouldn’t. The hero slaying the dragon, the gatherer avoiding or overcoming a predator. Basically, stories are an evolved trait, central the the human mind and experience. Need more words haha