Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The universe is ordered and rational. There are a set of deterministic laws that allow for life. Everything we know would be impossible if a universal constant were off by one billionth of a percentage point. Such order could not have come by accident. Ergo, God must exist."
This argument, appears to be so elegant and simplistic as to make atheism debunk. In reality, it's incoherent enough to allow for literally dozens of different avenues of rebuttal. I'll just list a few.
1. This proves nothing about any particular religion. It does not prove Christianity. It does not prove Islam. It does not prove Hinduism. It does not prove any of these any more than it proves ancient Greek myth. It only "proves" deism.
2. This proves nothing about the Creator's morality or amorality, or about the existence of an afterlife, or about any sort of special place we have in the cosmos; perhaps the Creator set the universe in motion and then did nothing; in fact, this explanation would better fit the observed evidence, given that the universe is deterministic and there is no evidence of God's current intervention.
This might shock you, I largely agree to this if not some of the attitude in it. I agree a belief in a First-Cause or God, in itself, doesn't mean any specific religion or religion at all. Skeptic Martin Gardner described himself as a "philosophical theist", which was a bit akin to deism. He adhered to no religion, but believed in some kind of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
3. Here's the kicker: adding in a Creator serves nothing. You can apply the same logic to prove that there must be a Creator of the Creator; who made God? Religious persons constantly exempt God from this regression, claiming that their deity is the "first cause". But why can't the universe be the first cause? This way, no extra variable of literally infinite complexity (ie: God) is added, and the end result is actually simpler.
This is making assumptions about the complexity of God and whether complexity or simplicity, in that way, is really the goal.
I believe part of the point of a First Cause is to have an ultimate answer. To end the cycle of why?/because. God is eternal, by definition, so there is no reason to ask who created him. It's possibly like asking who created numbers. Now possibly two questions could remain "Why is there a God?" (meaning is the preference of a final answer inevitable or is an infinite regress really not possible?) and "What is God?" I can see how, if one needs an answer to everything (not simply a Truth to end the cycle of questioning) bringing in God could be unsatisfying because it may not answer "Why is there a God?" and "What is God?" or at least not do so with ease.
As for whether God is simple or complex I don't personally know that it matters, the idea that all answers must ultimately be simple strikes me as an unjustified assumption, but traditionally most Christian faiths see God as simple. How can that be? Well I'm no theologian, but it's not hard to see how "all knowing" could be simple in a way. Imagine an infinitely large sheet of paper with all knowledge written on it. This is, in essence, simple. It does not contain any moving parts or interdependent organisms. It is simply paper and ink, two things, forever. And I was going to try for analogies for other attributes, but a God doesn't need to be as complicated as you're likely imagining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sci Fi Fan
The usual result is that something complex could not have sprung from something simple, which indicates a complete lack of understanding of Occam's Razor. The principle of Parsimony states precisely the opposite of what Christians (as an example) have been led to believe. The first cause must be as simple as possible - it's a far smaller question how a universe could just exist than how an infinitely more complex, sentience, omnipotent deity could just exist.
Furthermore, the universe is already known to exist, so using the universe as the first cause introduces no extra variables. Adding in an observable God does. Occam's Razor therefore favors the universe in this regards as well to be the first cause.
4. Further examples of religious texts disregarding parsimony are so numerous as to be uncountable. It is logical to conclude that the Creator is not interventionist and not perfect, for the universe is deterministic and imperfect. Yet the Christian bible, for example, asserts that God is perfect and loving, even though there is no logical reason to believe this, and indeed plenty of reason to disbelieve it. It undergoes a convoluted and arbitrary rationalization of how this conforms with the simple observation of evil and suffering - yet such a rationalization is not logically necessary, because one can just conclude that the Creator (and this is generously assuming that one exists) is indifferent and no complex story is needed.
5. If God really could be logically deduced (which it cannot, given the misunderstandings of Occam's Razor and cherry picking of necessary properties of God needed to give the illusion of "proof"), then his existence would be a matter of Science, not Faith. Christianity should be a scientific institution with lab equipment, but a church that relies on emotions and gut feelings.
I believe Ockham was excommunicated so I'm not even sure Christians must follow this idea.
So are all people's religious beliefs right, or just the popular ones? And what happens when two popular religious creation myths disagree? If we put it up for vote, your idea is going to lose. I guess you'd convert then, at least if you're going to be consistent with this line of argument. Talk is cheap - let's see how much you really believe what you're saying here.
You're changing the subject. I'm simply talking about a creator, not a specific religion.
So numbers of believers mean something, until there's a large number of people who disagree with your religious beliefs. That's awfully convenient, but pretty transparent as well.
Everything we know would be impossible if a universal constant were off by one billionth of a percentage point. Such order could not have come by accident. Ergo, God must exist."
You need to think for a moment about game theory. All games played by humans would be impossible, except that a dynamic system is self-regulating. As a result, people playing primitive games adjusted the rules through the generations, until they evolved into what they are now and will continue to fine-tune in the future. Baseball would not work if the bases were 95 feet apart or if there were four outs. God did not make those rules, people playing the game did. What works tends to prevail.
Assuming the universal constants were random, and not intelligently designed, the universe would have still shaken down to what it is today, constantly regulating itself according to those constants. Or, if the random constants had been different, there would be a different evolved universe consistent with them, inhabited by people who would attribute the random constants to God.
I believe Ockham was excommunicated so I'm not even sure Christians must follow this idea.
Who cares? Occam's Razor is a logical principle, not a theological statement. The religious status of Occam is completely irrelevant asto whether or not his principle should be followed.
Otherwise the logical extension of your thought is that Christians should not use trigonometry because it was developed by pagan Greeks, or paper because it was developed by Chinese.
I admit, "god" has been blamed for more nonsense than you can shake a stick at when all along, it has been HUMANS are responsible for the good, the bad and the ugly. If life has worked out great for you, it does NOT mean "god has been good to you." It could be being in the place at the right time, born into a rich family, born with great genes, the right look, the right environment, etc. Conversely, if you turn out to be an a-hole, serial killer or some other kin of sicko, it does NOT mean "Satan."
SICKOs///same animal as $ATAN...but you would not call them DEVILS OR SATANs OWN OR EVIL OR SIN.....as there are many of em out there, as foretold would be..By God......why?... is something one should ask...and resolve what makes em, cause they are getting thickly spread amungst the multitutes who hold something near and dear, that GOD SAID NOT TO......causing and spreading all sorts of sicko into the Earth....all over the world/earth sicko is now ...or soon to be.....That is what the wise man made!...The one changing the Earth comes next...to prove a point to that supposed wise man...holding onto that thing they told him he needs...when in truth he does not...and it violates God...But the wise man listened to them who made him use it...and he too was accounted as one of them sickos....and hence forth punished......the one changing the Earth to wipe out the sickos...took some time...and time again..and some more to observe..before making a step in......The one making change says to the wise man...you have to look in all directions before taking the winds of lies and liars words... for granted....and just observe the patterns of their outcomes...and show them.
The question is... what is evidence when considering the potential existence of a creator?
Belief in a creator at some point (or even to some extent, belief in lack of a creator) comes down to taking a leap of faith. Science has yet to prove conclusively one way or the other, with plenty of debate still going on and people who are well versed in the universe going in all manner of direction.
Those who believe, as well as those who disbelieve, are able to line up circumstantial evidence which can point one way or the other, and of course those folks tend to have a feeling about who has the better circumstantial evidence.
Yes belief in God is a leap of faith (Soren Kierkegaard, theologian). The problem with Sci Fi's argument which is similar to another thread he started is that science is frequently as dogmatic as religion.
I posted the following on his other thread:
--- if you have faith despite evidence to the contrary, it should not be deemed rational, but dogmatic. Perfect example is the insistence of "inerrancy" fundamentalists with regard to their view of Scripture. Not rational, but certainly dogmatic, and refusal to accept contrary evidence.
In the history of man, dogmatism may very well have played a stronger role in our belief systems than faith. Dogmatism in religion has existed about the earth being the center of the universe, the earth being flat, even the existence of slavery was an accepted "normal" belief that it was ordained by God (and somewhat supported within the Scriptures themselves)
Science, too, has been caught up in dogmatism. Some years ago a father/son team named Alvarez questioned the prevailing theories of about Cretaceous-Tertiary disappearance of dinosaurs--that it was not caused by volcanic eruptions but by a massive asteroid that hit the earth. The Alvarezes were treated with scorn, vitriol and questioning of their credibility---in other words, dogmatism.
Likewise, politically, views can become dogmatic. Both communism and nazism arose out of what were once seriously thought to be scientific theories and philosphies. But dogmatism about them led to some of the greatest mass murders in history (Scot Altran--Response to the 2006 Beyond Belief Conference).
One of the biggest problems for dogmatists is that they tend to fall into the trap of wanting to be "right" rather than wanting to be effective or happy. Dogmatism, the inability to weigh evidence or critically review information, inhibits an individual's ability to reach beyond the narrow boundaries they have set for themselves. Generally, very generally, it makes them ineffective in trying to support their views, and frequently unsatisfied, unhappy, and dysfunctional---see political dogmatism above (but it works that way in religion and science, too).
I am a Christian by way of a personal experience with Christ, and I make every effort to treat others as He treated them. But my faith is not based on any evidentiary basis that I am able to share with anyone. Many discover faith in their own unique way. Many claim to have that faith, but struggle with "proving" it to others whether biblically or with "discoveries" of Noah's ark or whatever. The need to provide "proof" of God personally leaves me wondering about how much faith those individuals really have. Telling others to "believe" the Bible presupposes a foundation that is not there for non-Christians.
Faith is displayed with works, not words, and living examples are the only meaningful messages of Christian faith to those who do not know Him, and the only purpose for those who do.
I'm not trying to convert anyone---I just wonder if you can find happiness or effectiveness outside a "leap of faith?" If so, is there any reason to argue with Christians about a first cause? Why not move onto something more satisfying?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...the one changing the Earth to wipe out the sickos...took some time...and time again..and some more to observe..before making a step in......The one making change says to the wise man...you have to look in all directions before taking the winds of lies and liars words... for granted....and just observe the patterns of their outcomes...and show them.
Leap of faith
