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.
I'm talking about creating stuff in general, and was using writing as an example.
Quote:
Yes, I know you're trying to prove this. But you can't use the universe as an example of god creating stuff when you're trying to prove that god created the universe. That's a pretty obvious circular argument.
First, I'm not trying to "prove" anything. Second, I'm not using the universe as an "example" of God creating stuff. I'm sorry, but it gets hard to move the conversation forward when you do this.
Quote:
It's pretty simple, but you're so certain of your conclusion that it blinds you the fact you have no idea that you're not getting there by any reasonable path.
I'm not "certain" of my conclusion at all. This was the process that led me from atheism to theism.
Quote:
Well, it's got to be more likely than gods because we know that a) humans exist (not true for gods) and b) have evidence that humans create stuff (not so for gods either).
Except we know for a fact that humans were not around when the universe was created. We don't know for a fact that God wasn't around when the universe was created. Many people, even respected scientists, believe that God existed when the universe was created, and many do not. I have never, ever in my entire life met a person who believes that people were around when the universe was created.
I'm sorry, but something that we know for a fact is not true cannot be a more likely possibility than something we don't for a fact isn't true. I have a hard time believing that you didn't already know this. Are you seriously arguing that it's more likely that people existed when the universe was created than that God existed when the universe was created? Do you really believe that people being around back then has a likelihood of something greater than zero? If so, what do you consider the likelihood of people existing when the universe was created to be?
Quote:
But you've never needed to explain anything about the odds you manufacture so it's a bit hypocritical not to allow me to use the same method of making up numbers out of thin air :
Humans Creating universe - 90%
(tied) FSM - 5%
(tied) IPU - 5%
Christian God < 0.1%
The difference is that when I say that I believe that the odds of the Christian God having created the universe is around 90%, I'm being honest with you. When you say that the odds of humans creating the universe is around 90%, you're either a total moron (which I don't believe is the case, so I'm seriously not calling you one) or you're being dishonest with me in order to make some sort of point (which I'm sure is what you're doing). How about we just be honest with each other from here on out? It would make this conversation much more rational and pleasant, and will move things forward nicely, which is really all I'm asking for, and hasn't seemed to have been a problem with anyone else on this board. What do you think? If you can't, then I'll stop responding to you and just continue with the others.
That would be some answer but I'd say that there is the evidence of mishap. The way life (us) came to be depended on some accidents, catastrophes and extinctions.
Again, I'm talking about life in general. "Extinctions" cannot happen unless life first exists, so they could not have caused life to exist in the first place. And if "catastrophes" caused life to exist, then they could hardly be called "catastrophes", could they? As for "accidents", that all depends on whether you consider the creation of life to be an accident or not.
Quote:
Now, if it was all planned, there would be no need for that.
Depends what the plan was, doesn't it?
Quote:
To argue that God planned it all to look like it was natural processes with a few accidents along the way just to make it turn out as it did rather looks as strained as your suggestion that life is 'just that way'.
Where I disagree is in your statement that it looks like it was natural processes with a few accidents along the way. If you happen to believe that it truly was natural processes and accidents, then, yes, that's what you're going to think it looks like. That's how I used to see it, myself. Currently, though, I see a universe that is capable of creating and sustaining life. Yes, I see natural processes that help it all along, but I credit the creator of the universe with ultimately causing those natural processes to exist. I don't see them as purposeless any more than I see a radio's ability to play music as purposeless.
Quote:
It is that way for reasons. To adduce god is to say that the reasons are not really reasons at all and it is actually just 'that way' (God's way) even though it looks like it isn't.
Funny enough, that's almost exactly how I see the naturalist explanation for the universe. It says that the reasons are not really reasons at all, that it's "just that way". And explaining the ability of the universe to create and sustain life for billions of years as just being "the luck of the draw" for this particular universe among the many alternate universes, is a way of making it look like something it isn't.
hi
its not about scrabble its not about astronomy.
however i know there is a god bek i would have been dead long ago if there was not.
u wana talk odds, the fact that i am here alive typing to u is a miracle.
i have already buried most of my friends, btw who were younger stronger smarter and better than me.
We don't actually know that life exists elsewhere in the universe. This is a huge question, one that we are striving very hard to find out. Most scientists agree that it is possible, even likely. But there is nothing, I repeat nothing in the science that says that life is inevidible in this or any universe.
If scientists agree that it's likely (which they do), then this means that life is pretty much inevitable.
Quote:
What evidence do you have that the universe being created by natural means is only "remotely possible"?
Even many naturalists seem to agree that it's unlikely on the surface, and say that having many, many universes makes a universe with life in it more likely than it would be if there was only one.
Quote:
I will inject here that things that are remotely possible happen all the time. What are the chances that I would log onto the internet and find this discussion, and find you having this discussion,and engage in it with you? And yet here we are doing just that.
And I'm sure neither one of us believe that this happened totally accidentally.
Quote:
And yet the vast bulk of the universe (which consists mostly of hard vacuum and hard radiation) is utterly hostile to life. Seems like an awful waste of space to me if it was created for the purpose of sustaining life.
Most people who play the lottery don't win. Yet the lottery is set up in such a way that people winning is inevitable.
Thanks for that, but I'm not seeing anything in there that I consider a refutation of my argument. There are certain aspects of the Watchmaker analogy that I agree are faulty (that complex things can only be designed by things that are even more complex, for example), but they aren't part of my argument. If you want to refute my argument using the refutations of the Watchmaker analogy, go ahead and try. What I'm arguing may be similar, but it's not the same.
Last edited by KingDavid8; 09-29-2011 at 10:28 PM..
I had no argument about the 1st law, so I will get back to you about it.
You said God violates all of the laws of thermo. Are you now saying otherwise?
Quote:
There are lots of objections for the existence of god due to a violation of the 2nd law.
And none of them stand up. If there is any problem between Thermo 2 and a theistic origin, then the exact same problems occur between Thermo 2 and a naturalistic origin.
Yes, I read the article you got from strongatheism.net, but don't see how it makes a lick of sense. Simply saying that God has equal entropy to the Big Bang (something they didn't even seem to consider) makes their whole argument fall apart. And I don't buy their rationale for saying God couldn't have had lower entropy than the Big Bang. If you want to try to defend it, go right ahead. I'm not going to argue in depth to an article cut-and-pasted from another source, though.
But since everything in the universe is subject to the physical laws which make the universe possible, in order for god to not be subject to natural law, it would have to be outside of our known universe. And as convenient as that argument may appear, one would then have to provide evidence that something outside our universe is influencing events inside our universe.
Or simply influenced it at the very beginning. Since our universe began to exist at the moment of the Big Bang, then, logically, whatever caused it to happen (be it God or something else) is, by definition, outside of our universe. The only way to argue against a creative force that is outside of the universe is to suppose that our universe was created by nothing at all. The problem is, that definitely violates Thermo 1.
You can definitely believe in naturalism and Thermo 1 simultaneously, of course, but only by arguing that the naturalist force that created the universe exists (or at least existed) outside of the universe.
But then you're agreeing that something outside of our universe has influenced events inside our universe, which is what you were arguing against. So do you agree that whatever created the universe (be it God or something else) exists outside of the universe?
Quote:
Since our universe is a closed system, the chances of ever doing that are virtually nil.
Even if it's a closed system, that doesn't preclude a creator for that closed system which exists outside of it. In fact, whether you believe in naturalism or theism, it's the only conclusion that's consisted with Thermo 1.
And how does naturalism explain the origin of the universe better than theism does?
Scientific laws and principles can be reliably tested and falsified. In contrast, there are no scientific laws in theism. "God did it" cannot be tested or falsiifed.
If scientists agree that it's likely (which they do), then this means that life is pretty much inevitable.
As a scientist and someone who spends a lot of his time educating the public about sciecne, I can say with no hesitation that this is simply not untrue.
Quote:
Even many naturalists seem to agree that it's unlikely on the surface, and say that having many, many universes makes a universe with life in it more likely than it would be if there was only one.
Perhaps you can give us the names of these "naturalists" who are making these statements? You do realize that arguments from authority are logical fallacies, right? You haven't answered my question.
Quote:
And I'm sure neither one of us believe that this happened totally accidentally.
And you'd be wrong.
Quote:
Most people who play the lottery don't win. Yet the lottery is set up in such a way that people winning is inevitable.
Non-sequitur. There is no evidence that the universe is finely tuned for life. I must say that I expected better responses that this.
Thanks for that, but I'm not seeing anything in there that I consider a refutation of my argument. There are certain aspects of the Watchmaker analogy that I agree are faulty (that complex things can only be designed by things that are even more complex, for example), but they aren't part of my argument. If you want to refute my argument using the refutations of the Watchmaker analogy, go ahead and try. What I'm arguing may be similar, but it's not the same.
Okay, I see how this works. You have a goalpost. When it is breached, you move it. Congratulations.
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.
