A reasonable argument for God? (theology, theories, myth, atheist)
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.
Things like energy, stability, gravity, liquids, etc.
If we have infinite universes, then, yes, we have infinite cats typing on infinite keyboards. My own cat has typed on my keyboard now and then by walking across it.
Who is proposing a "magic" theory? As I stated earlier, the naturalist explanation is far closer to a magical explanation, like saying that the rabbit suddenly appeared in the hat for no real reason, rather than the rabbit was purposely placed in the hat by the magician.
If he was merely a "guy", I would require evidence for the claims. But I certainly believe that if someone creates a system, it wouldn't be surprising if this someone fully understood the system and could manipulate it in ways that beings within the system could not. For example, a computer programmer who creates a virtual world could make changes in that virtual world that the characters within the world could not. The programmer could easily bring dead characters back to life, speak their languages, know what they are thinking, make them walk across liquid surfaces, etc. Yet the characters within the system could not do so, unless it was the programmers will that they could.
I don't believe God is a "guy". The fact that we live within a system that shows significant order to the point that life within it is not only possible, but apparently inevitable, convinces me that there is purpose behind it, and thus it likely has a purposeful creator.
I believe claims that explain why something is the way it is, but disbelieve claims that don't. Saying that the universe was created by random, purposeless forces doesn't explain why it's capable of creating and sustaining life for billions of years. It's saying "it just happened to turn out this way". That's hardly an explanation. It's like saying that creatures on Earth have gotten more complex and more adaptible to their environment "just because", rather than because of the process of evolution.
No, I turned from atheist to theism (technically, deism) many years before I got interested in any sort of religious text. No religous text turned me to belief in God. It was my interest in astronomy that did so. The Bible did turn me to belief in Jesus, but I'd turned to belief in God many years before that.
God's existence doesn't conflict at all with the known laws of physics.
If there was no design, it would be very, very unlikely that the universe would have enough stability for life to exist and thrive. In fact, I doubt the universe would even exist in the first place, and if it did, it probably wouldn't be expanding or even moving at all, since it likely wouldn't have any energy.
Why would you expect any natural forces to impose order? Why would they randomly do so?
There is much there to disagree with, but the conversation is getting unwieldy. Rather than addressing each of your points I'm only going to address a few of the most important ones. If there was a point that I leave out that you want addressed, please indicate in your reply.
You make some pretty grand and unsupportable statements, it seems to me.
You claim God's existence doesn't conflict with the known laws of physics. Very well then, you must not believe God has the power to violate the law of conservation of mass and energy. Accordingly, God could not have created the universe whole cloth. So you are left with two options: Either you believe God did not create the universe out of nothing, or you believe God can can violate the laws of physics. No matter which of those two options you choose, it violates a belief you claim to have.
Next, I assume you don't believe in Leprachauns - but I would like to know why. Doesn't the disbelief in leprachauns rest entirely on a premise that a being that can do all the things which the leprachaun is supposed to be able to do surely can not exist? Yet God is supposed to be able to do everything a leprachaun can do and more, and by that same logic his claim to existance should be even less credible. Yet I suspect you disbelieve a leprachaun and not a God.
In general, your agrument seems like it jumps around a lot. You believe natural explainations are more consistent with the term "magic" then a claim that a supernatural being used miracles is consistent with the term "magic". Very well, how do you think God created everything without violating the laws of conservation, (which would constitute magic.)
Related to that, you said:
Quote:
I believe claims that explain why something is the way it is, but disbelieve claims that don't.
Very well, explain to me the mechanisms that would allow God to have created everything and thereby violate the laws of conservation.
In general, it seems like you take the exact opposite inference from the evidence you see.
I have to go back to work now or I would write more. Regards.
You claim God's existence doesn't conflict with the known laws of physics. Very well then, you must not believe God has the power to violate the law of conservation of mass and energy.
The problem is that the law of conversation of mass and energy only applies once the mass and energy have been created, and is a law of the current universe. Prior to our universe existing, or even at the moment of creation, there's no reason to believe that the law was in effect at the time. If there was no mass and energy prior to God creating it, or if the matter and energy existed anywhere but in our current universe as we know it, then there was no law governing what happens to it. All natural laws apply only to things that exist, and only apply to our current universe, as far as we know.
Quote:
Accordingly, God could not have created the universe whole cloth.
Why not?
Quote:
So you are left with two options: Either you believe God did not create the universe out of nothing, or you believe God can can violate the laws of physics. No matter which of those two options you choose, it violates a belief you claim to have.
How so? Natural laws only cover things that exist to have laws over them.
Quote:
Next, I assume you don't believe in Leprachauns - but I would like to know why.
Because I see no reason to believe that they exist. Their existence doesn't explain anything, as far as I can see.
Quote:
Doesn't the disbelief in leprachauns rest entirely on a premise that a being that can do all the things which the leprachaun is supposed to be able to do surely can not exist?
No. It's more like that I see no reason to believe that the things which leprachauns are supposed to be able to do, ever happened.
Quote:
Yet God is supposed to be able to do everything a leprachaun can do and more, and by that same logic his claim to existance should be even less credible. Yet I suspect you disbelieve a leprachaun and not a God.
Right. Because God is supposed to be able to create a universe capable of creating and sustaining life. And we have a universe capable of creating and sustaining life. While there are other possible ways it could have happened, I find them incredibly unlikely. As for leprachauns, they're supposed to be able to do what exactly? And is there any reason to suppose that they've ever done it?
Quote:
In general, your agrument seems like it jumps around a lot. You believe natural explainations are more consistent with the term "magic" then a claim that a supernatural being used miracles is consistent with the term "magic".
When have I ever claimed the latter?
Quote:
Very well, how do you think God created everything without violating the laws of conservation, (which would constitute magic.)
The laws on conversation only relate to existing matter and energy. And even if you seriously want to argue that it applies to non-existent matter and energy, or applies outside of our current universe, both of which are ridiculous, I could just as easily say that the matter and energy already existed for all eternity, and God just rearranged it into the existing universe. God could have done either without violating the law of conservation of mass and energy, no matter how you want to slice it.
Quote:
I have to go back to work now or I would write more. Regards.
The laws of conservation explicitly apply to matter that both does exist and matter that does not exist.
It wouldn't make much sense to have a law that says "new matter/energy can't be created", and then say, "except that matter/energy which doesn't exist can be created."
The whole point of the law is that matter/energy is constent. Your exception swallows the rule.
As to Leprachuans, I think it most go further than that. If I were to theorize that an as-yet undiscovered small blue fish lives near the bottom of the ocean, we should properly be agnostic to that idea until we find evidence one way or the other. But we should not be agnostic to the idea of a leprachaun because he would violate known laws of physics.
The general premise being, if a claim is fundementally at odds with the known laws of physics our default position should be disbelief until atleast we've seen such compelling evidence to change our minds. If you accept that premise, we can then move on to whether or not there is such compelling evidence before us.
King David8, what evidence are you prepared to exhibit in defense of your argument for the existence of god? I ask this because you appear to be making an argument that god created the universe but have presented no evidence that god actually exists in order to create the universe in the first place.
King David8, what evidence are you prepared to exhibit in defense of your argument for the existence of god? I ask this because you appear to be making an argument that god created the universe but have presented no evidence that god actually exists in order to create the universe in the first place.
I think he said that both theism or atheism could be true... that they are both metaphysically possible.
His argument was that it is more reasonable to believe that God exists than that it doesn't. Something about keyboard cat... a simile as to why random chance in multiple universes is less likely then purposeful design in a single one to explain our existence.
of course, even if true...though most of his opponents are saying its not... his argument still rests on a few logical fallacies including but not limited to a false dichotomy: in that his argument relies on the premise that those are the only two plausible options.
An argument the other way around would also rest on many logical fallacies, including infinite regress and rejection of Occam's razor. It would all depend on the math, however.
So.... you're not joking? You really think that a Leprachaun granting wishes is consistent with the way the world of physics operates?
Things can just poof into existence, move from one place to another instantly, etc?
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.
