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.
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.
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.
Thanks for this! You've made a series of truly excellent points. I don’t think I could have done it any better myself. I'm looking forward to hearing the attempted rebuttals ;-)
"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.
It does prove a creator, though. We can argue about who the creator is after we establish this.
Quote:
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.
If the Creator caused the universe to happen, it is reasonable to suggest he makes the rules.
Quote:
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?
Except that there has to, at some point, be an uncaused cause...or uncreated creator.
Quote:
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.
Because it appears the universe had an origin? Haven't you heard the opening theme song for "Big Bang Theory"? About 14 billion years ago....
Quote:
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.
The universe is not eternal. It had a beginning.
Quote:
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.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us it isn't eternal.
Quote:
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.
God told us that he loves us and intervenes.
Quote:
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"),
You haven't made that point yet. You're begging the question.
Quote:
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.
If the Creator caused the universe to happen, it is reasonable to suggest he makes the rules.
It is not reasonable to suggest that he is parental, loving or in manner partial to us. You wanting this to be true does not make it so.
Quote:
Except that there has to, at some point, be an uncaused cause...or uncreated creator.
This cause does not have to be complex or sentient. The principle of parsimony suggests that the first cause is simple.
Quote:
Because it appears the universe had an origin? Haven't you heard the opening theme song for "Big Bang Theory"? About 14 billion years ago....
The Big Bang Theory states that the Universe had a beginning. You are mistaking this with an "origin". The Universe could be the first cause that caused itself. This is more believable than a deity that caused itself.
Quote:
God told us that he loves us and intervenes.
No, religious books have told us that God told us that he loves us and intervenes. This has no relevance to the First Cause argument, which makes no reason for God's intervention or love.
"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.
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.
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.
Not to set aside that I agree with much of what you are saying...BUT!...I will be my usual pragmatic self here.
You live in a world where well over half of the literate people believe in a "Abrahamic God Entity", replete with all its various attending dogma.
You are engaging in more of that "Spitting Into a Strong Wind" type of protest activity I have noted many, many times on this Forum. This is well illustrated in your other current thread.
My Advice (not that you asked for it): Save yourself the headtrip...chill out & enjoy life without the added stress of suffering things you can't do anything about.
Not to set aside that I agree with much of what you are saying...BUT!...I will be my usual pragmatic self here.
You live in a world where well over half of the literate people believe in a "Abrahamic God Entity", replete with all its various attending dogma.
You are engaging in more of that "Spitting Into a Strong Wind" type of protest activity I have noted many, many times on this Forum. This is well illustrated in your other current thread.
My Advice (not that you asked for it): Save yourself the headtrip...chill out & enjoy life without the added stress of suffering things you can't do anything about.
"A wise man attempts to change himself to suit the world. A foolish man attempts to change the world to suit himself; therefore, all progress is made by foolish men."
-unknown
Eh, it might do something, just so long as they realize they'll be bashing their heads into walls for quite awhile until they break through.
It does prove a creator, though. We can argue about who the creator is after we establish this.
Just for the record: The First Cause argument does not "prove a creator." Notice that Sci Fi Fan put "proves" in scare quotes to indicate this. I think his point is that IF the First Cause argument worked, it would only "prove" the general concept of a creator, but then he gives reasons in the rest of the post for thinking that the argument does not work. And he is right. Any argument you try to use to establish that a creator is the first cause can just as well be used to say that the universe itself is its own First Cause. If God doesn't need to be caused, then the universe doesn't either.
Also, as has already been said: If the universe does, in fact, have a beginning, it still does not logically follow that it has a First Cause. As a side note: Personally, I am not convinced that the universe has a beginning. Some models in physics suggest that our physical universe is just one of an infinite number of "bubble" universes (for example, the idea of "eternal inflation.") But that's a different discussion.
All well and good. Assuming God does not exist. Your premise. Just saying. As a Christian who has experinced the power of God. I smile and say...go on.
It does prove a creator, though. We can argue about who the creator is after we establish this.
Good luck establishing anything. Whether or not there is a god or gods, or a creator or creators, there most certainly is not any evidence for them whatsoever. Much less proof.
Quote:
The universe is not eternal. It had a beginning.
There is some debate about this within the scientific community, as well as differing definitions of "beginning."
I know it's preferable to the believer to not use their minds or seek actual knowledge and answers but instead just to say "We don't know for certain how this came to be, therefore it must be that Yahweh, one of several patron deities of some sects of ancient Hebrews, must have poofed everything into existence in under a week a few thousand years ago just as it's written in Genesis" but that, of course, is groundless nonsense at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
All well and good. Assuming God does not exist. Your premise. Just saying. As a Christian who has experinced the power of God. I smile and say...go on.
You are a Christian who claims to have "experienced" God--"felt" the presence of God. Perhaps even "heard" God's voice.
I assure you that in the Middle East right now there are people considering wrapping their bodies in explosives, walking into a crowded plaza and blowing up as many innocent people as they can.
They are 100% convinced that they have heard God exhort them to do this. They are 100% certain that God wants them to do this.
Their feelings are no less real than yours. Their claim to be "experiencing" God is no less valid than yours.
In The Bible, Yahweh frequently prompts his followers to commit war, slaughter women and infants and take young girls as slaves to rape and mistreat.
Were those incidents not "real?" Did they not really happen? Which is more reasonable to assume--that an invisible supernatural being instigated these heinous things, or that some people decided to war against some other people and used a deity as justification for it?
Which is more reasonable to assume--that an invisible supernatural being instigated these heinous things, or that some people decided to war against some other people and used a deity as justification for it?
BINGO!!!
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."
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.
