Atheists...Check this out. (soul, grace, pray, Satan)

[Lucidus]

Originally Posted by AT9

Logically, yes. However, if this being is the ultimate creator and creator of logic itself, then this creator would not necessarily be bound by those rules.

So the explanation that a creator must have created the universe can only be understood in an illogical context? That is a pretty bold admission but I believe its an honest one. The argument of the video was that logically a universe that permits intelligent life is unlikely so a creator is necessary. But if the creator can only be understood illogically, then that argument cannot be made.

[ainulinale]

Originally Posted by Lucidus

I agree that the idea that something always existed seems unlikely, but wouldn't you agree that it is even more unlikely that this something was organized into a supreme intelligence?

Perhaps from the stand point of person without a religious experience thinking philosophically, it is more unlikely. Although, perhaps with the physical forces being in the right proportion to permit life as evidence for an intelligent designer, I think that designer would have to be supreme, or pretty close to it in order to create and order the universe!

However, the fact that people have believed in a supreme being for thousands of years, had experiences of this being, the improbability that the universe was randomly created, and especially my own personal experiences with this being and the corroboration of my experiences with the Bible, make it seem more reasonable for me to believe in this supreme intelligence.

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by AT9

Logically, yes. However, if this being is the ultimate creator and creator of logic itself, then this creator would not necessarily be bound by those rules.

Hi AT. I don't know why you say God creates logic. It really doesn't make any sense to me to say that God is not bound by the rules of logic. We could then say that God can create square circles, or suspend the law of noncontradiction or identity. He could make himself both exist and not exist at the same time. Or omnipotent and completely powerless, both at the same time and in the same respect. Is this really what you want to say?

[The Matrix]

Originally Posted by Lucidus

Accepting that the universe does exist and exist in a way that permits intelligent life, however unlikely, does not require faith because we can observe that it does.

Hi Lucidus. I don't think this is even a point of contention. Who would doubt what you say here? The question isn't "hey, is there a universe that exists and can support intelligent life?" The question is more like: "what's the explanation for this?"

[quote=Lucidus;3532808 We also should not be surprised to find ourselves in a universe that permits intelligent life because that is only type of universe that we can exist in. If the universe prohibited intelligent life then obviously we wouldn't be around to ask these questions.[/QUOTE]

So your argument is that because we can ask questions, we shouldn't be amazed at the incredible fact that we can ask questions? Dawkins says something like this, and I don't see the power of the argument at all. If it has any force, it has it in the context of design arguments; but not (I don't think) against cosmological/first cause arguments. Unless I'm completely missing the point of this sort of rebuttal.

Take surprise and amazement out of it. The existence of the universe cries out for explanation nonetheless. Simply saying that we directly experience the universe (and not God) does not settle this. The fact that we experience the world only supports the claim that there IS a world, but it doesn't diminish the need for an explanation. We all agree there is a world; that's why we're trying to explain why/how it exists.

You could, of course, just say no explanation is needed. But why would that be? THAT needs an explanation.

[Lucidus]

Originally Posted by ainulinale

Perhaps from the stand point of person without a religious experience thinking philosophically, it is more unlikely. Although, perhaps with the physical forces being in the right proportion to permit life as evidence for an intelligent designer, I think that designer would have to be supreme, or pretty close to it in order to create and order the universe!

However, the fact that people have believed in a supreme being for thousands of years, had experiences of this being, the improbability that the universe was randomly created, and especially my own personal experiences with this being and the corroboration of my experiences with the Bible, make it seem more reasonable for me to believe in this supreme intelligence.

Agreed. If you already believe in a supreme intelligence then the idea of a creator wouldn't seem unlikely. But the video argues for a creator based on probability and if you start at a position of maximum ignorance then you would have to conclude that a creator is more improbable than a spontaneous universe because it requires more assumptions. Just to be clear, I am not saying that you are wrong, just that the argument as given in the video is flawed.

As for people believing in a deity for thousands of years, that is true, but it wasn't always the same deity and isn't today. There are many creation myths and I assume that you would reject all of them except one for the same reasons that I reject all of them.

[Lucidus]

Originally Posted by The Matrix

Hi Lucidus. I don't think this is even a point of contention. Who would doubt what you say here? The question isn't "hey, is there a universe that exists and can support intelligent life?" The question is more like: "what's the explanation for this?"



So your argument is that because we can ask questions, we shouldn't be amazed at the incredible fact that we can ask questions? Dawkins says something like this, and I don't see the power of the argument at all. If it has any force, it has it in the context of design arguments; but not (I don't think) against cosmological/first cause arguments. Unless I'm completely missing the point of this sort of rebuttal.

Take surprise and amazement out of it. The existence of the universe cries out for explanation nonetheless. Simply saying that we directly experience the universe (and not God) does not settle this. The fact that we experience the world only supports the claim that there IS a world, but it doesn't diminish the need for an explanation. We all agree there is a world; that's why we're trying to explain why/how it exists.

You could, of course, just say no explanation is needed. But why would that be? THAT needs an explanation.

The point of this rebuttal is that even if it seems unlikely that the universe should permit intelligent life, we shouldn't be surprised that it does because that is only type of universe that we can find ourselves in regardless of how we came to be there. The video gives three possibilities for the origin of the universe. Natural order, chance, and design, and argues that design is the most likely based on probability. But the fact that we must find ourselves in such a universe regardless of its origin negates that argument.

So to answer the question "what is the explanation for this?" I would say that it could not have been any other way by natural order, chance, or design. I would say that the video fails to make its case that a designed universe is the most likely one, it may have been created by God but that would be a more complex explanation since it requires a supreme intelligence. Natural order and chance are more likely explanations since they do not require this supreme intelligence.

[KantLockeMeIn]

Originally Posted by Lucidus

Natural order and chance are more likely explanations since they do not require this supreme intelligence.

So if you found the complete works of Shakespeare on a planet in another galaxy which didn't appear to have any form of life, the most logical explaination is that it was more likely that it is a construction of random atoms arranged perfectly rather than put there by an intelligent being?

[b. frank]

Originally Posted by twojciac

So if you found the complete works of Shakespeare on a planet in another galaxy which didn't appear to have any form of life, the most logical explaination is that it was more likely that it is a construction of random atoms arranged perfectly rather than put there by an intelligent being?

If you found the book there, then somebody else like you got there first and left it there. That's the most logical explanation.

[Lucidus]

Originally Posted by twojciac

So if you found the complete works of Shakespeare on a planet in another galaxy which didn't appear to have any form of life, the most logical explaination is that it was more likely that it is a construction of random atoms arranged perfectly rather than put there by an intelligent being?

If I had the ability to travel to a planet in another galaxy then it would seem reasonable that other people have that ability also so I would think it likely that the works were left there by another person. I think the idea that the works could have randomly arranged themselves would be unlikely, and the idea that a supernatural supreme intelligence put them there would be even more unlikely than that.

[mr jack]

your using the faith that comes from god , hoping for things not seen based on a video every man on the earth today are all the same