There is a CHANCE that God exists...? What the...

[Samson]

It is illogical, given the puzzle of why the universe exists, to make up an even bigger thing and claim that this bigger thing created everything else (because that's simpler of course - especially if it's just a three letter word).

Even more illogical: to ascribe 'God' with a whole shedful of other qualities for no good reason, like intelligence, morals etc...

More illogic: despite the fact that 'made' things are a minute set of the things that exist i'll decide that it's obvious that absolutely everything is 'designed'.

Despite the fact that the world clearly doesn't give a hoot whether I live or die, it was made specifically for me by God.

Despite the fact that complicated behaviour arises from simple beginnings i'll make my creator omnipotent, omniscient and infinite all at once.


Fifty: why should the universe need a creator?

I think I see. I shall try and paraphrase you, correct me if I am wrong.

You are saying:
Given that the universe is as we see it, and our aim is to come up with an explaination, to choose the existance of a creator god over natural proccesses is illogical (given Occam's Razor).

I have 2 problems with this, or perhaps one expressed in 2 ways. You were aguing that the EXISTANCE OF god is illogical. However here you seem to be saying the BELIF IN god is illogical. That is a very different thing. The other is that people Iknow do not base their belif in god on the fact that is is the best way to explain the universe. I would certainly agree that given Occam's Razor and the data available in peer reviewed jornals it is not. This has never been an agrument made in this thread, so do not tell me this has all been a straw man?

 

[Nylan]

I'm allergic to straw men

 

[mdwh]

The universe would need a creator to explain the unexplained events that has gotten this universe started.

Not this one again!

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I)
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

 

[brennan]

I have 2 problems with this, or perhaps one expressed in 2 ways. You were aguing that the EXISTANCE OF god is illogical. However here you seem to be saying the BELIF IN god is illogical. That is a very different thing. The other is that people Iknow do not base their belif in god on the fact that is is the best way to explain the universe. I would certainly agree that given Occam's Razor and the data available in peer reviewed jornals it is not. This has never been an agrument made in this thread, so do not tell me this has all been a straw man?

lol no; what you see is part of the problem with these threads. When you challenge the idea of God, the believers start retreating into their little unfalsifiable ideas, saying 'that's not what I believe in; 'OMG I can't believe you are still clinging to the Abrahamic God as an example' (c.f. CivGeneral). Note that no-one ever comes out and admits to what they do believe, or if they do they have to beat a hasty retreat. At this point it is hard to make a coherent case because despite the fact you are challenging the concept of 'God' everyone opposing you is talking about something different. To some people God retreats from being a cause and thus becomes an irrelevance. 'God is the universe' 'God is morality' - such sentiments are meaningless. One is left wondering: do believers even know what they believe in?

The existence of God, as an impossibly complicated first-cause, is in defiance of what we know about the fundamentals: God is a top down explanation of things (and an unnecessary one, and a chronically unwieldy one, and one prone to the very problem He is posited to solve) whereas all our understanding of the universe shows us that complexity is a bottom-up process: simple rules have complex outcomes. God is irrational in every important respect and in that way He does not deserve a second thought.

 

[GenMarshall]

lol no; what you see is part of the problem with these threads. When you challenge the idea of God, the believers start retreating into their little unfalsifiable ideas, saying 'that's not what I believe in; 'OMG I can't believe you are still clinging to the Abrahamic God as an example' (c.f. CivGeneral).

Listen here, you know better than to insult my intellect and beliefs. I don't retreat into what you state is unfalsifiable ideas. My patience with your arrogance has worn thin in the past few weeks that we have tangoed.

Just because I believe in God does not give you the right to ridicule me just because of my beliefs Mr. Charman Mao, or would you prefer Mr. Joseph Stalin instead, or how about Mr. Curt II?

I'm sorry, but I don't retreat to anything. Have you taken Comparative World Religions? No? Then think twice before you cast me as retreating to "their little unfalsifiable" ideas.

At this point it is hard to make a coherent case because despite the fact you are challenging the concept of 'God' everyone opposing you is talking about something different. To some people God retreats from being a cause and thus becomes an irrelevance. 'God is the universe' 'God is morality' - such sentiments are meaningless. One is left wondering: do believers even know what they believe in?

Do you realize that there are different viewpoints to God? I guess not because you're in denial of it and ignorant about other beliefs in God. Sorry, it's not irrelevance nor is it meaningless. Its a simple fact that you are in denial that there are other beliefs in God OTHER than the Abrahamic God. But yet you decide to take the arrogant and snotty way and cast the individual as "retreating".

The existence of God, as an impossibly complicated first-cause, is in defiance of what we know about the fundamentals: God is a top down explanation of things (and an unnecessary one, and a chronically unwieldy one, and one prone to the very problem He is posited to solve) whereas all our understanding of the universe shows us that complexity is a bottom-up process: simple rules have complex outcomes.

I don't see how your statement that the existence of God is an impossibility and complicated. But yet, all your statements are just garbage to my eyes. Heretical at most.

God is irrational in every important respect and in that way He does not deserve a second thought.

I highly and strongly disagree, God is not irrational and should deserve a second thought. How do you know if God is irrational?! Are you calling Deists (Look it up yourself, I am through trying to explain the simplest things to your thick skull) irrational? The last time I checked, the Deist belief in God seems to be a bit more rational.

 

[Fifty]

It is illogical, given the puzzle of why the universe exists, to make up an even bigger thing and claim that this bigger thing created everything else (because that's simpler of course - especially if it's just a three letter word).

What about that is illogical, in the sense of logically impossible. I'm not using logic here interchangably with "reasonable". I completely agree that it makes no sense, but the point here is that you are supposed to be explaining why there is no chance that it is true. There's nothing in that statement that makes the god hypothesis necessarily false.

Even more illogical: to ascribe 'God' with a whole shedful of other qualities for no good reason, like intelligence, morals etc...

It may be illogical in the sense that it's completely unnecessary and probably untrue, but it how is it logically impossible. I really think you are confusing reasonability with logical possibility, they are two entirely different concepts.

More illogic: despite the fact that 'made' things are a minute set of the things that exist i'll decide that it's obvious that absolutely everything is 'designed'.

Despite the fact that the world clearly doesn't give a hoot whether I live or die, it was made specifically for me by God.

Despite the fact that complicated behaviour arises from simple beginnings i'll make my creator omnipotent, omniscient and infinite all at once.

More confusion between logical possibility and reasonability.

Fifty: why should the universe need a creator?

It doesn't, but that doesn't mean that it's logically impossible for there to be one. Hence a chance exists.

 

[Nylan]

lol no; what you see is part of the problem with these threads. When you challenge the idea of God, the believers start retreating into their little unfalsifiable ideas, saying 'that's not what I believe in; 'OMG I can't believe you are still clinging to the Abrahamic God as an example' (c.f. CivGeneral). Note that no-one ever comes out and admits to what they do believe, or if they do they have to beat a hasty retreat. At this point it is hard to make a coherent case because despite the fact you are challenging the concept of 'God' everyone opposing you is talking about something different. To some people God retreats from being a cause and thus becomes an irrelevance. 'God is the universe' 'God is morality' - such sentiments are meaningless. One is left wondering: do believers even know what they believe in?

The existence of God, as an impossibly complicated first-cause, is in defiance of what we know about the fundamentals: God is a top down explanation of things (and an unnecessary one, and a chronically unwieldy one, and one prone to the very problem He is posited to solve) whereas all our understanding of the universe shows us that complexity is a bottom-up process: simple rules have complex outcomes. God is irrational in every important respect and in that way He does not deserve a second thought.

The hypocrisy of this first paragraph is laughable, you retreat yourself. In fact, many people, atheists included, find your conclusions puzzling and/or incorrect. Trying to ad hominim and belittle believers is not a wise move, nor is making the fatal mistake of assuming this is a believer vs atheist shouting match.

As for the second paragraph, can you give some examples for us to discuss? I can't discuss a troll.

 

[GenMarshall]

The hypocrisy of this first paragraph is laughable, you retreat yourself.

I never noticed that myself that he retreats himself.

In fact, many people, atheists included, find your conclusions puzzling and/or incorrect.

I'd have to incline to agree with you. Most if not all of Brennan's conclusions are very puzzling. Especially to a person whom is recovering from rejecting rationality and logic.

 

[brennan]

The hypocrisy of this first paragraph is laughable, you retreat yourself.

I never noticed that myself that he retreats himself.

Retreat from what? No-one has said what they actually believe in. When they actually do that instead of saying 'that's not what I believe' then perhaps we can have a discussion...

 

[Samson]

Retreat from what? No-one has said what they actually believe in. When they actually do that instead of saying 'that's not what I believe' then perhaps we can have a discussion...

I think you did retreat from your position here. You started saying that the existance of god was illogical, and then it seems to me you moved to saying the belif in god was illogical.

I do not really blame you, as to agrue that something as nebulous as god is ilogical is imposible, but you must admit that fact.

 

[GenMarshall]

When they actually do that instead of saying 'that's not what I believe' then perhaps we can have a discussion...

When you put down your atheist gun and quit trolling, then perhaps we can have a discussion.

 

[brennan]

I think you did retreat from your position here. You started saying that the existance of god was illogical, and then it seems to me you moved to saying the belif in god was illogical.

That was not my intent. Let's go back to here:

I think I see. I shall try and paraphrase you, correct me if I am wrong.

You are saying:
Given that the universe is as we see it, and our aim is to come up with an explaination, to choose the existance of a creator god over natural proccesses is illogical (given Occam's Razor).

While I would agree that it is a solution to a problem that introduces extra complexity for no extra explanatory power (God+Universe=existence rather than Universe=existence), that is not really the focus of my thoughts: I would say that to Choose God over natural processes is illogical because it is contrary to our understanding of the way complexity arises in the natural world: as a result of simple underpinnings. A Deistic or Theistic God is necessarily more 'complicated' than the the Universe He creates as I explained before (He must represent more energy/matter/information etc.)

As to the argument that essentially tries to get out of this by saying 'ah, but God doesn't obey your silly rules of logic and can do what he likes QED', I would say that this places God firmly in the realm of dualism (given that it implies the existence of two sets of things: the natural and the supernatural), which rather falls into the same trap: you have to posit that there is a whole order of reality above the natural world (which is everything we ever observe) in order for a seperate reality to exist alongside it (Nature+Supernature=Existence rather than Nature=existence). This also begs questions like, how do we interact with supernature? Where is the evidence for it?


On the (im)possibility of God: Given our understanding of Quantum Mechanics it is possible that electrons tunnel across p-n junctions and make our computers work, indeed it happens rather a lot despite the fact that it seems a staggeringly odd thing to happen from our macroscopic perspective.

It is also possible that all the air molecules in your room will suddenly jump into one corner of the room and asphyxiate you, but the chances of it happening are so remote that it is hard to calculate.

It is even possible for all the baryonic matter in the univeres to spontaneously reconfigure into paperclips but the chances of that happening are insanely small.

Now: the universe may have come into being as a spontaneous quantum fluctuation - one large enough to be self-sustaining, the chances of this happening are undoubtedly huge, but given that our physics now suggests the existence of multiple universes (in a couple of different senses) it may be inevitable that such a large fluctuation occurs somewhere, but note this: the early universe had no long-range order, that put a definite limit on its' level of improbability, i'd put it as less unlikely than a paperclip universe.

Next: if we allow for the spontaneous generation of God in the same scheme how improbable is He? Well he has to be greater in magnitude (however you measure it) than our own universe, making Him less likely than the existence of our own universe. Not only that, but all that substance has to come into existence showing the long term order that makes it an intelligence. That means that you have to multiply some extraordinarily low probabilities together to establish the probability of (a) God existing, making Him far less likely than the existence of a universe alone and in addition bearing in mind that there are a number of further problems to explain, like: why doesn't God disappear into a Black Hole the instant He appears; why would He want to take a load of Himself and create a smaller universe when there are so many others to play with and; isn't He just a part of the natural order of things anyway and therefore not deserving of any special status (i.e: he doesn't really match a recognisable description of 'God'.)

To conclude: God is about the most improbable thing I can imagine existing even if I assume the existence of a vast continuum of universes and even then he's not responsible for it all and thus not really God at all.

Spoiler :

Geez that's a rant and a half.

 

[brennan]

When you put down your atheist gun and quit trolling, then perhaps we can have a discussion.

So CG: While I accept of course that 'Pantheist' is a full and total explanation of your belief system that allows for complete clarity of discussion without any danger of a misunderstanding resulting in you trotting out the old 'that's not what I believe' line: which particular form of Pantheism do you subscribe to:

Classical pantheism, which is expressed in the immanent God of Kabalistic Judaism, Advaita Vedanta Sanatana Dharma, and Monism, generally viewing God in either a personal or cosmic manner.

Biblical pantheism, which is expressed in the writings of the Bible with the understanding of personification linguistics as a cultural communication idiom in Hebrew language. [Isa 55:12] [Acts 17:28]

Naturalistic pantheism, based on the relatively recent views of Baruch Spinoza {who may have been influenced by Biblical pantheism} and John Toland (who coined the term "pantheism"), as well as contemporary influences.

Here's a link so you can decide.

Edit: not that you don't know already of course. Or meI mean it's just obvious what a 'Pantheist' is really isn't it. Even though three different people might mean three different things when they say it. I feel embarrassed to have brought it up at all...

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Is it just me or did I not show that existence of God was undecidable on about page 3 of this debate? So both sides can argue until they are blue in the face, no-one will know until we observe it.

 

[GenMarshall]

Given that there is so much scientific junk that I cannot process, I'll just respond and critique the ones that I can understand.

Note to Brennan, Keep it simple.

I would say that to Choose God over natural processes is illogical because it is contrary to our understanding of the way complexity arises in the natural world: as a result of simple underpinnings. A Deistic or Theistic God is necessarily more 'complicated' than the the Universe He creates as I explained before (He must represent more energy/matter/information etc.)

I highly disagree, its not illogical to chose God over natural processes. In fact, it's perfectly alright to chose God over your so called natural process.

As to the argument that essentially tries to get out of this by saying 'ah, but God doesn't obey your silly rules of logic and can do what he likes QED', I would say that this places God firmly in the realm of dualism (given that it implies the existence of two sets of things: the natural and the supernatural), which rather falls into the same trap: you have to posit that there is a whole order of reality above the natural world (which is everything we ever observe) in order for a seperate reality to exist alongside it (Nature+Supernature=Existence rather than Nature=existence). This also begs questions like, how do we interact with supernature? Where is the evidence for it?

Nice try, I don't see God in the realm of dualism. However, that argument only applies to people who see God in a duality setting.

The only way to interact with supernature is through spirituality. There is no direct way for mortal people to cross from nature to super nature.

As for your demand for evidence of it. I dont have it, but yet I feel that there is a possibility that there may be evidence of this relm, however there is no solid knowlage on it.

On the (im)possibility of God: Given our understanding of Quantum Mechanics it is possible that electrons tunnel across p-n junctions and make our computers work, indeed it happens rather a lot despite the fact that it seems a staggeringly odd thing to happen from our macroscopic perspective.

Excuse me? How on Earth does electrons have to do with your claim of the impossibility of God?

It is also possible that all the air molecules in your room will suddenly jump into one corner of the room and asphyxiate you, but the chances of it happening are so remote that it is hard to calculate.

I don't see how this proves your point.

It is even possible for all the baryonic matter in the univeres to spontaneously reconfigure into paperclips but the chances of that happening are insanely small.

Again, I don't see how this your point as well.

Next: if we allow for the spontaneous generation of God in the same scheme how improbable is He? Well he has to be greater in magnitude (however you measure it) than our own universe, making Him less likely than the existence of our own universe. Not only that, but all that substance has to come into existence showing the long term order that makes it an intelligence. That means that you have to multiply some extraordinarily low probabilities together to establish the probability of (a) God existing, making Him far less likely than the existence of a universe alone and in addition bearing in mind that there are a number of further problems to explain,

Once again, I will have to disagree with you, regardless if he is spontaneously generated before the universe was formed or if he is spontaneously generated along with the universe, it's still not improbable. Regardless on how much logic or science you try to chuck at it.

like: why doesn't God disappear into a Black Hole the instant He appears;

Quite simply put it, since God is All, this includes Black Holes themselves.

why would He want to take a load of Himself and create a smaller universe when there are so many others to play with and; isn't He just a part of the natural order of things anyway and therefore not deserving of any special status.

Were dealing with just one universe. If were dealing with multiple universes. Each universe would contain it's own God within the universe.

To conclude: God is about the most improbable thing I can imagine existing even if I assume the existence of a vast continuum of universes and even then he's not responsible for it all and thus not really God at all.

Perhaps to you and to other hard atheists like you. However, I disagree with your conclusion. I see God as a probable thing that there is a possibility of existing. God may be knowable, but the acknowledge of it is beyond any grasp of humanity.

which particular form of Pantheism do you subscribe to

Technicaly, Classical pantheism.

 

[nihilistic]

What is this CHANCE?

Probability.

In an infinite multiverses ALL possibilities must exist.

Wrong. In such a situation either a infinite number of possibilities exist (note that infinite =/= all), or infinite copies of a finite number of possibilities exist.

Correct, but the fact that something is not possible makes it's possibility of existing=0.

You probably meant "probability" and not "possibility". "Possibility" is a binary set of conditions: "possible" or "impossible".

I highly disagree, its not illogical to chose God over natural processes. In fact, it's perfectly alright to chose God over your so called natural process.

So, when you get sick (if you get sick), do you take medicine or do you pray for recovery (assuming that you do not consider illness to be divine).

 

[Captain Planet]

Richard Dawkins puts and end to the debate here =p

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

 

[GenMarshall]

Richard Dawkins is the Atheist's version of Pat Robertson .

 

[ParkCungHee]

All of which arise from known theory, and thus do not suggest that we are missing anything.

I recall in 1900 someone declaring that all species of animal had been discovered. WIthin Twenty years, the Giant Panda, The Gorilla, and the Okapi were seen for the first time by scientists.
Remember, theres nothing more scientific in spirit then saying theres nothing important that needs to be learned, or questioned.

 

[SG-17]

A tiny bump, but I was just watching Red Eye, and this pretty much sums up that atheists are wrong.
http://www.dailygut.com/?i=3077
Read it.