Imagine there was one quadrillion people on Earth and a lottery was held with only one prospective winner. From the perspective of an individual, the prospect of winning would be highly unlikely. But to an outside observor, or any rational participant in the lottery, the fact of an individual winning is not remarkable in the least, whether it is your next door neighbor or a yak-herder in Kathmandu.
Now suppose the drawing is held and a winner is declared. How unlikely is it to the winner from his perspective? It would be mind-boggling and “miraculous”.
Imagine the oceans of atoms being cooked by the energies of the Sun and other rays from space. At some point the immensely unlikely creation of a self-replicating supermolecule becomes a mathematical certainty. And when that class of supermolecules undergoes eons of the quantum mutation described by Erwin Schroedinger in What Is Life then self-awareness becomes a mathematical certainty.
The resulting consciousness of these certainties is like the winner of the lottery. From one perspective life and consciousness could not possibly have come into existence by “accident.” But from another perspective life is a possibility which inevitably occurs.
Those who believe in a “Creator” are of the same mindset as the many people who are scammed by cons of perspective and probability.
If the Universe is only 15 billion years old, and 15 billion light years radius sphere then we can try to calculate how likely life is to form somewhere within that universe given our knowledge of the physical rules of that Universe. As you seem to understand, the fact that we are ourselves an instance of life does not tell us anything about the probability of our existance. If life is very probable in such a Universe then we need not consider a creator for our particular existance within the Universe. If life is very unlikely within such a Universe then we must consider if there is any reason beyonde ‘dumb luck’ that we exist here in this Universe.
Non of this considers how the Universe comes to be, and whether the Universes existance requires some form of creation by a creating entity.
Too sweeping a generalisation for my liking - people believe in a creator for all sorts of reasons (including the one you describe) - for myself, I believe in a creator because of the psychological disturbances I have experienced - I happen to find it convenient to describe them as episodes of interaction with God, but I’m quite happy for you to consider them psychological disturbances if it means I get the whole seat to myself on the bus.
Nice job, Mangetout! I have absolutely no problem with starting with the Big Bang and getting to where we are by purely “natural” means – that I believe that the process worked as it did in response to God’s Plan does not imply that He was tweaking the process as it went along. My evidence for Him is subjective and historical, not a “proof from First Causes” subject to logical disproof.
You ain’t experienced Him and see no reason to believe? Fine! That’s only logical. But allow me the right to form my own opinion based on my own experiences and my own analysis of the documents supposedly talking about Him – just as I allow you the same right.
But that “right” to draw conclusions and have them considered valid based solely on experience is precisely the opposite of rational scientific thought.
I have always found the notion of a lonely God to be a strange belief. Imagine a God - omniscient, omnipotent, perfect (as believers teach their children) in every way.
But all of a sudden, in the vast expanse of spatial and temporal eternity, the “perfect” being becomes “lonely”, or otherwise desirous of company. So what does He do? He creates a race of beings who have only a vague and uncertain understanding of the possibility of His existence and no direct communication. A strange solution to loneliness, you’d have to admit.
Which makes more sense? That man is the creation of a whimsical God? Or that God is the creation of an evolved mind seeking to explain its unlikely existence?
every so often, i ponder the question “why is there not nothing?” i don’t personally consider life to be anything more special than, say, a planet made of heavy metals some billions of light years away. nor more special than the heavy metals themselves. the fact that anything is, is enough to drive me mad with awe.
having said that, i think attributing these things to a “creator” is pretty ad hoc. there is no more reason (objectively, as has been said) to believe in a creator without a cause as there is a universe without a cause.
I believe in God. Not a rabid, fervent do-or-die belief, but a belief nonetheless.
While I can certainly appreciate your point of view, and it’s certainly an educated one, there’s still the school of thought that it’s not necessary for you to believe in God to be governed by His laws.
Ants might not necessarily understand a life beyond that which they can perceive, but it does not negate the existence of a “watch-maker” simply because they cannot fathom one. I am not fully convinced that humans are reasoned enough to fully grasp God’s plan and design, but just because you can’t understand something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Reason and science are fine and well, but didn’t we also bleed out evil spirits a few measly hundred years ago?
I believe in a watch-maker because it’s unthinkable for this beautiful world to have been created by chance.
But hey, it’s just my $0.02. I’m capable of rational thought and I’m smart enough to know what I don’t know. This one of those things.
Interesting point, although it’s one that doesn’t really matter for the ardent believer.
I’ve come to realize (and I’m a late bloomer I suppose) that people hold beliefs for entirely different reasons then I do-and that’s okay (well, I suppose that depends on the belief, but I’ll generalize for a this post).
We only get one shot at this world (or at least, that’s my belief ) so I say, believe as you wish.
Incidentally, is the belief that everything we know is wrong (or off by a lot) and will be replaced by true science (whatever that would be) called anything?
I don’t plan on raising every argument against a “Creator” (for example if a watch implies a watchmaker and a man implies a manmaker, why doesn’t a God imply a Godmaker, etc. ad infinitum.)
But consider this fascinating trait of humanity. We are capable of constructing belief systems which account for existence after physical death, and we can even find real solace in those beliefs, yet when we are confronted with the reality of the death of loved ones we still react with an animalistic grief as if we know instinctively that death is the end of individuals.
I have seen people who are devout believers crushed with grief as if they know they will never see their loved one again.
So the question is: how do believers reconcile their belief in the eternal afterlife with their instinctive grief over death?
E.M.:
Religion is based on faith, not reason. As long as someone is willing to rely on faith, there is no logic in the universe that can disuade the person from believing.
You are trying to explain why some people would, logically, believe in God. There is no logic in it-- just faith.
But I would concur that, as an atheist, I can see where the natural workings of the human brain would produce a beief in God-- an inability to understand that an effect has no cause.
Hardly. Grief is the expression over the pain of the immediate loss. That eventually the bereaved will be re-united with their lost loved one(s) is not something that will negate the present lack.
If someone who enjoys food is forced to diet, but is assured that after having lost a certain amount of weight he will be able to eat again as he once did, will he not still be upset over the present lack of the foods he once enjoyed?
Humans (like all physical beings) are bound in a time-based world, and this makes it very difficult for the long perspective to take precedence, in instinctive reaction, to immediate concerns.
As for your original post, I think that a application of the second law of thermodynamics (matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed) makes some supernatural agent of creation (who is not bound by thermodynamics in its own creation) necessary.
You’re making a lot of assumptions about what God’s motives and nature would be. So do we believers and unfortunately so does religion. It doesn’t mean it’s true. I think why God created us and things like whether or not he’s omniscient, aren’t knowable. We can and do all have opinions about it, but we do tend to give God the characteristics that our values say he should have. If we would have been in his position, of course we would be lonely. If he’s going to be our god, he needs to be perfect, well by our standards, anyway. What good would a god be if he didn’t know everything? Why would he create both good and evil?
There are many of us that don’t feel vague and uncertain about his existence. And there is direct communication, but not admissable by a skeptic’s standard and most of the time not revealed. And isn’t there more value in learning things for yourself, as opposed to being programmed to believe something? Look at all the experiences you have and knowledge that you gain while you’re actively doubting God’s existence. It’s good for you. Let’s say God created us, not due to lonliness, but just because it was his will. Say he had a lot of love to give or whatever and decided to spread the wealth. Since it’s his creation, it’s all according to his will(or rules). By those standards, anything he makes happen, is perfect; because his is the only standard of comparison. Let’s say you invented, totally on your own, a computer game. The rules are very complicated and there are many levels to it. It is your creation. Someone else can come along and criticize it, but they can’t change the rules. Again, it’s your creation, your rules. He can question your motives for inventing the game(guesswork). He can say the rules aren’t logical(by his standards), but he can’t change your creation. The only thing someone who doesn’t agree can do is, refuse to participate.
I would have to pick the first, although I’m not sure I’ve ever considered God whimsical. When you look around, most of creation seems pretty deliberate. God or no God, it’s a leap of faith either way. BTW, any theory on where those oceans of atoms came from?
Let me see – empiricism is the metaphysical theory that what is “real” is what one can perceive. The empirical method consists in observing and drawing conclusions from one’s observations, testing the hypotheses against extreme cases to establish whether they are valid or not.
I am missing something here – how is this “precisely the opposite” of drawing conclusions from experience?
Of course, you find the world beautiful because your (human) brain can’t grasp the synthesis of the universe and its elements and assigns them majesty rewarded by awe and wonder. A suitable intelligent being might not find the universe beautiful and not be driven to postulate a manipulator working outside of the observed and mundane (by habituation) physical laws.
) so I say, believe as you wish.