This is just patently and obviously silly. They both involve something incredibly complex arising from nothing (there’s no claims that I’m aware of about the “just appearing” part, and there are some philosophical systems that involve a very simple god or godlike entity). This is a fundamental philosophical question for which neither scenario has an adequate solution, and all the solutions proposed could be equally applied to either case. Now god may be unlikely for many other reasons, especially as generally portrayed, granted, but the issue of first cause does not favor either.
jackdavinci: would have to disagree… The intrinsic additional complexity of a god – even a simple one – is an increment of complexity that a theory of cosmological origin has to take into account.
Which is more likely: a vast cloud of energy arising out of nothing, or a vast cloud of energy and a conscious intelligent godlike entity arising out of nothing? It’s absurd to say that the two are equally probable.
(The odds that the next person you meet is a Californian are greater than the odds that the next person you meet is a red-haired Californian.)
The one thing that always got me was the walking on water, having grown up with parents that where really church goers, they never required or forced me to go even as a kid so I really never was exposed to the opened Bible and about the extent of my religious knowledge was the old Moses movie about the Ten Commandments.
Some really kewl stuff but with all the scientific and technological advancements there are still a few that actually believe that myth about Moses casting down his rod before Pharaoh and it automagically became a serpent. O brother.
Of course the Bible thumpers say it is written so you got to have faith, they get really touchy about that faith thing. Logically speaking about the faith thing, there just seems to be something lacking, not exactly sure what it is but I am still working on some alternative theories but the evidence seem to show me that the substance leaves little hope in things seen.
What gets me is that the is a scripture in their own Bible that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the story about Moses casting down his rod before the Pharaoh. I think they know it too but I better shut up before I get one them going…
What story? It was an editorial. It was a fine response to an 8 year old girl. As she matured she saw the deeper meaning of it. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case for theists.
What do you believe?
It’s a cop out to say that it is logical to believe in God, if by God you just mean a story that makes us happy and behave better. Do you think the OP would be satisfied with the statement that believing in God is just as logical as believing in Santa?
See this.
How are we doing this again? Atheists are actually using the same methods that professors and technical editors and scientific reviewers use - trying to force a student or an author to back up their assertions with evidence and logic. I can testify that this kind of bullying is really obnoxious - especially when the professor/reviewer is right and you are wrong. The right thing to do, which any good scientist does, is to ask yourself the hard questions first, and to just shut up if they can’t be answered. When we ask the hard questions of believers we just get complaints and appeals to faith. If I ever got a paper appealing to faith I’d kick its ass into the reject pile so fast that it wouldn’t age on the way.
I can actually appreciate what you are saying and in most ways totaly agree. Traditions and customs in most cases I would leave off the table. Their really is a place for religion in this world and their is a place for belief in a higher power. Trying to debate religion is senseless and pointless. Very few religious people actually take every word in the bible as fact anyway. They just kind of accept what it has to offer. I don’t believe that every aspect of humanity is neccessary to try and intellectulaize.
There are philosophical viewpoints in which god is not at all complex. But that’s irrelevant. No matter how simple you get, the dilemma of first cause is still there. The point is not which is more likely. The universe obviously exists, and god does not obviously exist. That alone speaks to probabilities. Probability is irrelevant. The point is, first cause as a justification for eliminating something we aren’t sure exists, god, is not a rational reason because the same problem is present for something we know exists, our universe. This does not mean that god does exist, or that there aren’t other reasonable arguments against such a thing, it just means that this particular argument is moot.
That greatly strains the definition of “nothing”. The author even put it in quotes:
And it just begs the question of where the quantum foam came from.
If we were to suddenly convince the entire population of the world that their is no God, no after life, no reincarnation , no nothing! How do you think they might behave?
Like humans?
Or most would
Here is a good video that will help.
http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html
Much the same, except perhaps a bit more rationally and less brutally. And much less likely to consider the end of the world a good thing to be longed for instead of a bad thing to be prevented.
More like Sweden and less like Saudi Arabia.
[QUOTE=fumster]
More like Sweden and less like Saudi Arabia.
Reply With Quote
[/QUOTE]
this
There are societies that exist without religion, and strangely enough they haven’t devolved into depraved immoral cesspits of evil. Religion does not hold a monopoly on morals, no matter how often or loudly it tries to make that claim.
This argument only works if the two characteristics are truly independent, which of course is what the Theists deny. They would counter that the comparison is really between “a vast cloud of energy AND no cause to explain it” and “a vast cloud of energy AND a conscious intelligent godlike entity who caused it.” They would then say “The odds that your window was broken by the baseball lying on your floor are greater than the odds that the baseball is unnecessary to explain the broken window.”
It’s the ancient Causal argument, defining God as first cause/prime mover.
In addition to this, traditional Theism doesn’t claim a God who “arises out of nothing” but a God who is eternal.
One of the premises of at least some versions of the “first cause” argument is that everything that has a beginning must have a cause.
I have no problem with the many people who feel uncomfortable in a universe without a higher power, and who believe in one to feel better. I similarly have no problem with those who think beets are wonderful. And most customs and traditions are just fine.
But I do have a problem with those who think this higher power talks to them and tells them what to do, or, worse, tells them what I must do. Or people who buy that God spoke to someone else. Then I need some evidence. If someone only wants to eat mint chocolate chip, fine. If someone wants to pass a law saying that everyone must eat nothing but mint chocolate chip because any other ice cream will make our guts explode, I want to see some evidence. I trust this is not over-intellectualizing the issue.
People don’t take every word of the Bible as fact - only those words that support what they want to do anyway. Once you buy into a God who spoke or speaks to us, and won’t evaluate the evidence of this, you have little justification for refusing to heed the so-called word of god.
Same thing for customs - many fine, some that say oppress women not so fine.
That’s true. But they never explain why God waited an infinite amount of time to create us.
Which sounded plausible - but which we now know is not true.