We consider the universe. The universe is everything. If you imagine that there is something called a "god" which created the universe, but somehow isn't otherwise part of everything, and not subject to the normal rules that govern everything (including, apparently, the need to be created), then how is it possible for such a thing to be comparable to everything? Why or how could such a comparison to be made?

The point I am trying to bring out is the assumptions that you have to make in order to say "god created the universe". We humans tend to evaluate things in terms of intent. There are people every day who honestly believe that their computer is deliberately trying to make their life miserable, for example. Of course, we know that such intent is impossible, but the mental habit persists widely among humans. They persist because they provide a useful shortcut in making survival decisions. If you hear a deep, foreboding growl in the woods, it is useful to immediately conclude that something wants to eat you. The bigger the event, object, etc. being evaluated, the bigger and more powerful the intender must necessarily be. A pile of rocks does not inspire the same level of awe that the pyramids do, because we have some idea of the scale of intent behind the pyramids.

Those same humans might then look at the universe, and see intent the same way we see intent in the behavior of a computer. And, of course, that intent must necessarily be REALLY big, because wow, the universe sure is big.

Isn't that a terribly convenient leap? Doesn't it strike you that it might be just as misguided as the thought that your computer is out to get you, or that your red pair of shoes is lucky, etc?

We haven't even gotten into what god might be if he or it did create the universe. Is he like the Force? Did he start the universe and walk away? Is he Thor, Mithras, Brahma, Allah, etc.? How can so many details of what people imagine might be behind everything differ so much if there really was something behind everything?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.

The way I think about it is this: Suppose the only thing that exists, pre-universe, is the possibility of a universe. Let's say that there is a 1 in infinity minus one chance that there will be a universe. Fortunately, there are infinite opportunities for a universe to happen, so a universe happens. (This all takes place when there's no time either, but let's not try to bend our mind around that.) Let's say that unlike our universe, the universe that happens is one in which fundamental truths about our universe to not hold true. Instead of E = MC^2, for example let’s say in this universe E=MC^3. I have no idea what that would specifically mean, but I understand it that fundamentally messing with the laws of the universe would make it unstable, in which case it collapses on itself we’re back to the no universe state with nothing but the possibility of another universe. But again, we have infinite chances, so another universe inevitably happens. Maybe that’s our universe, or maybe it takes infinity minus one tries to get to our universe, but eventually you get a stable universe, and here we are.

So that gets rid of the design argument.

this is so stupid. E=mc^3 isn't even dimensionally correct. What idiocy! And the odds calculation reminds me of the high school teacher who said the odds that the LHC would create a black hole that devours the universe is 50/50. What an uninformed attempt at a calculation of odd!

What are you, a lawyer or something?

Not the PP, but...in a thread suffused with sophistry and sloppy logic, way to nit-pick there. My guess is that you're a theist, but probably have a science background, and are dismayed at the arguments your side's offered up, so you thought you'd take out your frustrations on PP.

Anyway, it was pretty damned obvious what the point was: a universe where the Planck constant was 7.5 might not be a viable one. No reason to get worked up over what was actually a valid point. I'm guessing you have no response to the actual point made, though, otherwise you'd have made it by now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

God first. Then Big Bang. God=Creator. God created Big Bang.

Implausible thing + impossible thing < implausible thing + zero.

The fact that there is no evidence for "impossible thing" other than that he's needed to "fill a gap" is not encouraging.

God is impossible? So you are proving a negative?

Substitute "even less plausible thing" for "impossible thing" if you wish.

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.

The way I think about it is this: Suppose the only thing that exists, pre-universe, is the possibility of a universe. Let's say that there is a 1 in infinity minus one chance that there will be a universe. Fortunately, there are infinite opportunities for a universe to happen, so a universe happens. (This all takes place when there's no time either, but let's not try to bend our mind around that.) Let's say that unlike our universe, the universe that happens is one in which fundamental truths about our universe to not hold true. Instead of E = MC^2, for example let’s say in this universe E=MC^3. I have no idea what that would specifically mean, but I understand it that fundamentally messing with the laws of the universe would make it unstable, in which case it collapses on itself we’re back to the no universe state with nothing but the possibility of another universe. But again, we have infinite chances, so another universe inevitably happens. Maybe that’s our universe, or maybe it takes infinity minus one tries to get to our universe, but eventually you get a stable universe, and here we are.

So that gets rid of the design argument.

this is so stupid. E=mc^3 isn't even dimensionally correct. What idiocy! And the odds calculation reminds me of the high school teacher who said the odds that the LHC would create a black hole that devours the universe is 50/50. What an uninformed attempt at a calculation of odd!

What are you, a lawyer or something?

I think it was Alice von Hildebrand who was having a debate with an atheist when the atheist pronounced, "When I can take God and put him under a microscope and examine him closely, then I will believe in him!" von Hildebrand replied, "When you can take God and put him under I microscope, then I will become an atheist!"

Wow. This thread has really degenerated since I last checked it.

The problem of evil is another very very very long conversation...

Anonymous wrote:

God first. Then Big Bang. God=Creator. God created Big Bang.

Implausible thing + impossible thing < implausible thing + zero.

The fact that there is no evidence for "impossible thing" other than that he's needed to "fill a gap" is not encouraging.

God is impossible? So you are proving a negative?

Anonymous wrote:Again, why do humans ask why we are here, if there is no answer? If we are not "programmed" with our DNA and our instincts, what more is there? The physics that began it all coalesced into our question, why?, when it is a pointless question with no answer?

Sentient creatures do not have desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. Humans have a desire to know how, but they also have a desire to know why. Like self-awareness, language, and the ability to imagine the future, this is an attribute special to humans. Is the "why?" a glitch in the system?

Your argument approach seems to be hypothesizing some unanswerable question, and then taking the unanswerability as proof there must be a god. ("How did the universe form? Why do people ask why? Why is the sky blue? How many prime numbers are there?") I don't think that approach makes sense.

Anonymous wrote:

#4 Argument from perfection

We judge things to be more or less beautiful, just, kind, etc. This judgement presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. The absolute standard of perfection is God.

I was an atheist up until last night when I read this argument. I find it extremely compelling, and am now starting to lean towards the "God exists" camp.

I can imagine a perfectly malevolent force that perfectly embodies all of the anti-virtues. I now believe in God. It's just that he's perfectly evil.

God is profoundly, transcendentally evil - evil in a way that extends far beyond any modest conception of Him we might possess. So I am not surprised many of you are struggling to make sense of Him.

Sure, there are good things in the world, just as there are evil things, but there are good reasons why He will not want to make the depths of his depravity entirely obvious. For example, He can actually increase evil by not fully revealing himself. So there are good reasons why we struggle to recognize His existence, or even make sense of Him. We should expect not to be able to make sense of it all. So the fact that neither you nor I can make sense of it doesn’t give us any grounds for supposing it's not true. And I have glimpsed that it is true.

Don't be ridiculous! If God is evil then I'd expect to see a universe filled with suffering... Oh, wait... Nevermind.

Oprah believes in God, and she is arguably the most powerful woman on earth.

God first. Then Big Bang. God=Creator. God created Big Bang.

Implausible thing + impossible thing < implausible thing + zero.

The fact that there is no evidence for "impossible thing" other than that he's needed to "fill a gap" is not encouraging.

Anonymous wrote:

This is just a dodge. Also question-begging (we're not "programmed", that would require a Creator. There isn't one). Anyway, stop dodging and answer the previous question: why is "big bang" less plausible than "big bang plus incredibly complex omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being?" It's obviously not.

God first. Then Big Bang. God=Creator. God created Big Bang.

Again, why do humans ask why we are here, if there is no answer? If we are not "programmed" with our DNA and our instincts, what more is there? The physics that began it all coalesced into our question, why?, when it is a pointless question with no answer?

Sentient creatures do not have desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. Humans have a desire to know how, but they also have a desire to know why. Like self-awareness, language, and the ability to imagine the future, this is an attribute special to humans. Is the "why?" a glitch in the system?

People argue that the proto-universe--essentially just an incredibly dense, uncomplex, undifferentiated singularity--just came into existence.

Not true.

Instead, an incredibly complex, omniscient, omnipotent being who can do anything, and knows everything that every creature who ever existed has been around forever and all eternity.

This choice is pretty much a litmus test for whether a person is capable of rational thought or not.

#4 Argument from perfection

We judge things to be more or less beautiful, just, kind, etc. This judgement presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. The absolute standard of perfection is God.

I was an atheist up until last night when I read this argument. I find it extremely compelling, and am now starting to lean towards the "God exists" camp.

I can imagine a perfectly malevolent force that perfectly embodies all of the anti-virtues. I now believe in God. It's just that he's perfectly evil.

God is profoundly, transcendentally evil - evil in a way that extends far beyond any modest conception of Him we might possess. So I am not surprised many of you are struggling to make sense of Him.

Sure, there are good things in the world, just as there are evil things, but there are good reasons why He will not want to make the depths of his depravity entirely obvious. For example, He can actually increase evil by not fully revealing himself. So there are good reasons why we struggle to recognize His existence, or even make sense of Him. We should expect not to be able to make sense of it all. So the fact that neither you nor I can make sense of it doesn’t give us any grounds for supposing it's not true. And I have glimpsed that it is true.