An important question to ask when considering the existence of God

[DogmaHunter]

Here is the question, when looking at creation such as the Earth the Water and studying science, I really have to ask myself what kind of odds would have to play out for all of creation to come into existence by only natural processes? Really what kind of odds would have to play out for that to happen? Because over a fourteen billion year period for all the atoms to be created and put into just the right place, so that the one sperm of your Father or my Father would go to the one egg of your or my Mother, is totally astronomical.

Any other outcome would have been equally improbable.

Having said that, trying to figure out probabilities after the facts and with a sample set of exactly 1, is literally setting yourself up for failure.

Also, even if we assume you could actually calculate such odds and suppose these odds are like 1 in a gazitrillion-billion... how does that figure get you any closer to "therefor, god dun it"?

Yes it is a circular argument to say a creator made it, but if it were only natural processes to make it then there is randomness involved.

Why is it a problem that there is (or might be) randomness evolved in the "free" development of a system?

So, could existence be like looking at quadrillions and quadrillions of doors and opening the one door that leads to existence?

Are you of the opinion that every event that happened from the beginning of time till the moment of your birth, happened only so that you could be born?
It sure sounds like it, when I read that question.

Sure all the other doors you don't even know what they could lead to, and you only get to know about one door, one possibility. However our knowledge is incomplete, because there could be a creator, who is even omnipresent or not we just don't know.

Or perhaps there are no doors at all, and the universe with all its contents was created 5 seconds ago, with all our memories implanted.

Just because we can "imagine" such a possibility, doesn't mean that such things are also plausible.

Still though, it seems to me like a good argument for there being a creator or higher power of some kind.

I see no argument here whatseover, except a fallacious argument from ignorance.

I have no idea how you got from "improbable" to "god".
Replace "god" with "extra dimensional, undetectable pixies" and the merrit of the argument remains the exact same. In fact, you could replace "god" with any unfalsifiable idea your imagination can produce.

In reality, there isn't a single reason to bring any gods (or other unfalsifiable entities) into this, at all.

So what are your thoughts on this?

It's fallacious reasoning.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When you say "there is nothing remarkable about a rare result" and to say it is just like that, I disagree.

Rare results happen all the time, every day, everywhere.

Even something as common and stupid as a weekly lottery outcome, is a rare result.
Every dealt bridge hand, is a rare result.

You still can't rule out the existence of God who is omnipresent.

Yeah, that's kind of the thing with unfalsifiable claims... they can't be ruled out. Which is exactly why they are meaningless.

How about trying to "rule them in" first (instead of just asserting them into existence), before proudly saying that they can't be ruled out - as if that means something.

All these theists who do believe in a higher power, of one form or another, must have some reason.

Sure. But that doesn't mean their reasons are sound, valid, rational, ...

Humans (as well as other animals, even pigeons) are very prone to superstition and "the false positive".

I'm sure you can immediatly think of a few examples of things that were commonly believed, practically without question, by a vast majority back in the day, while what they believed is today known to be completely false.

They had their reasons to believe as well. They were simply mistaken.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Rare results happen all the time, every day, everywhere.

Even something as common and stupid as a weekly lottery outcome, is a rare result.
Every dealt bridge hand, is a rare result.

Indeed we should expect rare results and coincidences, given many independent events (e.g. life experiences).

It's remarkable how poor naive intuition is when it comes to statistics and probability. Many people still think future odds or results of randomized processes - lotteries, casinos, etc. - are influenced by past results (e.g. you're more likely to get a tail after tossing several consecutive heads). I know someone who fills in their lottery numbers based on the idea that numbers that were least frequent in the past are more likely to occur soon (they're 'due'), and also that lottery numbers that were most frequent in the past are therefore more likely to occur again - mutually contradictory heuristic errors.

 

[com7fy8]

And what are the odds that physical-only existence would produce humans who would think of the idea that there is a non-physical Creator?

Very very slim, but given we have had 14 billion years and billions of planets, it's not all together shocking that it has happened at least once.

understood

But out of those billions of planets here we have one with air and water and sunlight > three more or less transparent things . . . and soft enough . . . so we can see through them and move through them rather easily.

Then . . . having these, don't you need to have time enough to produce all the mutations which would produce the basic ability to think there is God; have you considered how many mutations would be needed in order to produce the biochemical and structural and pathway structures basically needed, and how long evolution would need in order to produce and select all those mutations, plus in the needed timing in relation with each other, so they could thrive? Plus, after having the basic structure and functional capabilities, wouldn't there need to be specific behavioral genes which would produce the specific imaginative behavior for believing in God?

And, like I am considering, wouldn't there need to be selective processes which favor believing in God?

I think the billions of years would not be enough time, plus what do you think about selective processes favoring so many and varied God people?

Ones atheistic seem to believe in selection, but they also seem to be pretty unhappy about there being God believing humans. But if the God people are the result of evolution, why would they have a problem with what is simply natural selection doing its thing?

 

[com7fy8]

And what are the odds that physical-only existence would produce humans who would think of the idea that there is a non-physical Creator?

About the same as the odds that it would produce humans who would think that a black cat crossing the street from left to right is a bad omen?

When I studied evolution, I was told that genes were what produced behaviors. If this is true, than evolution would need to produce the genes needed for various behaviors. And these genes with behaviors would need to be selected as being desirable.

So, in case this is a correct interpretation of what certain scientists believe, I consider how humans have come up with many behaviors which did not have thousands of years for producing their genes for producing those behaviors . . . for example, inventing television and watching it.

And, yes, I'm not sure that believing in black cat superstition is needed for survival; so why would it be selected?

Also, I notice how humans can even hate rain which is so needed in order for us to have life on this planet. Why, ever would evolution select a rain criticizing behavior or the humans who hate and fear and criticize rain which they so need in order to stay alive?

 

[Hawk Flint]

I myself am agnostic, but do hope for the divinity of Jesus Christ to save my soul from Hell.

Here is the question, when looking at creation such as the Earth the Water and studying science, I really have to ask myself what kind of odds would have to play out for all of creation to come into existence by only natural processes? Really what kind of odds would have to play out for that to happen? Because over a fourteen billion year period for all the atoms to be created and put into just the right place, so that the one sperm of your Father or my Father would go to the one egg of your or my Mother, is totally astronomical.

Yes it is a circular argument to say a creator made it, but if it were only natural processes to make it then there is randomness involved. So, could existence be like looking at quadrillions and quadrillions of doors and opening the one door that leads to existence? Sure all the other doors you don't even know what they could lead to, and you only get to know about one door, one possibility. However our knowledge is incomplete, because there could be a creator, who is even omnipresent or not we just don't know. Still though, it seems to me like a good argument for there being a creator or higher power of some kind.

So what are your thoughts on this?

Sam

What if God caused the Big bang? In Genesis you can read that God took six days to make the earth, and in 2 Peter 3:8 we read that a thousand years is like (or as) a day for God. Notice that it states that a thousand years is like a day. It does not say that it is a day, but that it is like a day. It could be a million years for all we know (correct me if I'm wrong, this is a personal belief).

 

[Eudaimonist]

What if God caused the Big bang?

What does that have to do with the post you are quoting? Are you agreeing? Disagreeing? Extending his argument? Or what?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Radrook]

It takes infinitely more faith to believe that there is no creator than it does to believe that there is.

Romans 1: 20
19For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It takes infinitely more faith to believe that there is no creator than it does to believe that there is.

Actually, no, it doesn't. It just takes some science education and a logical mind.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Radrook]

Actually, no, it doesn't. It just takes some science education.
eudaimonia,

Mark

Irrationality in the service of atheism isn't science.

Atheism and irrationality

Contents
1 Atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic
2 Atheist worldview cannot explain consciousness
3 Naturalism is incompatible with reason
4 Irreligion and superstition
5 Formal debates and the lack of confidence of the atheist community
6 Atheists commonly use logical fallacies in their arguments
7 Irrationality of the atheism and the logic of belief in the existence of God

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_irrationality

 

[Eudaimonist]

Irrationality in the service of atheism isn't science.

True, but science is rationality in the service of atheism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Radrook]

True, but science is rationality in the service of atheism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

You are conveniently calling quackery science.

Atheism and irrationality

Contents
1 Atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic
2 Atheist worldview cannot explain consciousness
3 Naturalism is incompatible with reason
4 Irreligion and superstition
5 Formal debates and the lack of confidence of the atheist community
6 Atheists commonly use logical fallacies in their arguments
7 Irrationality of the atheism and the logic of belief in the existence of God

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_irrationality

BTW
Atheism doesn't have a monopoly on scientists.
Also, the vast majority of people mistaken as atheists or tagged as such in order to swell atheist ranks are actually agnostics who only claim to be unsure. So your numbers are not as impressive as you imagine.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Atheism and irrationality

Contents
1 Atheistic worldview cannot account for the laws of logic
2 Atheist worldview cannot explain consciousness
3 Naturalism is incompatible with reason
4 Irreligion and superstition
5 Formal debates and the lack of confidence of the atheist community
6 Atheists commonly use logical fallacies in their arguments
7 Irrationality of the atheism and the logic of belief in the existence of God

1) I see no difficulties with an atheistic worldview handling logic. The Law of Non-Contradiction, for instance, is firmly rooted in the physical necessity that something cannot be other than what it is at the same time and in the same respect.

2) Atheistic worldviews have made far more progress in identifying the brain as what generates consciousness. Theistic worldviews have only hand-waved the issue away by relabeling consciousness "soul" or "spirit".

3) Naturalism is entirely compatible with reason.

4) Superstition belongs to the theistic camp. Irreligion isn't irrational.

5) There is no necessary connection between formal debates or an alleged lack of confidence and the issue of whether or not atheism is irrational.

6) Theists use logical fallacies far more often based on what I have seen.

7) Begging the question.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_irrationality

Ah, there is your problem. You are quoting conservapedia.

BTW
Atheism doesn't have a monopoly on scientists.

I never claimed that it did. My point is that it is easier to be an atheist -- that is, faith isn't required -- when one has a good science background and training in critical thinking skills. I know this from personal experience.

Also, the vast majority of people mistaken as atheists or tagged as such in order to swell atheist ranks are actually agnostics who only claim to be unsure. So your numbers are not as impressive as you imagine.

I'm an agnostic-atheist, and I don't care about numbers. I could be the only atheist in existence and still be rational about my personal atheistic worldview.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

You are conveniently calling quackery science.

You are just making empty claims.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SamuelTP1977]

I feel now I will share a personal story. A friend of mine who I knew in college was an atheist, pretty hard core, but he settled down and started a family in his mid to late thirties, and I asked him "so what do you think about the possibility of an afterlife and the divinity of Jesus Christ?" He said "we are not made to know." I feel that there are a lot of good wisdom in those words and out of our ignorance we can keep hope alive.

Jesus could have come back from the dead and I also feel it is far more authentic to the human condition to believe in a higher power of some kind and do hope for an afterlife of some kind. Just think about it, imagine you got a diagnoses of cancer, would you really want to give up hope for an afterlife and not hope you have an immortal soul? Yes religion is not scientific and takes quite a lot of imagination to make work, especially when praying, but when considering the human condition, to really experience life as a human, one needs a higher power and hope for an afterlife.

I pray for you to at least be open minded to the possibility of Heaven, even though it can't be proven. You are giving up too much if you give up that hope that has sustained so many through hard times.

Hang in there,

Sam

 

[Hawk Flint]

What does that have to do with the post you are quoting? Are you agreeing? Disagreeing? Extending his argument? Or what?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I was agreeing with science and scripture at the same time.

Sent from my SM-T280 using Tapatalk

 

[Eudaimonist]

Just think about it, imagine you got a diagnoses of cancer, would you really want to give up hope for an afterlife and not hope you have an immortal soul?

I have no personal expectations of immortality. I do expect an end to my existence. That is authentic to my own way of seeing things.

Yes religion is not scientific and takes quite a lot of imagination to make work, especially when praying, but when considering the human condition, to really experience life as a human, one needs a higher power and hope for an afterlife.

SOME people may find that a theistic worldview and expectations are authentic to them, but not everyone is the same in that regard. Life is rich and full in my non-theistic worldview. Nothing would be added by adding in a God (or gods) or an afterlife.

I pray for you to at least be open minded to the possibility of Heaven, even though it can't be proven. You are giving up too much if you give up that hope that has sustained so many through hard times.

I have all the hope I actually need.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... imagine you got a diagnoses of cancer, would you really want to give up hope for an afterlife and not hope you have an immortal soul?

There is consolation in comforting fantasies, but that doesn't make them real.

... religion ... takes quite a lot of imagination to make work...

I imagine it does...

... to really experience life as a human, one needs a higher power and hope for an afterlife.

I found it to be unsubstantiated and pointless distraction.

 

[SamuelTP1977]

I also feel if Global warming is left unchecked we could very well look at the end of civilization, the beginning of extinction for humans and the death of billions not millions starting around 2050. It scares the hell out of me real bad. I do hope Jesus will come back to the planet before that happens and stop a catastrophe. It is going to take a miracle.

Population growth left unchecked will be a serious problem considering Earth's resources are finite. Keep hope alive though so hopefully we will survive.

Not to change the subject too much, but we really need the help of some divine guidance or a divine plan to keep things from getting like Louisiana, Maryland, and West Virginia with the rain.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not to change the subject too much, but we really need the help of some divine guidance or a divine plan to keep things from getting like Louisiana, Maryland, and West Virginia with the rain.

While we wait for a divine plan or guidance, it would seem to make sense to make some headway in implementing our own plan - a minimum level of action has been agreed, but promises are easier to make than to keep, and short-term profit tends to override long-term and uncertain benefit... the precautionary principle is unattractive to those who must pay for it.