Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Megaman]

In the end, it really doesn't matter if He truly exists or not. Life will continue the same.

[Fenrir]

I said as much as well, but I gave my reasons for doubting. You have not actually told us why you believe though, which is the point of the thread. I would like to know, as I must confess that the great “God” debate is like crack for me.

[Megaman]

You have not actually told us why you believe though,

If God did not create us, who did?

[DrPoo]

You have not actually told us why you believe though,

If God did not create us, who did?

Supposedly thunderstrikes into puddles of water with clay and shit in em.
Sometimes things just happen by themselves without a real cause, other than the sun.

Maybe the sun is god.

[Fenrir]

You have not actually told us why you believe though,

If God did not create us, who did?

Question begging, I’m afraid. You are assuming that it was a “who” and not a “what”. You assume we were created by a personality, as the pronoun who indicates. Gods are personalities that make things, so to ask “If God did not create us, who did?” is as to ask “If God did not make us, which god did?” As you can see, it does not answer the question “Why do you think there is a god?” I am not asking “Which god made us?”

[Graebeard]

@Glyph: that's great.  I've encountered the general idea of ordered levels of reality before (e.g. Flatland, Heidegger, Anathem, these SMBC's), but I haven't seen that take on it.  I'll have to think about it a bit.  One question that occurs to me right away is what distinguishes "natural" from "artificial" universes, but I'll have to consider it a bit more.

You have not actually told us why you believe though,

If God did not create us, who did?

Ninja'd by Fenrir, but here is my take.

Is an agent (a "who") necessary for our creation?

Order does, under some conditions, arise out of chaos.  The laws of our universe are such that spontaneous organization does occur from time.  For example, the condensation of stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc... all occur as a result of fundamental physical laws.  On a terrestrial level, we see the formation of water vapor into clouds and the crystalization of organic and inorganic molecules into gems.  Very plausabily, naturally occuring amino acids might have latched onto one another, as they are wont to do, which triggered further latching and replication of this patern.  Ants form colonies capable of greater feats than the sum of its parts, fish and cows gather to form heards, and people organize themselves into artifical entities like corporations and states.

I do not see the necessity for a personality to "create" each of these things, the rules and order of the universe are sufficient to allow the emergence of clouds, people, and nations.

On the other hand, the beauty of these laws, the regularity and knowability of the universe seem to indicate a deeper design.  Perhaps physics can explain people, but how do we explain the regularity and beauty of physics itself?  This seems a much more compelling argument to me.  However, this type of "watchmaker" god also seems inconsistent with the miracles and divine intervention of the Christian God, and so this idea has done little to draw me in that direction.

[GlyphGryph]

Artificial simply means knowingly designed. Technically, any and all theists believe in an artificial universe.

Also, thanks for the SMBC comic - it's actually quite relevant, and I haven't read it before.
(damn it, I thought I'd hit their entire archives)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

RAM, it wasn't funny before, and it still isn't funny now.

[Fenrir]

On the other hand, the beauty of these laws, the regularity and knowability of the universe seem to indicate a deeper design.  Perhaps physics can explain people, but how do we explain the regularity and beauty of physics itself?

Remember, beauty is your brain’s reaction to physics, not precisely a property of physics itself. As the evidence seems to suggest that human beings are a recent development, it seems a large leap to suppose that the universe must have been created to appear beautiful to us instead of our brains developing to find it beautiful.

[kaijyuu]

Side note: either way, physics couldn't be considered "beautiful" if we weren't there to experience it as such.

IE humans are awesome.

[Putnam]

I like to abide by Einstein's belief in this kind of thing.

[Aramco]

The way I see it, I feel no need to believe in any gods, because if I was a god, I would like atheists better anyway.

You know, they do good things just for the sake of being good, not just so they can be rewarded (though I would like religious people who did it for the sake of being good as well)

[G-Flex]

On the other hand, the beauty of these laws, the regularity and knowability of the universe seem to indicate a deeper design.  Perhaps physics can explain people, but how do we explain the regularity and beauty of physics itself?

Remember, beauty is your brain’s reaction to physics, not precisely a property of physics itself. As the evidence seems to suggest that human beings are a recent development, it seems a large leap to suppose that the universe must have been created to appear beautiful to us instead of our brains developing to find it beautiful.

Yeah, and it's pretty obvious to me why humans would find beauties in these laws, since one of the most fundamental aspects of being human is the urge to find them; to observe our environment and extrapolate patterns and meaning. The human mind likes elegant, functional explanations.

[Fenrir]

GlyphGryph, where did you get the ~60% certainty in your theism? None of your variables are actually filled, so I see no means by which you could get a number.

[GlyphGryph]

That was the sort version, and the 60% is pretty much complete conjecture. It's also off of memory from the math I don't even have on me. I just remember it being "a bit more than half".

The assumptions about values required for the actual equation make it pretty much worthless though. I shouldn't even have mentioned it. Just read it as "more likely than not".