Print

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

[Iceblaster]

I prefer to believe that God just gave things a kick start, but doesn't interfere much.

That's how I view things too. Someone made the universe and designed all the laws and then went out for a cup of metaphysical coffee and hasn't been back since.

Or went to play angry birds

/terriblehumor

[Frumple]

I prefer to believe that God just gave things a kick start, but doesn't interfere much.

That's how I view things too. Someone made the universe and designed all the laws and then went out for a cup of metaphysical coffee and hasn't been back since.

Why bother with someone making it, though? Critter creating the universe and dipping is functionally identical to the critter not existing at all and the universe just popping up, and the latter has less moving parts. Something something don't multiply your postulations unnecessarily something.

[TD1]

The problem I have with a creator of creation is who created the creator? I know it's meant to be "He's always been there," but that just doesn't make sense to me.

My other view is that religion is fine for those who believe in it and don't cause harm with it, and I dislike those like Richard Dawkins who want to completely obliterate it.

Ninja'd. I agree with Frumple. I think the thing he's looking for is called Okham's Razor?

[Frumple]

Yesh, that was the razor indirectly referenced. One of its dozens of formulations, anyway.

[Levi]

There are also evolutionary creationists, of course. But that seems to decrease the further into science you go. A good amount of religious scientists are deists, I believe.

Edit: Ninja'd. Japa is an evolutionary creationist. If you mean that God uses evolution as the "kick start"

I don't understand why that isn't more popular.  I mean, God setting things up in such a way that everything happens to produce humans is WAY more impressive(and more indicative of omniscience) than god just making everything few thousand years ago.  Those young-earth creationists just don't have enough FAITH in how awesome God could be.

[TD1]

There are also evolutionary creationists, of course. But that seems to decrease the further into science you go. A good amount of religious scientists are deists, I believe.

Edit: Ninja'd. Japa is an evolutionary creationist. If you mean that God uses evolution as the "kick start"

I don't understand why that isn't more popular.  I mean, God setting things up in such a way that everything happens to produce humans is WAY more impressive(and more indicative of omniscience) than god just making everything few thousand years ago.  Those young-earth creationists just don't have enough FAITH in how awesome God could be.

I agree. It seems like a good alternative to "this proves God doesn't exist." Still, not my cup of tea, especially with the whole attributes thing. I can see a deistic, pantheistic God possibly existing, but not the typical theistic God. The Inconsistent Triad is an example of this. As in, Got is omni-benevolent, yet evil exists. He is omnipotent, and yet does not stop said evil. Augustine and Irenaes put forward their theodicy, but again they just don't hold water.

[Knit tie]

Intelligent design doesn't really hold water next to evolution, but on a laws of physics lever, it makes sense. I mean, each of the elemental particles having the exact speed and mass needed for complex interactions with each other is almost infinitely improbable. So either somebody deliberately made our universe able to sustain life, or there is an infinite number of other universes along with ours.

[MonkeyHead]

I, as a rational sceptic, cant see how people can satisfy themselves believing in anything that has a noticeable lack of observational evidence. The burden of proof is on those saying a god or gods exist. prove it to me then I will agree. Until then, I will not. But hey, cant help the way I think.

Intelligent design doesn't really hold water next to evolution, but on a laws of physics lever, it makes sense. I mean, each of the elemental particles having the exact speed and mass needed for complex interactions with each other is almost infinitely improbable. So either somebody deliberately made our universe able to sustain life, or there is an infinite number of other universes along with ours.

No. Just No. Nobody ever counted the failed universes. Is it really that hard a stretch to realize that it is no surprise that we exists in a universe suited to our existence? If it were not, then we would not be....

As for almost infinitely improbable - you wait long enough with a large enough sample size, then regardless how unlikely something is, it will happen.

[RedKing]

Intelligent design doesn't really hold water next to evolution, but on a laws of physics lever, it makes sense. I mean, each of the elemental particles having the exact speed and mass needed for complex interactions with each other is almost infinitely improbable. So either somebody deliberately made our universe able to sustain life, or there is an infinite number of other universes along with ours.

Potentially a selection bias. There's also the chance that the universe was created and destroyed an arbitrarily large number of times without life ever arising, and we just know the one in which it did. Similar to us only knowing that life exists on this planet, which does not preclude it existing elsewhere.


Pseudoedit: Damn MonkeyNinjas.

[TD1]

Intelligent design doesn't really hold water next to evolution, but on a laws of physics lever, it makes sense. I mean, each of the elemental particles having the exact speed and mass needed for complex interactions with each other is almost infinitely improbable. So either somebody deliberately made our universe able to sustain life, or there is an infinite number of other universes along with ours.

Perhaps the dice had to fall someway, and fell as they did by chance.

That isn't quite the correct quote, so I didn't use quotation marks. Can't remember it exactly.

Intelligent Design holds no water at all for me, I'm afraid. And in the case of infinite universes and a creator, I think infinite universes is much more likely, because what is the probability of God being there to create a just-right universe?

And ninja'd. I agree with MonkeyHead. But knit tie puts forward an equally reasonable argument, even if I don't agree with it. It's also possible this is the only universe.

Dammit RedKing, stop with the Ninjas!

[My Name is Immaterial]

I prefer Unintelligent Design to both ID and evolution.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What makes me rage is knowing that this vague deism is going to become more popular in the future as Christianity declines.

[TD1]

Eh. I believe Christianity was doomed to decline, and Deism seems much more likely to me than, as Dawkins puts it, the God "propagated from the pulpits"

[scrdest]

My 90 minute train ride home for holidays is getting an hourlong delay at a random station. Can't go to my place, since I'm 400 km away from it, can't go on foot or get my parents to pick me up because It's still way too far.

Strike up a conversation with a stranger!

Would, but it was a non-compartmented car, and few people like to share personal details with all thirty people within an earshot.

Oh yeah, and it ended up being 70 minutes. Almost as long as the whole damn ride.

[Knit tie]

"Infinite universes" is just as likely to be the case as "intelligent universe design", that's true, so it's equally unreasonable to believe in either.