Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
One thing I will note: Lack of evidence doesn't equate to non-existence. Science is based on induction and can only observe what is known rather than what is unknown. To state that God doesn't exist because he can't be observed through scientific means is just faulty, faulty, faulty, faulty, faulty. Therefore, I'll take any atheistic claims made of the basis of science with a grain of salt until the day that science proves, definitively, that God doesn't exist. A belief in the unknown (God) in inherently no different than a concrete statement of the unknown (That God doesn't exist).
|
My favorite of all non-arguments. "You can't prove god doesn't exist, therefore you're all wrong." You cannot prove a negative, so the burden of proof is in theist's court.
I'll tell you what, assemble a panel of the most distinguished thinkers of all time from every field of expertise. I'll make a claim that I can turn an empty coke bottle into a star with nothing more than my remote control for my tv. They have to disprove it. Guess what? That's what you're asking of us.
What people that make this non-argument don't understand is that logic actually works this way:
You cannot prove the nonexistence of something. All you need is a complete lack of proof for something.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
Well... Physics usually point to six universal constants (The force that binds atomic nuclei together, the binding strength of forces that hold atoms together divided by gravitational attraction, the density of matter in the universe, the strength of the cosmic antigravity that controls the expansion of the universe, the size of the ripples in the expanding universe and the number of dimensions in our space) which make life possible. If, say, gravitational attraction was off by 1/1,000,000,000,000 then life wouldn't exist. You can either believe that 1.) things happened by chance or 2.) that there are various multi-verses and that our universe is simply part of that chain or 3.) that there is a Divine Creator. Occam's razor states that in the event of three conflicting theories that you should pick the simplest and most straight-forward method.
So you have a choice of things simply falling into place, multi-verses or a Divine Creator. Nothing happens "By accident", so we can rule out number 1. That leaves us with either there being various multi-verses or a Divine creator. Personally, I lean towards a Divine Creator as the odds of there being various multiverses which we can't observe is much, much lower than the existence of an omnipotent being (Plus, the more multiverses which exist the smaller the chance of there being life in each one). Then again, there could be a fourth option which is bigger and more incomprehensible than we could imagine (Though, I'd call that God, but that's just me).
Slightly off-topic, but I can't help but think of the movie MIB, where the entire universe turns out to be nothing more than a marble created by a higher being.
|
God is the most complicated and unlikely answer of all because he/she/it is said, in religious texts and ancient stories, to work outside of the laws of nature. According to Occam's Razor, god is the least likely possibility in any possibility imaginable.