The whole argument that since the universe appears designed there must be a creator is a fallacy in my opinion anyways. Think about it. In what scenario, under what conditions, could the universe exist and not APPEAR to be designed? It's simple to say that anything that "works" was designed, when in reality that may not be the case.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Oops. Why God Did Not Create the Universe
- Thread starter Optionpro007
- Start date
Quote from Optionpro007:
I would like to add that I do believe in God. Not the one religions believe in. The proof scientists are using in the above referenced article to disprove the religious God is the actually the God of nature.
What keeps everything bound together. Another name for this invisible energy form is Love. We can't see it, we just know it exists because of what it creates.
That is how I feel about it too. The 'God' that is talked about in the religions of the world is bs. God did not talk to anyone. If there is a God he obviously wants us to use our brains to discover him. Any religion that discredits science and thought needs to be discarded. That said, I do like the basic teachings of Jesus and he was onto something. Namely, the importance of Love and Forgiveness. Also that we should not judge. I also dig that he apparently spent his time with those on the outskirts of society. You know the people that Peil would call 'human trash'
Wrong. Russell was an atheist with an agenda and his flawed analogy has been overblown by "people" like you to either falsely "disprove" the existence of God or at least argue against it.
And please spare me the wiki statement of the analogy's purpose because if you read the full article, you'd know it was used in a broader context to support his contention that believing in God is not reasonable. In fact, the first sentence of Russell's final paragraph is: "My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true."
And please spare me the wiki statement of the analogy's purpose because if you read the full article, you'd know it was used in a broader context to support his contention that believing in God is not reasonable. In fact, the first sentence of Russell's final paragraph is: "My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true."
Quote from Gayfly1:
Russell's teapot analogy is as relevant today as it ever was. His argument had to do with fundamental logic. Are the rules of fundamental logic different today?
What indications, what evidence that there may be a Creator?Quote from jem:
....top physicists say our universe appears incredibly designed
I have not said that since it appears designed there must be a creator. I would say indications or evidence there may be a Creator.
What design.. Since it 'appears'... but there are no scientific - no "top physicists's " - indications or evidence of any.
You mean there may be intelligent design like there may be pigs that fly?
As the laws of physics allow for a universe to begin from nothing, then what of design.
Exactly.Quote from Gabfly1:
Russell's teapot analogy is as relevant today as it ever was. His argument had to do with fundamental logic. Are the rules of fundamental logic different today?
Constantly veering away from fundamental logic and common sense manifestly is the preferred method of laying claim to an implausible Creator.
Let's look at your logic.
You're too STUpid to realize it, but you conceded that God is just as plausible as no God when you wrote this:
A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible.
Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2951231#post2951231
Substituting "no celestial God" for "a celestial teapot" we get:
No celestial God or a celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible.
Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is no celestial God.
Two things that are equally implausible are equally plausible. Therefore God is just as plausible as no God.
You're too STUpid to realize it, but you conceded that God is just as plausible as no God when you wrote this:
A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible.
Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2951231#post2951231
Substituting "no celestial God" for "a celestial teapot" we get:
No celestial God or a celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible.
Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is no celestial God.
Two things that are equally implausible are equally plausible. Therefore God is just as plausible as no God.
Quote from STUpid:
Exactly.
Constantly veering away from fundamental logic and common sense manifestly is the preferred method of laying claim to an implausible Creator.
Quote from stu:
What indications, what evidence that there may be a Creator?
What design.. Since it 'appears'... but there are no scientific - no "top physicists's " - indications or evidence of any.
You mean there may be intelligent design like there may be pigs that fly?
As the laws of physics allow for a universe to begin from nothing, then what of design.
you left out the and "if" we have a multiverse part.....
could you be any more pathetic?
Hawking explains the science in the quote on the front page of this thread.
If you do not understand you will have to except that many people with a sub 120 I.Q. can not think in systems.
Stu - Just in case you do not understand what hawking said on the front page of this thread... I thought I would remind your forgetful mind.
"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?
Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: âEveryone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.â
But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isnât conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?
Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it âan abdication of human intelligence.â That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid âthe overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.â But even if you donât go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why."
http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137
To quote what Hawking said, you quote what Carr said..Quote from jem:
Stu - Just in case you do not understand what hawking said on the front page of this thread... I thought I would remind your forgetful mind.
As I say, verring off logic and common sense is clearly the preferred method of laying claim to an implausible Creator.