|
Arguments for and against God
The following questions are not really being asked so that I can be advised about my own beliefs, but rather to (hopefully) stimulate discussion.
Anyway, my first question is this:
Many people believe that God must exist because the universe itself exists. In essence, they believe that the universe was caused by something, and that cause was God. The argument assumes three things. 1. It assumes existence is necessarily caused. 2. It assumes that existence was caused by a conscious, intelligent being.
Now, it seems to me that the idea that the cause is conscious and intelligent, and even a being, is open to question. Maybe the cause is some transcendant FORCE? The first assumption, as well, is questionable. No one is sure if we have every really observed existence being caused. We have seen things change forms, but not pop into existence. Not only that, but theories in quantum physics hold that subatomic particles often appear out of nowhere, with no cause. Many events in the subatomic realm are said to be uncaused. This seems to openly refute the first assumption.
Do you agree or disagree with this? Discuss.
The second argument I'd like to make is in regards to the other big argument for God, that being the argument of design. It basically states that because life is so complex, it couldn't have arisen from chance and it had to be designed.
My objections to this are as follows:
1. If complex life must have been designed by some intelligent force, then the designer (being intelligent) must also have been designed. The designers would have to go back into an infinite regression. This is hardly a plausible idea, because it needlessly multiplies entities without any reason for supposing their existence.
2. The theory of evolution shows how life can evolve from simpler organisms without any intentional design. This is not caused by 'random chance', but by the forces of natural selection, genetic drift, and sexual selection, among others. None of these selection mechanisms are "random". The mutations are random, but the species that survive are not chosen at random.
Is there an adequate way to defend the design theory against these arguments? How would you do so?
Another common argument (this is the last one) is that, given the Big Bang theory, the chances of this specific life-supporting universe originating have such small odds of happening that it seems absurd to say it happened by pure chance.
My objections:
1. Simply because the probability is very low for this given universe doesn't mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to form this way by chance.
2. If we were to emphasize the chances of a universe being created that had, say, a lot of big, gaseous planets like jupiter and very few like Earth, this would also be very improbable. The point is that emphasizing life seems arbitrary. Any other possible outcome would be just as improbable.
3. Your own existence is very improbable as well. Think about it. You were composed of a specific sperm out of millions and a specific egg out of thousands. Your parents, grand-parents, and all your other ancestors for however old humans have been around were also subject to this very low probability of being born. If we factor in the chance of each of your relatives meeting and the chances of them having sex at a particular time, the chances become even lower for your own existence. Given all these variables (and there are many more), the chances of your existence are VERY improbable. Does this mean that you weren't created through sexual reproduction (a process of "random" selection among sperm and eggs) but that some being--maybe a stork?--guided you into existence?
Obviously, the fine-tuning argument fails for the reasons the stork argument fails. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not?
Feel free to pick and choose objects of discussion. Hopefully there will be some interesting responses to give me something to think about!
[ ]
Want to answer more questions in the Miscellaneous category?
Maybe give some free advice about: Spirituality?
You wrote: Now, it seems to me that the idea that the cause is conscious and intelligent, and even a being, is open to question. Maybe the cause is some transcendant FORCE? The first assumption, as well, is questionable. No one is sure if we have every really observed existence being caused. We have seen things change forms, but not pop into existence. Not only that, but theories in quantum physics hold that subatomic particles often appear out of nowhere, with no cause. Many events in the subatomic realm are said to be uncaused. This seems to openly refute the first assumption.Do you agree or disagree with this? Discuss.
Response: If there is a picture there is a painter, if there is a building there is a builder. Design demands a designer. Theories of something coming from nothing and of the chaotic self-organizing take a lot more faith than recognizing the complexity of creation and coming to the obvious conclusion that there is a designer.
You Wrote: The second argument I'd like to make is in regards to the other big argument for God, that being the argument of design. It basically states that because life is so complex, it couldn't have arisen from chance and it had to be designed.
My objections to this are as follows:
1. If complex life must have been designed by some intelligent force, then the designer (being intelligent) must also have been designed. The designers would have to go back into an infinite regression. This is hardly a plausible idea, because it needlessly multiplies entities without any reason for supposing their existence.
Response: There must be a "first cause" that is not designed. That first cause would need to transcend that which is designed. The complexity of life does demand a designer, thus, the theory of "irreducible complexity" propagated by Michael Behe, the biochemist at Lehigh University. There are also factors that demand a design (and therefore, a designer)inference. William Demski has written extensively about this in his book with the same title.
You Wrote: 2. The theory of evolution shows how life can evolve from simpler organisms without any intentional design. This is not caused by 'random chance', but by the forces of natural selection, genetic drift, and sexual selection, among others. None of these selection mechanisms are "random". The mutations are random, but the species that survive are not chosen at random. Is there an adequate way to defend the design theory against these arguments? How would you do so?
Response: Evolutionary theory is a theory and no more. It offers little explanation for the initiation of life. The mechanisms for change that you have mentioned are wholly inadequate to accomplish new speciation. There is no mechanism in evolutionary theory that can cause genetic information transfer that would allow the diversity seen in the natural world. Intelligent design answers these questions without necessarily identifying the designer. Creationism identifies the designer as the God of the Bible. Evolution was a viable theory 150 years ago when the complexity of micro-chemistry was unknown but is not longer viable.
You Wrote: Another common argument (this is the last one) is that, given the Big Bang theory, the chances of this specific life-supporting universe originating have such small odds of happening that it seems absurd to say it happened by pure chance.
My objections:
1. Simply because the probability is very low for this given universe doesn't mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to form this way by chance.
Response: The probability is near zero. You seem to place more faith in impossible odds than in allowing the evidence to lead to rational conclusions. The probability of organic life arising from inorganic life is zero.
You wrote: 2. If we were to emphasize the chances of a universe being created that had, say, a lot of big, gaseous planets like jupiter and very few like Earth, this would also be very improbable. The point is that emphasizing life seems arbitrary.
Response: Any other possible outcome would be just as improbable. You make the case for design, not evolution. The earth is unique in its ability to sustain life. The likelihood of life arising on its own is irrationally impossible. The better paradigm, that fits the evidence is that the earth was specifically designed for life to be sustained.
You Wrote: 3. Your own existence is very improbable as well. Think about it. You were composed of a specific sperm out of millions and a specific egg out of thousands. Your parents, grand-parents, and all your other ancestors for however old humans have been around were also subject to this very low probability of being born. If we factor in the chance of each of your relatives meeting and the chances of them having sex at a particular time, the chances become even lower for your own existence. Given all these variables (and there are many more), the chances of your existence are VERY improbable. Does this mean that you weren't created through sexual reproduction (a process of "random" selection among sperm and eggs) but that some being--maybe a stork?--guided you into existence?
Response: God says that he gave each of us life and birth at a specific point in time and a specific place (Acts 17:26). The chances of things happening that you just mentioned are much better than the chance of evolution being true. They are still improbable but that tends toward an inference of design. There is much research and documentation on this including the books mentioned earlier. You again are making a case that strongly advocates design. Hopefully you really will think about this and not just try to play the intellectual bantering game.
]
if you want more arguements instant message me. the name is brainyallstar.
My newest response to those who dont believe in god and expect me to "prove it" to them is...
"Do you believe in love. Prove it."
And some say love is a chemical thing in the brain designed to keep a species reproducing and my response to that is, What about the love for your parents and children and brothers and sisters(meaning not attration love).
]
Your question gives me hope that the average human intelligence may soon be adequate for your species to be admitted into the Galactic Sodality. I hail you as a fellow sophont.
I urge you to study chaotic inflationary models of cosmogenesis. It is through this branch of cosmology that humans should be able to discover the true answer to the mystery of why the universe exists.
]
Some people will argue that placing these theories together shines some light on the subject.
The idea that the universe was caused by a conscious, intelligent being does assume that existence requires a cause. This is a very easy thing for us to believe because in our lives we see cause and effect all the time. And like with your designers that would have to go back into an infinite regression, causes too would go back in an infinite regression if we don’t accept that something at some point was uncaused. Your own questions imply that you share the belief of many, that an infinite regression defies logic. Looking at it that way, an Uncaused Cause seems like plausible explanation for the existence of this universe. Even if the idea of a conscious and intelligent being isn’t supported.
As people constantly point out to me, you can’t *prove* the non-existence of something. So you can’t prove that that subatomic particles appear without a cause. Beyond that, quantum physics is not something many people deal with in their everyday life, whereas the laws of cause and effect are. (Of course, having said that how do we say the uncaused cause had no cause?)
Well anyways, that in my opinion is why the argument of causality remains one of the most successful proofs given for theism.
As for the argument for intelligent design (both of your last arguments seem to me do be about intelligent design really) seems to take more of a leap of faith because it really does assume that this universe, including evolution and procreation and all that, is such a delicate and unlikely but precisely balanced system that conscious effort is required behind it.
Shrugs. I’m more used to arguing for causality. Intelligent design always leaves me a little annoyed. Anyways I hope you found this fun too!
]
I cannot tell you if god was created as well as how he looks like or who created him that is just one big mystery.You do have a good point about an intelligent person who creates things and that someone must of probably made them.But god does exist I mean look when I need his help I do get the help I really need and when I feel very depressed it then later goes away and I do get good luck and you should believe in him think about it who created nature,humans,and all that you see around you.People had dreams that they seen the light of a person right when they were about to die but survived somehow.Also the love ones would pray to the lord for them to live and they usually do even miracles like someone got hit by a lighting and survived it which is amazing!People who would turn evil who were said that the devil was in them,a priest would cure them with god's pure water,read verses from the bible's book which is the book of god,then get's the devil out,and they turn back to themselves.I strongly believe in god I always did since I was a little girl.If you have any another things you're wondering about god or something else you could just ask me anytime.
]
I believe in God and all, I don't believe that he created the universe and human beings. I believe in evolution that we all evolved from bacteria into monkeys and so on to present day humans. I also believe in the big bang. The chances may be very low of it happening, but some things happen like once in very long times. I don't believe in the whole stork existence thing. I believe it was all chance.
]
Some of these may pertain directly or indirectly
The first argument of creation can be seen in many different ways. You see, asking if the creator was created and it goes back is the same as with this universe. There is no start point, as the thing is not alive. Yes, God is a spirit, so therefore, never having to be born, has no beggining.
The second has to do with science. Science exists, evolution exists, no doubt. But, you are missing a point. God created science. That is why things may be able to be known about, as he wanted us to know how.
The third is with the probability of life. Even if life was created on the shores, the thing that is missing is the soul. Yes, that thing that makes you move with destination, not thinking "Oh, food. I need food." That cannot be created. Our bodies do not think, our souls do.
The last argument is a simple one. All of the things you are arguin is because God willed them to be. He made that to test your faith. Because, faith is the most important thing in his eyes, and he wants you to prove that you have it.
-Steven
]
Hey, this sure was an interesting question. I am somehwat religious and I believe in spiritual and logical explantions. I believe that humans developed from monkeys as a logical explanation and that God created people as a spiritual explanation. I know that God and Jesus exists, because every time I start to think that he doesn't, I think about all the proof they have. They have Jesus' cross, the holy granit, and I also think about all the miracles that have happened throughout the world. Basically, in my heart, I will always believe that God created the Universe, because since noone has ever seen God in person, we have to believe in him aeven though he seems like hes not there, because he is here.
If you have anything else you would like to ask me, please drop something in my inbox on twistedsister17 -because that is the advice column I am usually on.
As for the stork thing, I do not believe there is a stork. The stork was only made up for parents who did not want to tell their little kids where babies come from.
]
More Questions: |