I can prove the existance of God. Right now.

my head hurts

 

ok, so the "big bang" is really weird and improbable

but guess what? a God just existing eternally before everything happened, for no reason, and with no cause, who then creates everything, just makes the problem weirder and more complex

religion and god don't answer these questions, they just delay the problem, by switching it from "what caused the big bang" to "what caused god to exist, and then decide to create the big bang"

god doesn't solve anything

 

Unless God and The Universe are the same thing.
The Universe is it's own ending and it's own begining. It contains time itself-- there is no before or after. It is what it is. perhaps if it could talk it would say, "I am what I am" ???

 

God isn't meant to, in a scientific sense.

 

interesting. . .so God isn't good or evil, but sort of neutral and mischievious, screwing aroung with everybody, doing stuff just because it's cool or fun. this is an idea i've thought about before, and would explain suffering and evil in the world--although the explanation is a little unsettling

the question being, if God is neutral/evil, what's the point in believing in this dude or paying him any respect? such a God probably wouldn't care anyway, and would laugh at all mankind's stupid goofy religions

still, where's the evidence? things just seem random to me, and the way different forms of life have common ancestors and forms seems to point towards evolution--plus a lot of science supporting it--and all the pro-God crowd has is a bunch of pseudo-science "intelligent design" BS

 

Only the sith speak in absolutes

 

Damn, my identity is revealed.

 

That's just it. Things may just seem random to you, but they certainly don't to me. The regularity of the universe has been a subject of awe for many of the world's greatest scientists, including atheists like Sagan and pantheists like Einstein. In particular, there's the fitness of the universe to support life--the set of remarkable congruities, also known as "fine tuning" or the anthropic principle: the idea that any small change in one of approximately 26 physical constants would make the universe radically different. For example, if the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger, hydrogen would fuse into diprotons instead of deuterium and helium, which would fundamentally alter the physics of stars and the possibility of life as we know it. If the gravitational constant were off by one part in a hundred million million, the universe would not have expanded in the way it did in a manner making life possible.

The proponents see this as evidence of God. Atheists say that begs the question of who designed God, or that it's an example of "god of gaps" reasoning (invoking God to explain anything that isn't currently explained by science), or even--and this intrigues me as a Startrek fan--invoking the concept of parallel universes, thereby expanding the number of chances for anything. Or there might be some non-randomizing natural factors we don't know about yet. After all, until Darwin introduced us to natural selection, there was no adequate explanation for the origin of species. Or they just say "so what? if we didn't have a universe like this, we'd have one like something else". It never had to be. These arguments make my head hurt. Logically, when the experts disagree and the issues are way over our heads, ordinary folks should suspend judgment. This is probably like a dog trying to figure out human psychology. But I'm young and foolish, and suspending judgment seems so boring.

Here's where I rely on faith, defined as a bet backed by some evidence and lots of right-brain intuition, in full recognition that I could be wrong. I think these scholars are in their heads (where they should be; its their job) and are likely never to resolve the issue by means of science, evidence, and logic. Science is the gold standard for reliable knowledge, but there are many questions science doesn't even touch because they don't lend themselves to rigorous testing. Science is unlikely to help us with ultimate meaning, since that's not the concern of science. I'm reminded of the arguments in Intro to Philosophy--how do we know we're awake and not dreaming? Logically we don't; intuitively, we do. When you hear hoofbeats, you think of horses, not zebras, and when I see order resulting from highly improbable events I suspect something going on besides lucky coincidences or parallel universes--maybe because I'm just a dumb Okie. To me, belief in a Higher Power is a useful working hypothesis, supported by substantial evidence or at least reasonable suspicion, bringing together converging data from a variety of sources, including reason, intuition, and personal experience--specifically: (1) the anthropic principle, or "fine tuning" of the universe; (2) the origin of life; (3) the phenomenon of human consciousness; (4) common coincidences of everyday life that seem "uncanny"; and (5) personal religious experiences involving strong intuition of a spiritual presence. I know that naturalistic explanations could be given for each of these, but like physicist Paul Davies, I think the God hypothesis satisfies the principle of Occam's razor. Let me concede, however, that "God" leaves much to be desired from an explanatory standpoint, since it involves explaining the unknown by the unknowable. The Judeo-Christian tradition is clear that humans will never understand God. At best, our sense of a spiritual presence or Higher Power gives us an inkling that: "(t)here are more things in heaven and earth... than are dreamt of in your philosophy". (Hamlet) Or science.

An eminent evolutionist, Stephen Gould, estimates that if we could rewind evolutionary history to go back to the Cambrian and start over, there's no certainty things would evolve in the same way because of the random element involved, which means there was nothing guaranteeing that intelligent life would evolve on this planet. To him, that's no big deal. We'd just evolve something else. To me, it's amazing. We could add to the list the origin of life and the nature of human consciousness, neither of which has been adequately explained by science. From an evolutionary standpoint, we don't know why consciousness provides any greater advantage than mindless zombies or robots would have, but from a religious standpoint, it enables at least some beings to be aware of the universe and to marvel at it. This is no reason to fall on our knees before the god of gaps, but I think it's enough evidence to support a tentative belief in Something Big Out There (maybe not Woody Allen; forgive me Lord).

The way I see it, anyway you look at it, it's a miracle that we're having this conversation. It would be a miracle if intelligent design were responsible and an even greater miracle if it was just a remarkably fortunate accident that humans ever evolved. I have the feeling that human consciousness is special and meant to be, although some scientists can't see this at all. If the dice were rolled another way, no life form capable of appreciating existence might ever have made its appearance, and HipForums with all these interesting topics might ever have developed. I find that hard to believe. But I could certainly be wrong. That's why I conceptualize my beliefs as faith, defined by Martin Luther as a "joyful bet". And I agree that the pro-God crowd cranks out a lot of pseudo-scientific crap (of which some of this post might admittedly be an example).

 

Oakiefreak,
You've made a typically homocentric fatal assumption.

The "fitness of the universe to support life" assumes that only life as you know it can exist.
The Universe appears to be geared toward creating complexity as it falls toward Chaos. There is no reason to assume that orientation would change if probalistic events had turned out another way.

Also, with respect to "randomness", the Universe is probalistic in nature, (see Hiensberg), a fact easily demonstrated, so it IS random, but within certain parameters.

If God exist, those parameters are her "will".

 

Too much emphasis on God as some stand-alone creator at the beginning of time, some guy operating a computer somewhere.

As defined, God can be much larger... Look into some ancient kabbalistic Judaism. They weren't talking about Mr. White Beard Zeus.

 

I ain't no homo! Anthropocentric please.

That's true, but I'm cool with other life forms, as long as they're intelligent, conscious, and can carry on a good conversation. My point is that at some point life became aware of itself and the universe, and I think that's pretty amazing for a random process.

I see no reason to assume it wouldn't, if the events are purely random. "complexity" is one thing, specified complexity another. Chaos theory has its uses, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it as an explanation of human life.

I won't argue with that, although it seems somewhat tautological.

 

If you had to bet a million dollars, or your life, on that explanation versus the "homocentric" view that intelligent, conscious life is really something remarkable and special, which would you bet on?

 

It's possible that conscious, intelligent life is an epiphenomenon accompanying the decay of the universe. It's possible that the fossil record was put there by Satan to deceive us. It's possible that while our universe seems well ordered and amazing, there are countless alternative messed up universes that are real shitholes. It's all possible. You betcha.

 

It's also possible that the Tooth Fairy did it...
Except it's not.
I can't define the Tooth fairy. So the concept is null.
Can You define your god?

Science seeks god without definition. Religion claims to know God without definition.
It seems to me that to seek god is a noble pursuit. But to already know because someone told you? Faith?

Perhaps if more people looked for god, thier would be less strife in the world.

 

Non-sequiter.

there is zero reason to assume that our universe is the only possible configuration that will support self-perpetuating, evolving organisms (I know this defines a virus as life.)

 

Don't waste your time with Okiefreak.
He will tell you some tall tales. When challenged to prove his Positive Assertion he will shift responsibility on you to prove non-existence.
If you keep challenging him for plausible explanations he will put you on his ignore list and you will end up being called names and then he will go from thread to thread telling people you are a troll and tell more lies about your intentions in questioning him.
In short: it's a total waste of time to discuss anything with Okiefreak.
But there are some honest, sincere posters on this site, such as myself for instance.
Always feel free to read my posts.

 

Looking forward to reading your post.

Thanks. Been there, done that.

I can handle it. Just call me Lightning Rod.

Beside, I'm here because the subject fits in with something I'm working on.

I used to post here alot, but that was long ago and far away.
But I'm back now. I'm might show up in the archives.

 

Do you have an empirical basis for believing there is another universe?
Besides which, so what? My point was that the appearance of intelligent, self-aware life forms seems intuitively remarkable--in the absence of any explanation of how this could have occurred other than random processes or your theory of it being epiphenomenal to the winding down of the universe, both of which seem highly speculative and hard to believe. In any event, it sees amazing that such an event occurred, and it would be even more amazing if it occurred by chance or "blind" processes.

 

Yes.