The argument against God

[Tiberius]

I have trouble understanding how a cataclysmic or chaotic event (the Big Bang) has given rise to so much 'order' ie the 'laws' of physics e.g gravity and how this order is maintained?

Unless the laws were brought into being by the multiverse of course, and the multiverse is without time, and thereby existing forever as an uncaused cause

[DD_8630]

One of the 'proofs' or evidences that points to an intelligence or supernatural being that is perceived as 'evidence' by many scientists/mathematicians, is mathematics itself, and indeed the laws of physics. You guys say we are interpreting these 'laws' incorrectly by attributing intelligence behind them. Why is your interpretation the correct one?

Because we aren't inferring more than is justifiable. You can use the elegance of mathematics as evidence of magic garden gnomes if you want, but that doesn't make it true. Our 'interpretation' is correct insofar as we don't have one: we don't read anything into mathematical laws, simply because there is nothing indicative of a Grand Lawmaker.

Naturally, there may Grand Lawmaker, but there is nothing that suggests there is.

Unless, of curse, you can argue otherwise. Else you're just making non sequitur after wild conjecture after unsubstantiated hypotheses.

[CoxRox]

Our 'interpretation' is correct insofar as we don't have one: we don't read anything into mathematical laws, simply because there is nothing indicative of a Grand Lawmaker.

Naturally, there may Grand Lawmaker, but there is nothing that suggests there is.

Unless, of curse, you can argue otherwise. Else you're just making non sequitur after wild conjecture after unsubstantiated hypotheses.

Is your interpretation really correct? Well forgive me for this 'crime' I'm about to committ, but I'm going to appeal to authority, as I'm just not clever enough where maths and physics are concerned and if Gödel could 'see' the suggestion that there is intelligence behind these 'laws' then I'm interested to know why he and many other scientists don't view this like you and the others do. I'm am equally interested in why scientist like Stenger do not share this view. You have all tried to explain why I'm seeing this incorrectly but still I 'see' it.

[Darwinian]

They say that space abhors a vacuum and perhaps in much the same way the mind abhors a mystery. So, when it comes to a problem that it cannot resolve it creates a temporary answer to 'fill the gap' until a better explanation can be found. And if an answer can never be found the gap filler simply gets more and more elaborate.

The mind cannot accept failure easily.

[Edwardo Piet]

I have trouble understanding how a cataclysmic or chaotic event (the Big Bang) has given rise to so much 'order' ie the 'laws' of physics e.g gravity and how this order is maintained?

Unless the laws were brought into being by the multiverse of course, and the multiverse is without time, and thereby existing forever as an uncaused cause

And of course, even if its not a multiverse you cannot just fill it with "God did it" or even "there is a reasonable chance that God did it" or even a "pretty small chance that God did it, but still a chance".

Because that would be a God of the gaps. Filling the beginning with a skyhook. If you don't understand something I think its better to wait for the evidence before you believe than to just fill it with a skyhook.

E.g to Fill it with a supernatural creator that there is no evidence of whatsoever and would have to be far far more complex and improbable than the universe itself.

Ergo, as Dawkins says:

God almost certainly does not exist.

He's a lot more improbable than pretty improbable. He's about as improbable as it can get.

And I say he because I'm sick of saying he/she/it and a lot of people consider it a he.

And I don't really see the difference between a non-existent He, She, or It.

Almost certainly of course.

Evf

[True Unbeliever]

They say that space abhors a vacuum and perhaps in much the same way the mind abhors a mystery. So, when it comes to a problem that it cannot resolve it creates a temporary answer to 'fill the gap' until a better explanation can be found. And if an answer can never be found the gap filler simply gets more and more elaborate.

The mind cannot accept failure easily.

A perfect explanation of the human condition to avoid the unknown.

[chatpilot]

It always amazes me to see how believers come up with such so called elaborate arguments for the existence of a God.It's even funnier to see how unbelievers such as myself waste so much time and energy trying to refute these silly arguments that are mainly a demonstration of ignorance on the believers part.The so called argument from design or order in the universe and nature is easily refuted without so much brain strain simply by observing the many anomalies in nature itself.The bottom line is that nature itself is not as orderly as it appears.Believers have a hard time separating myth from fact since they have either been bred to believe via society and ubringing,hence the term by unbelievers "sheeple" when refering to believers.

I agree with true unbeliever regarding the gap theories created by man to explain those things which at one time or another were not yet known.Science was either non-existent or in its infancy and so as science began to uncover the many ancient mysteries by disproving them using deductive reasoning and experimentation god began fade into the background.But as we see even today ignorance and faith are tenacious enemies and those that cling to them cling to false hopes and delusions.They are afraid to see the world as it really is,there is no God or angels or demons.The only thing that is of substance is the wild imagination and creativity of man.In my opinion religious belief in God or gods is nothing but the remnants of mans primitive mind and mindset.

To believe in the biblical God does take a huge leap of face since the stories make no sense and are as fictional as Peter Pan.The bible has unicorns,talking and walking snakes in the garden,even a talking donkey,these elements alone prove to me that they are nothing but folk tales and myths.I could get caught up in this argument and go deep into breaking down the many arguments for and against god but as I stated earlier it's a waste of time and energy.

[DD_8630]

Our 'interpretation' is correct insofar as we don't have one: we don't read anything into mathematical laws, simply because there is nothing indicative of a Grand Lawmaker.

Naturally, there may Grand Lawmaker, but there is nothing that suggests there is.

Unless, of curse, you can argue otherwise. Else you're just making non sequitur after wild conjecture after unsubstantiated hypotheses.

Is your interpretation really correct?

Well, as I said, I don't have an interpretaion: just as the atheist doesn't have a religous belief, neither do I make any claims as to the origin of mathematical laws: I simply point out that there is nothing indicative of a Lawmaker (of which I would gladly welcome disproof).

Well forgive me for this 'crime' I'm about to committ, but I'm going to appeal to authority, as I'm just not clever enough where maths and physics are concerned and if Gödel could 'see' the suggestion that there is intelligence behind these 'laws' then I'm interested to know why he and many other scientists don't view this like you and the others do.

Probably for the same reason that Einstein opposed quantum mechanics, or Newton spent his last decades in alchemy. Genius does not preclude irrationality or subjective beliefs.

I'm am equally interested in why scientist like Stenger do not share this view. You have all tried to explain why I'm seeing this incorrectly but still I 'see' it.

Well, why do you see it that way?

[CoxRox]

Well, why do you see it that way?

Why do I see an intelligence behind mathematics and the laws of physics? No doubt for the same reasons geniuses like Gödel and many physcists and mathematicians do. These reasons are discussed quite a bit in this thread:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-513.html

---

''A physicist, a biologist and a mathematician walk into a bar. Bartender says, “Any of you believe in God?” Which of the three is most likely to say yes?..........

Answer: the mathematician.''

This is from an article I have just been reading:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/...olt-t.html

It's quite interesting....

[lukec]

CR- I just read the article, and it seems pretty biased and almost petty, to be honest. And it starts out with dubiousness- why would a mathematician's (15% believers) belief in god hold more sway than a biologist's (6% believers) disbelief? Then, the concept of a mathematician's heaven is established, but no sources are cited to show that mathematician's "believe they commune with this realm of timeless entities through a sort of extrasensory perception." It seems a bit hard to believe.

There are also some odd, insubstantiated claims, for example

But grappling with its flawed logic has led to a deeper understanding of existence, causation, time and infinity.

It really feels as if the author has more of a problem with the stance Paulos has taken than anything else. Little barbs like "His stock market book told how he was suckered into losing a bundle on WorldCom stock, but never mind," seem designed to convince the reader of Paulos' fallibility.

I got off topic there. Apologies.

Anyway. That main quote:

''A physicist, a biologist and a mathematician walk into a bar. Bartender says, “Any of you believe in God?” Which of the three is most likely to say yes?..........

Answer: the mathematician.''


This could be less misleadingly put:

"One random representative from each field of physics, biology, and mathematics walk into a bar. Bartender says, 'Any of you believe in God?' Are any of the three likely to say yes?........

Answer: Nope."