Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

I used to think this.

But I think most sophisticated Christian philosophers and academics posit a new probabilistic avenue for science supporting God.

It boils down to comparing probabilities. What's the probability the universe, the earth- the world we live in came about due to unguided naturalistic processes, versus with the existence of God.

What this argument does is show that considering only unguided processes (evolution, natural selection, etc), universes that support life are just mindbogglingly unlikely to come out in such a way as to actually be sustainable for any long period of time, LET ALONE long enough to sustain life of any kind, LET ALONE life as complex as human life.

In fact, this has become something of a mainstay in Cosmology (study of the universe), being called "the anthropic principle". Anthro = human.

I had to look this up, but Roger Penrose calculates that the odds of the initial conditions of the universe coming about in such a way is 1 in 10^10^123.

10^10 is 10 billion, by the way.

This doesn't support god.

It doesn't "support" the idea of a God. It simply makes the idea of the universe coming about without a God terribly implausible verging on impossible.

Therefore allowing for a rational basis to conclude that it's much more likely that a God exists.

This argument is not easy to refute, but I have some possible answers to it.

---

As I think Albert Camus said about Vichy:

"C'est le ridicule d'une personne qui pousse la responsabilité de ses erreurs sur les autres"

As I say about you:

"When Fritz makes a mistake, he appeals to a foreign language to try and confuse his way out of his own mess."

Thanks for playing. Good day.