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

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

give me your source!!!!

If the only thing you can provide is the disingenious non scientific rants of an inhibited angy feminist and from a catholic newsagency.

You cannot make a case that can withhold the storm of factual evaluation.

I'm not your babysitter.

Go look in the thread. I provided plenty of sources.

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.

This is what is known as a "hypothesis".

When you actually have some evidence to back it up it will be a "theory".

No, it's not merely a hypothesis, it's a fact.

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.

The way that you put it, this entire idea is based on trying to explain the universe by injecting a designer into the equation. Something is highly unlikely and we can't explain it, so god must have done it, right?

What are your answers to it?

It could be that they are just trying to inject a designer into the equation.

But it's full-on impossibru to explain the universe without a designer. 10^10^123 is just one component of the magic fine-tuning equation. There are between 12-20 other variables that are fine-tuned such that if you change the variable by one in one-billionth of a part, the universe ceases to exist. For example the electromagnetic force, which needs to be at precisely the right level in order for atoms to exist without imploding on themselves.

Add all the numbers up and it's so large you give up trying to count the zeroes. In fact, one illustration said it best:

Imagine a tornado, flailing junk around. Now imagine when the tornado dies, you see the randomly flung junk just happened to fall against each other in such a way as to create a 747. Imagine the odds of that. Now imagine the entire earth covered in tornadoes like that, and every single one of them creates a 747. Now imagine the entire universe stopped expanding, and instead was filled from top to bottom with tornadoes, and every single one, without exception just happened to create a 747.

The odds of the entire universe full of tornadoes creating 747s is not enough to account for the improbability of the universe coming about in such a way as to give rise to life.



Incidentally, this is why the multiverse hypothesis is so popular. If you have 10^10^10^10 gazillion universes, there's bound to be one random universe that gets all the properties right like this, right?

But we have no evidence for a multiverse...

That's one answer. And there's another answer which is sort of a deistic answer. Ie, there was a great intelligence that guided the universe into existence and that's that. It's just enough to take us over the hump of fine-tuning. Einstein believed in this kind of a God.

But I'm reading more about the multiverse. Intriguing stuff.