RE: Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?
December 5, 2012 at 10:54 pm
(This post was last modified: December 5, 2012 at 10:55 pm by Darkstar.)
(December 5, 2012 at 10:36 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: We're talking about a regular old lottery system here. Just imagine someone who has a million dollars, is running a lottery, and knows what the winning numbers are.
This is conceivably realistic, is it not?
So the man would be god, the money would be the universe, and the ticket would be...I think this analogy is falling apart. We have no evidence the man rigged it, but cannot prove that he did not. However, no one has ever seen the man, and some think the money is coming from another source. Some claim to hear his voice in their head, and...no...that's not it. The fine tuning argument, even if it succeeded, would only apply to deism. The point of the analogy was supposed to be that it is nt impossible for life to arise by chance because we are here now, and there is no evidence that a god created life, even if he created the universe, for which there is no evidence either.
(December 5, 2012 at 10:53 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Actually I was going for "if this is conceivable, then there is no a priori reason not to assume, at least for now, that the idea of God can overcome the improbability of our existence"
That would be "therefore God is conceivable"
Finite, mortal humans cannot exist without being created by an intelligent designer, but said designer can just be there for no reason? I find the existence of the creator harder to prove than the creation of the lesser beings.
