RE: Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?
December 5, 2012 at 11:38 pm
(This post was last modified: December 5, 2012 at 11:42 pm by Vincenzo Vinny G..)
My problem with "technically possible" is that it ultimately goes against reality as we know it.
Imagine you see a Pagani Huayra in your driveway, and you actually do believe it wasn't designed, it's construction, testing, painting, everything wasn't planned. The whole car came about from random chance as dust blew past your driveway over hundreds of thousands of years.
![[Image: OD-AS860_CAR1_G_20120808114632.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=si.wsj.net%2Fpublic%2Fresources%2Fimages%2FOD-AS860_CAR1_G_20120808114632.jpg)
You are still left with Leibniz' question: "Why is there 'something'?"
We know there was a "nothing"- the Big Bang, the origin of the universe, prior to which there was no matter, no energy, nothing.
How in the hell did nothing give rise to something? There's no scientific evidence that this is even possible naturalistically. We don't see things popping into being in our cars, bathrooms, bedrooms, living rooms, offices, football games.
We've never seen a single incident of something popping into being from nothing.
So I have a hard time believing the universe came about in such a random violation of all known scientific laws, and ON TOP OF THAT was fine-tuned.
That's just improbability multiplied with improbability.
I mean, if you had to quantify the number of empirical examples we have of "something not popping into being from nothing", you would have to multiply the planck-area of the universe times the planck-time of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
That's pretty damn close to impossible, bro.
It's not conceivability on its own that matters. It's conceivability + necessity as part of a pool of live options.
The unicorn, if we are using a unicorn, must be one of only two possible explanations of something.
As such, your unicorn is irrelevant, while a non-physical mind capable of creating the universe actually explains something in the universe.
Imagine you see a Pagani Huayra in your driveway, and you actually do believe it wasn't designed, it's construction, testing, painting, everything wasn't planned. The whole car came about from random chance as dust blew past your driveway over hundreds of thousands of years.
You are still left with Leibniz' question: "Why is there 'something'?"
We know there was a "nothing"- the Big Bang, the origin of the universe, prior to which there was no matter, no energy, nothing.
How in the hell did nothing give rise to something? There's no scientific evidence that this is even possible naturalistically. We don't see things popping into being in our cars, bathrooms, bedrooms, living rooms, offices, football games.
We've never seen a single incident of something popping into being from nothing.
So I have a hard time believing the universe came about in such a random violation of all known scientific laws, and ON TOP OF THAT was fine-tuned.
That's just improbability multiplied with improbability.
I mean, if you had to quantify the number of empirical examples we have of "something not popping into being from nothing", you would have to multiply the planck-area of the universe times the planck-time of the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
That's pretty damn close to impossible, bro.
(December 5, 2012 at 11:12 pm)Zen Badger Wrote:(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"
Unicorns are also conceivable, i.e we can conceive of them.
But until we have concrete evidence we cannot claim they are true.
So you run off, collect your evidence and then you can claim your Nobel prize.
It's not conceivability on its own that matters. It's conceivability + necessity as part of a pool of live options.
The unicorn, if we are using a unicorn, must be one of only two possible explanations of something.
As such, your unicorn is irrelevant, while a non-physical mind capable of creating the universe actually explains something in the universe.
