Okay, I'll bite. But my replies are apt to lead to questions for you. Perhaps since I've done you the courtesy of answering your questions you might answer mine.
Parts of it are beautiful. But mostly what the universe is is empty. And what isn't empty, is still mostly lifeless. Here on earth it is both beautiful and wondrous and ugly and terrible. Not only people, but all living things suffer horribly on earth. Life on earth is organized around killing other living things.
You suggest that beauty implies a god. I don't think so, but if it did, wouldn't the ugliness and the emptiness imply there wasn't a god? So, what do disease, zebra's being eaten alive, insects hatching in living organisms and eating their way out, shit, rotting flesh, volcanic eruptions, and hurricanes imply about the existence of god? You can't have it both ways. If beauty suggests god, ugliness must suggest there isn't one.
Hypothetically the universe could be chaotic. Hypothetically there could be billions and billions of universes some of which are chaotic and some of which aren't. But hypothetically, we can imagine anything.
This particular universe conforms to some natural laws of physics and chemistry. What is there about conformity to physical laws that makes you think there is a god involved? If there must be a god to make the laws of physics, then what made god? Please explain why a universe with laws existing without a creator, is more improbable than a universe creating god existing without a creator.
And while you are about it explain why, if a god created the universe, you think that that creator still exists or has an interest in the universe presently. Perhaps it took all of god's strength just to make the universe. It that more or less probable than a god who created the universe and lived?
Ah, free will. It's not entirely clear that we do have free will. Certainly we don't have unlimited free will in that we can't violate the laws of physics, nor can we live forever. Whether we have free will in deciding what to do with the power of movement that we do have, it's not entirely clear. Your brain, mine too, if a physical object and it reacts to stimuli. It's complex, so we can't predict the brain's reaction the way we can predict a planet's orbit or how fast a stone will fall, but that doesn't mean the result isn't the inevitable one bases on the brain's chemistry and prior experiences.
But lets say we do have free will. I like to think we do. So, does that imply god. I don't think so. Once again, which is more improbable: 1) life develops in an ordered universe; or 2) a being complex enough to create life always existed (or sprang into existence) and created life? You see, god as an answer doesn't really answer anything at all. It just adds one more layer of complexity to the problem.
Now, I have a question for you. Suppose you are convinced of god based on the existence of life in an ordered universe; I don't think that's why you are convinced there is a god, but let's suppose that that really is why you believe there is one. What does that tell you about the nature of god? Do all creators love their creations? Do all creators want a relationship with their creations? Can all creators control their creations?
Think about the creators you know. Ever met the author of a novel you adored and were disappointed at what a stupid prick he was? Ever seen a painter/potter/sculptor/mechanic who didn't like their latest creation. Ever seen creations of all kinds rotting in storage?
(October 19, 2014 at 2:16 pm)Vivalarevolution Wrote: Why is the universe the way it is? Brilliant and beautiful?
Parts of it are beautiful. But mostly what the universe is is empty. And what isn't empty, is still mostly lifeless. Here on earth it is both beautiful and wondrous and ugly and terrible. Not only people, but all living things suffer horribly on earth. Life on earth is organized around killing other living things.
You suggest that beauty implies a god. I don't think so, but if it did, wouldn't the ugliness and the emptiness imply there wasn't a god? So, what do disease, zebra's being eaten alive, insects hatching in living organisms and eating their way out, shit, rotting flesh, volcanic eruptions, and hurricanes imply about the existence of god? You can't have it both ways. If beauty suggests god, ugliness must suggest there isn't one.
Quote:Why does it have to be in order? Why can't it be chaotic? Why can't the speed of light change? Why is gravity between two bodies proportional to product of the masses? Why not anything else? (Note inversely proportional equation doesn't count). Why can't the laws of thermodynamics be changed? Why are laws the way they are?Doesn't the fact that the laws can't be changed or substituted indicate there could be a higher power that set it all in place?
Hypothetically, the universe could very well be chaotic. But it's not
Hypothetically the universe could be chaotic. Hypothetically there could be billions and billions of universes some of which are chaotic and some of which aren't. But hypothetically, we can imagine anything.
This particular universe conforms to some natural laws of physics and chemistry. What is there about conformity to physical laws that makes you think there is a god involved? If there must be a god to make the laws of physics, then what made god? Please explain why a universe with laws existing without a creator, is more improbable than a universe creating god existing without a creator.
And while you are about it explain why, if a god created the universe, you think that that creator still exists or has an interest in the universe presently. Perhaps it took all of god's strength just to make the universe. It that more or less probable than a god who created the universe and lived?
Quote:Also notice, the actions and thinking of living things are the only things without law ( free will)
Ah, free will. It's not entirely clear that we do have free will. Certainly we don't have unlimited free will in that we can't violate the laws of physics, nor can we live forever. Whether we have free will in deciding what to do with the power of movement that we do have, it's not entirely clear. Your brain, mine too, if a physical object and it reacts to stimuli. It's complex, so we can't predict the brain's reaction the way we can predict a planet's orbit or how fast a stone will fall, but that doesn't mean the result isn't the inevitable one bases on the brain's chemistry and prior experiences.
But lets say we do have free will. I like to think we do. So, does that imply god. I don't think so. Once again, which is more improbable: 1) life develops in an ordered universe; or 2) a being complex enough to create life always existed (or sprang into existence) and created life? You see, god as an answer doesn't really answer anything at all. It just adds one more layer of complexity to the problem.
Now, I have a question for you. Suppose you are convinced of god based on the existence of life in an ordered universe; I don't think that's why you are convinced there is a god, but let's suppose that that really is why you believe there is one. What does that tell you about the nature of god? Do all creators love their creations? Do all creators want a relationship with their creations? Can all creators control their creations?
Think about the creators you know. Ever met the author of a novel you adored and were disappointed at what a stupid prick he was? Ever seen a painter/potter/sculptor/mechanic who didn't like their latest creation. Ever seen creations of all kinds rotting in storage?
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
