RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 5, 2021 at 6:52 pm
(This post was last modified: October 5, 2021 at 6:59 pm by Simon Moon.)
(October 5, 2021 at 6:03 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(October 5, 2021 at 4:39 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: 1. The existence of natural laws is vastly more expected under theism than under atheism.
I disagree. The likelihood is precisely the same: guaranteed in both cases. Either something exists and there are natural laws that describe its properties, or things are random and the laws of probability apply. Either way, there would be natural laws. The only other case is where nothing exists, and we know that isn't the case.
How did you come up with the odds being precisely the same?
Just because a proposition has only 2 possibilities, does not mean each possibility has a 50/50 chance of occurring? Possibility has to be demonstrated. It may be, entirely not possible for a god to exist. How would we go about demonstrating the possibility of a god existing?
Quote:Now, if a deity existed, that alone would imply the existence of natural laws since to have something as complex as a deity would require such laws. But that means the deity didn't 'give' those laws.
This is a point that does not seem to made often enough.
Before a god created the universe, time, laws, etc, said god had to exist in some sort of realm. After all, existence is necessarily bound to time and space, even if it the time and space of another realm. How can something, even a god exist, if there is no time and space for it to exist in?
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.