The real religion?

[robvalue]

I agree that, as far as I know, "multiverses" is a currently untestable hypothesis. Our resident scientists will probably be able to add more to that.

It does at least offer some sort of model or mechanism (I think), whereas "God" just puts the problem back one step. If complex existence requires an intelligent creator as an explanation, then "God" also requires such an explanation; unless "God" is somehow assumed to be much simpler than its creation. We'd just be dealing with an intelligent being in some sort of parent reality, and we'd be facing exactly the same situation.

[PETE_ROSE]

Irrational, do you think that God is a reasonable hypothesis, and does it merit testing? If so what have you done to explore this?

[brewer]

Rob, let's set aside the monotheistic Christian God of the bible.  As I wholeheartedly agree that all "religions" make absurd claims.
Many here ask for evidence or a claim.

 I will claim that a god, that is personable, intelligent, and powerful by nature, is the best rational explanation for the existence of the observable universe.  

The way the 4 fundamental laws of  physics interact to sustain our planets, stars and the observable universe.  That our observable universe appears to have a beginning and is not eternal.   That life, DNA, the human genome, the mind, consciousness, the ability to reason and perform scientific evaluation, nature, and how as we humans differ from animals, I would claim that these are all very complex and intricate mechanisms that point to a designer or creator.

From a logical perspective it seems to me that a creator or by design is a more rational and acceptable hypothesis than the perspective that the universe just happened or made itself from a foamy sea of quarks vibration and gravity, that life just happened from a collection of amino acids, and that evolution just happened to produce DNA, our unique human consciousness, Beethoven, and the Manchester United FC.

It's no explanation at all, it's just a word. It gives us no new information, no mechanism, nothing to test and gives no practical applications. It invites as many questions as it attempts to answer. I see no reason why it's rational either. It simply requires further assumptions that aren't necessary. This appears to be an argument from incredulity: you can't imagine it happening any other way. I needn't even suggest an alternative to point out that this is an untestable hypothesis and therefor useless.

But none of this is relevant to my opening post; I'm not sure if it was supposed to be.

Some people need a prime mover to feel comfortable with their existence. Everything in a nice neat package, nothing unexplained. Thank god I'm not one of those.

[PETE_ROSE]

Some people want to dismiss the notion of God because they do not like the mirror it holds up to them. Nothing to answer for, no meaning or purpose in life. Thank you but I enjoy that God assigns value, meaning and purpose to life.

[robvalue]

What meaning does it assign? I have never understood this.

How it is meaningful that someone designed all this?

[brewer]

Some people want to dismiss the notion of God because they do not like the mirror it holds up to them.  Nothing to answer for, no meaning or purpose in life.  Thank you but I enjoy that God assigns value, meaning and purpose to life.

And what does the god mirror show to the godless? What does god require people to answer to that they couldn't be answerable to by themselves? What propose does god provide the people can't provide for themselves?

What value, meaning and purpose does/did this give to Jim and Tammy Faye, or Popoff, or the countless others acting in its name?

[GrandizerII]

Irrational, do you think that God is a reasonable hypothesis, and does it merit testing?  If so what have you done to explore this?

If we're speaking strictly of the Creator persona of God, then that's not even logical. So how can it be a reasonable hypothesis anyway? Logically speaking, not even God can timelessly create stuff (you need time to do that in the first place), and he can certainly can't create anything out of literal nothing (for in the absolute nothingness, there is no material whatsoever to form stuff out of it).

As for God in general, I will grant that such an entity may be logical. But I don't see any reason why it matters that he exist anyway. If God exists, it doesn't look like he's necessary at all for the cosmos to exist. He just coexists.

As for assigning values or meaning to our lives, we also don't require God for that. We do a good job of this on our own.

[robvalue]

I don't even understand what the hypothesis is supposed to be. A nondescript intelligence was somehow responsible for our reality in a nondescript way; producing a result indistinguishable from a reality either caused by a non-intelligence, or not caused at all.

If there was some sort of cause for our reality, I see no reason to assume it was an intelligence.

My recent video covered this very topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWmNKXsNw7k

[PETE_ROSE]

Another great video Rob. Well stated and accurately put that assumptions are made when testing a theory or hypothesis. As you stated this is often unavoidable and that the results are only as good as the accuracy of the assumptions. Well put. Also well stated about how questions are worded that unfairly steer the results, such as the question "who made the universe".
Although I rarely hear this argument when people are speaking about scientific discovery.

In the pursuit of knowledge the fact that something cannot be tangibly observed and unequivocally substantiated does not mean the effort should not be made and that the results should be discarded. It may imply that more research is warranted or that questions still remain.

Thought experiments such as we could be brains in vats or part of the Matrix may be fun at making a parody out of something but they are not intellectually honest with what we observe in our surroundings.

Because our observable universe started at a singularity, and is expanding outward from that point, it appears to have a beginning.
The physical interactions of the constant laws of physics and how this observable universe works appears complex and not simple.

For this reason alone it seems there can be only one of two possibilities; either the observable universe was created, or it was not.

If it was not created I have not seen evidence that shows how anything tangible can come from nothingness. Postulating multiverses and mixing in large random numbers and claiming it merely happened seems like an extremely weak argument parallel with many religious statements often seen here.

If it was created what sort of entity could possess such an ability?

For me, it would be a more reasonable explanation, theory, or hypothesis that an entity created the observable universe rather than in simply materialized out of nothingness.

[Minimalist]

From a logical perspective it seems to me that a creator or by design is a more rational and acceptable hypothesis than the perspective that the universe just happened or made itself from a foamy sea of quarks vibration and gravity, that life just happened from a collection of amino acids, and that evolution just happened to produce DNA, our unique human consciousness, Beethoven, and the Manchester United FC.

That is called the Argument from Personal Incredulity and it does not mean shit.