Split from Welcome FAQ thread - Is there a God? Discuss

[d000hg]

Ok, lets assume the existence of god, and assume that he made the universe.

I have some questions:

• Why does the universe appear to follow mathematical rules?
• How do you explain the coincidence that if the rules & fundamental constants therein were slightly different, the universe wouldn't be the way it is and may not support life?
• Do you assert that random chance and it's consequences don't play a part in the universe?

Need to read that again, I never heard anyone theorise that the finely tuned nature of the universe plays against a god. Interesting argument.

[Moscow Mule]

I would suggest trying to explain what must be (by definition) super-natural using logic, reason and natural sciences is a fool's errand.

I don't know. And neither do you.

[d000hg]

You don't expect scientists to spend time disproving the existence of elves and goblins do you? Or the flying spaghetti monster, come to that.

If you walked on the beach and saw some pebbles neatly arranged to form the name 'sasguru', naturally you would assume someone had put them there.

Without being so pushy about it, WHS. the FSM isn't supposed to have done anything which proves it exists, whereas when seeing order from chaos the obvious question is "why" or "how".

[Gibbon]

And even if I were to accept that a higher intelligence created the world I live in, I'm fairly certain he/she/it does not intervene in it.

In my opinion if a higher intelligence created the world I live then it a was a trainee Bob, because it's tulipe. We tend to think of the beautiful complexities etc, what about the ugly truths.

The only explanations of things like MS, Alzhiemers, Cerebal Palsy, Typhoid, HIV etc etc is that God is a nasty piece of work if he purposely designed them, crap at his job if he didn't test properly, or he doesn't exist.

For any of the above three he's not worth bothering with.

[d000hg]

Are Poverty, Disease, Floods, Earthquakes etc. all "major signs of God" too, or does he only get assigned benign things?

That depends on your specific theology.

[shaunbhoy]

It is very unlikely that man will ever be able to definitively prove whether God exists or not. That is why, regardless of what flavour you choose, Religions are based to a very large extent on "having Faith".
An almost blind acceptance of the fact that all of this could only possibly exist if some higher power decreed it, and somehow made it.
However, any level of scrutiny almost immediately comes up against unanswerable stumbling blocks and contradictions. It is at this point that many within the hierarchies of the Church are forced to play the "You gotta have Faith" card.
As mankind's curiosity becomes ever more discriminating it is much more difficult to convince large bodies of the populace that they must simply accept. That, in my opinion, more than anything else explains the reduction in numbers of the church-going population in western society.
Not saying that some form of belief system that suggests the communal practice of good social skills, allied to altruistic behaviour with regards to the weak and vulnerable is not highly acceptable. However, the days of simple blind obedience are long gone, and I believe that is progressive and perfectly normal.

[Mich the Tester]

In my opinion if a higher intelligence created the world I live then it a was a trainee Bob, because it's tulipe. We tend to think of the beautiful complexities etc, what about the ugly truths.

The only explanations of things like MS, Alzhiemers, Cerebal Palsy, Typhoid, HIV etc etc is that God is a nasty piece of work if he purposely designed them, crap at his job if he didn't test properly, or he doesn't exist.

For any of the above three he's not worth bothering with.

Creation according to Bob

Bob made Eden, which seemed nice but failed in acceptance testing, but then Bob pushed on and put the whole thing into production with several known issues; he then sent a consultant to resolve user complaints (his son, in the greatest act of nepotism known to man), but the Romans killed him for destroying clientco´s trust in their system integration capabilities. The support organisation seems to have been undermanned ever since and it’s too late to make change requests.

[sasguru]

Without being so pushy about it, WHS. the FSM isn't supposed to have done anything which proves it exists, whereas when seeing order from chaos the obvious question is "why" or "how".

Crap argument. Science and maths have showed loads of examples of how order can emerge out of very simple starting conditions. There are loads of pop science books that explain this if you are interested. Try "Synch" and "Emergence", can't recall authors.

[doodab]

1. Why shouldn't it? Perhaps following mathematical rules are a precondition for its existence.
2. Recent research suggests that the rules of physics may be different in different parts of the universe. Perhaps the fact they are what they are in this part is the reason life exists here and may not elsewhere.
3. I tend towards thinking that the universe fundamentally works on probabalistic principles, but this does not imply lack of order or randomness as it is usually thought of. It depends on the scale. If you open a divider in a compartment between a gas and a vacuum, the gas will expand to fill the vacuum. But that is due to the random nature of the movement of the molecules. Its not impossible that these movements may lead to the result of the gas staying on its side of the compartment, its just massively, overwhelmingly unlikely that that will happen.

Regarding the mathematical nature of the universe, I'm inclined to agree. I think the question here is not "why shouldn't it?" but "How can it not? Is a universe without rules even possible?". The existence of rules suggests they can be described, if not necessarily inferred from within. It also suggests that some level of logical consistency is required i.e. the rules do not allow things that would lead to them being broken, so any rules that led to this would be invalid.

I suspect that any detectable variation in the rules (or in the fundamental constants that play a part in them) is likely a pointer to some deeper understanding of how these constants arise and why they have the values they do.

Regarding the universe being ultimately probabilistic, I am undecided on that. I find the idea more than plausible, but at the same time it makes me a little uneasy.

But anyway, I thought you were a non-believer? If not, how do you reconcile these ideas with the idea of an omnipotent creator?

[doodab]

I would suggest trying to explain what must be (by definition) super-natural using logic, reason and natural sciences is a fool's errand.

I don't know. And neither do you.

But how about trying to explain logic, reason and natural science using the supernatural?