Re: and who made god?

From: Barb Knox (see_at_sig.below)
Date: 10/29/04


Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 12:37:28 +1300

In article <f301b05.0410281257.1fa6fd61@posting.google.com>,
 redafroeclipse@aol.com (King John II the Good) wrote:
[snip]

> The Teological argument describes how the complection of the world
>is so great that there must be some ultimate creator. When one looks
>at nature, human beings, animals, and such things, they see the world
>as such a fantastically beautiful and complicated thing that it is
>impossible that it occured by chance. Arguing for, or against the
>existance of God is stupid and futile for it is circulatory. However,
>when looking at the almost infinite deapth of the Universe, its
>virtually unbreakable rules of Nature that seem to animate the
>inanimate, and the underlying pattern of it all, I get a true honest
>feeling that some sort of concious being must of created it.

Well, you are of course the ultimate authority regarding what your feelings
are, but the issue is whether or not you accord equal ontological weight to
the feelings of people who strongly *dis*believe in such a conscious creator.

I agree that the existence of conscious beings such as us is a vastly
improbable occurrence. To give just one sort of example, if any one of a
large number of physical constants had slightly a different value then the
universe would not be hospitable to life as we know it. But regardless, of
all the countless possible universes, the only ones that count are the ones
where there are in fact beings in there doing the counting! This is known
as the "anthropic principle"; in the vast majority of possible universes
which do not support intelligent life, there is no-one there arguing against
the existence of god as evidenced by the inhospitabilty the universe.

-- 
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \     Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |    Quidquid latine dictum sit,
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |    altum viditur.
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |   
-----------------------------


Relevant Pages

  • Re: and who made god?
    ... > is so great that there must be some ultimate creator. ... > at nature, human beings, animals, and such things, they see the world ... > existance of God is stupid and futile for it is circulatory. ... An interesting book I ran into which discusses the universe and physics, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Letter to the Editor: God set the universal clock
    ... > Without such a force and laws to control it, there would be a state of chaos. ... > But the universe is not in chaos, for all heavenly bodies follow an orderly ... God designed all this and set up laws for the operation of all things ... The non-chaotic aspects of nature are due to the laws of nature. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: William Paley
    ... religious arguments are by Cleanthes reduced to experience, ... this nature is presented, we draw without hesitation the accustomed inference. ... that the universe bears such a resemblance to a ... fancy would be upon an equal footing; nor could he assign any just reason why ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Greene and the problem of presentism
    ... here are my comments on your page "multiple Nature Theory". ... This paper challenges basic assumptions about time, space, and matter ... a quantum theory of gravity. ... about four forces in the universe we require four of these rules, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Greene and the problem of presentism
    ... > so on...Science studies our reality in order to find out what the real ... Fundamental nature is a set of unknowable phenomena with its own ... > universe via our limited mental and physical abilities. ... Lets say we have nature and fundamental nature (reality and the real ...
    (sci.physics)