Why the Universe Obviously Has a Creator (and Why Some Atheists Refuse to Even Consider It)
Author, 'Five Minutes on Mondays: Finding Unexpected, Purpose, Peace and Fulfillment at Work'
Posted: 03/ 5/2012 8:49 am
Throughout recorded history the majority of humanity has seen the existence of a Creator, Who intentionally brought the Universe in to being and sustains all life, as an obvious truth.
This truth does not stem from any doctrine or belief system, but it is at the heart of all religions, and is the underlying, indispensible principle of most spiritual practices. Even Buddhism, which is often misrepresented as an atheistic tradition, recognizes the existence of a guiding consciousness. As the Zen Buddhist master, Soyen Shaku, said, "Let me state that Buddhism is not atheistic as the term is ordinarily understood. It has certainly a God, the highest reality and truth, through which and in which this universe exists."
Scientific discoveries have only reinforced this realization, as it becomes even clearer that the Universe was carefully designed. Prominent British mathematician Roger Penrose calculated the probably of random chance producing a Universe conducive to life at vastly less than the scientifically accepted definition of "zero." Even if one were to accept arguments from those who claim that the Universe is not so "fine tuned," we must rely on the mind-boggling, and empirically unproven, concept of multiple Universes, and even then the probability of random events leading to life only budges from staggeringly unimaginable to extraordinarily unlikely. And we are still left with such clearly designed, and incredibly complex, mechanisms as DNA and the brain.
This is not a "God of the Gaps" explanation, any more than looking under the hood of a car and deducing a designer is "Engineer of the Gaps." To postulate a random, undirected, meaningless, existence in the face of this unbelievable complexity and purpose of life is, in actuality, the much more irrational, and less logical, conclusion. This has been compared to proposing that a hurricane whipped through a junkyard and randomly assembled a jet plane.
More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/why-atheists-refuse-to-consider-a-creator_b_1303613.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Junkyard! 747! Fine-tuning! Appeal to tradition! Appeal to numbers!
therefore a manifestation must be the cause, and no other possiblity can exits.
Anyone want to count the fallacies and factual errors?
are based on some philosophical/metaphysical presumptions - if they are good theories and conscious and open about the premisses of the theory. Especially about the notion(s) of time. Cf. notion of time (and space) in
1) Newton's theory,
2) General Relativity,
3) Quantum Mechanics (and various interpretations of).
And in the field of various GUTs and TOEs (sic - anthropon metron panton?! 
) where the questions about basic assumptions becames even more open and critical field. For example, a very important and critical distinction is between psychological (entropic?) time and various theory dependent geometric times, and the question about relation between those. "Time having a definite starting point" is just one theory dependent notion of time among many, or a premisse that easily becomes the proverbial hammer that considers everything a nail.
There's a lot of dumb mofos driving around in cars they didn't design and/or build.
The smart aliens could have created the ships and sent the dumbasses out to find stuff.
(13*12*11*10*9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1) / (52*51*50*49*48*47*46*45*44*43*42*41*40)
(6.227020800 * 10^9 ) / (3.95424 * 10^21)
6.227020800/ 3.95424 * 10^12
(6.227020800/6.227020800) / ( 3.95424 * 10^12/6.227020800)
1/(6.35014 *10^11)
If you are assuming that each card is drawn in the same order, that would be:
1 / (52*51*50*49*48*47*46*45*44*43*42*41*40)
1/ (3.95424 * 10^21)
Your point is still the same, but I am trying to figure out which one of us (if not both) is doing the math wrong.
than science and philosophy, as you bring up the God of the Gaps.
I have no problem with scientific reductionism (question "why" that does stop at "because they are" when reductionism is understood as dialectical relation with holism (parts and wholes and how they relate), and not taken as a belief system.
But you make one good point, Carbon Based Life Principle would be a better name than Anthropic Principle.
...psychoanalysis is a method of psychology, not a diagnosis of mental illness, it is not psychiatry.
But I would say this thread is actually doing a pretty good job of showing his second and better point to be useful; those that maintain that others cannot possibly be "correct" should reconsider their purpose in broaching the discussion.
Is that not a fair point?
I think there is also a useful delineation to consider of two different conceptions of a "Creator" or "God," that belies the idea that there is not a force at play, what matters is not what we call this but rather that we acknowledge this is evident in life itself:
The idea that there must be a personalization to such experience is unnecessary, and in making that argument he creates an unfounded egoist belief that one would know such a thing. Clearly, something has happened that is as Descartes stated [link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum|"I think, therefore I am" or "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am." That's the point he is trying to make, but gets bogged down not adequately fleshing out his definition of what you derisively term "sky beings."
...is it not presumptive to suppose that a science-based answer to such a question can be found? The reality is that taking a scientific approach to the question of creation is like taking a machete to a pine tree trunk. The blade will break before the pine tree will be cut down. Your answer revealed just how truly far away we are from a scientific model that disproves a notion such as a "Creator" much less "intelligent design." Until it can be demonstrated otherwise, God is a damn good answer to many, and condemning people who are prepared to accept such an answer, and giving them ill-consideration solves nothing.
Eat the 
, love the Earth. 
...there are many thing science will probably never be able to answer. Seriously, if our technology and scientific methods are so advanced, why can't a plausible hypothesis be made about the origin of life. Could it not be perhaps that the wrong question is being asked in the wrong method of inquiry - this is a question of philosophy and not of science.
According to my calendar, the question of abiogenesis will be definitively answered on the 17th of March, 2014 and the question of the origin of the universe on September 3rd, 2021.
Philosophy is not a reliable mode as it isn't self-correcting, and it isn't able to become self-correcting on its own. If you want an immediate answer, sure you can look to philosophy, but there won't be any way to determine if that answer is correct unless science comes along and tests it. Philosophy is for investigating what may be, science is for investigating what is.
...and so what it suggests is no answer at all. I would rather have a simple, beautiful philosophy that supposes what is known and leaves it at that. Different strokes, for different folks. But supposing that this is somehow inferior logic is not fruitful, rather it is self-defacing. Keep playing with test tubes, it won't bring you the answer you are looking for in this debate.
Toodles
I've read substantial portions of Aristotle's Metaphysics several times over the last decade or so. I don't think that really supports the argument that is being made against a concept of God as a Creator, or Actus Purus. I would recommend reading some Kant on religion (that we must believe in a concept of God - the so-called "categorical imperative"), and in particular his Critique of Pure Reason, which if you have not read already, should not attempt without the realization that in the original cerebral German sentences should be taken as whole thoughts with words only constructing your opinion thereof without prejudicial judgment. 
for real
Last edited Tue Jan 29, 2013, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)
"Better" in what way? More emotionally satisfying to you? If you remain consistent with your opening words "There is no answer" then "better" is stopping there with that admission of ignorance.
"To give is better than to receive" is a value judgment. The existence or lack thereof of a God is not a value judgment, it's a condition of the universe that we all share. Ignorance of the truth of that existence doesn't turn an assertion in the face of that ignorance into a value judgment.
In other words, even if I don't have evidence, until you prove me wrong, I'm right!
Apart from the fact that "this radical atheism" of yours is probably a cartoon caricature of atheism, what exactly needs to be "improved" here? A magic "black box" God who is nothing more than "the thing that does all things for which we don't understand how they are done" is not any sort of improvement, unless perhaps your only goal is to dress up human ignorance in a shinier, more impressive-sounding package, and not deeper understanding.
My "case to the opposite" is that I don't know, but neither do you. That you prefer to make up an evidence-free answer does not obligate me to have my own provable answer to replace yours.
If someone brings up what you're calling a "primordial soup" explanation for the origin of life they don't have to prove it to argue that it is plausible. Where plausible explanations exist based on proven principles and known quantities, even if the overall explanation is unproven, this demonstrates that there is no compelling reason to spend much effort exploring the unproven and the unknown as explanations, not until the known, and logical extrapolations of known principles, have been well exhausted and shown to be inadequate.
Suppose a bank has been robbed and the perpetrator is unknown. Hypothetically at least, the crime could have been committed by a werewolf or a zombie. There had better be good reason, however, to eliminate human suspects before you go wasting your time investigating werewolves and zombies. If the crime remains unsolved, the fact that it hasn't been solved, in and of itself, does very little to improve the odds that werewolves or zombies were to blame.
We may not know everything there is to know about how life works and where it came from, but using known principles of physics and chemistry and biology has increased our understanding of life far more than saying "God did it!" ever has. Given the track record of the scientific approach, I'd say the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why it's better to say "God did it!" rather than to simply admit that our knowledge is limited, that we don't have all of the answers, but to stick to science as the best hope for increasing our knowledge.
