You're pushing 720 posts, and haven't managed to make one valid point with any of them.
No, we can use basic probability analysis (read: math) to suggest that life is very much likely to exist somewhere else in the universe (something that would turn Christian theology on its head).Can you use similar arithmetic to establish that the probability of God existing is more than infinitesimal? ----You see, your entire logic here is "you can't prove that X couldn't possibly exist, so it must exist."I suppose we should start preparing for the invasion of the flying hippos from Jupiter sometime soon.
You've all likely heard of it: the universe is ordered and has just the right makeup and physical laws for life to exist. Ergo, it must have been intelligently designed.OK, let's analyze this commonly used argument, one that even Sir Isaac Newton adhered to:1. The argument simply advocates deism, not any specific religion. There is no conceivable justification for leaping from "the universe was intelligently designed" to "the universe was intelligently designed on X day, in Y days, by Z creator, for A purpose in B exact circumstances".2. The argument actually leads to the conclusion that the watchmaker is imperfect and impersonal. After all, if you came across a fabulously designed watch, you would assume that the watchmaker was highly skilled. But if you came across a watch with serious imperfections, the rule of parsimony would dictate that the watchmaker messed up, not that the watchmaker was an omnipotent deity and that, through a ridiculous convoluted narrative, the watch broke itself due to no fault of the watchmaker. To state otherwise would be to presuppose that the watchmaker must be omnipotent, which sounds like blatant and unjustified bias, and it is.3. Here's the kicker: the exact same logic can be applied to the watchmaker. If the universe is complex -> it must have been designed is a valid logical argument, then the watchmaker is complex -> the watchmaker must have been designed is just as true, if not moreso. This leads to an infinite regression, which does nothing but make the problem more complex with every backpeddle.If we admit that, logically, there must be a First Cause (unless if we include some sort of time-loop, which discounts God entirely), wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that we just leave the universe, which which clearly exists, as the First Cause, rather than add in an infinitely complex variable (God) into the equation that solves nothing, and actually makes the question larger?
Sounds like magic to you because you don't understand it. That Earth developed life is not magic; it's simple probability. Out of quadrillions of planets, at least one happened to undergo the unlikely set of coincidences that led to the development of intelligent life. Do you think one person winning the lottery is magic?
You still haven't answered the million dollar question: you think that the universe is far to complex to have just appeared, how do you explain God? He just exists for no reason, and yet is infinitely more complex than the universe. And unlike the universe, which quite certainly exists, God is a variable you add in to explain said universe.
Not by anyone. If something cannot be explained in scientific terms, it does not exist.How about this:Name me one thing other than God that cannot be explained scientifically even in theory, but still quite clearly exists. And no, abstract ideals do not "exist".
Would you say only things subject to perception by our particular five senses exist?
OK, let me rephrase that:Anything that cannot be objectively verified or supported through the scientific method has no reason for us to believe that it exists.So technically, God could exist. But the probability is pretty low, because the only way he could exist would be by coincidence. Flying monkeys on Mars could exist, but for all intents of purposes we can conclusively say that they do not.
I'm actually quite happy without God in my life. Maybe you don't understand this, but there comes a time when you can outgrow your imaginary friend and realize that you only have one life; here, on Earth.
And you can outgrow your naïve understanding of "happiness" without any meaning and purpose. I don't suggest you go too far down this road. It can make you very unhappy.
If there's only one ticket--and it's a winner--is that "simple probability"?
God is not necessarily more complex than the universe. From where do you get the necessity that God is more complex than the universe? It does not follow.
What do you mean by "no reason"? By "reason" do you mean the physical properties of your brain that are the result of random processes and natural selection? For what "reason" do you find your "reason" trustworthy?
At what point does this become Spam?Posting endless rants,