Current Events > Here's what I don't get about the whole God debate

(+) Yeah! (+)

If I say that my computer was assembled as a result of a tornado passing through a scrap yard, no one would believe me. But a scientist proposes a scenario involving a chain of near-infinite events occuring in perfect sequence, all of which originated from a completely random eruption of matter, and it's accepted as a plausible explanation.

For me, believing in a god isn't a case of being indoctrinated or brainwashed. It's purely mathematical. To me it's Occam's razor. The existence of a higher power involves way less assumptions and coincidences than an entire universe that came about through pure chance.

But maybe that's just me.
---

And where from comes the higher power
---

Are you equating a scrapyard to the scope of the universe?
---

Doe posted...

And where from comes the higher power

That's the thing. The higher power is an absolute point. Kind of how there is no greater form of nothing than zero. The concept of one thing begeting another is constrained to our idea of time. If a god exists in a dimension where time doesn't exist, the question of what came before doesn't make any sense.
---

But even from a secular point of view, time wouldn't have existed prior to the universe existing, so what's your point?
---

So you say that as there can be no less nothing than the state of nothing, so too must there be nothing higher than this 'higher power' you have proposed. Why? Certainly you cant take any more out of nothing, but to say you can't add anything to an arbitrarily large power means that that power in fact faces its own constraints and will be faced with its own questions.
---

VideoboysaysCube posted...

If I say that my computer was assembled as a result of a tornado passing through a scrap yard, no one would believe me. But a scientist proposes a scenario involving a chain of near-infinite events occuring in perfect sequence, all of which originated from a completely random eruption of matter, and it's accepted as a plausible explanation.

So let me stop you right here and tell you this isn't how scientists believe life began.

There's nothing random about the origins of life. The only part truly left up to chance is whether or not a planet with liquid water exists in a habitable zone.

---

VideoboysaysCube posted...

The existence of a higher power involves way less assumptions

yeah, but a WAY fucking bigger one

---

stuff doesn't just happen at random

Physics is a thing, you know
---

God is basically a thinking exercise that people worked themselves into taking too seriously. The only real argument towards his existence is that you can never truly know anything for certain which works on the level of philosophical noodling but not anything really practical

Ultimately there's really no point in participating in said argument. You just get mad or get other people mad and nobody changes their minds. Religion is becoming easier and easier to ignore nowadays, which is pretty cool
---

We are the tornado that passed through the scrap yard. We don't get to exist outside of nature.
---

What's more likely?
Luck and chance eventually took place or a freaking almighty unexplainable entity decided ya imma make little bags of meat and give them the ability to yell and fight over dirt and sky
---

ultimate reaver posted...

Religion is becoming easier and easier to ignore nowadays, which is pretty cool

The bible states that a sign that the end of the world is near when most no longer believe in god.

The bible is full of shit, but Im just putting that out there.
---

IShall_Run_Amok posted...

We are the tornado that passed through the scrap yard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB63lckaEtk" data-time="&start=10
---

Doe posted...

So you say that as there can be no less nothing than the state of nothing, so too must there be nothing higher than this 'higher power' you have proposed. Why? Certainly you cant take any more out of nothing, but to say you can't add anything to an arbitrarily large power means that that power in fact faces its own constraints and will be faced with its own questions.

We're not talking 'large' power. The inverse of nothing would be infinity (and I'm not talking in the mathematically sense where certain infinities are greater than others), but a different kind of infinity that entails true omnipotence.

Tyranthraxus posted...

So let me stop you right here and tell you this isn't how scientists believe life began.

There's nothing random about the origins of life. The only part truly left up to chance is whether or not a planet with liquid water exists in a habitable zone.

Not sure what you mean. There had to be many steps between the creation of the universe and the first microorganisms.
---

VideoboysaysCube posted...

If I say that my computer was assembled as a result of a tornado passing through a scrap yard, no one would believe me. But a scientist proposes a scenario involving a chain of near-infinite events occuring in perfect sequence, all of which originated from a completely random eruption of matter, and it's accepted as a plausible explanation.

For me, believing in a god isn't a case of being indoctrinated or brainwashed. It's purely mathematical. To me it's Occam's razor. The existence of a higher power involves way less assumptions and coincidences than an entire universe that came about through pure chance.

But maybe that's just me.

I was thinking if the universe is infinite, why hasn't there been any alien species running around earth? Given infinite chances, it should have happened.
---

VideoboysaysCube posted...

We're not talking 'large' power. The inverse of nothing would be infinity (and I'm not talking in the mathematically sense where certain infinities are greater than others), but a different kind of infinity that entails true omnipotence.

Can you then explain to me why you are using mathematical values and relations such as inverses and zero? Math is just logic.
---

Im not saying I or anyone can prove God exists (kind of impossible especially today because lots of people have wildly different frameworks for what they consider the qualities of a supposed God to be).

But its a cool thought.
---

VideoboysaysCube posted...

Not sure what you mean. There had to be many steps between the creation of the universe and the first microorganisms.

There were but those steps weren't random. The universe has laws and those laws do things predictably. Additionally at no point did molecules accidentally smash into each other to form primitive life.

---

Science has lots of verifiable data that support their theory. If you have data to back up your statement that a tornado built you pc then we would believe you.
---

samurai bandit posted...

Science has lots of verifiable data that support their theory. If you have data to back up your statement that a tornado built you pc then we would believe you.

A human built me. Well, 2 humans, and all the ones that came before them. And whoever or whatever created humans.
---

facepalm.jpg
---

The odds of a shuffled deck of cards being in a particular order are 1: 8*10^67. Yet the cards ended up in that particular order.

Complete_Idi0t posted...

The odds of a shuffled deck of cards being in a particular order are 8*10^67. Yet the cards ended up in that particular order.

nope must be magical sky genie odds too big
---

VideoboysaysCube posted...

Doe posted...

And where from comes the higher power

That's the thing. The higher power is an absolute point. Kind of how there is no greater form of nothing than zero. The concept of one thing begeting another is constrained to our idea of time. If a god exists in a dimension where time doesn't exist, the question of what came before doesn't make any sense.

None of this makes any sense, either. You're applying a certain logic for one thing, but then voiding that logic entirely for this.

Also, why are you assuming any other possible originating events were more or less like than the one now? Do you have other universes to gauge the odds of drawing this one compared to others?
---

I remember when my high school theology class tried to convince us about intelligent design.
---

No theology class would ever beat a statistics class in a fight.
---

dartman posted...

What's more likely?
Luck and chance eventually took place or a freaking almighty unexplainable entity decided ya imma make little bags of meat and give them the ability to yell and fight over dirt and sky

I really really like this
---

hockeybub89 posted...

I liked when Cain killed Abel and then went on to become the first vampire.

Based and dare I say redpilled
---

eridania67814 posted...

dartman posted...

What's more likely?
Luck and chance eventually took place or a freaking almighty unexplainable entity decided ya imma make little bags of meat and give them the ability to yell and fight over dirt and sky

I really really like this

Hitchens uses this in a much more thought out answer here. Its 7 minutes I implore people to give it a watch whether you hate the man or not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJAnCg945EE" data-time="
---

dartman posted...

eridania67814 posted...

dartman posted...

What's more likely?
Luck and chance eventually took place or a freaking almighty unexplainable entity decided ya imma make little bags of meat and give them the ability to yell and fight over dirt and sky

I really really like this

Hitchens uses this in a much more thought out answer here. Its 7 minutes I implore people to give it a watch whether you hate the man or not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJAnCg945EE" data-time="

"Irreducible complexity"

I tried, but this term itself comes loaded with a fallacious argument based on a misunderstanding of statistics. This shit is, and was, wrong, and it will continue to be wrong.
---

Complete_Idi0t posted...

The odds of a shuffled deck of cards being in a particular order are 1: 8*10^67. Yet the cards ended up in that particular order.

The analogy doesn't work because any particular sequence of cards is insignificant. You'll always be left with a stack of cards. To carry this analogy over to our universe would imply that I can shuffle every atom and electron and still be left with a universe. There's only one permutation that gives us our universe as we know it.
---

And there's another permutation where the universe is exactly as we know it except they're called the Barenstein Bears. If we lived in that universe we could say the exact same thing.

VideoboysaysCube posted...

If I say that my computer was assembled as a result of a tornado passing through a scrap yard, no one would believe me. But a scientist proposes a scenario involving a chain of near-infinite events occuring in perfect sequence, all of which originated from a completely random eruption of matter, and it's accepted as a plausible explanation.

Neither near-infinite, nor perfect, nor random.

The hole in the ground was not perfectly made for the water that sits in it.

VideoboysaysCube posted...

The analogy doesn't work because any particular sequence of cards is insignificant. You'll always be left with a stack of cards. To carry this analogy over to our universe would imply that I can shuffle every atom and electron and still be left with a universe. There's only one permutation that gives us our universe as we know it.

And there's only one permutation that gives you that exact sequence of cards.