If you watch tv and absorb information from the government-media complex daily, you may be led to believe that most people are secularist atheists that have no need for religion. Religion will be seen in a negative light, just an excuse for old men to molest children. Religion will be seen as a gateway to war and destruction. Religion will be seen as a leech on society, a belief system that is thousands of years old and is outdated.
While religion is responsible for death and crime, that does not validate atheism or discredit religion entirely. Religion is also reponsible for much good in the world that constantly goes over looked. Whether the essence of each religion is true is irrelevant to me.
Our universe is complex and diverse. Simply by looking up into the sky, we can all see it. The question is not, "Did God create the universe or did the universe create itself?" The proper question is, "What is the more probable scenario?"
Probability
Once you strip everything away, what is left? Once you accept the fact that we as humans know nothing, what is left? Humans can only understand those things which can be observed within time and space. Probability is all that remains.
Let's use a simple analogy in nature. There are two wild panthers in the jungle. One panther is a few years older than the other and has more experience in hunting and survival. The other panther is still of age to catch prey, however. Now let's say they both spot a racoon. Which panther will capture and eat the racoon first? Sure, it is within the realm of possibility that the younger less experienced panther could in fact get lucky. But the more likely explanation is that the older panther with capture the racoon first because of it's experience. No one can know for sure which would get to the racoon first, but any rational person would put their money on the older one.
Both atheism and theism are false (in the sense that neither can be empirically proven here and now). The existence of a god cannot be proven. The inexiestince of a god cannot be proven. Once you accept those two statements, what is left? The only truth in this world is that we know nothing for certain. Probability is all that remains and must become the primary system of thought and belief.
Here are my proofs that end the debate on whether or not it is rational to believe in God. #3 is the one that is most questionable by atheists. The reason it is there is simple: every cause has a causation. The only one that isn't explained is the origin of the universe. Therefore, it is more probable that the universe, to, had a cause. To say that the universe did not have a cause goes against this logic. Moreover, it is also worth noting that this causation would have to of been of a higher intelligence, given the complexity of our universe.
1. Neither theism or atheism can be proven.
2. It is possible that the universe either always existed or simply came into existence for no reason.
3. It is more probable that a deity or deities created the universe.
4. Therefore, theism is the most plausible, logical, rational and reasonable explanation for our existence.
5 comments:
"Religion is responsible for death ?" And I always thought it was just biology. But then I'm a woman so what would I know ?
You are starting from a presupposition which is itself illogical.
"What is the probability that the universe was created by a deity?"
There is zero concrete evidence of a deity.
You might as well ask: "What is the probability that the universe formed as a pimple on the bottom of an infinitely huge walrus?"
There is no evidence for the infinitely huge walrus. You can figure the likelihood of the walrus, if you choose. It's not a valuable exercise.
There is no evidence for a deity.
Trying to figure out the probability of something for which there is zero evidence already demonstrates your religious bias.
You are correct that neither theism, nor atheism, can be proved, but saying that something complex, like the universe, most have a creator/cause will get you nowhere. It's infinite regression. The cause must have a cause must have a cause must have a cause . . .
A being that has the ability to create universes must itself be quite complex. Great complexity does not exist eternally. It forms from that which is less complex. It breaks down. It reforms as something else.
We have seen no evidence of ANYTHING which is eternal. "Eternal" is illogical.
"Great complexity" which is "eternal" ? No way. Sorry.
Saying that your creator-being exists outside of nature, that it is supernatural, is a total cop-out. If it exists beyond our understanding of the way the universe operates, it can be anything you say it is.
What is the probability that the universe was created by Sponge Bob Square Pants? Who cares? Nobody really thinks that it was. The Abrahamic deity is merely another fiction, a creation of the human mind.
It does not reveal itself in any concrete way.
There is zero evidence that it exists. The rational assumption is that it does not.
Your questioning of the probability of a deity, something for which there is no evidence, shows religious bias.
By the way, your "proofs that end the debate" are ridiculous.
--1. "Neither theism or atheism can be proven."
True. You got one. (One, out of four, is not a passing grade.)
--2. "It is possible that the universe either always existed or simply came into existence for no reason."
What does that even mean? The universe that we have been able to observe is not an eternal one. It is not static. It is an expanding universe. It can be calculated back to it's original singularity. The Big Bang Theory. The second part of your statement, that the universe "simply came into existence for no reason", doesn't have any meaning. What does that mean? No reason. More like, not able to reason.
--3. "It is more probable that a deity or deities created the universe."
Why is that? Because you say so? There is no evidence for that. There seems to be no connection or relevance to your earlier statements. You have built nothing upon the foundation of your earlier statements. You are not establishing any type of flow of logic. (Just so you know, you don't sound more open-minded by saying "deity or deities." We understand that you are attempting to sound that way. It's fairly transparent. It's like the Intelligent Design people who say they make no claim as to who the Intelligent Designer might be. It's just such obvious bullshit.)
--4. "Therefore, theism is the most plausible, logical, rational and reasonable explanation for our existence."
Oh, OK! Therefore! You said therefore, so it must be true. You accomplished nothing with this inane line of reasoning. Nothing builds on previous statements. Therefore! Therefore! You basically just said: "God is more likely, because I say so."
Therefore! What a fool.
Sweet Jesus, is the "I don't know where it all came from therefor Jesus is real" argument ever going to go away. It's stupid and illogical. When will xtians figure this out. They keep making the argument from ignorance. Just because you don't know doesn't by any means that "Godidit". In fact in EVERY thing from that past that xtians (or muslims or anyone) that thought Godidit, when science investigated it, Goddidn'tdoit..
Please.. will it ever end???
Even your little story about wild panthers catching a raccoon, in a jungle, is stupid. Raccoons don't live in jungle habitats. They live in North American deciduous forests.
Post a Comment