Stephen said
egordon wrote:I debated atheists for 25 years. That was my thing. That’s what I liked to do. I have three original arguments for the existence of God that came out of those years. I don’t bother debating atheists anymore. For one, few are intellectual philosophers anymore. Nowadays, they’re pretty much just all in it for the social liberalism. Most of the time, they just insult, but won’t engage in any real debate.
Well I’ve self-identified as an atheist for 25 years. While I have no interest in a “debate” I remain intensely interested in the vagaries of human belief. So I am very curious to hear any “original” arguments for the existence of God (while skeptical of the possibility). I’m not a practicing academic philosopher, intellectual or otherwise, but one of my advanced degrees is in philosophy of religion. (I wrote my master’s thesis on Wittgenstein. I tell you that only so you can feel comfortable framing the discussion on as technical a level as you wish.) I’m not sure who you’re used to dealing with but you won’t get any insults here unless of course you regard any sustained informed critique as an insult (some do).
Can you sketch them out for me? Or if this is not space enough can you point me somewhere you have? I’m genuinely interested.
Robert wrote
Fear and worship are indeed related in some ways.
Intertwined I would say. Perhaps this is why Nietzsche feared if he lost his devils he would lose his angels as well. It seems clear the genius who composed the gospel of Mark would have understood.
No, I’m not going to debate atheism in this thread. I came here looking for an answer to the question in the original post, but got none. I’ve tried e-mailing Dr. Ehrman twice with the question, but I’ve had no reply. So, for now, I will assume I have started a religion that has never been seen before in history. I know the Gospel harmony I wrote has never been seen in human history before, so maybe they go together.
In reading “Christianity- The First 3000 Years”, it refers to an early Christian Leader who rejected “the Jewish Fairy Tales” and argued against a literal Garden of Eden because it was idiotic to depict God as “some farmer, literally planting a garden…..”
I’m a kinda-sorta “Jeffersonian Denomination of One” also. I absolutely believe in a Higher Power. I really enjoy and feel a bond with Tevye and his chats with God in “Fiddler on the Roof.” As far as proof of “God’s Existence”, look no farther than the mirror. To think that “random dice rolls” produced us is infinitely beyond believing in Santa Claus. Statistically, the probability of randomly producing just the first line of the Gettysburg Address is 1 over (8.437 x 10 to the two-hundreth power)….. And then the “Random Generator” wouldn’t even know what it had. Complex stuff does not happen randomly.
And I don’t take an absolute “Deist” view of God either. Part of my Faith is strictly self-generated; Things that have happened to me throughout my life. “Random” events are not just random. Things happen for a reason. Jesus “happened” for a reason; For an over-all “Greater Good.” Somewhere, I think in a Great Courses Lecture Series I purchased, there was a discussion about “Evil” and the History of Philosophy about it. And there was a concept discussed that “Given God’s creation of free will, how life and humanity has unfolded, with all it’s negatives and pain and horror and sadness, is still working toward a positive conclusion in the best way possible. The results could be far worse, and better results than what we have achieved require God’s active intervention, such that we are no longer “figuring it out ourselves.”….
Perhaps this is all just a “Sim City” Game, with God occasionally “tweaking” some of the otherwise randomly generated players…. 🙂
In my opinion, the strongest argument for the existence of a Higher Power can be found by Googling “Infinite Monkey Theorem.”
In my opinion, the belief that we, and our world, just randomly exist is way, way, way past believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and your chartroose colored Spirit Animal! 🙂
To think that “random dice rolls” produced us is infinitely beyond believing in Santa Claus. Statistically, the probability of randomly producing just the first line of the Gettysburg Address is 1 over (8.437 x 10 to the two-hundreth power)….. And then the “Random Generator” wouldn’t even know what it had. Complex stuff does not happen randomly.
“Random” events are not just random. Things happen for a reason
The problem is you don’t really understand the idea of “randomness” in nature. (The Infinite Monkey Theorem is practically a sign painted on the forehead saying “I don’t get it”. It doesn’t work that way!)
Let me turn you over to some folks who not only understand it but can explain it very well.
Go ** you do not have permission to see this link **
and ** you do not have permission to see this link **
and** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Actually, as a degreed mechanical engineer who’s dabbled in nuclear engineering, I understand math, statistics, enthalpy, etc. quite well…. But thank’s for the book references anyway 🙂
Did you notice in the “infinite monkeys” reference that just to get a reasonable chance of producing King Lear, (or just a page of it?) that it would require more “monkeys typing away” than would fit in the entire universe? The impossibility of our existence via total random events is pretty brain dead clear.
But you don’t need an understanding of post calculus mathematics to get that 1 over “almost infinity” is pretty much zero probability, that is, unless you believe in miracles….
Maybe if you’re good, Santa Claus will bring you this book for Christmas….;) ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Hi MikeinNeb!
Couple of clarifying questions, if you wouldn’t mind:
– Is it your view that evolution didn’t happen, or that it didn’t happen “undirected”?
– Given your mathematical background (including stochastic processes), how important for the analogy between the infinite monkey problem vs. the view of an undirected universe/life/evolution is the concept of ‘rate’ in the process? I.e., given the rate/speed of the chemical processes in our universe (that underlie life/biology as we understand it), is the process rate limitation inherent in the monkey problem enough to offset the higher complexity of life vs. a chance manuscript of King Lear? Speed up the monkeys!
Thanks in advance!
Stephen said
To think that “random dice rolls” produced us is infinitely beyond believing in Santa Claus. Statistically, the probability of randomly producing just the first line of the Gettysburg Address is 1 over (8.437 x 10 to the two-hundreth power)….. And then the “Random Generator” wouldn’t even know what it had. Complex stuff does not happen randomly.“Random” events are not just random. Things happen for a reason
The problem is you don’t really understand the idea of “randomness” in nature. (The Infinite Monkey Theorem is practically a sign painted on the forehead saying “I don’t get it”. It doesn’t work that way!)
Let me turn you over to some folks who not only understand it but can explain it very well.
Go ** you do not have permission to see this link **
and ** you do not have permission to see this link **
and** you do not have permission to see this link **.
Methinks another problem here is that you don’t understand “randomness”. Randomness is randomness. The outcome cannot be foreseen and determined beforehand. “Nature” doesn’t get a special kind of random….It doesn’t get to “cheat”. Anything outside of random dice rolls equates to some kind of intelligence ‘loading the dice.”
Hngerhman said
Hi MikeinNeb!Couple of clarifying questions, if you wouldn’t mind:
– Is it your view that evolution didn’t happen, or that it didn’t happen “undirected”?
– Given your mathematical background (including stochastic processes), how important for the analogy between the infinite monkey problem vs. the view of an undirected universe/life/evolution is the concept of ‘rate’ in the process? I.e., given the rate/speed of the chemical processes in our universe (that underlie life/biology as we understand it), is the process rate limitation inherent in the monkey problem enough to offset the higher complexity of life vs. a chance manuscript of King Lear? Speed up the monkeys!
Thanks in advance!
Hi Hngerhman!
I think the evolution of life and everything that happened before it show’s a “directed process.” It happening at all, much less it happening in just 13.8 billion years, is otherwise impossibly improbable.
We are infinitely more complex than a draft of King Lear without spaces, commas, or periods… 🙂
MikeinNeb said
Hi Hngerhman!
I think the evolution of life and everything that happened before it show’s a “directed process.” It happening at all, much less it happening in just 13.8 billion years, is otherwise impossibly improbable.
We are infinitely more complex than a draft of King Lear without spaces, commas, or periods… 🙂
Thanks much for clarifying. Cheers.
I would agree that in a rough information theoretic framework we contain significantly more complexity than King Lear (with or without punctuation) – but is the high hurdle of complexity sufficient to offset the vastly faster (and in parallel) chemical processes (that form molecules, amino acids, proteins, etc.) acting over a timeframe of billions of years? I guess I’m having trouble judging that to fall down in favor of the complexity factor, given that we’re talking about processes undergoing exponential compounding over deep time.
And your point about randomness – do you judge quantum theory to be driven by hidden variables (and thus determined) or do you mean by the universe not having a special randomness to mean something else? Thanks!
Hngerhman said
Thanks much for clarifying. Cheers.
I would agree that in a rough information theoretic framework we contain significantly more complexity than King Lear (with or without punctuation) – but is the high hurdle of complexity sufficient to offset the vastly faster (and in parallel) chemical processes (that form molecules, amino acids, proteins, etc.) acting over a timeframe of billions of years? I guess I’m having trouble judging that to fall down in favor of the complexity factor, given that we’re talking about processes undergoing exponential compounding over deep time.
And your point about randomness – do you judge quantum theory to be driven by hidden variables (and thus determined) or do you mean by the universe not having a special randomness to mean something else? Thanks!
Well I don’t think 13.8 billion years is all that long personally. I also think the “chemical processes” are besides the point. Modern humanity, with it’s vast knowledge and ability to completely transform (and scar) this planet, can’t make a mouse from scratch, much less a mouse that can then reproduce 10 more mice just like it……. And yet we are to believe that it can be done by random chance, given enough “time and ingredients”? All the atoms in the universe working continuously over their entire existence, can’t even randomly reproduce a children’s book, much less comprehend what it means. The fact that something far greater than us is behind our existence is for me pretty black and white. The tricky part is understanding the “why”.
MikeinNeb I congratulate you on your achievements but I stand by my statements. You think you understand but you really don’t. If I want to build a bridge or a building I’ll call you. But unfortunately for you the universe is not a building. I know your mind is made up so I won’t waste my time trying to reach you.
But I know there are people out there who really want to know. And who are willing to try to stretch their minds around counterintuitive concepts. Read Dawkins’ book, the Blind Watchmaker. Cheap used copies abound.
Actually it’s funny you should reference Gribbin’s book. I am sympathetic to the Rare Earth hypothesis, myself. But not because we’re special. But even if the universe is teeming with life it won’t matter. People rarely internalize how old and how big the universe actually is. The Star Trek viewpoint of lots of aliens at more or less the same technological level is the least probable condition. What is most likely is that we will find either lichen or ruins a million times older than Babylon.
Well, your statements are based off a claim that I don’t understand probabilities, which is incorrect. So given that incorrect statement, how accurate are your others? And what’s your mathematical background that seems to make you think you can judge me? I hope it’s more than just sending me links to books.
MikeinNeb said
Well I don’t think 13.8 billion years is all that long personally. I also think the “chemical processes” are besides the point. Modern humanity, with it’s vast knowledge and ability to completely transform (and scar) this planet, can’t make a mouse from scratch, much less a mouse that can then reproduce 10 more mice just like it……. And yet we are to believe that it can be done by random chance, given enough “time and ingredients”? All the atoms in the universe working continuously over their entire existence, can’t even randomly reproduce a children’s book, much less comprehend what it means. The fact that something far greater than us is behind our existence is for me pretty black and white. The tricky part is understanding the “why”.
If 13.8BN years is not long, then within a metaphorical blink of an eye humans will be in a position to construct a mouse from scratch (assuming we agree on the operative meaning of construct, mouse and scratch). I apologize if my focus on chemical processes seems irrelevant. Do you consider reactions such as abiogenesis of amino acids to lack pertinence to the formation of life? If so, I’d love to understand why. Especially if biological processes sit atop / emerge from chemical processes which sit atop / emerge from physical processes, then I’m struggling to find/isolate the level(s) of reality wherein you see the need for agent-directed participation.
Circling back to randomness – is it that you deny randomness per se, or randomness (embedded within physical processes that are subject to path dependent constraints) is insufficient to create complexity? Would you deny nature contains actual (rather than merely apparent/epistemic) stochastic processes?
ETA – “All the atoms in the universe working continuously over their entire existence, can’t even randomly reproduce a children’s book, much less comprehend what it means.” I think this is precisely what’s in question in our conversation here. It would be my view, which is certainly open to change from compelling counterargument, that this is precisely what all the atoms in the universe have, in fact, done. Except perhaps Goodnight Moon – that one is obviously divinely inspired.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert