| IIIIITHE1IIIII said: I don't believe that there is a God though, and that I do simply because there is not a single reason to do so. There is equally as much evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster's existence as there is for God's. |
Really? I would like to hear that evidence.
Dating back to the time of Plato and Aristotle at least, it has been theorized that the Universe began, and that the beginning logically had to be due to a divine creator. Simply because there was no logic to the idea that there was a necessity for the world to exist, or that it all just happened by chance.
The Platonists were not superstitious pagan ritualists, they were some of the greatest intellectuals of human history. Aristotle came up with the original cosmological argument; and this stood without much questioning until the modern era. During the modern era, it became questionable as to whether or not the universe indeed did have a beginning. This is where the original strand of atheists emerged from; essentially those who felt that without a beginning, there was no justification for the first premise of the cosmological argument, and it followed that other arguments (like the teleological) didn't have any basis either.
Now for the evidence:
In the early half of the 20th century scientists discovered a shift in the light spectrum of red light; the redshift (think of this as being similar to when a car drives by, and the quality of sound changes; the redshift is that except with light waves instead). This led scientists to hypothesize an expanding universe; and thus far, all of our evidence has pointed to this; the universe is expanding, and it expanded from a single point approximately 13.7 billion years ago. So we go back to the Cosmological argument:
1. Everything that begins has a cause.
2. The Universe had a cause.
3. Therefore the Universe had a beginning.
There are three possible reasons for such a beginning to occur: 1. A creator, 2. Chance, 3. Necessity (we're getting into Teleology now).
Astrophysicists have studied the universe a great deal, and have discovered that in order for a universe consisting of solid matter to exist, we need very precise ratios and physical constants; for example, the gravitational constant and the electromagnetic constant. Another example is the nuclear constant, if this one constant is off by 2 percent, then hydrogen atoms would fise into diprotons instead of heavier matter - in other words, just examing this constant alone, our Universe with solid matter has a 1/50 chance of existing with solid matter; and a universe where any form of evolving life could exist.
So could the Universe be the result of physical necessity? The answer is no, these caustants and ratios are independent of the laws of nature; they were arbitrarily present. So perhaps it is by chance? Mathematical Physicist Roger Penrose (an agnostic atheist I might add) has calculated that a life permitting universe to be 1 in 10 to the 1280th power; that is not just a slim chance, but an astronomically slim chance. So that rules out both chance and physical necessity.
The teleological argument:
1. The fine tuning of the universe is either due to a creator, chance, or physical necessity.
2. It is not due to chance or physical necessity
3. The Universe had a creator.
I should also bring up that the two most intelligent people of the modern era had theistic views: Newton was a Christian extremist largely due to his discoveries, and Einstein was an agnostic theist who felt atheism was both childish and an arrogant viewpoint.
But on the subject; there is very strong evidence that we now have to confirm the claims for ancient arguments for the existence of God. But I have not heard any evidence in regards to a spaghetti monster.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
