| Dota2Gamer said: Actually, believing in God is what makes the most sense. Since, it has been established in the second law of thermodynamics that something cannot be created out of nothing. For the premise of the law of thermodynamics to be true, one must accept that something has been created. |
My issue with this argument always been in one hand you say that every thing need to be created but then you assume a god who was not created. I never understood how picking a very complex being that knows everything and capable of creating something from nothing (God) as the starting point makes more sense then picking the laws of physics and some simple matter as the starting point. One seem so much more simple to me.
This assume when you say god you mean a sentient god that takes a direct role in the universe. If you choosing a more broad definition fine but it just seem the existence of a god with that broad of a definition is fairly irreverent.
My argument is the state of the universe post big bang provides all the ingredients for science to explain everything that took place afterward. If you say a God was needed for big bang I don't agree but it hard for me to see why it would be relevant to me since it was no need for a god for the past ~13.7 billion years.
Pre big bang is probably not within the current human brain ability to grasp and who knows if it will ever be. It want to use God as a place holder for what we don't understand so be it but it seem a big leap to me to then create religion which assume what that mysterious gods wants from us or interacts with us at all.
