No matter how improbable any of those things are, I still find it more improbable that an omnipotent, omniscient being has somehow always existed outside of time and space.
That said, I'll still go with the "by its fruit shall you know it" and recognize that the only civilizations I'd ever want to live in were founded or heavily influenced by Christians.
I'm agnostic and I would pick Christian morals over any other system every single time. All the other systems step on the little guy and treat him as a disposable asset instead of fostering growth and decency.
We cannot comprehend a being that is infinite because all things in our life are finite.
This could just as easily be said about the natural universe.
It stands to reason that something put the universe in motion and that something is not bound by the laws of this universe, including time and space.
Then it also stands to reason that something put the thing that put the universe in motion also needed something to put it in motion, unless you want to engage in special pleading that "well God is special and doesn't need a creator", in which case you could just as easily skip a step and say "the natural universe doesn't need a creator."
If you believe, fine. Honestly, I kind of envy you. But if you're going to throw obviously flawed reasoning at me for your beliefs, I'm going to pick it apart.
You missed my point. A creator or God or whatever you want to call it is outside of our natural universe. This creator does not have the laws of the universe apply to them because they are not bound by the laws of the universe. If they are not bound by the laws of the universe then nothing needs to have created them.
People who use the "Who created God?" argument need to understand this point. The creator has always existed. This concept is quite mind blowing because, as I said, we are bound by the finite terms and laws of our universe.
If you want to call the unknown physics of forces outside of our universe God that's your prerogative. But don't conflate that with a being who also exists within our universe and chooses prophets, sends messiahs and regularly nukes humanity from orbit for being too debauched or unfaithful. Having two homonyms with completely different meanings is just going to lead to confusion, whether that is deliberate or not.
Because calling something “unknown physics” is still missing the point. You are making the mistake of describing something as a physical manifestation when it has to exist outside the realm of the universe.
It is something beyond our understanding because our understanding is limited to this universe.
Calling it unknown physics is just as arbitrary as calling it God. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, I wasn't a snob about what you decided to use for your imprecise nomenclature, so I won't just accept you being a snob about mine.
Just be more imaginative, imagine expanding the umbrella of the term physics from reality based physics into also covering the metaphysical and it's all peachy again.
You are still hung up on the physical world. That’s what I’m trying to point out. A physical entity cannot have been the origin of a physical universe. Even “metaphysical” still exists within the realm of the physical.
The only logical conclusion is something not physical created the universe. It’s an inescapable reality.
Something made the universe. The whole "we did the math and it says something will spring up out of nothing" that does away with a creator doesn't make sense to me. Aquinas' 5 proofs make a lot more sense to me even if some are shakier than others.
Whatever that creator is calling it "God" is a convenient shorthand, whether that creator consists of chance or inevitable physics or a supernatural source.
From there you have to make a bunch of assumptions about the nature of God and His intent, if any. I choose to make the assumptions that make my life possibly have a meaning and purpose if they are true. Starting with the premise that part of putting my faith in God is trusting that He will steer me right if I allow myself to listen to His guidance, rather than just relying on my own reasoning and judgement, even if God's guidance and my own reasoning use the same "channel".
An example of an assumption is that free will has to exist because if it doesn't there is no way to exist in an ordered manner. The purpose of free will is to give me a choice to serve God or not, because the freely chosen service is where Good comes from.
Anecdotally I can say that my life became better when I internalized the switch from doing what made me "happy" to trying to figure out how to best serve God.
Please do share your thoughts in the other thread too - beyond the starting topic, I think you’ve attached multiple very interesting directions of further discussion to branch off into!
I'm not committed enough to argue on more than one board, but if you are motivated enough to copy and paste me then I relinquish all copyright claims and grant you that permission.
So many people seem to really struggle with the idea of anything improbable just happening, they absolutely need to find a reason that it wasn't improbable anymore once it happens.
The series of consecutive improbable events required for you to type that to me is so mind bogglingly implausible as to be functionally impossible, but to then act like it’s all so obviously meaningless is the cherry on top lol
Check out the thread you might find some interesting arguments being made for or against
See that's what I mean. Three improbable events are three improbable events. You don't need a design for that to happen, but that seemingly makes some people uncomfortable. The mathematical gulf between "mindbogglingly improbable" and "impossible" is infinitely large. They are nothing alike and certainly not functionally interchangeable.
And I did read the thread but I'm not starting shit in different communities. Suffice it to say that I think you're putting the cart before the horse when it comes to understanding the building blocks of life.
Water and Carbon aren't absolutely necessary for life as a self replicating system. They're simply key to life as we know it. To other life out there our carbon based DNA might be unimaginably bizarre. That some of the most abundant compounds on earth are key components in life on earth isn't evidence of divine providence, that if life were to arise randomly it would most likely arise from the most abundant compounds rather than rarer ones is in fact a very reasonable proposition.
I remember a religious analogy where the guy threw down a ton of cards and said something like "the chance that I pick these cards up in the right order is so low that its impossible, just like the order of the universe, so there must be a god"
Except that any order he would have picked up the cards in would have been equally improbable.
The analogy would actually suggest to me that there are many possible outcomes, it makes no sense to point to this one outcome of the universe amongst the infinite number of equally unlikely possible universes and say "thats proof"
I dont see any proof of a God and the idea is even more unlikely to me than the universe existing in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong but unless I see or feel something that makes me change my mind I have no power to do so myself.
I do think Western Christian culture is the best though and I have no ill will towards Christians.
A better analogy is: try to make a detailed life simulation by throwing random words into a compiler and see if it makes anything. Spoiler alert: it won't.
In order to craft a detailed simulation you need structure and an expert software engineer. There is no such thing as using random strings to create a structured simulation, hence why it requires an engineer.
Just to interject with what I see as a fault in your logic
Except that any order he would have picked up the cards in would have been equally improbable.
The example clearly states:
“the chance that I pick these cards up in the right order is so low that its impossible”
“The right order” obviously meaning 1-13 ordered by suit, which is 1/(10^67). Analogously, “the right order” for the universe is the one in which all the various independent variables (as i establish in the OP on the other side of the cross post) take just the exact, precise value needed to actually generate a universe where life can develop.
So please do check out the post, I’ve linked to it above in a couple places. It’s an unfortunate drawback of this site’s cross-post feature that so little detail makes it through to here.
OP: "Why should water, another of the keys to life, be the only common substance with a solid density less than its liquid density? .. Why should ... Why should"
There's no "should" or "should not" there's only "does" or "does not". Our universe exists, to us, and functions the way it does. This is the only fact we know about it.
It could have been made by an Entity, or by random, or every other universe even possible may also exist, or even be a fractal that doesn't exist at all; your "life" being a function of your position in an equation, like a digit in Pi. The 10 millionth digit in Pi doesn't actually exist (but it thinks it does).
This is "effect therefore cause" reasoning and it's obviously backwards. You can argue the cause is a creator and the effect is the universe, but you can't argue the effect is the universe so the cause is a creator.
Liberals do this backward reasoning all the fucking time. Like in Ferguson, Eric Holder said 90% of convictions were black (effect) so therefore it was due to racism (cause). Speeding tickets, SAT scores, everything - it's always disparate effect therefore cause is racism.
There's no "should" or "should not" there's only "does" or "does not". Our universe exists, to us, and functions the way it does. This is the only fact we know about it.
Correct, and the possibility of the universe randomly deciding to operate based on logic is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. Thus the only logical conclusion is that it is non-random. Non-random creation == Design
It doesn't; it just exists or doesn't exist. Go back and reread the first comment I wrote.
Nice dodge. You said the chance is the universe exists the way it does is "infinitesimally small", well how do you know that? You're an expert in how universes come to exist?
What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?
The mathematical gulf between "mindbogglingly improbable" and "impossible" is infinitely large. They are nothing alike and certainly not functionally interchangeably.
Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...
And I did read the thread but I'm not starting shit in different communities.
That’s an odd take on “hey guys, I know people here fall on both sides of this debate, come check out a discussion happening on the subject in a more appropriate community”, but, whatever lol.
[final paragraph]
I think you misunderstood why I reference those substances. It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”. Their abundance on our planet is almost the cherry on top, certainly not the point.
What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?
They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?
Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?
Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...
That's not a proof that mindbogglingly improbable is equal to impossible. That's a proof that 0.999... is another way of writing 1.
The key aspect is that it is specifically infinitely repeating 9. Saying "infinitely improbable" may be equivalent to "impossible" but is again vastly different from "definable but very largely improbable". The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category. Comparing infinite to finite numbers always makes the scale of the finite number utterly irrelevant.
It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”.
There's nothing special about those elements and compounds, chemically silicone is a perfectly viable analogue to biological carbon and ammonia could fill many of the roles of water in strong hydrogen bonding and proton exchange, It's just the evolutionary fine tuning necessary for making complex enzymes work that stops them being immediately interchangable.
And to your example of the rather unique trait that water expands as it freezes: That is actively detrimental to life, it's the cause of frostbite and the death of many plants, and of no benefit in any molecular biology process that I know of. As a "design" trait it is not just flawed it's counter productive. But as a random trait it's just unfortunate.
They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?
Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?
Correct, they are statistically identical, but in your day to day life, if one guy kept winning the lottery, it would (hopefully) get your noggin joggin’, because you (hopefully) understand how pattern recognition, the lottery, and humans all work, to a limited extent. It would be a clear hallmark of design, a plan behind the pattern.
"definable but very largely improbable"
Not currently the case for even the smartest minds, or a mathematically rigorous rejection of the fine-tuned universe argument would be readily available for you or anyone else to find and share (there isn’t one)
The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category.
This is an assertion. I’ve proven with math that in fact, the possibility is so vanishingly small as to be, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Have you followed the link and actually read the OP of this post? This is just a cross-post, unfortunately stripped of all the detail present in the original version. Which is why I recommended from the start that people post there.
Correct, they are statistically identical, but in your day to day life, if one guy kept winning the lottery, it would (hopefully) get your noggin joggin’, because you (hopefully) understand how pattern recognition, the lottery, and humans all work, to a limited extent. It would be a clear hallmark of design, a plan behind the pattern.
And here a direct example of where human intuition is typically terrible at judging probabilities. Why should my noggin be joggin more about one equally probable outcome than the other?
"definable but very largely improbable"
Not currently the case for even the smartest minds
Definable is not defined. I suspect you can't provide me with exactly how many people live in the USA right this second. It is definable, but not currently defined, but it would be absurd to claim that is proof that there are infinite people.
I’ve proven with math that in fact, the possibility is so vanishingly small as to be, for all intents and purposes, impossible.
No you haven't proven anything, you've made an incorrect statement that large==infinite, and insisted on sticking with it even when it's pointed out. The patience required to teach you the proper process of mathematical proof in the face of that obstinacy would not be infinite, but it is very large. And I'm afraid I just don't have it in me to put up with these deluded claims all day.
The series of consecutive improbable events required for you to type that to me is so mind bogglingly implausible as to be functionally impossible, but to then act like it’s all so obviously meaningless is the cherry on top lol
Boltzmann brains are statistically guaranteed to happen.
Time is infinite and you struggle with that concept and its consequences.
Boltzmann brains are statistically guaranteed to happen... Time is infinite
These would be true in an infinite universe, but that is far from a decided subject. The vast, vast majority of theoretical weight is put behind a universe with a beginning, and thus it’s implicit end.
Both god and mathematics are outputs of the human mind adapting a pareidolic or apophenic framework for finding a solution for existing.
Whilst neither are right or wrong, the observable universe presents no final solution to itself and faith is equally as useless to provide as evidence agreed upon by any outside of those who share that belief.
I say we all keep an eye out for what the mice and dolphins are up to and be ready on our toes when they start to disappear.
There’s been an honest debate amongst intellectuals for going on thousands of years now about whether math is invented or discovered
I do appreciate the Adamsian wisdom and the acknowledgement of the known unknowns for what they currently are, unknown. But I’m of the mind that we can come to know much if we dedicate ourselves to the pursuit. Certainly enough.
There is nothing wrong with taking part in the pursuit with either faith and/or reason Graphenium, I applaud your efforts however you go about it.
I just, personally, don't think that we will ever get to a place without doubt being a healthy attitude to hold onto over certainty - and it seems to me that is the whole point of the experience of existence.
I hope you have fun on your journey and get 'enough' to sate your scepticism to keep you from being cynical.
I just, personally, don't think that we will ever get to a place without doubt being a healthy attitude to hold onto over certainty - and it seems to me that is the whole point of the experience of existence.
This significantly dumbs down what "God"* means, as he needn't even be a mind; merely an eternal depth of transcendent organization.+ I assert that [C]onsciousness is not describable by math or science; and [G]oodness is not usually described even by philosophy or by religion. These [C][G] are necessary to embody the implied "ultimate mindful transcendent good personal power" loaded into the modern term "God"*. So math DOES show the mere transcendent aspect of God's internal organization, as expressed in his creation; it fails to name him, or even to imply he's a he. That's all.
+ a presence without necessary personhood, effectiveness without necessary design (though this one is a koan), transcendent data without necessary self-awareness
My favorite cosmological-type argument is along this vein (Kalaam), and even it fails to infer personality. There's a reason, I think. Historical and testimonial evidence matters, too, and the further/higher aspects of God - beyond the systematic experimentable perfections - are granted as gifts in the histories, as God acted among us... leading to a literal invite to "come and join the court, as re-adopted family"; which invite grows up right from God's well-established fatherliness.
Yeah, beautifully put - I think asking for “proof” of the personal God is akin to asking “what happened before the Big Bang” - it’s an obvious desire we all logically seek to understand, but based on our limited understanding of physics and metaphysics it may take a form we can’t currently comprehend. At least, I have trouble picturing a means by which to demonstrate a personal God to someone asking for proof. People could start performing miracles and an observer could still conceive of a universe with impersonal divinity which could be put to work through some mechanism (i.e. “magic”) - just as an example scenario - it’s almost like the “personal God” starts within us and is projected out into the world, once we open our minds to the possibility, we see the evidence all around us...
I know this community has a diversity of belief on the subject of belief, and given its relatively high level of discourse I think there are more than a few people here who would enjoy the discussion.
Math, physics, chemistry are highly effective maps of the natural world, so effective you can make predictions about how some stuff will act or behave.
The argument that math and the complex symbol systems required by chemistry, physics, and so forth MUST have been existing out there in the ether or in the mind of an anthropomorphic, omniscient, and omnipotent god has never made sense to me. The latter is just a weird fairy tale left over from when most people believed, not the Bible necessarily but priestly readings of it. Protestant rejection of priestly interpretation made room for empiricism, but they eventually threw the supernatural baby out with the bathwater.
This is why I'm a Buddhist and why "god" is simply shorthand for the condition that gives rise to being born in a body, for naming whatever may be going on before birth and after death.
The argument that math and the complex symbol systems required by chemistry, physics, and so forth MUST have been existing out there in the ether
Is that not the obvious case? The universe developed for billions and billions of years according to these physical laws with no humans around to write them down symbolically. Simultaneously, these laws don’t physically “exist” in the sense that they aren’t written down anywhere. Protons aren’t labeled “this side up”, yet somehow the universe knows just how to proceed, in all respects.
Math, physics, chemistry are highly effective maps of the natural world, so effective you can make predictions about how some stuff will act or behave.
Can you think of anything “real” which can’t be explained/modeled by math? How could a mindless universe be so totally governed by something which is synonymous with mind? It’s (LITERALLY) illogical
And just so you know, this post isn’t suggesting any specific God over another, it’s about trying to find common ground where everyone can congregate to through logical argument, from where the discussion could branch off in many interesting directions
I can't think of anything. Human thought is mapped by language, and I suppose that involves some mathematical principles, so, yes . . . I just need to keep in mind Korzybski's adage, "The map is not the territory."
Their first position is an assumption. I've always had this issue with religion debaters. They make an assumption and then try to prove everything based on that unproven assumption.
Maybe, but premise 1 is faulty and vague whether or not I did. For one, how precisely would one define 'applicability' and 'happy coincidence'? Does it mean that there's no mathematics if there is no god, that 2+2 could equal 4 one moment and 5 another? Or that the fact that it is, is a 'coincidence'?
I don't see why this does not have to be true in any universe, whether or not a god exists.
Logic is synonymous with mind. How could mind govern a mindless universe?
The point being, “mathematics” becomes a meaningless word in a universe governed by chaos, randomness, and meaninglessness (i.e. God-less). I implore you to describe such a universe, hopefully such that you will see its utter implausibility
The point being, “mathematics” becomes a meaningless word in a universe governed by chaos, randomness, and meaninglessness (i.e. God-less).
Do you mean that the mere fact of God's existence (according to you) imbues mathematics with meaning for everyone, or that the word mathematics only has meaning to people who believe in a god?
I implore you to describe such a universe, hopefully such that you will see its utter implausibility
I just don't see it, nor its implausibility, at least as it specifically relates to mathematics. If you believe in a god, and think that the laws of mathematics are laws posited by the divinity, then it may seem obvious - sort of a William Paley watch argument - but not to me.
The best argument for a god I've heard is the cosmological argument. Everything has a cause, at least in our experience. But what caused the universe to come into existence? A god is a decent hypothesis for that. What then caused god? Some religious people say that this necessitates a cause that stands outside of time.
Here do you refer to something like “cause and effect”? A “mindless” star runs out of Hydrogen and thus implodes? It is my contention that the reason for the the universe proceeding logically can only be a logical mind (God) underpinning these processes. So the notion that even “mindless” parts of the universe proceed according to logic does indeed bolster my point. Unless you meant something else by “mindless processes”?
Do you mean that the mere fact of God's existence (according to you) imbues mathematics with meaning for everyone, or that the word mathematics only has meaning to people who believe in a god?
What I mean is, in a Godless universe mathematics should be no more privileged than smathematics (which is like mathematics but every number and logical operation is replaced with a mashed potato). The only conceivable reason for the applicability of math and logic to the universe is that the universe was designed with math and logic in mind. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Do you get where I’m coming from? Can you conceive of a counter-argument?
I just don't see it, nor its implausibility, at least as it specifically relates to mathematics. If you believe in a god, and think that the laws of mathematics are laws posited by the divinity, then it may seem obvious - sort of a William Paley watch argument - but not to me.
Fair enough, I probably wouldn’t have grokked the argument immediately back in my materialist reductionist days either. We can back up a bit: do you think math is fundamentally woven into the universe, or do you think math is fundamentally a human-created overlay with which we can analyze the world and it just so happens to have an utterly absurd degree of overlap? Are the mechanisms of the universe proceeding via mathematics and logic, or do they merely appear to be that way?
The best argument for a god I've heard is the cosmological argument.
Yeah same, it allows for the invigorating discussion without being bogged down by the baggage of dogma. Have you read much on the fine-tuned universe argument?
But what caused the universe to come into existence? A god is a decent hypothesis for that. What then caused god? Some religious people say that this necessitates a cause that stands outside of time.
I think God would be that “cause standing outside of time[/space/“the universe”]”, but that’s just a logical intuition of mine.
Here do you refer to something like “cause and effect”? A “mindless” star runs out of Hydrogen and thus implodes? It is my contention that the reason for the the universe proceeding logically can only be a logical mind (God) underpinning these processes. So the notion that even “mindless” parts of the universe proceed according to logic does indeed bolster my point. Unless you meant something else by “mindless processes”?
It is an example of what I meant. But this is something that can't be refuted or proven in any way. If we imagine an alternative universe that did not have a logical mind underpinning it, what might it look like? What would be different? I don't think anything in logic itself dictates how stars should behave. You could also talk about things like non-contradiction and basic math. Is there a possible universe where 2+2 equals 5, and propositions are simultaneously true and false?
What I mean is, in a Godless universe mathematics should be no more privileged than smathematics (which is like mathematics but every number and logical operation is replaced with a mashed potato). The only conceivable reason for the applicability of math and logic to the universe is that the universe was designed with math and logic in mind. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Do you get where I’m coming from? Can you conceive of a counter-argument?
No, but I think I can reply to it. This sounds a lot like a sort of deistic Platonism. Where Plato argued that mathematics, as well as a whole host of things, were what they were because they participated in certain 'forms', and he later semi-abandoned it because forms cannot be demonstrated, nor shown where they are - later thinkers like Augustine argued that forms are actually ideas in the mind of god. You seem to be making a similar sort of argument.
I think it's very persuasive, or rather appealing, when you apply this to things that are not as exact - like morality. Good being a form in the mind of god nicely rounds out the whole thing. But applied to mathematics? You seem to be taking the divine origin of mathematics as axiomatic, and as such, it really can't be refuted - just like you can't refute Euclid, but you can propose alternatives which start out from different axioms.
Fair enough, I probably wouldn’t have grokked the argument immediately back in my materialist reductionist days either. We can back up a bit: do you think math is fundamentally woven into the universe, or do you think math is fundamentally a human-created overlay with which we can analyze the world and it just so happens to have an utterly absurd degree of overlap? Are the mechanisms of the universe proceeding via mathematics and logic, or do they merely appear to be that way?
So basically, realism or instrumentalism? In my uninformed opinion, basic math is realist, while the more specialized you get, the more instrumentalist it might get. Of course, you don't even know, because for 2 centuries we thought that Newton described everything perfectly, until it turned out that things are different with relativistic speeds or at subatomic levels. So maybe we're off too right now, even if slightly?
Yeah same, it allows for the invigorating discussion without being bogged down by the baggage of dogma. Have you read much on the fine-tuned universe argument?
Nothing actually. I'm only familiar with some of the arguments because they're part of history. I assume this is the argument that even a very tiny change in the conditions would have resulted in there being no humans, or perhaps even no universe? I can think of some counter-arguments against that. Perhaps there would have been other forms of life. It's also hard to judge it from the inside. Even if it is unlikely for things to be as they are, in any hypothetical universe where the conditions were not ripe for intelligent life, there would be no people to contemplate why things are the way they are.
I think God would be that “cause standing outside of time[/space/“the universe”]”, but that’s just a logical intuition of mine.
That's what I meant. You can say that there was nothing before the Big Bang, or you can say that a god put it into motion - which is as good a hypothesis as any, probably even better. Far more persuasive than the ontological argument say.
If we imagine an alternative universe that did not have a logical mind underpinning it, what might it look like? What would be different?
Well, for starters, math wouldn’t provide such a useful tool for modeling reality. 2+2 really could be equal to mashed potato. Such a universe would be governed by illogic. Existence would be truly meaningless in every sense of the word. There would be no correspondence between cause and effect. So on and so forth.
I don't think anything in logic itself dictates how stars should behave.
I’m wrapping the “Laws of Physics” into the broader umbrella concept of “Applicability of Mathematics to Reality”. The star functions the way it does (mostly) because of the interplay of gravity, nuclear fusion, and electromagnetism. The reason for these processes playing out by logical, coherent rules is ultimately the observable fact that our universe is governed by logic.
But applied to mathematics? You seem to be taking the divine origin of mathematics as axiomatic, and as such, it really can't be refuted
I’m not trying to be tautological, though I understand how these arguments could be interpreted that way. The key point is that there is no reason why mathematics should be so applicable to reality that it has long been called “the language of nature”, unless you include the possibility of intelligent design. You could say, “I believe in the thing so mind bogglingly implausible that it could be rightly said that the possibility of its occurrence is approaching 1/∞” but that is just an inferior answer in my opinion.
So basically, realism or instrumentalism? In my uninformed opinion, basic math is realist, while the more specialized you get, the more instrumentalist it might get. Of course, you don't even know
So two things:
Firstly - even the parts of math we think don’t apply to reality often end up astoundingly showing up in some theretofore poorly understood realm. A great example of this are the imaginary numbers and their associated operations.
Secondly - “Math” isn’t a physical thing right? It is, like Plato’s forms, an idealized abstraction that exists only in the minds of humans (as far as we know), right? So for math to be “real”, that means this idealized, non-physical form must also be real, but somehow existing outside of the universe. If one can accept this, God is basically just a name given by us to this underlying order and meaning which exists outside of, and was wholly responsible for shaping, the universe itself.
Nothing actually. I'm only familiar with some of the arguments because they're part of history. I assume this is the argument that even a very tiny change in the conditions would have resulted in there being no humans, or perhaps even no universe?
Oh it’s good stuff. Basically what you describe and variations on the theme usually dealing with changes in scale. One of the most interesting versions I’ve seen even applied the logic to the evolution of universes themselves, in an assumed multiversal situation. I can look for the link if you’re interested, I think I posted it a while back.
I can think of some counter-arguments against that. Perhaps there would have been other forms of life. It's also hard to judge it from the inside. Even if it is unlikely for things to be as they are, in any hypothetical universe where the conditions were not ripe for intelligent life, there would be no people to contemplate why things are the way they are.
Yes, this is effectively the “Anthropic Principle”, which is admittedly the best attempt at a counter-argument I’ve come across, but I agree with Roger Penrose that to invoke it provides no explanatory power at all, and is in fact the far more tautological option than concluding a higher order intelligence behind the universe (imo at least).
That's what I meant. You can say that there was nothing before the Big Bang, or you can say that a god put it into motion - which is as good a hypothesis as any, probably even better.
Glad to find a subject we have so much agreement on. Maybe we can sharpen each others arguments to better effect!
No matter how improbable any of those things are, I still find it more improbable that an omnipotent, omniscient being has somehow always existed outside of time and space.
That said, I'll still go with the "by its fruit shall you know it" and recognize that the only civilizations I'd ever want to live in were founded or heavily influenced by Christians.
I'm agnostic and I would pick Christian morals over any other system every single time. All the other systems step on the little guy and treat him as a disposable asset instead of fostering growth and decency.
I believe that is the limitations of our mind. We cannot comprehend a being that is infinite because all things in our life are finite.
We cannot comprehend a being that is outside of time and space because we live within those confines.
The universe would not exist, Should not exist in fact, If not for an outside influence.
Even our language is insufficient to describe this influence because our language is spatial.
It stands to reason that something put the universe in motion and that something is not bound by the laws of this universe, including time and space.
This could just as easily be said about the natural universe.
Then it also stands to reason that something put the thing that put the universe in motion also needed something to put it in motion, unless you want to engage in special pleading that "well God is special and doesn't need a creator", in which case you could just as easily skip a step and say "the natural universe doesn't need a creator."
If you believe, fine. Honestly, I kind of envy you. But if you're going to throw obviously flawed reasoning at me for your beliefs, I'm going to pick it apart.
Why not assume Universe and all the stuff coming into and going out of it has always existed and always will?
You missed my point. A creator or God or whatever you want to call it is outside of our natural universe. This creator does not have the laws of the universe apply to them because they are not bound by the laws of the universe. If they are not bound by the laws of the universe then nothing needs to have created them.
People who use the "Who created God?" argument need to understand this point. The creator has always existed. This concept is quite mind blowing because, as I said, we are bound by the finite terms and laws of our universe.
If you want to call the unknown physics of forces outside of our universe God that's your prerogative. But don't conflate that with a being who also exists within our universe and chooses prophets, sends messiahs and regularly nukes humanity from orbit for being too debauched or unfaithful. Having two homonyms with completely different meanings is just going to lead to confusion, whether that is deliberate or not.
I’m going to stop you there.
Because calling something “unknown physics” is still missing the point. You are making the mistake of describing something as a physical manifestation when it has to exist outside the realm of the universe.
It is something beyond our understanding because our understanding is limited to this universe.
Calling it unknown physics is just as arbitrary as calling it God. You don't get to have your cake and eat it, I wasn't a snob about what you decided to use for your imprecise nomenclature, so I won't just accept you being a snob about mine.
Just be more imaginative, imagine expanding the umbrella of the term physics from reality based physics into also covering the metaphysical and it's all peachy again.
You are still hung up on the physical world. That’s what I’m trying to point out. A physical entity cannot have been the origin of a physical universe. Even “metaphysical” still exists within the realm of the physical.
The only logical conclusion is something not physical created the universe. It’s an inescapable reality.
Something made the universe. The whole "we did the math and it says something will spring up out of nothing" that does away with a creator doesn't make sense to me. Aquinas' 5 proofs make a lot more sense to me even if some are shakier than others.
Whatever that creator is calling it "God" is a convenient shorthand, whether that creator consists of chance or inevitable physics or a supernatural source.
From there you have to make a bunch of assumptions about the nature of God and His intent, if any. I choose to make the assumptions that make my life possibly have a meaning and purpose if they are true. Starting with the premise that part of putting my faith in God is trusting that He will steer me right if I allow myself to listen to His guidance, rather than just relying on my own reasoning and judgement, even if God's guidance and my own reasoning use the same "channel".
An example of an assumption is that free will has to exist because if it doesn't there is no way to exist in an ordered manner. The purpose of free will is to give me a choice to serve God or not, because the freely chosen service is where Good comes from.
Anecdotally I can say that my life became better when I internalized the switch from doing what made me "happy" to trying to figure out how to best serve God.
Please do share your thoughts in the other thread too - beyond the starting topic, I think you’ve attached multiple very interesting directions of further discussion to branch off into!
Likewise to you u/SR388-SAX
https://communities.win/c/Atheist/p/17s5toTs7J/1-if-god-did-not-exist-the-appli/c
I'm not committed enough to argue on more than one board, but if you are motivated enough to copy and paste me then I relinquish all copyright claims and grant you that permission.
So many people seem to really struggle with the idea of anything improbable just happening, they absolutely need to find a reason that it wasn't improbable anymore once it happens.
One improbable event is happenstance
Two improbable events is a coincidence
Three improbably events is a design
The series of consecutive improbable events required for you to type that to me is so mind bogglingly implausible as to be functionally impossible, but to then act like it’s all so obviously meaningless is the cherry on top lol
Check out the thread you might find some interesting arguments being made for or against
See that's what I mean. Three improbable events are three improbable events. You don't need a design for that to happen, but that seemingly makes some people uncomfortable. The mathematical gulf between "mindbogglingly improbable" and "impossible" is infinitely large. They are nothing alike and certainly not functionally interchangeable.
And I did read the thread but I'm not starting shit in different communities. Suffice it to say that I think you're putting the cart before the horse when it comes to understanding the building blocks of life.
Water and Carbon aren't absolutely necessary for life as a self replicating system. They're simply key to life as we know it. To other life out there our carbon based DNA might be unimaginably bizarre. That some of the most abundant compounds on earth are key components in life on earth isn't evidence of divine providence, that if life were to arise randomly it would most likely arise from the most abundant compounds rather than rarer ones is in fact a very reasonable proposition.
I remember a religious analogy where the guy threw down a ton of cards and said something like "the chance that I pick these cards up in the right order is so low that its impossible, just like the order of the universe, so there must be a god"
Except that any order he would have picked up the cards in would have been equally improbable. The analogy would actually suggest to me that there are many possible outcomes, it makes no sense to point to this one outcome of the universe amongst the infinite number of equally unlikely possible universes and say "thats proof"
I dont see any proof of a God and the idea is even more unlikely to me than the universe existing in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong but unless I see or feel something that makes me change my mind I have no power to do so myself. I do think Western Christian culture is the best though and I have no ill will towards Christians.
That guy made a bad analogy.
A better analogy is: try to make a detailed life simulation by throwing random words into a compiler and see if it makes anything. Spoiler alert: it won't.
In order to craft a detailed simulation you need structure and an expert software engineer. There is no such thing as using random strings to create a structured simulation, hence why it requires an engineer.
Just to interject with what I see as a fault in your logic
The example clearly states:
“the chance that I pick these cards up in the right order is so low that its impossible”
“The right order” obviously meaning 1-13 ordered by suit, which is 1/(10^67). Analogously, “the right order” for the universe is the one in which all the various independent variables (as i establish in the OP on the other side of the cross post) take just the exact, precise value needed to actually generate a universe where life can develop.
So please do check out the post, I’ve linked to it above in a couple places. It’s an unfortunate drawback of this site’s cross-post feature that so little detail makes it through to here.
OP: "Why should water, another of the keys to life, be the only common substance with a solid density less than its liquid density? .. Why should ... Why should"
There's no "should" or "should not" there's only "does" or "does not". Our universe exists, to us, and functions the way it does. This is the only fact we know about it.
It could have been made by an Entity, or by random, or every other universe even possible may also exist, or even be a fractal that doesn't exist at all; your "life" being a function of your position in an equation, like a digit in Pi. The 10 millionth digit in Pi doesn't actually exist (but it thinks it does).
This is "effect therefore cause" reasoning and it's obviously backwards. You can argue the cause is a creator and the effect is the universe, but you can't argue the effect is the universe so the cause is a creator.
Liberals do this backward reasoning all the fucking time. Like in Ferguson, Eric Holder said 90% of convictions were black (effect) so therefore it was due to racism (cause). Speeding tickets, SAT scores, everything - it's always disparate effect therefore cause is racism.
Correct, and the possibility of the universe randomly deciding to operate based on logic is so infinitesimally small as to be impossible. Thus the only logical conclusion is that it is non-random. Non-random creation == Design
What's the chance of it randomly deciding to operate on logic? It could be 100% for all you know.
How does a mindless (Godless) universe “decide” anything?
It doesn't; it just exists or doesn't exist. Go back and reread the first comment I wrote.
Nice dodge. You said the chance is the universe exists the way it does is "infinitesimally small", well how do you know that? You're an expert in how universes come to exist?
What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?
Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...
That’s an odd take on “hey guys, I know people here fall on both sides of this debate, come check out a discussion happening on the subject in a more appropriate community”, but, whatever lol.
I think you misunderstood why I reference those substances. It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”. Their abundance on our planet is almost the cherry on top, certainly not the point.
They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?
Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?
That's not a proof that mindbogglingly improbable is equal to impossible. That's a proof that 0.999... is another way of writing 1.
The key aspect is that it is specifically infinitely repeating 9. Saying "infinitely improbable" may be equivalent to "impossible" but is again vastly different from "definable but very largely improbable". The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category. Comparing infinite to finite numbers always makes the scale of the finite number utterly irrelevant.
There's nothing special about those elements and compounds, chemically silicone is a perfectly viable analogue to biological carbon and ammonia could fill many of the roles of water in strong hydrogen bonding and proton exchange, It's just the evolutionary fine tuning necessary for making complex enzymes work that stops them being immediately interchangable.
And to your example of the rather unique trait that water expands as it freezes: That is actively detrimental to life, it's the cause of frostbite and the death of many plants, and of no benefit in any molecular biology process that I know of. As a "design" trait it is not just flawed it's counter productive. But as a random trait it's just unfortunate.
Correct, they are statistically identical, but in your day to day life, if one guy kept winning the lottery, it would (hopefully) get your noggin joggin’, because you (hopefully) understand how pattern recognition, the lottery, and humans all work, to a limited extent. It would be a clear hallmark of design, a plan behind the pattern.
Not currently the case for even the smartest minds, or a mathematically rigorous rejection of the fine-tuned universe argument would be readily available for you or anyone else to find and share (there isn’t one)
This is an assertion. I’ve proven with math that in fact, the possibility is so vanishingly small as to be, for all intents and purposes, impossible. Have you followed the link and actually read the OP of this post? This is just a cross-post, unfortunately stripped of all the detail present in the original version. Which is why I recommended from the start that people post there.
And here a direct example of where human intuition is typically terrible at judging probabilities. Why should my noggin be joggin more about one equally probable outcome than the other?
Definable is not defined. I suspect you can't provide me with exactly how many people live in the USA right this second. It is definable, but not currently defined, but it would be absurd to claim that is proof that there are infinite people.
No you haven't proven anything, you've made an incorrect statement that large==infinite, and insisted on sticking with it even when it's pointed out. The patience required to teach you the proper process of mathematical proof in the face of that obstinacy would not be infinite, but it is very large. And I'm afraid I just don't have it in me to put up with these deluded claims all day.
Ok, so you don’t understand limit theory, that might be a good place for you to start.
The fact that you quoted the “why” and still ask this is sad, I don’t know how to spell it out more than it already has been. Try rereading that part.
Boltzmann brains are statistically guaranteed to happen.
Time is infinite and you struggle with that concept and its consequences.
These would be true in an infinite universe, but that is far from a decided subject. The vast, vast majority of theoretical weight is put behind a universe with a beginning, and thus it’s implicit end.
Both god and mathematics are outputs of the human mind adapting a pareidolic or apophenic framework for finding a solution for existing.
Whilst neither are right or wrong, the observable universe presents no final solution to itself and faith is equally as useless to provide as evidence agreed upon by any outside of those who share that belief.
I say we all keep an eye out for what the mice and dolphins are up to and be ready on our toes when they start to disappear.
There’s been an honest debate amongst intellectuals for going on thousands of years now about whether math is invented or discovered
I do appreciate the Adamsian wisdom and the acknowledgement of the known unknowns for what they currently are, unknown. But I’m of the mind that we can come to know much if we dedicate ourselves to the pursuit. Certainly enough.
There is nothing wrong with taking part in the pursuit with either faith and/or reason Graphenium, I applaud your efforts however you go about it.
I just, personally, don't think that we will ever get to a place without doubt being a healthy attitude to hold onto over certainty - and it seems to me that is the whole point of the experience of existence.
I hope you have fun on your journey and get 'enough' to sate your scepticism to keep you from being cynical.
You could very well be correct (hah)
Cheers man
This significantly dumbs down what "God"* means, as he needn't even be a mind; merely an eternal depth of transcendent organization.+ I assert that [C]onsciousness is not describable by math or science; and [G]oodness is not usually described even by philosophy or by religion. These [C][G] are necessary to embody the implied "ultimate mindful transcendent good personal power" loaded into the modern term "God"*. So math DOES show the mere transcendent aspect of God's internal organization, as expressed in his creation; it fails to name him, or even to imply he's a he. That's all.
+ a presence without necessary personhood, effectiveness without necessary design (though this one is a koan), transcendent data without necessary self-awareness
* the All-Thing, possessing:
the ability to be everywhere he wants
the power to accomplish whatever his goals
the every knowledge he desires
WANTS/GOALS/DESIRES that drive these
Ultimate goodness that roots these W/G/D
All without needing any help
All without precedent or peer
Baby steps...
Interesting post!
My favorite cosmological-type argument is along this vein (Kalaam), and even it fails to infer personality. There's a reason, I think. Historical and testimonial evidence matters, too, and the further/higher aspects of God - beyond the systematic experimentable perfections - are granted as gifts in the histories, as God acted among us... leading to a literal invite to "come and join the court, as re-adopted family"; which invite grows up right from God's well-established fatherliness.
Yeah, beautifully put - I think asking for “proof” of the personal God is akin to asking “what happened before the Big Bang” - it’s an obvious desire we all logically seek to understand, but based on our limited understanding of physics and metaphysics it may take a form we can’t currently comprehend. At least, I have trouble picturing a means by which to demonstrate a personal God to someone asking for proof. People could start performing miracles and an observer could still conceive of a universe with impersonal divinity which could be put to work through some mechanism (i.e. “magic”) - just as an example scenario - it’s almost like the “personal God” starts within us and is projected out into the world, once we open our minds to the possibility, we see the evidence all around us...
I hope even part of that ramble made sense lol
You're thinking. It's enough.
1/137
That’s a great example
If you prefer browsing via communities.win :
https://communities.win/c/Atheist/p/17s5toTs7J/1-if-god-did-not-exist-the-appli/c
I know this community has a diversity of belief on the subject of belief, and given its relatively high level of discourse I think there are more than a few people here who would enjoy the discussion.
Math, physics, chemistry are highly effective maps of the natural world, so effective you can make predictions about how some stuff will act or behave.
The argument that math and the complex symbol systems required by chemistry, physics, and so forth MUST have been existing out there in the ether or in the mind of an anthropomorphic, omniscient, and omnipotent god has never made sense to me. The latter is just a weird fairy tale left over from when most people believed, not the Bible necessarily but priestly readings of it. Protestant rejection of priestly interpretation made room for empiricism, but they eventually threw the supernatural baby out with the bathwater.
This is why I'm a Buddhist and why "god" is simply shorthand for the condition that gives rise to being born in a body, for naming whatever may be going on before birth and after death.
Is that not the obvious case? The universe developed for billions and billions of years according to these physical laws with no humans around to write them down symbolically. Simultaneously, these laws don’t physically “exist” in the sense that they aren’t written down anywhere. Protons aren’t labeled “this side up”, yet somehow the universe knows just how to proceed, in all respects.
Can you think of anything “real” which can’t be explained/modeled by math? How could a mindless universe be so totally governed by something which is synonymous with mind? It’s (LITERALLY) illogical
And just so you know, this post isn’t suggesting any specific God over another, it’s about trying to find common ground where everyone can congregate to through logical argument, from where the discussion could branch off in many interesting directions
I can't think of anything. Human thought is mapped by language, and I suppose that involves some mathematical principles, so, yes . . . I just need to keep in mind Korzybski's adage, "The map is not the territory."
Bleach is mostly water, we're mostly water, therefore we are bleach and you should drink it.
I hate false equivalences like this. They're so easy to disprove and offer no logical argument.
Their first position is an assumption. I've always had this issue with religion debaters. They make an assumption and then try to prove everything based on that unproven assumption.
You clearly haven’t thought about what the title is saying if that retarded non-sequitor was what you were inspired to share.
P.S. bleach is bleach, water is water, and this sockpuppet which comments once every 10 days isn’t fooling anyone
Premise 1 is faulty. Premise 2 is not demonstrated.
Premise 1 is accurate. You aren’t making anything approaching an argument.
Premise 2 is demonstrated through the fact you’re typing your message to me on a device you don’t understand the first thing about.
Maybe, but premise 1 is faulty and vague whether or not I did. For one, how precisely would one define 'applicability' and 'happy coincidence'? Does it mean that there's no mathematics if there is no god, that 2+2 could equal 4 one moment and 5 another? Or that the fact that it is, is a 'coincidence'?
I don't see why this does not have to be true in any universe, whether or not a god exists.
Logic is synonymous with mind. How could mind govern a mindless universe?
The point being, “mathematics” becomes a meaningless word in a universe governed by chaos, randomness, and meaninglessness (i.e. God-less). I implore you to describe such a universe, hopefully such that you will see its utter implausibility
Is it? Even mindless processes proceed logically.
Do you mean that the mere fact of God's existence (according to you) imbues mathematics with meaning for everyone, or that the word mathematics only has meaning to people who believe in a god?
I just don't see it, nor its implausibility, at least as it specifically relates to mathematics. If you believe in a god, and think that the laws of mathematics are laws posited by the divinity, then it may seem obvious - sort of a William Paley watch argument - but not to me.
The best argument for a god I've heard is the cosmological argument. Everything has a cause, at least in our experience. But what caused the universe to come into existence? A god is a decent hypothesis for that. What then caused god? Some religious people say that this necessitates a cause that stands outside of time.
Here do you refer to something like “cause and effect”? A “mindless” star runs out of Hydrogen and thus implodes? It is my contention that the reason for the the universe proceeding logically can only be a logical mind (God) underpinning these processes. So the notion that even “mindless” parts of the universe proceed according to logic does indeed bolster my point. Unless you meant something else by “mindless processes”?
What I mean is, in a Godless universe mathematics should be no more privileged than smathematics (which is like mathematics but every number and logical operation is replaced with a mashed potato). The only conceivable reason for the applicability of math and logic to the universe is that the universe was designed with math and logic in mind. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Do you get where I’m coming from? Can you conceive of a counter-argument?
Fair enough, I probably wouldn’t have grokked the argument immediately back in my materialist reductionist days either. We can back up a bit: do you think math is fundamentally woven into the universe, or do you think math is fundamentally a human-created overlay with which we can analyze the world and it just so happens to have an utterly absurd degree of overlap? Are the mechanisms of the universe proceeding via mathematics and logic, or do they merely appear to be that way?
Yeah same, it allows for the invigorating discussion without being bogged down by the baggage of dogma. Have you read much on the fine-tuned universe argument?
I think God would be that “cause standing outside of time[/space/“the universe”]”, but that’s just a logical intuition of mine.
It is an example of what I meant. But this is something that can't be refuted or proven in any way. If we imagine an alternative universe that did not have a logical mind underpinning it, what might it look like? What would be different? I don't think anything in logic itself dictates how stars should behave. You could also talk about things like non-contradiction and basic math. Is there a possible universe where 2+2 equals 5, and propositions are simultaneously true and false?
No, but I think I can reply to it. This sounds a lot like a sort of deistic Platonism. Where Plato argued that mathematics, as well as a whole host of things, were what they were because they participated in certain 'forms', and he later semi-abandoned it because forms cannot be demonstrated, nor shown where they are - later thinkers like Augustine argued that forms are actually ideas in the mind of god. You seem to be making a similar sort of argument.
I think it's very persuasive, or rather appealing, when you apply this to things that are not as exact - like morality. Good being a form in the mind of god nicely rounds out the whole thing. But applied to mathematics? You seem to be taking the divine origin of mathematics as axiomatic, and as such, it really can't be refuted - just like you can't refute Euclid, but you can propose alternatives which start out from different axioms.
So basically, realism or instrumentalism? In my uninformed opinion, basic math is realist, while the more specialized you get, the more instrumentalist it might get. Of course, you don't even know, because for 2 centuries we thought that Newton described everything perfectly, until it turned out that things are different with relativistic speeds or at subatomic levels. So maybe we're off too right now, even if slightly?
Nothing actually. I'm only familiar with some of the arguments because they're part of history. I assume this is the argument that even a very tiny change in the conditions would have resulted in there being no humans, or perhaps even no universe? I can think of some counter-arguments against that. Perhaps there would have been other forms of life. It's also hard to judge it from the inside. Even if it is unlikely for things to be as they are, in any hypothetical universe where the conditions were not ripe for intelligent life, there would be no people to contemplate why things are the way they are.
That's what I meant. You can say that there was nothing before the Big Bang, or you can say that a god put it into motion - which is as good a hypothesis as any, probably even better. Far more persuasive than the ontological argument say.
Well, for starters, math wouldn’t provide such a useful tool for modeling reality. 2+2 really could be equal to mashed potato. Such a universe would be governed by illogic. Existence would be truly meaningless in every sense of the word. There would be no correspondence between cause and effect. So on and so forth.
I’m wrapping the “Laws of Physics” into the broader umbrella concept of “Applicability of Mathematics to Reality”. The star functions the way it does (mostly) because of the interplay of gravity, nuclear fusion, and electromagnetism. The reason for these processes playing out by logical, coherent rules is ultimately the observable fact that our universe is governed by logic.
I’m not trying to be tautological, though I understand how these arguments could be interpreted that way. The key point is that there is no reason why mathematics should be so applicable to reality that it has long been called “the language of nature”, unless you include the possibility of intelligent design. You could say, “I believe in the thing so mind bogglingly implausible that it could be rightly said that the possibility of its occurrence is approaching 1/∞” but that is just an inferior answer in my opinion.
So two things:
Firstly - even the parts of math we think don’t apply to reality often end up astoundingly showing up in some theretofore poorly understood realm. A great example of this are the imaginary numbers and their associated operations.
Secondly - “Math” isn’t a physical thing right? It is, like Plato’s forms, an idealized abstraction that exists only in the minds of humans (as far as we know), right? So for math to be “real”, that means this idealized, non-physical form must also be real, but somehow existing outside of the universe. If one can accept this, God is basically just a name given by us to this underlying order and meaning which exists outside of, and was wholly responsible for shaping, the universe itself.
Oh it’s good stuff. Basically what you describe and variations on the theme usually dealing with changes in scale. One of the most interesting versions I’ve seen even applied the logic to the evolution of universes themselves, in an assumed multiversal situation. I can look for the link if you’re interested, I think I posted it a while back.
Yes, this is effectively the “Anthropic Principle”, which is admittedly the best attempt at a counter-argument I’ve come across, but I agree with Roger Penrose that to invoke it provides no explanatory power at all, and is in fact the far more tautological option than concluding a higher order intelligence behind the universe (imo at least).
Glad to find a subject we have so much agreement on. Maybe we can sharpen each others arguments to better effect!
You fucked up the inversion ya troglodyte. It's:
If god doesn't exist I just won the lottery by random chance. I didn't just win the lottery by random chance. Therefore god exists.
It's clause two that is an unprovable overstatement, but you fucked up and made clause 1 a non-sequitur
You're argueing with a 20 cent JIDF jewish troll. Dont bother
I like to remind him he's retarded occasionally, it's like zen gardening to me.