Agnostics are the only ones who aren't fools

It's not plausable, for scientific reasons. It's at best an hypothesis with as yet no evidentiary support. When atheists say there's no God, they mean the probability is so close to zero, that one can say such a thing with a high degree of confidence. Just like disease cannot be explained as an imbalance of the basic elements of fire, water, earth, and air. The early universe is know known to have been a place of extreme entropy, where no complex structure could exist. No supernatural thing exists. It's part of science to withhold absolute judgement on things, but that doesn't mean to ignore what we do know.
 
Spidergoat:

The early universe is know known to have been a place of extreme entropy, where no complex structure could exist.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. The early universe was the lowest state of entropy ever experienced in the history of the universe. Entropy increases with time.
 
The initial entropy of the universe was also as large as it could have been, since it was also the entropy of a black hole. Thus, the universe has maximum entropy at the two extremes on the time axis. In each case, the universe is in equilibrium. At each time, the universe is in a static state of total chaos...

Victor Stenger
 
In any case, complexity and organization could only exist after the universe cooled. If there was a God, all traces of it were lost during the big bang.
 
If the universe expanded until every particle were evenly far apart, would that be order or disorder?
 
spidergoat said:
If the universe expanded until every particle were evenly far apart, would that be order or disorder?
Click to expand...

That is high entropy.

Entropy is well defined. Order, disorder and complexity are not in general (unless you specify a particular type, e.g. Kolmogorov complexity and all the associated encodings).
 
Why is that not plausible SG? One could argue that it IS plausible in that we even exist, thus leading to the theory that intelligence is required to create such complexity. Yes, the universe IS complicated, at least, too much imo to be natural.
 
Norsefire said:
However, if you want to take a scientific approach on the concept of a Creator, that is, to say that "there may be an intelligent entity which may have either caused or affected the development of our universe", it becomes plausible.

Religions only give face and identity to this "Creator", but they are largely false.

However, if you take that core concept, not only does it become plausible, but it becomes just as likely or unlikely as, say, the big bang.
Click to expand...
Not true. You are comparing apples and elephants.
Such ideas as the "Big Bang" are all internal to the Universe - i.e. we are inside, and we can only ever take things back to t = 0 in our investigations.

The ideas of a "Creator" are necessarily outside the Universe and thus entirely and absolutely beyond investigation, making them, if nothing else, an irrelevancy.

Further the problem with your "it becomes plausible" statement is that it is as equally as plausible as an infinite other "possibilities" that lie outside of investigation.


And anything that lies absolutely outside of investigation is logically consistent with something that doesn't exist.
 
Norsefire said:
I'm agnostic...




The point is, many atheists seem to always say "there is no God". This is foolish. This is a prime example of atheists making assumptions and passing them as fact. The truth is, nobody knows. So this pretty much automatically makes most atheists, and theists, fools.
Click to expand...

It's a pretty safe assumption.
About as safe an assumption as saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist.

On the other hand, it IS foolish to assume the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist without any evidence of it whatsoever.
 
Its evolutionarily unsupportable to have an assumption like that. You cannot assume things are not, only that they are :p
 
Enmos said:
On the other hand, it IS foolish to assume the Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist without any evidence of it whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Hmm so you make assumptions based on evidence?:confused:

Do you know what an assumption is?
 
S.A.M. said:
Hmm so you make assumptions based on evidence?:confused:

Do you know what an assumption is?
Click to expand...

Ok, wrong choice of words.

Although, assumptions usually are based on some evidence, even if it's only by experience.
 
Enmos said:
Ok, wrong choice of words.

Although, assumptions usually are based on some evidence, even if it's only by experience.
Click to expand...

Not at all. An assumption is held to be true, regardless of whether it is or not. Even in logic, its an expectation that one holds which one expects to eventually have come true.
 
S.A.M. said:
Not at all. An assumption is held to be true, regardless of whether it is or not. Even in logic, its an expectation that one holds which one expects to eventually have come true.
Click to expand...

In order to expect it true, there must be some evidence of the validity of the assumption.
 
No, there is no basis attached to any assumption. That is why its called an assumption. If there was any validity to it, it would be called a fact.
 
S.A.M. said:
No, there is no basis attached to any assumption. That is why its called an assumption. If there was any validity to it, it would be called a fact.
Click to expand...

A fact is supported by enough evidence to be certain about it's validity.
An assumption (to me) is somewhere halfway between no evidence at all and a fact.

The definition of assumption you propose (ok the dictionary probably) is completely unworkable.
No one in their right mind ever makes an assumption defined like that.
 
Enmos said:
A fact is supported by enough evidence to be certain about it's validity.
An assumption (to me) is somewhere halfway between no evidence at all and a fact.

The definition of assumption you propose (ok the dictionary probably) is completely unworkable.
No one in their right mind ever makes an assumption defined like that.
Click to expand...

You may be limited by evidence in your ability to make assumptions. But usually, you make assumptions when there are no facts in evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top