you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The assumption there is no designer for the universe is just that. It is an unnatural assumption posited because if there is a designer you are obligated to find out who He is and follow His instructions rather than do whatever you want.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If the universe must have a designer because it is orderly, then the designer is far too orderly to not be designed also. You have the same question, how did the designer come to be. Why is it that you think a God can create itself or exist independently of time, when you have stated the impossibility of this exact scenario for why the universe must have a creator.

This is just kicking the can down the road on the creation question, and violates Occam's razor by adding unneeded layers of complexity.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ever heard of the well ordering axiom? There has to be a first cause, not caused by anything else. We know a priori that this must be the case. It is a principle of metaphysics that can’t be and doesn’t have to be proved. Did the universe have a beginning? Yes. Hence it cannot be the first cause.

Occam can shove his razor where the sun don’t shine. You don’t have to exist but you do. Is the idea that you exist an unneeded hypothesis? Maybe you are just a robot. The hypothesis that you are human can be explained away some other way. Shall we then be justified in assuming that you don’t exist until you can prove your own existence? Is this science? Perhaps. But is this true?

[–]ephrem_moseley 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

First of all, violating Occam's razor is possible.

Second, have you ever heard of Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument?

If we are designed, that does not imply that we necessarily have the ability to understand the designer, now does it?

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, I remember churchy people like you that tried to force people to be religious. You can't.