Monday, April 18, 2005

Hey, I got your big bang right here!

In researching some web sites on the Big Bang for a lecture I have to give on Wednesday I ran into a theist posing religious questions connected to the Big Bang. I don't know why theists feel so threatened by scientific inquiry. Maybe it because in their hearts they know they are just passing along old stories made up by long dead shepards while the world has gone right along and invented things like moveable type and pizza delivery.

Anyway, this guy lists the 5 basic premises for the existence of god. I list them here followed by my comments.

  1. The cosmological argument: the effect of the universe's existence must have a suitable cause.
Why? Isn't it just as possible that we can ask questions that don't have good answers yet. Some among us are egotistical enough to stamp our feet and demand that the universe be explained and then posit the existence of a super being and call that an explanation.
  1. The teleological argument: the design of the universe implies a purpose or direction behind it.
The design of the universe only implies a purpose if you already believe in a super being. Then, you use this argument to back up your previous beliefs. No fair. The universe cannot imply anything. It's just the's big but still....
  1. The rational argument: the operation of the universe, according to order and natural law, implies a mind behind it.
See above argument. The universe only "implies" things to the theist. I just like to look at the stars!
  1. The ontological argument: man's ideas of God (his God-consciousness) implies a God who imprinted such a consciousness..
Can you say circular argument? Because I got the idea of a god, god must have given it to me. Give me a break. This guy would fail plane geometry! And, by the way, exactly how does the imprinting work? I'm guesing 'in mysterious ways'.
  1. The moral argument: man's built-in sense of right and wrong can be accounted for only by an innate awareness of a code of law--an awareness implanted by a higher being.
Ocam's razor implores us to always go for the simplest explanation. Which is easier to believe: People managing to evolve via cooperation in a hostile environment or the existence of a super being that knows what we are doing even though there is no evidence for his/her existence? Discuss.

I know these are all numbered 1. I hate word!


Jason said...

With reasoning like this, how do religious leaders manage to hold captive 95% of the population. These are the worst arguments for the existence of God that I have read to date.

Scott said...

Keep 'em stupid
Keep 'em afraid
Promise 'em everything