“@SoCalTheologian: Evidence 4 #God = Big Bang, fine tuning, DNA Code, +5 arguments from Logic”
Firstly it’s a misnomer, but that’s besides the point.
The Big Bang in no way evidences god(s).
I have heard it used in arguments like so:
“Everything that begins to exist must have a creator. Therefore the universe must have a creator who is uncaused, eternal and blah blah blah.”
Codswallop in my opinion.
Everything must have an explanation but not necessarily a sentient creator.
The effect of the Big Bang is such that the laws of physics as we know them essentially came into effect at that point, including time. If you have no before the big bang then you don’t necessarily need time for any precursor.
Also this falls into the “something from nothing” arguments which are also made irrelevant by our understanding of ‘absolute nothing’ being an incomparable, non-state of being and by the observation that what we think of as nothing, being unstable and giving rise to matter/energy by itself.
I have already covered here
But for the sake of keeping it succinct..
Fine Tuning is an illusion of statistics. Yes it’s a narrow band of chance for what you see around you today to have occurred if you trace the probability tree back to the Big Bang.
But pick any other possible outcome and your probabilities will also be astronomical because you are pursuing a set outcome over a long time with many variables.
This seemingly complex code is the result of literally billions of years of trial and error of random mutations.
To say that code must have a coder who is intelligent is utter bilge.
The code we are looking at has been guided by natural selection etc. from simple, humble origins of replicating chain molecules.
This also smacks of the watchmaker fallacy in that we see sequences that are man made vs natural, but then the theist posits that the natural ones must also be intelligently created.
Nonsense and illogical non-reasoning at it’s worst.
5 Arguments from logic
It’s tempting to use the fact that these are outdated philosophies as a reason to just say they aren’t evidence in the scientific sense but let’s get rid of them properly..
Argument from first cause.
If you posit this argument then I posit the Universe itself as the prime cause.
The nature of the beginning of the universe with reference to the laws of quantum physics implies no need for a creator.
Morals are a social construct rooted in empathy. Ethics are subjective / relative to the society in which people are found. Convergent ethical standards set the limit for the universality of objective morals.
See Watchmaker fallacy above. Comparing design with non-design and then asserting that non-designed things are also designed is bad inductive reasoning.
The idea of “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” is a flawed one on the following grounds.
Firstly, that you can always conceive of a greater being.
Secondly, that the greatness of something is relative and in many examples cannot be universally agreed upon.
Addendum, for the sake of completeness here are Aquinas’s 5 Arguments and my responses
Argument from motion.
See quantum physics above for Big Bang.
Argument from efficient causes.
Again this was covered. If you posit this argument then I posit the Universe itself as the prime cause.
Argument from possibility/necessity.
This assumes god exists and works backwards. Irrelevant reasoning with flawed premise and faulty conclusion.
Argument from gradation of being
Is not an argument for god any more than an argument for nature. Once more the problem here is the assumption of god first and forcing the conclusion to fit.
Argument from design.
Anyone else have any good arguments or evidence for god?
I’d love to hear them. I’ve debunked the above separately many times and they get quite boring.
Also any points / nuances I’ve failed to cover, you are welcome to leave in the comments.