[Copernicus'] Firm Conviction That God Does Not Exist (response thread)

[Storm]

Copernicus' OP from original thread:
Actually, I am firmly convinced that no gods exist, but it is much easier to reject belief in the Abrahamic God, whose omnimax qualities tend to make him an impossible being. But most people in my world believe in some version of the Abrahamic God, so I'm happy to pick on that one here. I have given a lot of thought to this since I became an atheist decades ago, and the conviction has only grown stronger over time.

In general, I cannot find any reasonable evidence to support belief in gods (spirit beings that have absolute power over some aspect of reality), but that is not what makes my rejection of theism a conviction. What makes it a conviction is the convergent set of positive observations that render god-belief untenable:

1. Minds require brains to sustain existence. Spirit beings have brainless minds.
2. Complex living beings are not intelligently designed. The diversity of life is comprehensively explained by Darwin's theory of common descent with modification by natural selection.
3. Human beings are obviously prone to inventing false religions to explain their world and help them cope with it.
4. Prayer does not work. In fact, nothing else seems to fail quite so often and quite so spectacularly.
5. Religious belief always retreats in the face of alternative natural explanations. IOW, there are no miracles.
6. Evil exists, despite the claim that an omnipotent gop opposes it.
7. God is silent, although there is no good reason why he should be incapable of tangible, overt communication with us.

I could go on, but that list is sufficient for now. Note that nothing on the list is a claim that I know to be true in an absolute sense. All of these points are based on my experience of life, which, of course, is limited. However, it is not any single one of these observations that licenses rejection of theism. It is the fact that they corroborate the conviction.

 

[3.14]

 

[Storm]

Minds require brains to sustain existence. Spirit beings have brainless minds.

While not groundless, the point is still an assumption. What's your response to the notion that the brain is simply the body's interface with the soul?

Complex living beings are not intelligently designed. The diversity of life is comprehensively explained by Darwin's theory of common descent with modification by natural selection.

Another assumption. What about theistic evolution?

Human beings are obviously prone to inventing false religions to explain their world and help them cope with it.

Every religion I'm aware of also teaches that God is ultimately ineffable. The logical conclusion (though one I'll admit many religious folk shy away from) is that the religion's understandings of God must therefore be flawed. Some respond to this with the notion that religions are "paths up a mountain." The individual paths are incredibly different, but they all lead to the same destination.

Prayer does not work. In fact, nothing else seems to fail quite so often and quite so spectacularly.

I actually agree with this one, but wonder what you make of the argument that the studies are flawed. The most common objection I know of is that the very nature of prayer makes the double-blind standard impoosible to achieve.

I also have to admit that, were I a God, I'd probably not answer such prayers just to mess with people.

Religious belief always retreats in the face of alternative natural explanations. IOW, there are no miracles.

The "always" makes this is patently false. My devotion is unthreatened by science. For instance, the power of my theophany (and attendant miracle) is unaffected by my study of neurotheology, the science devoted to understanding such experiences. I now understand, as well as an ungifted layman might, the naturalistic mechanisms that allowed me to experience what I did. This information has, if anything, strengthened my conviction.

Evil exists, despite the claim that an omnipotent gop opposes it.

I'm pretty sure "gop" was a typo, but it's a rather funny one.

Anyway, the problem of evil is indeed a difficult one, but it is not without solution.

God is silent, although there is no good reason why he should be incapable of tangible, overt communication with us.

Unless experiences such as mine are correctly interpreted.

Note that nothing on the list is a claim that I know to be true in an absolute sense.

Duly noted, and much appreciated.

I'd like to add a disclaimer of my own, which is that I'm not trying to shake your conviction. I just really enjoy discussing them.

 

[darkendless]

I disagree with 6. Evil is our own short-commings and claiming evil simply means passing the guilt on to something else (whatever that may be) because we're to gutless to take responsibility for our actions.

I agree with 4. When it comes to mainstream religion God is ordered, perfect. Yet when it comes to prayers being answered (or lack thereof) they're so rediculously random that it seems there is something wrong.

I share your idealogy (Copernicus). I think there is no reasonable reason to believe in God. I've been programmed to demand evidence, and to be able to critically evaluate evidence presented to me. Every version of God i've ever been presented with falls well short of the mark.

 

[sandandfoam]

Nice quote. Sophistry, but a nice quote. However it's not a competition, is it? You don't believe in God - Fine, if that fits you then I'm happy for you.
Do you think it makes you superior to those who do?

 

[Katzpur]

Thanks for starting this thread, Storm. I probably won't have a whole lot to say, because debates of this sort always end up being so unproductive. I did want to just respond briefly to Copernicus' statements, though.Minds require brains to sustain existence. Spirit beings have brainless minds.

Complex living beings are not intelligently designed. The diversity of life is comprehensively explained by Darwin's theory of common descent with modification by natural selection.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. All life, and human life in particular, is so complex that it is impossible for me to accept the notion that it "just happened." Natural selection is believable and logical, up to a point, but there is so much that it can't explain to my satisfaction that I simply cannot accept that there was not a higher power at the helm.

Human beings are obviously prone to inventing false religions to explain their world and help them cope with it.

Of course they are. That has absolutely nothing to do with God's existance, though.

Prayer does not work. In fact, nothing else seems to fail quite so often and quite so spectacularly.

My prayers do. I know that and will continue to insist that they do because I would be lying to say otherwise. I'm pretty sure Copernicus has less personal experience with my prayers than I do.

Religious belief always retreats in the face of alternative natural explanations. IOW, there are no miracles.

And atheists are always looking for alternative natural explanations, even when there aren't any. A miracle involves something that can't be explained by our current knowledge or that appears to conflict with current scientific knowledge. It's the theists way of saying that we don't know everything. Atheists don't use the word because they seem to be confident that they DO know everything.

Evil exists, despite the claim that an omnipotent god opposes it.

So what? Evil exists for a purpose. It makes it possible for good to also exist. The fact that God's plan doesn't quite jive with the way Copernicus thinks things should work is certainly not proof that He doesn't exist.

God is silent, although there is no good reason why he should be incapable of tangible, overt communication with us.

God is not silent. He speaks to a living prophet today and confirms, through the power of the Holy Ghost, to anyone who sincerely wants to know, that what that prophet says is true.

 

[Inky]

The weak point in here, in my opinion, is number 2. I don't see why an unwillingness to prevent suffering would automatically imply malevolence. Perhaps suffering creates growth so that in the longterm its influence on a person or society is positive. Perhaps God allows people to inflict harm on themselves out of respect for their free will. (I don't believe either of these, but then I'm atheist so I wouldn't have to. Just saying theists don't necessarily accept the premises assumed in this argument.)

The "always" makes this is patently false. My devotion is unthreatened by science. For instance, the power of my theophany (and attendant miracle) is unaffected by my study of neurotheology, the science devoted to understanding such experiences. I now understand, as well as an ungifted layman might, the naturalistic mechanisms that allowed me to experience what I did. This information has, if anything, strengthened my conviction.

I think it's interesting that we seem to have come to such different conclusions from the same sources. My interest in the source of religious or spiritual experiences eventually led me away from theism, but for you it solidified your beliefs. Not sure if I have a profound point here; I just think it's cool.

 

[McBell]

This reminds me of the problems with the question:

So, are you still beating your wife?
​

 

[Storm]

I think it's interesting that we seem to have come to such different conclusions from the same sources. My interest in the source of religious or spiritual experiences eventually led me away from theism, but for you it solidified your beliefs. Not sure if I have a profound point here; I just think it's cool.

Ain't it, though?

 

[Copernicus]

Minds require brains to sustain existence. Spirit beings have brainless minds.

While not groundless, the point is still an assumption. What's your response to the notion that the brain is simply the body's interface with the soul?

That gets us into the question of what a "soul" is. Most people seem to think of it as a disembodied mind, which begs the question of whether souls can exist independently of bodies. There appears to be overwhelming evidence that minds depend on brains for their existence.

What about theistic evolution?

When it comes to evolution, God is an unnecessary hypothesis. There is no reason to believe that an intelligent being has ever intervened in nature to influence biological evolution, and it strikes me as pure human narcissism to assume that we are a product of divine intervention.

Human beings are obviously prone to inventing false religions to explain their world and help them cope with it.

Every religion I'm aware of also teaches that God is ultimately ineffable. The logical conclusion (though one I'll admit many religious folk shy away from) is that the religion's understandings of God must therefore be flawed. Some respond to this with the notion that religions are "paths up a mountain." The individual paths are incredibly different, but they all lead to the same destination.

People who claim that God is ineffable quite clearly do not know what they are talking about. All religious doctrines need to cope with alternative religious doctrines, and ecumenism is only one way to cope with them. Jihad is another. Religious people have never been consistent on how to deal with those who won't go along, especially when they are in the majority. Metaphors are analogies. They are useful for teaching new concepts, but not for establishing truth. But I can play in the metaphor sandbox. From my perspective, believers are wandering off in all directions. (Somewhere on the planet, Wandered Off's ears are burning.)

Prayer does not work. In fact, nothing else seems to fail quite so often and quite so spectacularly.

I actually agree with this one, but wonder what you make of the argument that the studies are flawed. The most common objection I know of is that the very nature of prayer makes the double-blind standard impoosible to achieve.

I don't take any of the research you are referring to seriously. I base this point on repeated and verifiable observation. People of most religious faiths pray to their gods. They all seem to suffer the same good and bad fortune. It works like the cold reading technique that fortune tellers, psychics, and "mind readers" use to con people. That is, people tend to remember correct predictions and forget failed ones. Those who experience good luck after praying for it tend to see that as confirming the power of prayer. The failure of the gods to respond to other prayers is not seen as evidence that the gods don't exist.

I also have to admit that, were I a God, I'd probably not answer such prayers just to mess with people.

If I were a believer, I would pray that God not mess with me.

Religious belief always retreats in the face of alternative natural explanations. IOW, there are no miracles.

The "always" makes this is patently false. My devotion is unthreatened by science. For instance, the power of my theophany (and attendant miracle) is unaffected by my study of neurotheology, the science devoted to understanding such experiences. I now understand, as well as an ungifted layman might, the naturalistic mechanisms that allowed me to experience what I did. This information has, if anything, strengthened my conviction.

I stand by my claim. You have not identified a scientific claim and a religious alternative where the latter has proven correct. Natural explanations always trump supernatural ones when there is a conflict.

Anyway, the problem of evil is indeed a difficult one, but it is not without solution.

I have yet to find that to be the case.

God is silent, although there is no good reason why he should be incapable of tangible, overt communication with us.

Unless experiences such as mine are correctly interpreted.

Unfortunately, we know that any experience can be a delusion, but we would not survive if we did not trust our senses most of the time. So the question is not what you have experienced, but how you support your interpretation with corroborating evidence.

I'd like to add a disclaimer of my own, which is that I'm not trying to shake your conviction. I just really enjoy discussing them.

I would not take offence if you tried to shake my conviction. After all, I was the one who put the chip on my shoulder. Go ahead. You are free to take as many swipes as you like.

 

[Storm]

When it comes to evolution, God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

Ah, but relevance has little bearing on existence.

There is no reason to believe that an intelligent being has ever intervened in nature to influence biological evolution, and it strikes me as pure human narcissism to assume that we are a product of divine intervention.

I agree, but however common that assumption may be, it's not inherent to the notion.

People who claim that God is ineffable quite clearly do not know what they are talking about.

I really hope that joke wasn't intended to be pointed. If it was, what is your objection to this teaching?

All religious doctrines need to cope with alternative religious doctrines, and ecumenism is only one way to cope with them. Jihad is another. Religious people have never been consistent on how to deal with those who won't go along, especially when they are in the majority. Metaphors are analogies. They are useful for teaching new concepts, but not for establishing truth. But I can play in the metaphor sandbox. From my perspective, believers are wandering off in all directions. (Somewhere on the planet, Wandered Off's ears are burning.)

I'm not talking about being ecumenical, and the teaching that God is beyond comprehension is hardly new. In fact, it's at the root of every faith I'm familiar with. It's doctrine, not pr.

I stand by my claim. You have not identified a scientific claim and a religious alternative where the latter has proven correct. Natural explanations always trump supernatural ones when there is a conflict.

... I suspect we have miscommunication. I took your original point to mean that, in a nutshell, science makes people lose faith.

I have yet to find that to be the case.

I don't want to turn this into yet another theodicy thread, but I've solved it to my satisfaction (reinventing the wheel in the process, but whatever). Of course, for me it was merely an intellectual exercise, so perhaps I'm more easily satisfied than others.

Unfortunately, we know that any experience can be a delusion, but we would not survive if we did not trust our senses most of the time. So the question is not what you have experienced, but how you support your interpretation with corroborating evidence.

Well, I don't pretend that the details of my theology are anything more than my best guess atm, but I see corroborating evidence everywhere.

I would not take offence if you tried to shake my conviction. After all, I was the one who put the chip on my shoulder. Go ahead. You are free to take as many swipes as you like.

Good to know, but I still won't. That would be proselytization, which, aside from being against forum rules, is something I deeply loathe.

 

[Copernicus]

...All life, and human life in particular, is so complex that it is impossible for me to accept the notion that it "just happened." Natural selection is believable and logical, up to a point, but there is so much that it can't explain to my satisfaction that I simply cannot accept that there was not a higher power at the helm.

All you are saying is that you cannot imagine how evolution could have produced such vast complexity. The response from Darwinians is that the amount of time it took evolution to produce beings like us is inconceivable from the human perspective, because we measure time in terms of our own brief spans of existence. So your intuition is quite natural, but misguided. The probability that you will see heads every time you flip a coin is the same for each coin flip--50%. But the odds that you will see heads increases dramatically with the number of coin flips. So evolution is hard to imagine when considered from the perspective of beings who tend not to live much beyond a few generations of their own species. I still think that the best explanation of this is to be found in Richard Dawkins' classic The Blind Watchmaker, but he has also written Climbing Mount Improbable to address just this issue that you raise.

The other point to consider is the theistic alternative--that a being far more complex than our universe is needed to explain complexity in our universe.

Human beings are obviously prone to inventing false religions to explain their world and help them cope with it.

Of course they are. That has absolutely nothing to do with God's existance, though.

It has everything to do with the credibility of the claim that God actually exists, though.

Prayer does not work. In fact, nothing else seems to fail quite so often and quite so spectacularly.

My prayers do. I know that and will continue to insist that they do because I would be lying to say otherwise. I'm pretty sure Copernicus has less personal experience with my prayers than I do.

In my experience, people who think that their prayers work generally have a biased opinion on how to tally successes and failures. That is just human nature. It explains why the technique of "cold reading" is so successful for charlatans. But I wouldn't presume to speak to your specific experiences or interpretation of your experiences.

Religious belief always retreats in the face of alternative natural explanations. IOW, there are no miracles.

And atheists are always looking for alternative natural explanations, even when there aren't any. A miracle involves something that can't be explained by our current knowledge or that appears to conflict with current scientific knowledge. It's the theists way of saying that we don't know everything. Atheists don't use the word because they seem to be confident that they DO know everything.

I'll ignore the blatant stereotyping of atheists. My point wasn't made just about non-theists. It holds for people in general, most of whom believe in the supernatural and the existence of one or more gods.

...Evil exists for a purpose. It makes it possible for good to also exist. The fact that God's plan doesn't quite jive with the way Copernicus thinks things should work is certainly not proof that He doesn't exist.

Sorry, but it just does not follow that evil must exist in order for good to exist. That is pure nonsense. However, if evil were the price of good, then I think that the victims of great evil would be willing to make the sacrifice. The sad truth is that none of us experiences evil or good in equal measure, so the best that you could say of your imagined deity is that he is extremely unfair.

God is silent, although there is no good reason why he should be incapable of tangible, overt communication with us.

God is not silent. He speaks to a living prophet today and confirms, through the power of the Holy Ghost, to anyone who sincerely wants to know, that what that prophet says is true.

Perhaps he speaks to you, but I know many Christians who are willing to admit that they don't hear him either. Mother Teresa was a famous example. Many Christians express doubt about the existence of God, even though they tend to the opinion that he does exist. But my statement is not about personal experiences. It is about the kind of communication that is overt enough for everyone to recognize it.

 

[Copernicus]

When it comes to evolution, God is an unnecessary hypothesis.

Ah, but relevance has little bearing on existence.

Well, it certainly has bearing on what one believes about the existence of gods. If they are not necessary to explain our existence, then an important argument in defense of belief in divine creation--the argument from design--goes away.

There is no reason to believe that an intelligent being has ever intervened in nature to influence biological evolution, and it strikes me as pure human narcissism to assume that we are a product of divine intervention.

I agree, but however common that assumption may be, it's not inherent to the notion.

I don't understand your expression "inherent to the notion". It is more reasonable to believe that people's egoes drive them to invent gods--something that recorded history proves we have been prone to do--than that those gods really do exist anywhere but in human imagination.

People who claim that God is ineffable quite clearly do not know what they are talking about.

I really hope that joke wasn't intended to be pointed. If it was, what is your objection to this teaching?

I admit that I was being facetious. The remark is a tautology, after all. My objection to such claims is that they are gratuitous claims. Those who turn to the ineffability defense invariably cherry-pick those aspects of the deity in question that cannot be questioned. They will go on at length about God's nature until they hit a cognitive brick wall, at which point God becomes ineffable. It is a variant of the special pleading fallacy. We'll use logic when it supports the conclusion but abandon it when it doesn't.

I'm not talking about being ecumenical, and the teaching that God is beyond comprehension is hardly new. In fact, it's at the root of every faith I'm familiar with. It's doctrine, not pr.

I think that you make too sweeping a generalization, because not all people of faith are willing to admit that other faiths have equal validity. After all, the concept of heresy is not unfamiliar to those who pursue religious doctrines. Calling it the "root of every faith" is begging the question. Nevertheless, I see this as part of a defensive strategy. How do the faithful explain the existence of alternative religious doctrines? One method, albeit not the only method, is to try to absorb the other doctrines as variants of one's own. (This behavior is not unique to religious ideologues. I recall that Noam Chomsky was once prone to claiming that alternative linguistic theories were mere "notational variants" of his own. That wasn't always true, but it was an effective tactic for convincing adherents of his theory that they could dismiss the alternative proposals.)

... I suspect we have miscommunication. I took your original point to mean that, in a nutshell, science makes people lose faith.

Not quite. My original point was more to the effect that it ought to.

I don't want to turn this into yet another theodicy thread, but I've solved it to my satisfaction (reinventing the wheel in the process, but whatever). Of course, for me it was merely an intellectual exercise, so perhaps I'm more easily satisfied than others.

I don't begrudge you your own conclusions, but it is fair to point out that theodicy does not even satisfy a great many Christians. The existence of evil is frequently cited as a main reason why people reject faith. The existence of evil is not a problem for atheists, as they have no expectation that an all-powerful supernatural agency might have the power to eliminate it.

Well, I don't pretend that the details of my theology are anything more than my best guess atm, but I see corroborating evidence everywhere.

I have no access to what others see, so this argument lacks persuasive value.

I would not take offence if you tried to shake my conviction. After all, I was the one who put the chip on my shoulder. Go ahead. You are free to take as many swipes as you like.

Good to know, but I still won't. That would be proselytization, which, aside from being against forum rules, is something I deeply loathe.

I think that we sometimes put too fine a point on such rules. Where does one draw the line between attempts to persuade and proselytizing? And why would one want to draw such a line in a debate forum?

 

[Beaudreaux]

While not groundless, the point is still an assumption. What's your response to the notion that the brain is simply the body's interface with the soul?


Another assumption. What about theistic evolution?


Every religion I'm aware of also teaches that God is ultimately ineffable. The logical conclusion (though one I'll admit many religious folk shy away from) is that the religion's understandings of God must therefore be flawed. Some respond to this with the notion that religions are "paths up a mountain." The individual paths are incredibly different, but they all lead to the same destination.


I actually agree with this one, but wonder what you make of the argument that the studies are flawed. The most common objection I know of is that the very nature of prayer makes the double-blind standard impoosible to achieve.

I also have to admit that, were I a God, I'd probably not answer such prayers just to mess with people.


The "always" makes this is patently false. My devotion is unthreatened by science. For instance, the power of my theophany (and attendant miracle) is unaffected by my study of neurotheology, the science devoted to understanding such experiences. I now understand, as well as an ungifted layman might, the naturalistic mechanisms that allowed me to experience what I did. This information has, if anything, strengthened my conviction.


I'm pretty sure "gop" was a typo, but it's a rather funny one.

Anyway, the problem of evil is indeed a difficult one, but it is not without solution.


Unless experiences such as mine are correctly interpreted.


Duly noted, and much appreciated.

I'd like to add a disclaimer of my own, which is that I'm not trying to shake your conviction. I just really enjoy discussing them.

OK, one of us has lost it here..

If I am reading this right, you started the thread and are now rebutting yourself. :help:

 

[Storm]

OK, one of us has lost it here..

If I am reading this right, you started the thread and are now rebutting yourself. :help:

No sweetie, Copernicus wrote the OP on another thread. I didn't put it in a quote box because I wanted to make it easier to reply. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Falvlun]

I disagree with 6. Evil is our own short-commings and claiming evil simply means passing the guilt on to something else (whatever that may be) because we're to gutless to take responsibility for our actions.

I don't think the Problem of Evil is an attempt to shift blame. Yes, evil exists and people make crappy choices. They are responsible for those crappy choices.

The point is that if God exists and he is omnipotent, then he could a) stop evil from ever occurring, or b) have created a universe where evil was unnecessary/did not exist.

 

[Apex]

The point is that if God exists and he is omnipotent, then he could a) stop evil from ever occurring, or b) have created a universe where evil was unnecessary/did not exist.

This would violate free will, a fundamental aspect of many religions.

 

[Storm]

Well, it certainly has bearing on what one believes about the existence of gods. If they are not necessary to explain our existence, then an important argument in defense of belief in divine creation--the argument from design--goes away.

Touche.

I don't understand your expression "inherent to the notion".

I mean that a theistic evolutionist needn't think that humans in particular were the end goal.

It is more reasonable to believe that people's egoes drive them to invent gods--something that recorded history proves we have been prone to do--than that those gods really do exist anywhere but in human imagination.

It WAS more reasonable. Now there's scientific research that pretty much proves that "God" wasn't invented at all. Rather, it's the label given to a certain category of expereience, which is neurologically real and distinct.

I admit that I was being facetious. The remark is a tautology, after all.

I did appreciate the joke, I just wasn't sure if it was supposed to be a pointed one.

My objection to such claims is that they are gratuitous claims. Those who turn to the ineffability defense invariably cherry-pick those aspects of the deity in question that cannot be questioned. They will go on at length about God's nature until they hit a cognitive brick wall, at which point God becomes ineffable. It is a variant of the special pleading fallacy. We'll use logic when it supports the conclusion but abandon it when it doesn't.

I disagree. I'll grant you that the tactic you describe is all too common, but God's ineffability is still doctrine. Bad debate strategy doesn't negate that.

I think that you make too sweeping a generalization, because not all people of faith are willing to admit that other faiths have equal validity.

Whoa, where did you get that? Of course they don't. That's not what ineffability means.

Calling it the "root of every faith" is begging the question.

No, it's a simple statement of fact. It's the reason the people who attempt to talk about such things use metaphor and paradox.

Nevertheless, I see this as part of a defensive strategy. How do the faithful explain the existence of alternative religious doctrines? One method, albeit not the only method, is to try to absorb the other doctrines as variants of one's own. (This behavior is not unique to religious ideologues. I recall that Noam Chomsky was once prone to claiming that alternative linguistic theories were mere "notational variants" of his own. That wasn't always true, but it was an effective tactic for convincing adherents of his theory that they could dismiss the alternative proposals.)

That's an interesting perspective.

Not quite. My original point was more to the effect that it ought to.

Then it was no more than an expression of your own bias.

I don't begrudge you your own conclusions, but it is fair to point out that theodicy does not even satisfy a great many Christians. The existence of evil is frequently cited as a main reason why people reject faith. The existence of evil is not a problem for atheists, as they have no expectation that an all-powerful supernatural agency might have the power to eliminate it.

It is fair. It's also fair to point out that the vast majority of people don't care enough about religion to put in the work. (That's not a value judgment, btw. As I pointed out in another thread, few people are truly passionate about any given subject.)

I have no access to what others see, so this argument lacks persuasive value.

It wasn't an argument. You said I should find evidence, and I do. It's all about perspective.

I think that we sometimes put too fine a point on such rules. Where does one draw the line between attempts to persuade and proselytizing? And why would one want to draw such a line in a debate forum?

Well, in my case at least, it's less the rule and more my own aversion. I don't try to persuade when it comes to these subjects. I try to understand, and maybe even come up with a question the other person hasn't considered. If anything, I want to help you strengthen your conviction by showing it to you from new angles. I love it when someone manages to do this for me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unless experiences such as mine are correctly interpreted.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to rephrase that as "unless my interpretation of experiences such as mine is correct"? The way you wrote it originally, it sounds like you're taking it as given that you're unimpeachably right.

I couldn't possibly disagree more. All life, and human life in particular, is so complex that it is impossible for me to accept the notion that it "just happened." Natural selection is believable and logical, up to a point, but there is so much that it can't explain to my satisfaction that I simply cannot accept that there was not a higher power at the helm.

The main problem I see with the argument from complexity for the existence of God is that it necessarily ends up with special pleading: if you're invoking the idea that complex things don't just happen without somehow being caused, then does it really answer anything to explain a complex thing (e.g. us) with an even more complex thing (e.g. God)?

This would violate free will, a fundamental aspect of many religions.

How so?

How would it violate free will to create a situation where creatures can choose between many options, but none of them evil? Isn't this similar to the limitations that we have now, i.e. we can choose between many options, but none of them physically impossible?

 

[Apex]

How so?

How would it violate free will to create a situation where creatures can choose between many options, but none of them evil? Isn't this similar to the limitations that we have now, i.e. we can choose between many options, but none of them physically impossible?

Remind me about this post, don't have time to respond right now, I have class.