I actually had a request to write about this topic. It’s not exactly my area of expertise, but I thought I’d give it a shot.
Now, I could go into a bunch of history, specifics as to what Wiccans believe and whatnot, but I think it would be a little redundant. There are plenty of sources for that on the internet. Wikipedia has a great article on Wicca.
My main purpose here is to give an Atheistic, or, maybe the more appropriate term might be Naturalistic, view of Wicca.
Wicca is referred to as a “nature-based” religion. What seems apparent are the common themes in Wicca that span many different religions. The idea of a trinity, for instance. Many Wiccans worship the “Triple Goddess;” the Maiden, the Mother, and the Crone. We see this idea in Christianity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We also see this in Hinduism (the Trimurti); Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. (More info on various other trinities can be found here.)
Taking into account the very symbolic nature of these trinities, it’s worthwhile to mention that in its basic form, religion seeks to explain the world around us. As opposed to science, religion seeks to explain our world with decrees and absolute statements through divine revelation.
With that in mind, we can see that the Triple Goddess is symbolic of things such as the phases of the moon and stages of life. Attempts to anthropomorphize the world around us.
These religions were developed long before scientific inquiry was the standard for proof of a claim. Before we understood as much as we do today about physics, Newtonian mechanics, relativity and even that the world is round. The standard explanation for anything in those times was that a god was in charge of the workings of nature.
We can see how these symbols of Wicca reflect that idea. Things such as the phases of the moon symbolized by the phases of life of a goddess.
Essentially, by “nature-based,” this means that everything in nature is anthropomorphized and brought to a level where everything around us is somehow expressive of some human quality. It gives everything a more personal quality, and where the feeling of “connectedness” stems from.
We can’t relate with trees, or the moon, or any other species on this planet outside of a human context. But, when we attribute human qualities to them, they soon become more relatable and filled with a certain “energy” which is, in its most basic sense, an emotional attachment.
A large part of the Wiccan religion is magic. Be it White or Black magic, Wicca centers around this practice.
As with any claims of paranormal activity, be it ghosts, ESP, dowsing, or magic, there is a huge burden on those who make these extraordinary claims to show evidence that these claims are real.
The problem with magic is that there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that it actually works. The people who propose that magic works use vague terms such as “energy” and “intention” or “will.” These terms are meaningless, for several reasons.
The most basic of these reasons is that “energy” is nothing more than the potential to do work. This can be either kinetic or potential. Energy is not an invisible cloud floating around waiting for someone to tell it what to do.
If the proponents of magic intend to claim that it is anything more than kinetic or potential energy, then it is up to them to provide the mechanism for how it works. To simply say that it is mysterious, or that science cannot understand it is meaningless. Let me explain a little further.
To claim that magic can have an effect on the physical world intrinsically means that this “magic” must consist of something physical. I liken it to when people claim that ghosts can move objects in a room, or that ghosts can walk through walls. If a ghost can walk through a wall, then it obviously does not interact with the physical world. This is also the same reason why ghosts cannot be visible. If it were visible, it would have to consist of some physical medium which could reflect light back into the eyes of the perceiver.
A ghost cannot walk through a wall, then in the same instance knock a cup off of a table. Those are two contradicting phenomena. It’s not just that I think it probably couldn’t happen. It is physically impossible, no matter what excuses you use. It violates the laws on which this Universe is based.
In this same way, magic cannot perform work and at the same time consist of something that is not physical. By necessity, any energy able to perform work is detectable by scientific instrumentation. At the end of the day, it all boils down to friction.
In order to perform work, or to actually affect the physical world, there must be friction. One surface against another. To open a door, there must be friction between your hand and the doorknob. To push a cup off of a table, there must be friction between your hand and the cup and the surface of the table. Even, as some magic spells claim, to affect emotions such as love, there must be friction in the brain, causing electric activity in the brain to be sparked by a transfer of electrons.
Any other use of the word “energy” outside of the realm of physicality and friction is simply a ruse to make a claim sound mysterious and beyond our comprehension, to bring the claim beyond the realm of questioning. The word “energy” used in this way is, again, meaningless.
While I am far from an expert on Wicca, there are some glaring similarities between it and many other world religions. The anthropomorphizing of nature, the idea of a trinity, forms of magic and spells and an overall manifestation of mystery around normal, everyday phenomena.
From a Naturalistic or Atheistic perspective, Wicca really is no different from any other religions except maybe for the fact that personal control over the environment is deemed possible through the influence of magic. In most other religions, this control over the environment is only possible through the influence of the godhead, or in the case of monotheism, the god of that particular religion.
Essentially, Wicca is another attempt to explain the world through supernatural means. A way to get easy answers to the complicated questions, such as the origin of the Universe.
Do we really need God to give us our morals? No.
Do you disagree? Well, let me provide the evidence necessary to change your opinion.
In this essay, I intend to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that our ideas of morality stem not from some Divine Authority, but are merely value judgments based entirely upon the goals of the society in general.
To be more specific, morality is not an independent idea, something that exists abstractly, either objectively or transcendent to the human species.
Morality is a property of social structure, contingent upon the existence of a society. It is a manifestation of the desires of a group of people; not a Divine Mandate from a god in the sky.
Example By Analogy
Let us take logic, for example. Logic is, of course, a set of rules. But, to be clear, no one “came up with” or “invented” logic. Logic is the expression of a well-structured argument. People have discovered the properties of logic by discovering what makes for a good argument. What are the properties of an argument that can withstand scrutiny? These properties are what make an argument “logical.”
For an argument to be logical, it must obey certain rules. It must be devoid of logical fallacies. One cannot argue from authority, use ad hominem attacks, use post hoc reasoning, etc. These methods do not lead to rational conclusions, simply due to their illogical nature. They aren’t illogical because someone decided that they aren’t. They’re illogical because of their property of being illogical. They don’t possess logical properties.
This could possibly be because they do not deal with the facts and the evidence. Simply and clearly, logical thinking is merely the manifestation of a sound argument. Logic does not exist on its own, independent of the arguments that it governs.
If there were no people debating, making claims or arguing about anything, logic would not exist. Logic is contingent upon the premises and conclusions it governs.
How Does This Apply To Morality?
Morality is to human behavior as logic is to premises and conclusions. Morality is a property of human behavior. We require sound argumentation to have a foundation for reality. For society to exist the way it does, there are certain things that must or must not take place; things which morality governs.
Morality would not exist without humans valuing one behavior over another. To be more specific, morality is an abstract manifestation of the goals of a society or social structure.
This is evident by the fact that there are countless cultures on our planet. Each has their own rites, rituals and ceremonies (morals) which express the values of that particular society.
For example, the ancient Aztecs practiced Cannibalism. American culture views this act as “immoral.” But, for the Aztecs, it was part of their way of life. It expressed the goals of that society. For them, the property of “morality” was associated with Cannibalism; it was contingent upon their values.
Some Islamic cultures punish stealing with the cutting off of the hand. Many cultures view this as immoral. Yet, it is moral and, in fact, just in the eyes of these people to administer this type of punishment.
It all has to do with value judgments. What does one culture value as compared with another?
To reinforce this point, it should be mentioned that a society does not “crumble” if certain morals aren’t followed. It simply becomes a different society with different moral properties. Those who claim that society will crumble are merely afraid of society not valuing what they value any longer.
Conflict arises when one culture believes that it possesses absolute Truth, or that its values take precedence over the values of another culture. When one culture collectively looks down on another culture for not having their same moral values.
This happens prominently in religious circles. Pride is the driving force. Christians and Muslims feel that their view of reality (AKA: their God’s view of reality) takes precedence over the values of any other worldview, and therefore, these “other” worldviews are incorrect. Consequently, these other cultures are deemed to deserve eternal punishment for their difference in value judgments.
God And Morality
When invoking God in the moral argument, there are only 2 paradigms available. Either (a) God is the one who decides what morality is, or (b) morals are transcendent and even God is subject to them.
If one is to adhere to the former idea (a), that God is the ultimate judge of what is moral, then God (the Biblical God) is a hypocrite. The book of Job is a perfect example of this.
What is God’s reason for allowing Satan to bring all of the horrible things described in the Bible to befall Job? It was not for any evil that Job had done.
(Job 1:6-12 KJV)
1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
It is made plain at the very opening of this book that Job had not sinned. Yet, God still allows evil to happen to Job. Why is God doing as Satan asks??
On the other hand, if one was to assume that morality is transcendent, beyond God; that God is subject to this morality, one would have no choice but to deem God as evil. One cannot read about all of the genocide and horrid acts done by the command of God in the Bible and still conclude that these acts are moral in any way, shape or form.
It is quite clear that morality is merely a manifestation of the desires of a group of people. Groups with different desires have different “moralities;” different value judgments.
To claim that one’s values are better or have more Truth value is to impose one’s views upon others. Arrogance in the highest degree.
The Golden Rule is usually a great place to start in considering moral values. But, even the Golden Rule is not universal. Consider the argument ad Hitlerium: would you treat Hitler the way you would want to be treated? Of course not. It would not be moral.
I think the main point I want to make here is that there are no demonstrably universal moral values; values that hold for every person, under every circumstance. And I think this argument strikes a very hard blow to the argument that there are objective or transcendent moral values.
I would only conclude that it’s possible that I’m completely incorrect here, but it would take a lot of convincing. That would mean evidence and logical arguments. In other words, arguments with logical properties. Feel free!
Anyway, read a book. It’s good for you.
Ok, so I finally finished reading The Qur’an. It took entirely too long. Just a little over 3 weeks. I suppose the fact that The Qur’an is basically the same things said over and over again didn’t help matters. It was just plain boring. It may sound disrespectful, but it’s absolutely true. The Bible was at least much more interesting with the whole storyline and plot.
There’s no plot or storyline with The Qur’an. It sort of reminded me of a journal or a diary. As thoughts came to Mohammad, he would write them down, whether they dealt with things from a week ago, a year ago, or yesterday.
In fact, I have a translation of The Qur’an by J.M. Rodwell, and in the introduction, he states…
It was, in fact, at first not a book, but a strong living voice, a kind of wild authoritative proclamation, a series of admonitions, promises, threats and instructions addressed to turbulent and largely hostile assemblies of untutored Arabs…To speak of the Koran is, therefore, practically the same as speaking of Muhammad, and in trying to appraise the religious value of the book one is at the same time attempting to form an opinion of the prophet himself.
I must say, though, that if I were to throw my hat into the religious circle, I’d probably believe The Qur’an over the Bible.
The Qur’an VS The Bible
The Qur’an largely agrees with everything in the Bible. The Bible is even in some instances referred to as a “Luminous” book in The Qur’an. The main difference between The Qur’an and the Bible is that The Qur’an does not recognize Jesus as being equal with, or one with God. And this makes more sense from a monotheistic perspective.
The Qur’an denies the doctrine of The Trinity. And, I have to agree. God can’t be one and three at the same time. That’s called polytheism – in The Qur’an and to anyone with common sense.
Also, there is no “salvation” to speak of in The Qur’an. There is no mysterious rite of passage involving saying a certain set of words (being “Born Again”). As long as you are faithful, do good deeds and obey The Qur’an, you will get to Heaven. Again, I think this makes more sense.
The Qur’an On Its Own Merits
Now, I may have done a lot of “agreeing” in the previous section. But, that does not mean that, on the whole, I think The Qur’an is a good book. Quite the opposite. It’s just as bad, and in some cases worse, than the Bible.
First of all, women are treated as property. Take, for example, Sura 4, entitled “Women,” verses 35-38…
35 Thus, virtuous women are obedient, and preserve their trusts, such as God wishes them to be preserved.
36 And those you fear may rebel, admonish, and abandon them in their beds, and smack them.
37 If they obey you, seek no other way against them.
38 God is Highest and Mightiest.
And this is the attitude taken toward women throughout The Qur’an. How anyone could think that, were there a perfect and loving God, He would want His most beloved creation treated in this fashion? Hardly.
Slavery also plays a big part in The Qur’an. Go to this site and do a search for “slave.” Verse after verse of rules and regulations regarding the keeping and managing of slaves. Not really much different than the Bible, except that the Qur’an goes into more detail in these matters.
Aside from these two issues, The Qur’an is incredibly monotonous. Over and over again, you hear the same stories. Noah and the Ark, Abraham and Isaac, Lot, Pharaoh, etc. Old Testament stories. It would have been fine once or twice, but these stories are repeated over and over throughout the entire Qur’an. We are constantly reminded that these stories are a “remembrance,” and a “reminder” to those who believe.
One would be hard pressed to find a publisher today who would even take a second glance at The Qur’an, had it been initially published today. You can’t just write the same things over and over again and expect it to sell.
I also like the contrasts (contradictions?) in the verses of The Qur’an. For instance, a verse would talk about the horrible torment and torture that await the sinners, and then the verse ends with, “God is All-Compassionate, All-Forgiving.” It’s interesting, to say the least. He doesn’t see to be All-Forgiving. Maybe it should say Mostly-Forgiving, or A-Lot-Of-Forgiving. Not ALL-Forgiving, because He’s obviously not forgiving ALL.
On another note, how one could justify an All-Compassionate God would create an eternal place of torment for people who’ve only been alive for around 80 years… it’s flabbergasting. Maybe God is simply Somewhat-Compassionate, or Kinda-Compassionate, or even Not-Very-Compassionate.
Let’s put it this way. How is it at all compassionate or just to consciously torment a human being for anything they’ve ever done for a time that amounts to longer than they were alive??? Hitler could not have dreamed of such atrocity, such injustice. There is nothing you can say that will convince me otherwise. No excuse you could throw at me that would make me think that Hell is a just punishment for anything.
I know this is hardly a complete critique or review of The Qur’an. But, these are only my initial impressions after reading it through once; one translation. If you’re looking for a good, thorough critique of The Qur’an, there’s a great one here.
It is very thorough and filled with a lot of useful information.
And one final thing. Everyone always talks about how martyrs are destined to have 72 virgins and whatnot… that this is the reward for dying for the cause of God. Well, this isn’t accurate. It’s actually found in Sura 78:31-36…
31 But, for the God-fearing is a blissful abode,
32 Enclosed gardens and vineyards;
33 And damsels with swelling breasts, their peers in age,
34 And a full cup:
35 There they shall hear no vain discourse nor any falsehood:
36 A recompense from thy Lord – sufficing gift!
No mention of virgins, or even dying or killing infidels. Just those who “fear God.” They get to victimize women is the afterlife just like The Qur’an allows them to do in this life. Women, if you really accept The Qur’an, realize that this is what God has in store for you throughout eternity. You are the property of a man on Earth as well as in Heaven. It’s barbaric and sick.
Anyway, that’s about all I’ve got for now. Let me know what you think.
Read a book. It’s good for you.
Following that 2-hour debate, my thoughts began to wander over the next few days. Hovind’s basic premise is that God created the world in 6 literal days. He also claims that this is Christian “Science.” His Young Earth Creationism is “science” in his mind.
Hovind says Creationism is science. But, I think he fails to understand what exactly science is. He says that there’s no evidence to support evolution. Yet, he provides no evidence to support God creating the world in 6 literal days. He even admits, on the show, that belief in Creationism is faith-based. Although, he also claims that “belief” in evolution is faith-based.
There’s a huge, glaring problem with his analysis, though…
Applications Of Creation Science
At the very end of the show, a geneticist called in, asking Hovind if he thought his ideas were scientific. He, obviously, replied that they were.
And this is where religion and science part ways. One of the main objectives in science is to create real-world applications from its discoveries. And, in order for that to happen, theories in science have to be able to make predictions.
When pressed for answers, or more precisely, pressed for a scientific application that could be used from knowing God created the world in 6 literal days, Hovind repeatedly danced around the issue, refusing to answer the question.
And with good reason. There is no real-world application from knowing God created the Earth in 6 literal days. In fact, it would hinder science to even consider that premise.
There’s no way you can use that information to better the human condition, or to generate new technology – in contrast with understanding the principles behind modern medicine and biology (based entirely on evolutionary theory), which provides us with cures for diseases and bettering of the quality of life for humans. Not a common trait of religion.
There is nothing about religion and the “scientific” claims that it’s proponents put forth that can make any predictions about any physical phenomena.
In science, plate tectonic theory predicts how continents will move over time, Germ Theory describes and predicts how diseases behave, and then, of course, there’s the good old Theory Of Gravity and Evolutionary Theory.
Creation “science” can predict nothing.
God Is Not Exempt From Logic
Let’s assume God did, in fact, create the Earth in 6 literal days. Ok. Fine. That doesn’t answer any questions.
How did God do it? Who created God? Is it turtles all the way down? You can’t assume that the Universe is too complicated to just have formed on its own, yet conclude that a God with infinite powers could just have always been. It’s absurd. As Bertrand Russell said in Why I Am Not A Christian…
If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, “How about the tortoise?” the Indian said, “Suppose we change the subject.
The Idea Of God Does Not Advance Science
Back to the question posed for Hovind. Are there any applications in “Creation Science” that can be used in real-world situations which will enhance our understanding of the Universe?
No. There aren’t any. And this is why science is, in an epistemological sense, superior to religion. It serves no purpose to consider God in the lab, or in any scenario where we are searching for knowledge and understanding. In fact, it hinders progress.
Let’s take electricity, for an example. What do we understand about electricity? We know how it flows, we know which materials conduct and resist it. We know, basically, everything about it, with this knowledge coming mostly from Atomic Theory. And what role does God play?
What would happen if we tried to insert God? Well, nothing. What role would God play? Essentially, a believer would simply say, “Electricity works that way because God made it work that way.” This doesn’t help matters.
But, Maxwell was able to determine exactly why electricity works the way it does with his equations. And if you look closely, you’ll notice in those equations that the name “God” doesn’t appear anywhere in there. And yet, they still manage to explain everything perfectly. God is not needed to explain these things.
Take No Thought For Tomorrow
So what does this all mean? Essentially, the basic premise behind Creationist arguments is that things are the way they are because God did it. But, in the lab, that answer is not enough. We need to know the why’s and how’s. To simply insert magical thinking distorts and confuses matters. If there is a God who can reach in and “mess with” our test results, then the result is chaos. We couldn’t rely on any observations simply because we wouldn’t know if God is messing with things.
In science, we have to assume there is no God messing with things in order to get accurate results. To extrapolate this further, to common, everyday experience, we have to live life assuming there is no God in order to function. We can’t depend on a God to “make things right,” or to hope he will take care of us. If we were to take the Bible’s advice (Matthew 6:28-33), in the words of Jesus…
28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek: ) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you…
It’s impossible to live that way. No one, in reality, lives life like God is going to take care of everything. That mind-set is saved for Sunday morning. When one is sitting in the pew, safe from having to make any decisions.
No one walks into a busy street without looking both ways because they’ve decided to “take no thought” for tomorrow. You might seek first the kingdom of Heaven, but in the meantime, you should probably look both ways before crossing the road. The laws of physics don’t stop for God.
You have to look out for yourself. God is not going to do it for you. That type of thinking is dangerous.
I could go on, but I’m heading toward the topic of Free Will, and it’s not something I want to get into right now. What I will do is say that I’m open to criticism and constructive dialogue. If I’m wrong, tell me.
But, don’t expect me to just take your word for it. I’ll need evidence. Show me where I’m wrong. Don’t tell me that I don’t have enough “faith,” because that is not an answer. You have faith in Jesus, and another person has faith in Allah, and someone else has faith in Krishna. They are all equally faithful and they can’t all be right. And, in fact, they’re all on equal footing. The best any of these groups can do is claim “faith.”
And faith is not, contrary to popular opinion, a virtue. Belief in something for no other reason than because you choose to is not a valid reason. At least, not in terms of using that reason to convince others that they, also, need to believe. There needs to be some type of evidence. Some tangible reason to accept a belief system. You wouldn’t take a pill Phizer created just because you’ve got “faith” in the drug’s effectiveness. Where are the results of the clinical trials?
Ok, so that’s enough for now. I’ll end with that.
Read a book. It’s good for you.
So this Evangelist by the name of Kerrigan Skelly of Pinpoint Evangelism has a video on YouTube where he debates some kids at N.C. State University on the topic of Atheism (or any other belief system) versus the Christian world view.
I actually found it quite disheartening that the college students present at this debate were so ill-equipped to refute his arguments. It was in seeing this lack of real response to his statements that prompted me to make these videos. Here they are:
Infinite Skeptic or Christian? [Debunked – Part I]
Infinite Skeptic or Christian [Debunked – Part II]
I think my biggest problem with this guy’s line of argument is the whole idea that he can trust his senses because he “believes in God.” Yet, people who don’t believe in God cannot trust their senses? This is nothing more than mere speculation; an assumption on the grandest scale. An ignorant assumption, at that. He provides no evidence for his claims. You can’t just make a claim like that without offering reasonable proof of it. I’m not about to take his word for it. And yet, he demands evidence from his opponents? Hypocrite.
Essentially, throughout the video he tries to make every argument he puts forth unfalsifiable. Any time someone counters his arguments, he replies with, “Well, I believe in God.” As if that’s an explanation – or “foundation,” as he calls it. How can he trust his senses? He believes in God. How can he have morals? He believes in God. That is a non-sequitur. It doesn’t logically follow that because he believes in God, he can trust his senses. Believing in God has no bearing on the truth of his claims. There’s no causal connection. That would require evidence.
Then there’s Empiricism. He says that Empiricism is “just an idea in your mind.” Yet, he would not even have a Bible to read from were it not for Empiricism. No written language or printing presses, no paper or writing tools.
He’s trying to have it both ways. He wants to condemn Empiricism because the evidence which springs forth from Empiricism contradicts his precious Bible. But yet, he needs Empiricism for a Bible to even exist. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
Over and over again he says his opponents haven’t “proven their foundation” for what they believe/don’t believe. Yet, I haven’t seen ONCE in these videos him prove anything even close to the existence of God. He has not shown one stitch of evidence to support his “foundation.” Again, he is a hypocrite.
I could go on, but I don’t want to go over the same things I addressed in the videos. I think his poor logic speaks for itself. Pretty much everything he says is based on a lack of understanding of either science or logic.
And this is what Believers do. That sacrifice intellectual honesty and integrity for the conversion of a few “sinners.” Who cares if you lie and manipulate? You’re leading people to Jesus, right? That’s all that matters. Who cares if you are leading people down a path of ignorance and unenlightenment? It’s the tithe dollars that really count.
Watch and let me know what you think.
Read a book. It’s good for you.
Also, if for some reason the people who put this video up claim that I’m copying their material and ask to have it taken off YouTube, I will be making it available in higher quality via BitTorrent. Probably on The Pirate Bay. We’ll see what happens. That’s how these Christians are. If they can’t fight back with good arguments, they’ll just claim copyright infringement.
This is great. I have to say that I’m pretty excited to write this entry. I’d recently had a debate with a guy named “Bret” on a previous entry. A Creationist debate… you know how those go. Bad logic and avoidance of the issue, etc.
You’ve all heard the argument before, the thing about a tornado making a 747 jet in a junkyard. That randomness can’t create life the way it is now. More specifically, the odds are against it happening. Yeah, this guy went there. He said the odds are against it. More specifically…
…the randomness of the universes and our existence is so great , 10,000,000,000 to the 24th, that is virtually impossible.
First of all, what do odds have to do with something that’s already happened? Bret’s not making a prediction. He’s using odds as some sort of device to deny the current state of science. My basic conclusion was…
As a final comment on this debate, as I’ve said before, odds are an estimate… a guess.
Probability cannot be used as proof of a claim – or against a claim for that matter.
If you want to say that our Universe only had a certain probability of coming into existence by natural means, that’s great. BUT, you cannot use those odds as proof against the Universe coming into existence by those means.
That would require actual evidence. And, sufficed to say, the evidence points toward a natural “popping into of existence.”
You’ve not offered any evidence. Only “odds.” That proves nothing.
Odds are not proof. They signify probability. But, that’s pretty useless when the event has already occurred. Beyond that point, it simply becomes a denial mechanism (the logical fallacy of post hoc reasoning). A way to provide intellectual cover for those who want to believe in an invisible man (God).
Now, while I’m sure Bret believes this is a valid argument, at the heart of what he’s saying is really just bad logic. The odds argument really stems from a combination of two arguments. Irreducible complexity and infinite regression.
Bret is basically saying that the Universe is too complex to have just “popped into existence.” Therefore, there must be a first cause, which I’m assuming he believes is God.
Matter couldn’t have popped into existence because it needed a jump-start from God.
And we all say… “Who made God?”
If Bret answers with, “No one made God. He just always was,” then he is being inconsistent. He claims that, logically, matter is too complex to have just “popped into existence.” Yet, a God with the ability to create matter can easily pop into existence. You can’t have it both ways.
Does God Go Poop?
Let’s start addressing this with a more simple question. Does God go poop?
A strange question, you say? I think not. Let us look at what exactly Bret (or any believer in God, for that matter) claims.
For God to “pop into existence,” he has to have certain traits which identify Him as “God.”
First, He has to have a likeness. An appearance. We read in the Bible that God made man in His likeness. So we can assume that God looks a lot like humans. That’s first off.
He has to have magical powers. This involves, I’m assuming, large amounts of some sort of energy. This is the important part. He’s not God if He can’t do magic spells.
He has to be invisible. I’m sure that takes copious amounts of energy to maintain that state of affairs.
And then, if God goes poop, He would require a digestive system and an asshole where He could dispense large amounts of Holy Shit into his toilet… this isn’t even taking into account the food that God would have to eat before Holy Shitting.
Now, I’m leaving out a great deal of other things that God would need in order to exist. I know that. Nervous system, a brain, skeletal structure, etc.
But, my point is that Bret has certainly not considered his own set of beliefs before criticizing science. Bret says the odds are against the Universe “popping into existence” by natural means.
And yet, he presupposes the belief that a (fully-formed!) God with all (and more) of the traits previously listed simply “popped into existence.” And he has the nerve to say that the odds are against my view of reality???
The Universe evolved from very simple elements such as hydrogen which were created from the intense energy release during the Big Bang. Life is simply another manifestation of that matter/energy.
Believers, on the other hand, think that a fully-formed God spontaneously just came to be one day. “Popped into existence,” as the saying goes.
To claim that a Universe which evolves from the simple to the complex is less logical than a fully-formed invisible man with magical powers just popping into existence… it’s complete nonsense. I’m not even sure you could call it “intellectual cover” for believers. It’s more like an excuse.
Then you get believers who try to reconcile science and the Bible. Or even say that they agree with one another!
What, on Earth, is the point? They’re already starting with the assumption of God popping into existence. Why start worrying about proof and logic now? Do you really need any when you start with a premise like that? When did proof become so important? It certainly isn’t important in demonstrating how God came to be.
I’m not sure, but I think the odds are against it.
Please, read a book. It’s good for you.