NeoDevin said:
In your particular case, the idea that there was necessarily a first cause, and that that first cause was somehow more "intelligent" than us in some way.
In what other way can you explain certain weird 'coincidences' like the existence of laws of physics, physical constants, Time, space, matter? Or you'd pass on, as if they didn't need an explanation?
Your use of capital "G" God strongly suggests a Christian god, if you meant some other non-self-contradictory God, then please clarify because I obviously misinterpreted your meaning.
Capital or not, I don't think i have met a religion that i didn't find contradictory.
When have I ever claimed to believe in a "First Cause" (Why is that capitalized?)? I have never even claimed the necessity of a first cause. I don't know if there was a first cause, and if there was, I don't know anything about it. Here's the kicker though: Neither do you! Your declaration that there must be a first cause, that that cause must be intelligent, and that "God" is a remotely accurate descriptor of that first cause are all completely unfounded.
Why? This is a bare assertion. Why do you use purely deterministic causal science only to where its supportive of your beliefs? How come all of this weird 'coincidence' that after the Big Bang that matter was formed and later the orderly universe we see today? Through the laws of physics? Where did they come from? You assume that's natural, right? If that's natural, then my 'unnatural' is the same your 'natural'.
When you are claiming that there must have been a first cause, and that that first cause is God, you are making a "god of the gaps" argument.
Your knowledge of the universe and existence is "knowledge of the gaps". There are three things that science doesn't say what they are - these things are Time, Space and Matter. You feel you know what these things are, but scientists do NOT. And neither do you. From the little we know about existence and the universe, it's absolutely impossible to rule out a creator. In fact, it makes sense, as opposed to saying - this 'coincidence' does not need explanation because it just happened like that, for no reason; reason is a human concept, etc.
I don't know what you're talking about here, I've known many physicists, including some you might call famous. I know a couple who are among the top in their fields and are devout Catholics, I know others who are also among the top in their (different) fields, and are atheists. I know many who aren't the tops of their fields who subscribe to all sorts of different beliefs. Please elaborate on this "god of physicists", because I've never noticed such a phenomenon.
Further arguments from popularity or (false) authority are invalid. Even if every scientist in the world believed in the same sort of god, that doesn't suddenly change reality to fit their beliefs.
The only famous atheist physicist i am aware of was Carl Sagan. What change of reality are you talking about? That the universe is a fluke? How about some evidence for this assertion? I am particlularly interested to know how energy can naturally create a classical-looking universe? Explain how a kind of condensed energy can manifest as a human being that falls in love, reasons, talks and cries in a very predictable environment.
It would be interesting if you could explain what you consider an argument that there is no god. Also, what would you consider evidence/clues that we don't live in a simulated informational universe?
