Probability OR God?

[thinkandmull]

A common argument for the existence of a Personal God is that fact that, scientifically, it was enormously improbable that life could originate from the Big Bang. Now that is a huge claim, and I admit I know none of the science behind it. However, arguing from this to the position that there must be a God (let alone a personal God) is controversial. Is not the argument saying that the probability wasn’t really probability at all? God could have caused the Big Bang and watched with joy and amazement as life eventually sprung from it through the forces of chance and spontaneity. But then the argument *for *God ain’t there… If theists can reject the science and claim its God behind the roll of the dice, then atheist can claim another force, not God, was behind it.

 

[cena]

A common argument for the existence of a Personal God is that fact that, scientifically, it was enormously improbable that life could originate from the Big Bang. Now that is a huge claim, and I admit I know none of the science behind it. However, arguing from this to the position that there must be a God (let alone a personal God) is controversial. Is not the argument saying that the probability wasn’t really probability at all? God could have caused the Big Bang and watched with joy and amazement as life eventually sprung from it through the forces of chance and spontaneity. But then the argument *for *God ain’t there… If theists can reject the science and claim its God behind the roll of the dice, then atheist can claim another force, not God, was behind it.

Scientists have still not discovered how and when the first life formed

 

[petra22]

Come, Lord Jesus, come and take away the confusion, grant us peace, not the peace the world gives, but your true peace.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

A common argument for the existence of a Personal God is that fact that, scientifically, it was enormously improbable that life could originate from the Big Bang. Now that is a huge claim, and I admit I know none of the science behind it. However, arguing from this to the position that there must be a God (let alone a personal God) is controversial. Is not the argument saying that the probability wasn’t really probability at all? God could have caused the Big Bang and watched with joy and amazement as life eventually sprung from it through the forces of chance and spontaneity. But then the argument *for *God ain’t there… If theists can reject the science and claim its God behind the roll of the dice, then atheist can claim another force, not God, was behind it.

Atheists can claim anything they want, that still won’t change the fact that God created man by giving him a unique spirtual, immortal, soul.

Pax
Linus2nd

 

[Oreoracle]

If you know a scientist who claims to have calculated the probability of life originating spontaneously, I would love to see your source. But besides armchair philosophers and keyboard warriors, I don’t think anyone believes they have the faintest clue how likely such a thing is. The scientific community hasn’t even been entirely sold on any particular theory of abiogenesis, and it certainly doesn’t view its probability as a settled matter.

 

[lmelahn]

A common argument for the existence of a Personal God is that fact that, scientifically, it was enormously improbable that life could originate from the Big Bang. Now that is a huge claim, and I admit I know none of the science behind it. However, arguing from this to the position that there must be a God (let alone a personal God) is controversial. Is not the argument saying that the probability wasn’t really probability at all? God could have caused the Big Bang and watched with joy and amazement as life eventually sprung from it through the forces of chance and spontaneity. But then the argument *for *God ain’t there… If theists can reject the science and claim its God behind the roll of the dice, then atheist can claim another force, not God, was behind it.

In my opinion the “argument by probabilities” is rather weak. Yes (an atheist will say), the probability that we should arrive at the universe we have now is exceedingly small, but not zero. It is exceedingly unlikely to win the lottery, but possible. The fact that there are beings capable of asking these questions presupposes that the necessary conditions for them have been met.

I think the argument misses the point in any case. The more important question is not why the universe is configured the way it is, and not a different way, by why the universe exists at all. (And not just the universe we know: i mean, why does anything exist at all?)

The other issue is that there need not be a contradiction between chance and randomness, on the one hand, and providence, on the other. The causality that God exerts on His creation is of a different kind than the physical causes we know in nature. He gives His creatures being; physical causes merely transform pre-existent beings.

Did the known universe, including life as we know it, arise by random chance? Sure (if scientists say so: this is a scientific question). But that does not mean God did not create it.

 

[John_Martin]

I wonder if we are asking the right questions…
My questions would be, what is the definition of the “being” that an atheist is denying (when he uses the term “god”)? Or, what is the definition of the “being” that a theist is admitting to?

I would venture a guess that the “being” the atheist is denying, or that “being” that the theist is admitting, are nowhere near the Being we, as Catholics, call “God”.

If we know the definition or descriptions of the god they reject or the god they would admit, we might very well understand that rejection into atheism is appropriate, or keeping the theistic view is appropriate in many cases.

As Catholics, we are not trying to propagate the belief in the god which the atheists define as our god. Instead, like Paul in Athens, I think our goal is to bring a revelation that re-aligns their view of God with the ultimate goal they have for life, just as Paul introduced knowing God to that people which wanted to know what they thought to be unknown (unknowable?). We know the human soul is looking for the True, the Good, the Beautiful. In a way these are unknown, the unknown God, for the atheist and theist, even though they have other gods they reject or admit.

Not an easy task, and it sounds somewhat poetic or rhetorical at this point, but what do you think of this line of thought? I have to believe there is another way of approach to them besides proofs. Just like us they learn through their senses, they have appetites and will, tending toward union with what they perceive as “good”. God “wooed us” with his apparent goodness. Can God be presented likewise to them? After we believed, we came to see the reality of the absoluteness of God and our own being in contingency. But we were shown something desirable first; only then did we come to understand it.

 

[thinkandmull]

I didn’t say that chance and probability prove their isn’t a God. It is the Christians who use the chance argument, and I was pointing out that you have to choose between believing in that argument and believing in chance. WHY does the universe exist? Why does God exist? It’s just good that things exist. Aquinas supporters are the ones saying that the world could be eternal, taking away the only sure evidence that their is a God.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I didn’t say that chance and probability prove their isn’t a God. It is the Christians who use the chance argument, and I was pointing out that you have to choose between believing in that argument and believing in chance. WHY does the universe exist? Why does God exist? It’s just good that things exist. Aquinas supporters are the ones saying that the world could be eternal, taking away the only sure evidence that their is a God.

Of course people will disagree. But Thomas himself did not think it could be demonstrated conclusively that the universe had a beginning in time. And most of the non-christian world believed in an eternal world. So, for the sake of argument, Thomas assumes the world is eternal when he is proving the existence of God. Obviously, if he could prove the existence of God from an eternal world, it would be much easier to prove it given a world created in time. Now have things changed since that time. If they have I haven’t seen it.

Linus2nd