Atheists, what's the best argument for belief in God(s)?

Question

I believe Dawkins said it was the "fine-tuning" of the universe. Things such as the existence of stars and planets, which without, presumably, there could be no life.

I don't believe you have to subscribe to the argument to acknowledge it's persuasive qualities.

Richard Dawkins spoke in Lynchberg, VA about his book. It is on YouTube. But that is far from the point of my question.

Answer 1

The best arguments are those St. Thomas Aquinas came up with, all of them ultimately inquiring of a first cause, first mover, etc.

Sadly, they've all been shown false, but...

Answer 2

As usual, Dawkins is spot-on. Nowhere in anything we've found so far is there anything - however wonderful - that has a trace of the supernatural.

But most of the fundamental constants of the universe are quite finely-tuned for the sort of universe we have. That's predictable, of course, but the point is that in some cases a tiny change - one part in 1e30, for instance - would utterly screw things up. The universe might fly apart, or be too hot, too cold, composed entirely of quarks and so on. There are three things that make this no big deal for atheists, though:

o Just because the universe is tuned for *our* kind of life - carbon-based electromagnetism-mediated chemistry - doesn't mean that's the only kind of life there could be. All you need is a Replicator, and everything else follows. And that Replicator could be made of anything at all, from quarks to pure plasma, as long as it reproduced itself accurately but not perfectly.

o If this universe is appropriate for our kind of life, then it's no surprise that we're here. If it were different, we might not be. There may be many universes, according to the Many Worlds theory, each with their own fundamental constants. If life was going to arise, it would obviously arise in a universe where our kind of complexity was possible.

o The universe is not all *that* good for life, after all. It's hardly teeming with the stuff, as far as we can see. Overall the universe is composed of non-living stuff, including vast lumps of space, and only on a few specks of dust at specific temperatures, in areas with low background radiation, where the mix of elements is right, can life exist at all. It could be a lot better than this, especially if water stayed liquid over a wider temp/pressure range.

And finally, even if this fine tuning is evidence of some intervention, this is a pretty shaky basis for a personal God who cares about sin and rewards piety. Maybe - against all sense and evidence - a deity did set up the initial conditions of the universe. That's pretty much a deist scenario, and provides no motivation whatsoever to start going to any of the churches currently operating. And if a religion arose that based itself on this deist hypothesis, there'd not be much for its followers to do, and no reason that this universe-tuner has any interest in the products of an odd chemical reaction in one of his galaxies.

CD

Answer 3

I'd like to echo Lao Pu. The fact that humans have been interested (in some cases, obsessed) with finding 'higher powers' since time immemorial is, to me, the only real argument.

There are plenty of pragmatists here who see no reason, no evidence, for the existence of anything beyond our physical experience and reasoning. So why aren't we all like that? What could be the 'advantage' (evolutionary or otherwise) for thinking in a way that many believe to be irrational?

So maybe there was a 'greater power'. Maybe if it decided to fragment itself as a game, to 'forget' it's true nature and see what happened. But in order to 'reassemble' itself the seeds of understanding or drive for being 'reunited' were necessary. Maybe.

Now, I'm not saying that's what I believe. It's just thinking around your question. But it paints a picture of, for me, a more 'likely' deity than that proposed by many faiths. And in that case the 'fine-tuning' is just coincidental.
.

Answer 4

Thats called the Goldilocks Theory, and if you really pay attention to it, it doesnt make sense. And, it says nothing of planets and star without which we couldnt exist, it says that life on earth could only arise under very specific "fine tuned conditions."

Thing is, we dont know if other life exists on other planets - and if it does, it will not look like us, as it will have arose in differing conditions. So, when this life is located, that should prove that God doesnt exist.

Answer 5

I think perhaps the best argument in mankind's ongoing obsession with finding spiritual realities, and the great satisfaction individuals get out of pursuing those realities. None of this is evidence, but we must recognize that religion is attractive to people, for all kinds of reasons. Indeed, religion has appeared in every culture in the world, though in each individual religion takes on a more or less important role, but as a group, human beings seem pretty uniformly attracted to it. None of this proves the reality of any religion, but our attraction and need of religion is very persuasive.

Answer 6

God, no God . . what difference would it really make.
We are all here now! And unless some of us are sociopaths, we have our conscience to determine right from wrong.
If we don't know this as a basic law, already we are lost.
It is ridiculous to discuss the existence or non-existence of a God. We know what to attend to now, and even those that are theist don't necessarily do it, do they?
And those that are non-theists are not exactly all bad, crazy, violent thieves murderers and the whole 9 yards. They, leaving the concept of God aside would be as well decent ordinary people as theists.
As for the whole universe?
What is the hurry to Know it all and solidly completely now?
We don't even know how to care well or responsibly for our own planet, so as to the universe, aren't jumping the gun just a little TOO prematurely?

Answer 7

Whatever religion you chose to subscribe to, it can be traced back through generations to patterns of survival that people developed out of necessity. The simplest solution to any problem that you can't fix yourself is to request divine intervention. Thus, Ockham's Razor makes believing in a being who is capable of solving all your problems easier than explaining the circumstances surrounding your own existance. It must have been much easier for biology teachers in religious institutions teaching about creation; 'The creator made all... any questions?'. It's a much easier arguement to believe than evolution and natural selection and mutation and the formation of organisms from non-sentient material.
Religion also often provides a psychological base for people who would otherwise feel insecure. The supposed knowledge that someone is watching you and knows how you feel can greatly affect your mentality in the same way that horoscopes tend to affect behavour into the patterns they predict. If I honestly believed that I was being watched by a God who wanted me to do the things that Bishop X had told me he wanted, and that I'll be damned if I don't, I certainly would do whatever Bishop X says to.

To all the religious people who read this and scoff- I invite you to think of how very many religious branches and sects and denominations and opposing views there are in religion. If I should believe in a god, he wouldn't have been so vague and misleading. Every one of these religious groups has (at least borderline) fanatical members who are absolutely convinced that their god is the omnipotent and that their religion is the only true one. I might be Roman Catholic if every Catholic was absolutely convicted of their beliefs and if every other person of every other religion I've encountered were sort of unsure and undecided. However, due to the high number of people who are perfectly faithful to their own religion, it seems only reasonable that religion is a psychological institution that man uses to controll others or to make himself secure. Note the high increase rates lately in religions who promise salvation through faith. I don't deny that high-ranking religious officials believe what they do is moral and right, and I don't even deny that it's moral. Religion, while it often imposes barriers to the better aspects of life, improves life in many ways as well. I simply can't believe in any God who would want us to spend our lives worshiping him. If one religion does turn out to be right, then what of all the rest of us? God didn't give us much of a chance there, did he?

Answer 8

But if God is ommipotent, he should be able to produce life anywhere he wants. He shouldn't have to fine-tune anything.

And yet out of all the planets, dwarf planets, moons and asteroids in our solar system, Earth is the only one that we know of that can sustain life.

The fact that life needs a very special set of conditions in order to survive points to the natural origins of life.

Answer 9

all thing and every thing. The big bang theory leaves room for god/gods were did this original ball of mater come form if not god/gods i think that some just can come form nothing whit out a supernatural answer maybe. I'm just look at this as any human would. I believe in a god but refuse to chose a religion that good work's for me

Answer 10

You mean Stephen Hawking. Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and very anti-creation.