Question Home

Position:Home>Philosophy> Why is it easier to believe the universe is just an accident rather than the wor


Question: Why is it easier to believe the universe is just an accident rather than the work of an intelligent designer!?
The odds of the “primordial ooze” being able to spawn even one life form are beyond imagination, let alone being responsible for the multitudes of creatures that have inhabited our planet!. Ok let’s say that one complex life form was able to creep out of the ooze, what are the odds of two!? How about two with the ability to reproduce and find food for sustenance!? The odds are too high for me to fathom!

The “Big Bang” theory is actually not at odds with contemporary Catholic theology!. However, if there was a “Big Bang” there had to be a Big Banger – or intelligent causality! If there were a Big Bang, where did the substance come from that exploded into the cosmos as we know it!? Catholic theology explains that God created Ex Nihilo, a Latin phrase meaning "out of nothing!."

Catholics believe that the Genesis story of creation was written as a means for our ancient forefathers to understand God’s roll in cosmology!.Www@QuestionHome@Com


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
Because then we would face the far greater problem
of explaining the "intelligent designer"!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

nobody really wants the chance of going to hell!.
i guess!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

intelligent creatures didnt climb straight out of the ooze dont make your self look stupidWww@QuestionHome@Com

"Atheism is very hypocritical!."

Good God, man!. Are you retarded!?
You're comparing abiogenesis to spontaneous-life!? The man who disproved Spontaneous generation was a catholic, not an atheist, as you claim!.
But that's irrelevant!. There are so many problems with your statements it just boggles the mind!.
Firstly, there is empirical evidence against spontaneous-generation!. That's why it was disproved!. Pasteur proved that life could not arise without other life to carry it!. The discovery of eggs and how biological forms reproduce also shut down the theory!.
The argument that atheists wanted to disprove spontaneous generation is historically inaccurate (remember, CATHOLIC) as well as mind-blowingly retarded!. You seem to think there is a secret atheist agenda aimed at converting the world away from God!. That's Bullsh*t!. Science progresses on evidence, not dreamt-up conspiracy theories!.

"rejected contrary to empiricism"
*clutches face*
Are!.!.!.you!.!.!.kidding!?! You think spontaneous generation is an acceptable theory!?! We have shown the life-cycles of all lifeforms thought to spontaneously arise from "vital heat"!. This ceased to be controversial in the 19th century!. There is evidence against this!. Lice do not arise from sweat nor maggots from rotting meat!. It was rejected on a more than reasonable stand of evidence!.

""abiogenesis", which is a recitation of the original fly-in-dead-meat theory"
There are two huge differences between these theories (as well as many others)!. The first is time and materials!. Life cannot magically arise from meat or sweat because it does not have the proper materials or the time needed to build itself into a fly!.
The second is complexity!. Abiogenesis argues that extrememly BASIC and MICROSCOPIC life can arise from non-life!. There is a huge difference between an amino acid forming accidentally and the pieces of a maggot regularily coming together from a slab of rotting meat!. If you can't see why!.!.!. well!. Maybe you should head back to grade school!.

I find it frightening that you received two thumbs up!. Religious people shouldn't even be agreeing with you!. No one still believes in spontaneous-generation!.

Confirmation bias, anyone!?

As for the question, I've already answered it:
http://answers!.yahoo!.com/question/index;!.!.!.
Several times actually!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Your sermon is full of errors that creationists make!. I advise you to study science and stop listening to nonsense!. You are ignorant and just making a fool of yourself with this stuff!. You need to study Logic too!. You know nothing about odds!. The category is Philosophy here, so learn something about it!. Intelligent Designer is just a synonym for the Christian deity disguised to evade the First Amendment!. Who created the designer!? Who created the designer of the designer!?!.!.!.etc!. ad infinitum!? If you say God always existed, I say it makes more sense to just say that the universe always existed!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I doubt that you are able to compute the odds of biogenesis correctly!. Creationists and their followers leave out lots of naturally occurring processes that trim the odds!. One of them is, appropriately enough, called "natural selection!." It works not just for large organisms, but also for molecules, in contests where dipole electric fields act like submicroscopic "teeth!."

The reason it's easier to believe the universe originated as a random vacuum fluctuation is that it obviates the need to seek further causes!. The same is not true for the god-idea, no matter in which form you take it!. Once you assert that the universe had an "intelligent designer," you will then be asked who designed the designer!. And then you'll be asked who designed the designer's designer!. And so on!. You might as well assert that the Earth is carried on a turtle's back, that the turtle stands on a bigger turtle, and it's turtles "all the way down" (to infinity)!.

You might as well forsake the god-idea!. It leads to an irresolvable infinite regression on cause, or else to an exception that any atheist can at once take and say--ok, your exception applies not to god, but to the universe!. If "God" doesn't need a cause, then it isn't true that everything needs a cause, so maybe Universes need no cause!. EITHER WAY, God-belief comes off the loser!. Get used to it, because that's the way it is, and it's the way it will always be, forever!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Its not easier to believe in accidental creation!.

Did you know that the guy who first came up with the Big bang theory was not only a cosmologist but he was also a catholic bishop scientifically seeking the prime-mover!.

===
Atheism is very hypocritical!.

Way back in the day they saw maggots come out of dead flesh!.!.!. without seeing the eggs being laid, etc!.!.!. so they said "life from non-life"!.!.!. and it validated theism!.

Of course this didnt appeal to atheism!.!.!. atheists used the fact that eggs existed and were laid as "proof" that life doesnt come from non-life, and that therefore God doesnt exist!. (which is a denying the antecedent fallacy)

But did they really prove that life cannot come from non-life!? Or that God doesnt exist!? No!. The theory shouldnt have been excluded then, but it was!.!.!. not because science/empiricism said so but because atheists said so!.

Now, in modern world, we ask the question how did life originate!.!.!. how did the first cell come to be, from which all life evolved!. We have this magical idea about "abiogenesis", which is a recitation of the original fly-in-dead-meat theory!.!.!. atheist say "life from non-life"!.!.!. only because its in keeping with atheism, not science!.

The same "spontaneous-life" theory is back in play!.!.!. rejected by atheists then because it was theistic, rejected contrary to empiricism as it was never conclusively proven!.!.!. and its accepted by atheists now because its deemed atheistic, and reinterpreted from an atheistic perspective!. And atheists claim to be empirical and unbiased!.Www@QuestionHome@Com