God is real

(Brilliant, half an hour left and my cache cleared) The idea that God is real because the world around us very artistic, agreed. Unfortunately, it means absolutely nothing. The idea that it could come from chance is quite reasonable. Let's use the simple probability equation: Probability = Number of favourable outcomes __________________________ Number of possible outcomes. If we look at the chance of being in this universe, we can say the chance is 1. If we look at number of possible outcomes, we have no way of knowing whether there are other universes or not. Therefore, we can call it y. http://www.s-cool.co.uk... We can see how the chance using this graph. Now, what do we see from this? If this is the only universe, then the chance of being in this universe is 1, and if there were many universes, it would be increased. In fact, if there were many universes, the chance of living in this universe would be LESS! But I think we need to change the equation slightly. We do not know how many universes there are that we could live in. So we need to change the graph to y/x, not 1/x. This means we can logically claim ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the chance of the universe! But ignoring this, the argument is inductive (looks at a specific scenario and generalises it). Let me give you another example of an inductive argument: bob is mortal. (P1) Parrots are mortals (P2) Therefore, bob is a parrot (C1) I think we both see how it means it COULD be true. It doesn't mean it is. We are not discussing, unfortunately, that god COULD be real. We are discussing whether he IS real. Also, whether I believe in evolution, big bang, etc. is completely irrelevant, and a red herring. I will not answer, simply because it stops the argument deteriorating to being "Because it is not X, it is Y". I'd go on about my own arguments, but I am going to speak quickly as my time is so limitted. Interestingly, this model of how a disagreement can be resolved by successful argument rarely if ever actually describes the sort of process any of us, theists and atheists included, undergo to arrive at our beliefs. People rarely just change their minds after a sober and objective period of reflection on the evidence. The way we acquire our beliefs and our behavior with regard to defending them or sustaining them is much more complicated, neurological, and organic. What does happen is that your belief structure seems to make gradual shifts and each shift in attitude about one matter, especially if it is important, ripples outward and has an effect on lots of other beliefs, dispositions, and emotional reactions. To make matters more complicated, we aren't very good judges of what we believe, or why we believe it. Priming studies, in psychology, for example, show that neurological processes are set in motion towards a reaction long before we are consciously aware that we have seen or heard something consciously. Nevertheless, we can aspire to the ideal standard of listening to arguments for opposing viewpoints about God and other matters with an open mind, considering them thoughtfully, and then objectively assessing the truth of that evidence, and then being prepared to accept the rational implications of that evidence. We should accept those conclusions that are best supported by the evidence, even if we typically don't. So what's the rational thing to do when you hear a successful argument? The answer is simple: accept the conclusion. Put more formally as we would in a critical thinking class, if a reasonable person who does not already believe p: understands and believes that all of the premises in the argument for p are true. understands and believes that the premises when taken jointly imply p then, that person is rationally committed to believing p. So, if my opponent cannot fulfill this basic requirement to be giving a strong argument, then there is no reason to be rationally committed to something; in fact, it makes it irrational to believe something. In the rebuttal stage, I hope my opponent will refer to this, and accept that if something is irrational, then it does not have any fundamental truth.