Can the Universe be Consistent Without God?

.....or perhaps we should ask instead 'how could it be inconsistent without god?'

This video is a response to the oft-mentioned arguments that things such as logic and empirical science could have no basis without God on the grounds that cosmic intervention or planning is somehow required to give us the kind of predictable universe we appear to live in (and it is this predictability and repeatability that allows such endeavours as these to have some foundation).

Category:

Education

Tags:

• christian
• christianity
• logic
• science
• empirical
• evidence
• methodological
• naturalism
• philosophy

[MW2Addiction]

God is imaginary. Simple as that.

The reason why some people believe in a god is because our lack of knowledge on the universe its self. Therefore, we have to fill in gaps with an excuse like, "Goddidit"

Nuff said.

[noelplum99]

@MW2Addiction

i wish i shared your optimistic position. however, i have spoken and read of enough theists who happily claim that no evidence would be sufficient for them to shake their faith and that this itself is testament to the strength of their faith. In other words, the greater the evidence against their position the better the christian they are for maintaining a contradictory belief.

[bicnarok]

The true answer to all this is simple, WE DON´T KNOW! Simple as that, people can dream up all sorts of religions or belief systems or extravagant scientific theories. They prove nothing. As for consistences, if things weren´t consistent we wouldn´t notice because we are part of the "happening".

[Venaloid]

Well, that's that. Well done!

[charlesfloyb]

The real question is, can the universe be consistent WITH a god.

[msh1044]

Owww, i found a great argument :D

1. So the universe is either consistent or it is inconsistent.

2a. A consistent universe requires a god to make things consistent.

2b. An inconsistent universe requires a god to make things inconsistent.

3: Conclusion: god exists!

( I somehow don't agree :p, but it's still a fun argument. )

[Hooya2]

@aveyowyns I feel like we're on a semantics merry-go-round. I admit I've made some sloppy phrasing, but do you think pointing it out is a serious argument?

I view laws of logic as natural laws, in that they emerge naturally from reality with no need for supernaturalism. I view them as different then other natural laws, in that they are necessarily true and thus must be eternal--they could not ever conceivably be different. Does that clear up how I feel regarding their naturalness?

[aveyowyns]

@Hooya2 "I view laws of logic as natural laws..."

"I specifically stated that I'm NOT lumping logic in completely with natural laws."

*For whatever reason, I didn't respond to the first part of your comment: "Nothingness follows the laws of logic the same way every thing does--by being what it is and not being what it isn't."

Maybe an empty bucket, might. But you can't say: non-being can BE ANYTHING! You are using terms relative to the universe existence - like logic.