-17
$\begingroup$

In your opinion, what is the most cosmological or physics argument that may favor the existence of something like a god to produce a universe like ours and what is the most counter argument for that.

Please don't drag this discussion into theology.

$\endgroup$
  • 12
    $\begingroup$ "in your opinion[s]". Voting to close as opinion-based. $\endgroup$ – Danu Sep 26 '14 at 12:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Not really appropriate question for the physics stackexchange. The concept of a god as creator of the universe is not well defined, since first one would need to provide some physical mechanism by which such a god can "create" the space-time and matter in order to test such a god hypothesis. $\endgroup$ – Jasper Sep 26 '14 at 12:29
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ By bringing up god you already dragged this discussion into theology. This kind of nonsense simply doesn't belong here. -1 from me too. $\endgroup$ – Olin Lathrop Sep 26 '14 at 12:42
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @JoeBlow The anthropic principle kills the fine-tuned-universe argument $\endgroup$ – Jim Sep 26 '14 at 17:25
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Jim, sigh, let's set aside that it is hugely strange to blankly claim "the anthropic principle kills the fine-tuned-universe argument" given the massive, ongoing, tremendous philosophical enquiry in to that issue. The question at hand is which arguments are most commonly used to, in a word, support religious-like positions. $\endgroup$ – Fattie Sep 27 '14 at 8:04
7
$\begingroup$

Counter Argument - A better part of the universe seems to be governed by certain laws (of Physics), which appears to preclude a Divine Creator. In fact, sometimes with such a precision that one expects that even those aspects that aren't well understood today, would be well understood some day, when issues with existing theories get resolved/ these theories get superseded.

Argument - Simply that the counter argument can't be rigorously proved. :P

It is simply a matter of belief, either way.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ no "counter arguments" are needed, the guy's just asking for a statement of "the cosmological/physics argument that may favor the existence of something like a God". (You do not have to agree or disagree, merely state which such observations are used.) Another one that's heard is "after a good 60 yrs of intense thought on the matter, we understand zilch about the quantum realm". Like I say, the fine-tuned-universe observation and the Fermi Paradox are two obvious ones. $\endgroup$ – Fattie Sep 26 '14 at 15:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (Before anyone gets going, it's completely pointless to launch in to "refuting" those! The guy was just asking what are the typical such chains of thought. I thought it was a nice question!) $\endgroup$ – Fattie Sep 26 '14 at 15:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Fadi - Putting a question on hold means that if it is not concordant with the site rules, it is giving you a chance of editing and improving. The way you formulate this question in the above comment looks fine to me, so maybe you can try editing that question and then give a custom flag to the moderators, saying that if it doesn't violate the rules, it may be reopened. I did that once on another SE site and it worked. So, it is worth a shot. $\endgroup$ – 299792458 Sep 27 '14 at 3:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hi @Fadi, your question was self-evidently a good question. "Which features of cosmology are commonly used to support non-mechanistic views of existence?" It's hard not to get angry about it, but it's just a known feature of these sites that you occasionally get "irrational voting". Sometimes you "hit a nerve". For example the fine folks on this site, are probably "sick to death" of "ufo-conspiract-theory" -like questions about anti-gravity, perpetual motion etc!! So you can't blame different SO groups for some "relfex voting". $\endgroup$ – Fattie Sep 27 '14 at 8:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note too that in fairness your question was a bit "quickly written" and folks often just vote-down "poorly written" questions. Just FTR I edited your question a bit; feel free to change it back. $\endgroup$ – Fattie Sep 27 '14 at 8:09

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.