-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.

$\endgroup$

closed as primarily opinion-based by Danu, ACuriousMind, Qmechanic Sep 26 '14 at 12:32

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 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today, would be well understood some day, when issues with existing theories get resolved/ these theories get superseded.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.