Beleiving in God is the Norm

[Messenger]

A very simple example
Assuming that you eat apples
Each time you eat a red apple you find it sweet
Each time you eat a green apple you find it not
Is it normal to assume that all/most red apples are sweet and that sweetness relates to being red?

Now, let's compare this to the Universe
We see that more complex things require more intelligence to be made, for example
1- A rock
2- An almost straight tree branch
3- A ball made out of clay
4- A nest
5- A Robot

Giving an approximate probability of intelligence for each
1 is most probably made by a non-intelligent maker (nature)  p=0.1
2 is probably made by some intelligence (maybe a monkey)    p=0.3
3 is more probable to be made by intelligence   p=0.5
4 is very high to be made by some intelligence p=0.9
5 is for sure made by intelligence p=1

A human arm is more complex than a robot

Would the normal/rational person thinks that an intelligent creator made the universe?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Your mask is slipping ... I'm beginning to see you for what you are, not so much a logician as a theist and likely a proponent of intelligent design.

Organic limbs (and all of nature) have evolved over many, many millions of years to become complex, science is in the process of explaining that complexity but intelligent design is not a serious option primarily because it is not science.

Kyu

[curiosityandthecat]

Would the normal/rational person thinks that an intelligent creator made the universe?

No.

[/thread]

[rlrose328]

It is neither intelligence nor coincidence that resulted in the earth.

There is no intelligent creator.  I believe that 100%... I have no facts to back up my belief (and neither do they).

And it wasn't coincidence that resulted in the earth.  The earth is the way it is because things happened the way they did, but it's not coincidence.  I can't find the words to express what I mean... UGH!  It can't have been coincidence but just because it can't have been coincidence, it must be an intelligence.  We are the way we were BECAUSE things happened the way they happened, but it's not coincidence.

[Tom62]

First of all I don't see what the title of this thread has to do with those silly assumptions. Here are a couple of my own.

Assuming that you meet a theist on this forum.
Each time you speak to them they just utter complete nonsense or just repeat silly crap that you've already heard 1000 times before.
You notice as well that in 99% of all cases they come from America
Is it normal to assume that all/most American theists are uneducated fools?

Now let's compare that to the universe
We see that more complex things evolved out of simpler things
1. water changes into snow crystals
2. a light breeze changes into a tornado
3. carbon changes into diamonds or oil
4. iron changes into steel

Would the normal/rational person still think that an intelligent creator was behind that all?

[curiosityandthecat]

Would the normal/rational person still think that an intelligent creator was behind that all?

No.

[/thread]

[Kylyssa]

If a seagull gets drunk and hits into a plate glass window, resulting in his death it is not a coincidence.  The two things - drunken seagull and plate glass window - were at the right (wrong) places at the right (wrong) time and the result of their impact obeys the natural laws of physics, chemistry, and biology.  There was simply a complex interaction between two objects which resulted in a logical outcome.
 
The elements on the earth interacted according to the laws of nature eventually resulting in life.  It is improbable on any given planet but when there are enough planets even a one in a billion billions chance is practically a guarantee.  If life hadn't occurred here we wouldn't be around to ponder the idea.

[Sophus]

A human arm may be more complex than the robot but an omnipotent being would be far superior in complexity compared to the human arm. So now we're back to the school boy question of "who made the creator?". Well, under the presumption that he has "always existed and has no intelligent creator himself," would it not be more logical to believe that the rather simple things which have resulted in our complexity did not have an intelligent creator either?

[Faithless]

In case you hadn't noticed, Messenger, we're onto you.

 

[Will]

Looking at our whole species, believing in the Judeo-Christian God is not the norm. Only maybe 1/3 of people on Earth believe in that God. Others believe in Allah, or even polytheism. So, in fact, believing in God is not the norm. It's just one of many possibilities.

[karadan]

A human arm may be more complex than the robot but an omnipotent being would be far superior in complexity compared to the human arm. So now we're back to the school boy question of "who made the creator?". Well, under the presumption that he has "always existed and has no intelligent creator himself," would it not be more logical to believe that the rather simple things which have resulted in our complexity did not have an intelligent creator either?

I see these threads and usually have an opinion which i'm unable to articulate correctly. For that matter i usually don't give an answer for fear i won't be eloquent enough.

So in this instance, i'll just say "What Sophus said" and leave it at that.

Hope that's ok Sophus.

 

[BadPoison]

So until a discovery is made of something that is proven to be "irreducibly complex"  - meaning that it couldn't have possibly occurred from something simpler - we'll have to reevaluate our theories. And rightly we should! But I don't believe we've seen this yet. I look forward to any new discoveries and what they might entail.
The Atheist looks forward to new discoveries because it may redefine his/her thinking! And this is exciting to the Atheist. Most deists seem to be more likely to not want to challenge their own beliefs with new data. As if they wish to hold on to something familiar.
-BP


p.s. Was Dawkins the first to coin the phrase "irreducibly complex?"

[Sophus]

I see these threads and usually have an opinion which i'm unable to articulate correctly. For that matter i usually don't give an answer for fear i won't be eloquent enough.

So in this instance, i'll just say "What Sophus said" and leave it at that.

Hope that's ok Sophus.

 

I'm flattered.

[Whitney]

Why are you comparing normal (common) assumptions to rational conclusions?

[Zarathustra]

What Messengers beliefs are, and whether he really is a logician became apparent in this thread : http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2237 Which he started himself. It has gone dead after he has failed to respond to any question. I choose not even to vote in this, because the options are simply too ridiculous.