the Probability Bomb — 11 Comments

  1. Yeah, there’s serious problems with the various theories. But the creationists can’t explain where the creator/designer came from any more than the evolutionists can explain how their primordial soup worked.

    At some point it had to be spontaneous because there wasn’t anything before.

    • This has always been one of the most inane comments by atheists.

      I’m sorry but what part of “eternal” do you not comprehend?

    • God is literally an entity that exists outside mortal preconceptions of time amongst other things.

      The infuriating part is that you will likely disagree with me not because of my points but because you imagine God as some old dude dressed in a toga and that image colors you’re imagination.

      Food for thought: did the laws of physics only come into being with the big bang or have they always been eternal and only exercised themselves when matter was present?

      • If you accept the Standard Model (I know, I know… no one here does), the laws of physics are a logical consequence of the shape of spacetime.

        Best guess is that they came into being at the same time as the big bang – they could have existed in the same form previously, but chances are that they didn’t – and we have no way of knowing.

  2. When you build an outbuilding, do you explain to it where you came from, or just use it for what you built it for? None of the “spontaneous origin” theories fit really well without a lot of guesswork. A creator/designer works quite well, but everyone seems preoccupied with finding out where/how that creator came to be. If we can’t get a good grasp on this multiverse’s origins, how would we ever understand that creator’s origins, which happened long before our little patch of reality ever sprang into being.

  3. When does this overly-forced soapbox thing end, and the once-a-month updates to TotQ resume?

    I dunno about the rest of you, but I’m pretty much here for that, and the knowledge that RH has the actual good content on hiatus so that he can write this political/religious tract is tremendously disappointing.

  4. That’s really a category error anyway, If one is willing to accept any supernatural influence, expecting it to follow the rules of causality is just arbitrary.

    • Omg THANK YOU. You put a point I’ve tried to make at least three times so much better than I ever did! Random causality is not an argument against God’s existence because God will have created the rules of causality themselves.

  5. If you’re not interested in origins, only what is now, there’s no point joining a discussion about origins, since you’re disinterested at best and at worst a disruption to the discussion.

    Making fun of people who believe Thing A because they can’t explain every little thing about how it works is throwing rocks when you live in a glass house, because your belief in Thing B isn’t fully explained either.

    The thing is, the Thing A believers can point to how science progresses over time — 400 years ago you’d be hard pressed to find someone who could explain the workings of a fuel-injection engine but now almost any car mechanic can do that. Because knowledge increased and discoveries were made.

    If anything that couldn’t be fully explained right from the start had to be discarded and/or ridiculed, we’d never have discovered how to make fire. How long was it between when bow drills were invented and the science of combustion was fully understood?

    Believers in Thing A can’t explain exactly how the process worked but have interesting experimental results — and until someone invents a machine that can compress time, they won’t be able to prove what a million years after their successful primordial soup experiments would yield.

    On the other hand, believers in Thing B can’t explain who designed the first designer, but are perfectly willing to accept from fellow Thing B believers what they’d dismiss as ludicrous nonsense answers if a Thing A believer said it.

    The way I see it, we don’t know and we can’t know (yet). To declare that we know beyond doubt how we came to be is purely hubris, whether the believer making the statement believes in Thing A or Thing B. I personally lean towards Thing B, but I’m honest and refuse to lie about whether or not I know it’s true. Or put another way, my God commanded me not to bear false witness and I obey Him.

    It may well turn out that Thing A is actually how He did it. If I throw grain mash, hops, water and yeast into an automated brewery, I’d made beer even though I only intervened at the beginning. Like the God of billiards players and domino topplers setting up his shot billions of years ago, the last ball sunk or domino toppled is by His volition as much as the first. Nowhere in the Bible does it say how He did it, only that he did.

Leave a Reply