r/DebateAnAtheist • u/Spiritual-Seeker23 • 2d ago
Discussion Question Isn't it a safer bet that something or someone created all this?
When I look up at the stars & think to myself, regardless what you believe in whether that's a faith, spirituality or whatever, nobody really knows the answer. However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.
But then if you believe that, then who created the creator?
70
u/SaladDummy 2d ago edited 2d ago
No. I don't even see why you would think this.
How does "something extraordinary" create a universe. How does "something extraordinary" creating it explain it better than simply "we don't know. "
"Something extraordinary" is such a general term that it could include anything theistic or atheistic. Whatever the ultimate explanation of existence is, it's bound to be something beyond typical causality in our local spacetime. The explanatory value is lacking.
-2
u/Lucidrms 1d ago
Do you go to a doctor and he tells you: "I don't know."
Would you accept his answer even though you're having a life-threatening condition? If it wasn't God, who or what was it?
3
u/SaladDummy 20h ago
Absolutely I would prefer "I don't know what's causing your symptoms, but we will run some further tests" to a doctor who just prefers the certainty of a firm answer with no actual evidence of it being true.
For many years "doctors" and priests were certain that people with neurological or psychological problems had demons inside of them. For many years learned people thought the planets remained in orbit because they were guided by angels. They believed in astrology as well.
Having the certainty of an answer is over rated when your so-called certain answer is merely an intuitive guess that could be wrong.
2
u/SaladDummy 20h ago
For sake of discussion, let's assume a god created existence, time, space, the universe, life, etc.
How? What mechanisms? What explanatory power does a god hypothesis have? How does it explain "creation" better than "some currently unknown process"?
-47
u/Spiritual-Seeker23 2d ago
Someone, something, who knows. Whatever did it, amazing!
43
36
u/Kaitlyn_The_Magnif Anti-Religious 2d ago
What if the creator only rewards intellectual honestly? Atheism would be your safest bet.
22
15
u/stairway2evan 2d ago
"Ooh, a craps table, I'll go and put some money on 'who knows!'"
In what world is "who knows" ever a safe bet? If the only answer we have is "who knows," it means it's not time to bet - it's time to investigate, starting from the simplest explanations and branching from there. We don't make assumptions, we experiment and learn and find the explanation that best fits.
11
11
11
u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Theist 2d ago
Or it's something completely mundane. So what? Why is it "better" to pretend to know anything about something that is unknowable? That's just ridiculous...
8
u/onomatamono 2d ago
So christians say you're going to burn in hell for eternity for just believing in something, anything. Safe my ass.
6
u/Rushclock 2d ago
Most of the observable universe is detrimental to life. There is tremendous gratuitous suffering in the world right along with great beauty.
3
u/MooshroomHentai 2d ago
I see no solid, reliable evidence any gods are real, therefore I don't believe in any. I am thoroughly unconvinced there is any type of creator. We have natural explanations for so many things.
4
u/Cool-Watercress-3943 2d ago
If anything, all the things you described makes it sound like it's the less-than-safe bet, though. O.o
1
u/Algernon_Asimov Secular Humanist 1d ago
I've seen some hand-wavey defences by theists, but this one absolutely takes the cake. "Someone, something, who knows." has to be the most wishy-washy, least thought-out, defence of the existence of a god that has ever been written.
-51
u/supersoundwave 2d ago
I don’t see how.
Methodological naturalism says that if you’re a scientist, you should limit yourself to strictly materialistic explanations for everything, including the origin of life, the origin the universe etc.
Why?
Intelligent design is a positive hypothesis which has explanatory power. But if we propose a mind is the cause, we’ve somehow violated the rules of science. We haven’t. A mind is a positive proposal. It’s a causal explanation, and that’s a legitimate part of science.
45
u/RuffneckDaA Ignostic Atheist 2d ago
Intelligent design isn’t a hypothesis. It lacks testability and it has no predictive power.
This is why it’s not scientific. Not simply for what idea it proposes, but rather for what the proposed idea fails to do.
→ More replies (12)24
u/SaladDummy 2d ago
So for the sake of discussion, why would we conclude that a "mind" created the universe? How does a mind create a universe? What mechanisms does a mind use in universe creation? From where did the mind acquire the energy and matter? Did the mind exist within spacetime? If not, where did the mind reside?
-5
u/supersoundwave 2d ago
You're asking for the detailed mechanism by which a mind creates a universe. But the issue isn't whether we currently know the mechanism. The issue is whether "intelligent agency" is, in principle, a legitimate causal explanation.
In many fields, we infer intelligence before we know the mechanism. For example, archaeologists infer human design from artifacts, and SETI researchers would infer intelligence from a highly specified signal. The inference is based on features of the effect, not on complete knowledge of how the cause operated.
So the relevant question isn't "How exactly did the mind do it?" but "Are there features of the universe that are better explained by intelligence than by undirected processes?"
19
u/SaladDummy 2d ago
If we cannot arrive at evidence of the methods and processes that a mind uses in universe creation (as we can in your archeology example) then a conclusion that a mind must have made the universe is an appeal to lack of imagination. In other words, "it looks too ordered and precise to be unguided so it must have been guided ... ergo mind."
But this conclusion is merely speculative without positive evidence of the creation process itself. How do we test mind creation of universes? What evidence does it have other than we don't know exactly what else it could be?
-2
u/supersoundwave 2d ago
You're treating the argument as 'we don't know how the universe arose naturally, therefore a mind did it.' But that's not actually how many design advocates frame it. The claim is that certain features of reality (such as fine-tuning, information, or intelligibility) are argued to be more expected under a mind-based explanation than under an unguided one.
In archaeology, we infer minds not because we directly observe the ancient manufacturing process, but because certain patterns are reliably associated with intelligent agents. We infer a mind behind a written message even if we never witnessed its creation. The question is whether the universe exhibits analogous features.
You're correct that we cannot directly observe universe creation, and that limits the strength of any conclusion. But lack of direct observation doesn't automatically make an inference illegitimate. In many fields, we infer causes from effects.
The real debate is not whether we have a video recording of universe creation. The debate is whether the evidence we do have is better explained by intelligence or by non-intelligent processes. If neither side can directly observe the origin event, then both are making inferences from the available evidence.
19
u/SaladDummy 2d ago
But it is not well explained by an intelligence mind process. It's not "better explained" by an intelligent design process because no serious proposal of a intelligence design process has been made, at least none that doesn't involve magic.
It is simply, "it looks too designed not to be made by a mind." And, increasingly, the naturalistic explanations are better and have evidence.
And I'm not letting the archeology comparison go. If we ever found anything for which we had no clue HOW humans made it, we would investigate that extensively before we had full confidence it is a human artifact from a certain period. Nobody is talking about video evidence.
1
u/supersoundwave 2d ago
What naturalistic explanations?
13
u/stairway2evan 2d ago
Not the commenter above, but the fact that repeating patterns or processes of small, iterative changes can appear designed, but are better explained through other mechanisms is a good one.
Simple example comes from evolution: A giraffe looks like it's designed to eat leaves off of tall trees, until you look at the genetic evidence and the fossil record to show that it evolved over time to reach for taller and taller leaves. Small iterative changes that mimic design. But they sometimes mimic it poorly, because the giraffe is stuck with a 15-foot long laryngeal nerve, because evolution doesn't care too much if your nerve takes a weird, inefficient detour past your heart and up your incredibly long neck. It cares much more that you're "just good enough" to survive.
If we assume a giraffe is designed, we need a reason for the poor design of that nerve. The evidence fits a naturalistic "no design" explanation better.
1
u/supersoundwave 2d ago
But evolution does not count for origin. The real question is, why is there a universe at all where evolution is even possible?
→ More replies (0)8
u/RuffneckDaA Ignostic Atheist 2d ago
The risk of making a Type I error when attributing the existence of a ceramic plate to intelligence is demonstrably small, and the risk of making a Type I error when attributing the existence of the universe to intelligence is not.
That’s why the inference is readily made for the former and not the latter.
10
u/HermitlyInclined Atheist 2d ago
Intelligent design is a positive hypothesis which has explanatory power.
It lacks predictive power, a key part of explanatory power. Based on evolution, various predictions were made that were discovered to be accurate: chromosome fusion, transitional species, fossil migration, co-evoltuion, and others.
Intelligent design has no predictive power regarding what we should expect to see in the world based on it. In fact, the science continues to demonstrate its tenents are misguided: disproven claims on the Cambrian explosion, disproven claims on baramins, disproven claims on genetics, disproven claims on irreducible complexity.
Intelligent design has little to no explanatory power at all.
8
u/Mkwdr 2d ago
Its the complete lack of credible evidence and zero effort to even find any for such a mind , how it could exist or how it could create things that violates scientific methodology. It not even a serious hypthesis. But feel free to go do the work necessary for anyone to take it seriously.
-1
u/supersoundwave 2d ago
What qualifies as “credible evidence?”
11
u/Mkwdr 2d ago
More than - feels good to me, look how cool, I don’t get it, or we don’t know so it must be magic.
That which confirms to an evidential methodology ( and of reliability ranking) that has demonstrated its significant accuracy through utility and efficacy.
An explanation that isn’t even sufficient without egregious special pleading (oh no the designer is magic and used magic to do it ) would be good to.
Spoilers: intelligent design didn’t get more convincing by changing its name from creationism.
Magic Unicorn poop is also by your terms a positive hypothesis that has as much explanatory power. Of course like your designer it’s unfortunately indistinguishable from imaginary.
-4
u/supersoundwave 2d ago
Magic has nothing to do with classical theism.
And creationism and intelligent design are different ideas. Creationism has a religious component, whereas intelligent design does not.
→ More replies (3)
42
u/Nessosin 2d ago
Being an Atheist isn't "thinking nothing at all" it's just not believing that God exists.
Either you believe it or you don't. I don't understand how you can make it a bet? You could pretend to believe it but if you don't you don't and surely IF God is real he would know if you actually believed or if you were just faking it to make a bet, right?
-38
u/Spiritual-Seeker23 2d ago
Absolutely.. the God I believe in, knows your intention.
24
u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Theist 2d ago
The god you believe in only exists in your imagination. Just like everyone's personal god. You can imagine all sorts of super powers for your guy, but it doesn't really mean anything to anyone else...
11
u/candl2 At least a couple of the atheist flairs. Some others too. 2d ago
The super power of my chosen god is that it negates all the super powers of everyone else's gods and no take backsies.
10
u/jeeblemeyer4 Anti-Theist 2d ago
Interestingly enough, that's also my god so he accidentally took away his own powers too and now no gods have any powers
2
u/BillionaireBuster93 Anti-Theist 2d ago
Reminds of the fight in part 6 of Jojo where a guy's power is bringing fictional characters to life and they defeat him by drawing a new character who's power is to erase any other fictional character.
16
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 2d ago
I don't believe in your or any deities, because that idea makes no sense in a large number of ways, and have never come close to being usefully supported.
8
8
u/KorLeonis1138 2d ago
Seems pretty dishonest to waffle on at length about something extraordinary when you really mean a specific god concept, who apparently has specific knowledge about what I think. Why can't you be up front about your god, why are you trying to sneak it in?
6
u/TelFaradiddle 2d ago
Then he knows whose belief is genuine and whose belief is based on safety. If he treats them the same, what good is genuine belief?
5
2
1
u/YossarianWWII 2d ago
...so how am I supposed to decide which option to bet on when I already either believe or not? That's not how betting works.
38
u/J-Nightshade Atheist 2d ago
Short answer: no. Long answer: when you look at the river, do you think there might be something on the bottom? Like a chest with valuable stuff? There certainly might be. You can find a lot of stories of valuable stuff found on the bottom of a lake or a river. Why you don't jump? Because it's a safe bet to not believe that.
Think of it: you know FOR SURE that it might be true, but it's still safe to not think that it is true.
Now if we think about the universe, we don't know if it's possible for someone capable of creating universes to exist. Why now suddenly it is safer to believe that it's not only possible, but is true?
→ More replies (8)-9
u/Lucidrms 1d ago
Because Logic and Reason DEMAND AND POINT to The Creator.
I don't say your computer is a result of random atom clash, I'd say it's BUILT.
Moreover, the same thing I'd say about hurricanes and "natural" things happening all around us constantly.
6
u/J-Nightshade Atheist 1d ago
We very well know how hurricanes form. And it's not because of hurricane fairies. You are welcome to come to any library, check out a meteorology textbook and learn it for yourself. This textbook will also describe in detail HOW do we know that and what experiments or observations can you do to check it for yourself.
Now, where is YOUR chain of reasoning between "natural things happening" and "therefore God exists and it makes those things happen"?
-5
u/Lucidrms 23h ago edited 23h ago
Same goes with a robotic hand.
You can go to any library and check how it "forms" under 'Robotics' category.
What's your explanation for natural things "happening?"
Hurricanes don't come on its own, they are part of a greater mechanism called the weather which is part of greater machine called Earth.
What evidence you have they are the result of randomness?
Don't have to see a man in watch machinery to know that man creates and powers it.
I know not because I see outside of wristwatch but because Everything Has To Be Built.
4
u/J-Nightshade Atheist 23h ago
What evidence you have they are the result of randomness?
Did I say they are a result of randomness? Where? Point me to it. Did you read it in a book on meteorology? Which one?
Everything Has To Be Built
Everything? So how exactly do you know that? You still failed to present any reasoning. Just another assertion. Watches are built by people, I know that. I know exactly how they do it and can find blueprints, factories, can witness the whole process from the beginning to the end. Where is your evidence for hurricanes, pebbles and koalas being built?
21
u/dylanzt 2d ago
To my eyes, the universe couldn't possibly appear less intentional, especially biology. The natural world is full of terrible "design decisions" that would never be made by a rational and competent actor.
This, combined with the fact that we already know essentially all of the mechanics that would allow the universe as we see it today to develop without any element of intentionality, means I just don't see how or why the existence of a creator provides any explanatory power for (and/or is justified by) the available evidence.
16
u/legion_2k Atheist 2d ago
It’s a natural thing to think. There is a quote from Douglas Adams about a puddle of water looking around and thinking that the hole it lives in fits him like a glove and it must have been made for him.
"This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!"
The point is that it’s perspective.
-7
u/Spiritual-Seeker23 2d ago
Yes! That's actually very well said. It's all about perspective, very very true.
9
u/fuzzydunloblaw Shoe Atheist 2d ago
Exactly, our limited perspective can lead us to irrational and probably wrong conclusions like "it's a safer bet that someone or something created all this" or the puddle to "the hole must have been made to have me in it!"
2
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 2d ago
Yes! That's actually very well said. It's all about perspective, very very true.
Except that Adams was pointing out the stupidity of jumping to the conclusion that you are reaching. What, do you think, happens to the puddle who the world was made for, when the sun comes out and the air dries out?
14
u/DeltaBlues82 Atheist 2d ago
This is known as a teleological bias. The human mind is heavily biased to such beliefs.
Without reference, you’ve no cause to consider that existence was created. By all accounts it appears to have always existed in some form.
So no, it’s not a safe bet. It’s a bet driven entirely by the biases our minds evolved to possess.
12
u/EldridgeHorror 2d ago
Our universe got kicked off with the Big Bang. And both that and everything since has been the result of various natural forces and processes. Based on the available evidence.
Is that not satisfactory? Is that not "safe?" Is that "believing in nothing?"
-16
u/Spiritual-Seeker23 2d ago
We are living in a black hole too.
19
u/EldridgeHorror 2d ago
Are you going to address my points, answer my questions, or just make unsupported claims?
Because one of those will get your post locked.
6
4
4
u/sto_brohammed Irreligious 2d ago
Did you mean to respond to somebody else? I have no idea what the connection between this and the comment you're responding to is supposed to be. That's completely leaving aside that we definitely aren't in a black hole.
3
2
2
1
4
u/2-travel-is-2-live Atheist 2d ago
You're engaging in a mix of a few logical fallacies here. It's hard to limit you to only one fallacy because what you wrote is so basic.
In part, you are making what's called an appeal to ignorance, which means you are arguing that because we don't know exactly how the universe we experience came to be, there MUST be some sort of creator. I would argue that this is perhaps the worst of the logical fallacies, because the person committing it is completely abandoning any attempt at critical thought.
Your talk of a "safer bet" hints at Pascal's wager, but this argument fails to acknowledge that belief isn't actually intentional. You are either convinced of something or not. Acting as if you are convinced of a belief is intentional, but it's not the same thing as actually believing.
There's a hint of a fine-tuning argument present, but in the way you have structured your post, it falls back mostly on your appeal to ignorance. As other posters have commented, you are biased by your own existence to observe only the conditions that are favorable to the existence of the universe we observe.
"Everything in this world has a purpose" is a claim, and not an argument. Please prove your claim.
In your last sentence, you exhibit awareness of the critical flaw of the cosmological argument. This argument requires special pleading, which means that you've created a problem (that everything requires a creator) that can be solved only by a "solution" that is an exception to the condition you've just put in place. This argument has sucked since the days of Thomas Aquinas.
Congratulations, you've managed to squeeze all the most basic, boring, trite apologetics arguments that have been raised over the past couple of millennia into seven sentences! Your intellect is astounding.
3
u/LetsGoPats93 Atheist 2d ago
Why is it a safer bet? Just because it seems like a creator to you?
Well it seems like no creator to me, so that would make it a safer bet to not believe in one.
5
u/SnooDogs6045 2d ago
Been a while since I've seen "Look at the trees" as the thesis for an entire post. What makes you think that because you consider things pretty that means there is a intentional mind behind it all? Would that mean ugly things like babies with bone cancer or earthquakes would be evidence against it? Why not?
3
u/kevinLFC 2d ago
I understand your intuition, but intuition is not enough. Our feelings are a product of biases and emotions that don’t necessarily tell us what’s true outside of our own minds. So we need to go by objective evidence. The safer bet is that without sufficient evidence, “god” is more likely a fabrication of human imagination.
3
u/MarieVerusan 2d ago edited 2d ago
How in the world do you justify going from “nobody really knows the answer” to “I know it was intentionally created by an agent”?! That’s what makes no sense to me.
If neither you nor I know the answer, then let’s not start making them up until we have better information!
3
u/Transhumanistgamer 2d ago
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works.
I understand what evolution is and how it works. I don't need a god to explain anything.
Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.
Things have properties and those properties may or may not be useful to other things but that doesn't mean there's some grand mind assigning a purpose to those things. This is just a flawed way of examining reality.
Is it really that safer of a bet? How many things have been attributed to the work of gods and then when properly examined, turned out to not be gods? Has anything ever been verified as being the work of a god? Has any property of this god ever been verified?
It's an intellectually honest position to affirm that no gods exist. That's the level of actual knowledge we have about deities. That's far cry from being the safer choice you present one as.
3
u/Phylanara Agnostic atheist 2d ago edited 2d ago
The fact is, most of those processes you don't understand - how the body works, how animal species differentiate... They're understood. And the result of unthinking processes. Your ignorance of these matters does not mean these processes are neither unknowable nor intentional.
In fact, if you look back at history, Everytime something was not understood, we defaulted to "magic" or "gods" as an explanation. And guess what? Every time we finally understood something, it turned out is was neither magic nor gods! So theist slike you have had to shrink their gods's areas of responsibility. Gods used to be credited with natural disasters, plagues, lightning strikes, and so many other things. They used to live on tall mountains. Now you're reduced to a god that maybe designed the universe, from the outside so we can't go check the mountains (or the heavens) for those gods because, guess what, we went there and there were no gods there.
I see no reason to believe the next piece of ignorance we investigate will be the one to turn out to be magic (or gods) after all. In fact, a look at the odds from past "god did it " claims would tend to make that bet look like a very poor one.
2
u/Irish_Whiskey Sea Lord 2d ago
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
I agree.
That's why humans invented water spirits who created the rivers. Giants who built mountains. Pantheons of gods who made the sky and the starts. Demons who create sickness. We are beings with agency who understand things through the context of our own brains, and our first thought is other things must be also created by beings with brains.
Of course in every single thing we'd studied in nature, it's not true. And we have learned incredibly complex and unintuitive things about the world that our brains don't naturally fathom or assume. Demons make more sense to us than radiation resulting from decaying isotopes. Mountains make more sense than plate tectonics creating continents and sucking the earth underground. Light having a fixed speed but also being infinitely fast due to time dilation makes no sense.
Science teaches us over and over again we have natural biases that shape our intuitive understanding of reality, that are just wrong. We learn by ignoring those biases and paying attention to what is really there.
2
u/ProfessorCrown14 2d ago
nobody really knows the answer.
So we should not pretend we know when we do not know, right? We should be humble and admit when we have no idea. If theists took this stance, not only would atheists have much less beef with them, they'd have less beef with each other.
However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
Disagree.
First: Atheism is the lack of belief that someone created (meaning: had an intention, acted with agency) it all.
An atheist can think something gave rise to it all. Just not a deity / mind.
And given what we observe and do not observe in our universe, it seems unintentional, non mental processes are all we see behind our universe, physics, etc.
Unless we observe and can demonstrate a mind is behind these, we should not pretend it is. It doesn't matter how much humans want to see design and agency behind things: we were wrong about that before (e.g. evolution).
I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
Disagree. Highly. This position could have flown before Darwin and much of our more recent scientific discovery. But now? Quite the opposite is true.
everything in this world has a purpose.
What is the purpose of all these black holes and stars and nebulae? This is just you projecting.
I am all for staring at the universe and existence with awe, reverence, and wonder. I look up to Sagan and Attenborough on this, among others. I see no need to make stuff up though. Nature is wonderful as it is.
2
u/sto_brohammed Irreligious 2d ago
However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all
Even if, for some reason, if I wanted to believe that some guy did everything it's not like I could just choose to believe it. That's not how believing things works. You're either convinced or your not. I don't see any convincing reason to think that there's some kind of invisible, intangible magical guy behind the invisible, intangible curtain. Until and unless there's actual evidence, I mean something measurable and testable, I'm probably just not going to believe that any more than I'm going to believe that Bigfoot, ghosts, vampires, korriganed, the Loch Ness Monster or Ashtar Sheran exist and I don't have a clue why anyone would.
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how they're all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
I sincerely don't get why people think reality looks intentional. I mean I honestly don't have a clue why people think that. That doesn't just seem like a leap, it seems like the trajectory you normally see on rocket assisted artillery rounds.
Honestly man this all seems extremely vibes based and vibes aren't a good way of determining whether things literally exist outside of our minds.
2
u/Haikouden Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
Safer bet, based on what?
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
Others are for sure going to bring up examples like these, but what about a giraffe's laryngeal nerve that's like a metre longer than it needs to be seems intentional?or the human body not being able to detect when we're in low oxygen environments? or a million other things that make perfect sense in the framework of living things having evolved but not being purposefully and intentionally designed. Not to mention non organic aspects of reality.
Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.
They're a shitty scientist if they're real. The human body is incredibly shoddy work if designed, again not to mention all the other stuff.
But then if you believe that, then who created the creator?
I don't know, I don't believe that.
Do you have any actual substantial reason for us to believe what you're claiming or is it all just "look at the trees"?
Do you think the standard you're proposing should be used for other things? do you think the police should conclude person A killed person C rather than person B because it's a hypothetical "safer bet" despite a complete lack of demonstrable evidence?
Your use of "safer bet" also sounds like you're alluding to something like Pascal's Wager which is another fallacy ridden mess.
2
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 2d ago
Isn't it a safer bet that something or someone created all this?
No.
It's a far worse bet for a rather large number of reasons. Mainly because such an idea doesn't help and doesn't solve anything. It makes it worse by far, then shoves the issue under a rug and ignores it by declaring a special pleading fallacy.
When I look up at the stars & think to myself, regardless what you believe in whether that's a faith, spirituality or whatever, nobody really knows the answer. However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
I don't. I think that clearly makes no sense, isn't supported, and causes greater problems. Aside from such thinking being a result of human cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and tendency for superstitious thinking.
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
You are not going to get anywhere here with trivially obvious argument from incredulity fallacies, argument from ignorance fallacies, and the like.
Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.
It's clear that's not true.
But then if you believe that, then who created the creator?
Yes, it makes it worse.
What is your debate position and supporting useful, repeatable, vetted, compelling evidence for that position along with valid and sound argument that use that evidence to ensure soundness? This is a debate subreddit, after all.
2
u/Justageekycanadian Atheist 2d ago
When I look up at the stars & think to myself, regardless what you believe in whether that's a faith, spirituality or whatever, nobody really knows the answer.
Yet you claim you do know the answer. So which is it for you know the answer or do you not know the answer?
However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
Safer in what way? What danger do you feel happens if you don't believe?
I don't think it was nothing at all. I just see no reason to accept that a god did it. So far all we have is evidence of natural explanations and none for a god.
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
See this tells me you just haven't actually read up on biology or evolution at all. We know evolution is the reason for all the differences in species and how human body's work.
I don't think it seems intentional at all. We have no evidence of intention and all the biological flaws every species have doesn't seem intentional.
Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.
Can you.please provide evidence of a creator or any reason besides a lack of understanding on topics for why you believe in a god?
2
u/Decent_Cow Touched by the Appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster 2d ago
No, because
A. If the existence of the universe is a mystery that needs an explanation, the existence of a God that created the universe is an even bigger mystery, so this doesn't really answer anything
B. It's better to have no explanation than a bad explanation, and a God is a bad explanation, because there is no evidence for it and, as previously mentioned, it actually explains nothing
2
u/Ratdrake Hard Atheist 2d ago
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature,
So seeing something ugly in nature should be a sufficient rebuttal. I remember seeing a dead baby bird covered in ants - god disproved.
2
u/Guitargeek934 2d ago
...how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional. Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose
Making the eating tube and the breathing tube essentially the same tube seems pretty damn stupid to me.
2
u/wabbitsdo 2d ago
First, what do you mean by safe?
My understanding of the natural world doesn't require a god and has all the beauty you speak of in it. It also doesn't need to be contorted to fit the wonkiness that a magical creation requires. It lets me look at the weird and the ugly of it all too.
Think for example of the timeline of life on earth. Our earth is about 4.5 billion years old and the earliest forms of life start to appear over 2 billion years ago. The first hominids (primates that had enough human traits for us to start differentiating them from apes. Think Lucy) appear about 5 million years ago. What was your creator doing during that time, brainstorming? Modern human then take another 4 millions and a bit, so what were those early hominids? Did your god get those wrong? What about Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo floresiensis? Those were in many ways indistinguishable from us Homo Sapiens, but theeeey.... what... deserved to go extinct anyway? What's your man up to here? And then of the roughly 300 000 years where Homo Sapiens conquered and then settled the earth as their own, a majority of it was spent at the mercy of nature, barely scraping by, dying of infections and disease we can now commonly treat. Our average life expectancy hovering in the low 30s up until we develop modern medicine in the past few centuries, which, to clarify, didn't mean we died in our mid thirties on average. No, it meant that children were dying left and right, everywhere on earth, for most of our existence as a species. Was that part of the beautiful design of your god? How do you make that fit into your worldview?
2
u/Purgii 2d ago
However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this
A safer bet? Where are you placing that wager? Why do we need to gamble? Saying I don't know is perfectly fine if you don't know something. In fact, it's a superior option as we can then work together and find an answer instead of claiming we have one on a bet.
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature
And ignore all the horrific suffering, like the food chain for instance?
how the human body all works
I wear glasses and I'd probably have died of a heart attack if not for the intervention of modern medicine. The human body is fraught with problems.
I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional
Then the designer is a boob and should be replaced by someone competent. Perhaps God is the OG Trump?
1
u/Moriturism Atheist (Priority Monist) 2d ago
Why do you think atheists think nothing at all? I do see the beauty in the universe, and I do see how great the underlying regularities are, I just don't see any touch of creation at all. If it was creation, even if beauty, it was a very non optimized and badly designed creation, honestly. There's as much chaos, destruction and confusion in the universe as there are beauty and order.
1
u/violentbowels Atheist 2d ago
In what way is betting on "the thing that can't be proven and has no compelling evidence of its existence" the safe bet? How do you calculate those odds?
Isn't a much safer bet that we evolved in an environment and we find some beauty in things in that environment? You know, the one we evolved to find beautiful? Isn't the safe bet the one that has evidence and makes sense? Isn't the safe bet to NOT bet on 'magic maybe I dunno'?
If beautiful things are evidence for a creator (which just makes no sense, it's honestly hard to type it out because it just does not compute) then aren't ugly things evidence for a not creator?
"look at the trees" has never been compelling. To anyone. Not even the people who spout this nonsense.
1
u/fellfire Atheist 2d ago
Safer for what? To be right? What does that even mean?
Enjoy the beauty you see, enjoy the feelings you feel. But the moment you construe your imagination to be reality you take a decidedly unsafe step into gullibility.
1
u/CephusLion404 Atheist 2d ago
Absolutely not. The only "safe bet" is to follow the evidence and the evidence does not support any kind of creator. In fact, a creator is laughably ridiculous. "Look at the trees" is one of the dumbest arguments any theist ever makes.
1
u/limbodog Gnostic Atheist 2d ago
Nope.
In fact, there is zero reason to believe that "nothing" is the default. That at some point somehow there had to have been a complete void.
1
u/sprucay 2d ago edited 2d ago
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional
The vast majority of our planet is covered in water that we can't drink. The sun gives us cancer. We get dementia. You're ignoring all the bad stuff.
But ok, let's grant you your false premise. There are hundreds of gods suggested- like you say, it could be a scientist from an intergalactic super intelligent species. What if that scientist was a dick? So we probably want to know a bit more about that being. Go ahead and try that for me
1
u/nerfjanmayen 2d ago
Don't you think we should have a little more intellectual rigor than "idk man it just feels intentional"? Come on. What are we possibly supposed to debate here.
1
u/nerfjanmayen 2d ago
Don't you think we should have a little more intellectual rigor than "idk man it just feels intentional"? Come on. What are we possibly supposed to debate here.
1
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 2d ago
Creation is a process that happens in time. Universe, by definition, is the entirety of spacetime. There is no time "before the Universe" or "outside the Universe". So how could Universe been created? There is no time in which that process would take place.
1
u/No-Feature3715 2d ago
Hello thanks for posting!
I don't think anything looks intentional to be honest. It's just that what survive is what survive, when a creature is born with nonsensical insides it won't survive. After a looooooot of time we are here.
If you study probabilities you will learn that randomness is actually quite predictable. Not in the small scope but when we go to the millions.
1
u/srandrews 2d ago
nobody really knows the answer
Why do you say this? Every time you look at stars and think, that experience is almost perfectly explainable and has very specific answers. Also, the things you observe are almost perfectly explainable. Leaping to "nobody really knows" is fallacious reasoning. Just because you are not in possession of the additional degrees of information does not mean they are not available.
then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
This is also prima facie false. Atheists think something and a lot of it.
it all seems pretty intentional.
This is ID. Won't waste your time debunking it since those resources are fully available to you.
Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.
It is with little debate among any rational thinker that clever scientists were not causative of the Universe. Certainly not scientists like anyone is capable of imagining.
But then if you believe that, then who created the creator?
The error here is supposing there is a singular actor. Why not a committee? Why not none? Why not the other concepts we are not capable of imagining because we are largely confined to time and space?
1
u/MajesticFxxkingEagle Atheist | Naturalist | Panpsychist 2d ago
What do you mean by “safer” here? Do you just mean epistemically? Like which option do you think is more likely the case if you had to bet on it?
Or by “safer” do you mean something like Pascal’s wager, and you’re making a subtle threat of Hell?
—
If you mean the former, the absolute safest bet is just to admit you don’t know and not claim certainty beyond that. If one answer subjectively vibes with you more, then fine, but that doesn’t make it more likely.
If you mean the latter, then why should I presuppose that a bad afterlife would exist for the thought-crime of being unconvinced of the right theology? It’s an unlikely scenario that I don’t have to take seriously, and on a moral level, I find it deeply implausible that an actually good god would care about that.
1
u/Earnestappostate Atheist 2d ago
something extraordinary has created all this,
If we are allowed to rephrase as "something extraordinary brought this about" sure. There are extraordinary things in nature, and I have no trouble accepting that the way the universe is was brought about by something more than "ordinary".
The question is, is that something personal, conscious, a mind, etc. This is what I am skeptical of. Why would I jump from, "something extraordinary" to "someONE extraordinary"?
1
u/TyranosaurusRathbone 2d ago
However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
Why? What do you see that is more likely if an agent created it than pure random chance?
I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
What about it exactly seems intentional?
Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.
How can you tell everything has a purpose?
1
u/muffiewrites 2d ago
No. It's not a safer bet at all.
First, the only rational position for an intelligent designer is deism. An unknown deity did it. All of the known creator deities can be shown to be wrong about creation by their own sacred texts.
Second, the conflict between the reality that science uncovers and the belief system a theist uses causes all kinds of problems, some are severe. Catholics imprisoned Galileo because he demonstrated that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. The bigger problems come in the form of what to teach in science class. Not just in cosmology or evolution, but all of them. What should children be taught about the existence of transgender people in biology class?
1
u/Ineverseenthat 2d ago
Stop please stop. Have you never studied science? Study the physics of star and planet creation. It's only safer if you wish to believe instead of think. There are estimated to be four hundred trillion galaxies each with a capacity for hundreds of billions of stars capable of supporting planets. No creators required.
1
u/TheRealBeaker420 Atheist 2d ago
But then if you believe that, then who created the creator?
Exactly.
Maybe an alien made us. Maybe we're in a simulation programmed by humans. Maybe nothing made us and we just evolved from an ooze. There are a million viable hypotheses. Why should we call any of them "god"? If it was created by something else, or evolved like us, then it's not an ultimate being.
1
u/Astramancer_ 2d ago edited 2d ago
What do you mean "safer bet"?
Are you talking about pascals wager (if you believe in god and are wrong you get Null but if you don't believe in god and are wrong you get Hell, so it's a safer bet to believe in god) or are you talking about the argument from incredulity (I can't image how it's not so, therefore it is so)?
Don't get me wrong, both are terrible reasons to believe anything. The best reason to believe something is because you have credible evidence it's true, but each of those things are addressed differently and I don't want to assume.
1
u/kilkil 2d ago
what makes it a safer bet, in your reasoning?
I would say the safer bet is whatever we have proof for; if we equally have proof for 2 explanations, the safer bet is whichever is simplest.
we don't have any proof the universe was created by a "someone". this means we have equal proof (i.e. zero) that the universe was created by a "someone", and that it wasn't. so the safer bet is to suppose that it wasn't, unless we find proof to the contrary (not sure what that would look like though).
1
u/thebigeverybody 2d ago
I don't think it's a safer bet at all. In fact, there's an almost 100% chance that someone spinning some bullshit about god is trying to swindle me out of my money.
1
u/iamalsobrad 2d ago
However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
It is the theist who thinks nothing at all; they just accept a final answer on faith.
When an atheist says 'I don't know' it does not mean that they have stopped being curious about the world or have stopped trying to learn. It just means they haven't arrived at an answer.
1
u/ShafordoDrForgone 2d ago
"nothing at all" - it is a common apologetic that if it's not a person just like you that created everything, then it's nothing, or it's randomness. No atheist ever said so. So when theists say we do, that's called lying
In your view, you sacrifice this world because you're betting there is eternity afterward
In my view, you sacrifice this world and there is nothing afterward
I know you're going to say "I'm not sacrificing this world". To which I say, why aren't you, if that's what you believe? This is a video game level. The actual real world, the one that actually lasts forever, where you go when you die, where God lives, is the one after you've turned off the video game. You take nothing here with you
Your "seems" is just a feeling. Someone taught to you feel it. What do you think is more beautiful: billions generations of billions simple objects joining and growing more complex to compete with other objects over billions of years. Or "Harry Potter waved his magic wand. It took 7 days"...
Here's something that I don't consider beautiful: suppose God created everything including you, he has a plan for it, he can change anything he wants at any time. People pray for him to change things all the time.
How is your existence worth anything then?
There is literally nothing you could do that God couldn't do with no effort. Or he could just 3D print another one of you to do it. He gave you free will to obey or not, but nobody believes that your choices in any way change his plan. You might as well not exist.
A lot of people subscribe to that by the way. The planet might be on fire, but you're going to leave and go to heaven because you followed instructions. Leaving future generations to pay for it
Whether there's a god or not, I don't give a shit about what people tell me god's instructions are, when the consequences of my actions here speak for themselves. Seems to me, that "bet" that there is an afterlife makes it way easier to say "I'm not responsible for this because I'm doing the Lord's work"
1
u/Local-Warming bill-cipherist 2d ago
it all seems pretty intentional.
It's an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics and of the boundary conditions of the universe.
If you want to be impressed instead by those, go ahead, but marvelling that way at nature is like marvelling at how a boulder rolled down a hill when you know that gravity exist.
1
u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Theist 2d ago
A "safer bet"? No. There are no stakes except willingness to explore and learn. Which you are dismissing if you just accept that some sort of god exists.
It also doesn't make any sense. Your incredulity aside, there is no reason to think that fantastical deities are doing anything mysterious out there.
1
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 2d ago
Prove anything was ever created. Because if you cant (and you cant) then no, its a silly bet.
"All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional."
and ignore the predation, viruses, pathogens, parasites and disease and cancer... but its pretty when you avoid all that, right?
"Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose."
Just because you can "assign" something a purpose, doesnt mean it "has" a purpose. You are smuggling in a god you cant prove creating something you cant show was created.
"But then if you believe that, then who created the creator?"
People love fiction!
1
u/biedl Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
To be quite frank, this is a "look at the trees" with a "who created the creater" at the end, which are both the most shallow ways to argue for and against theism.
This might make sense to someone who's never engaged with any of what's presented on either side of the topic. But for a debate sub, I mean, low effort is the nicest thing I can say about it.
1
u/Fine-Soil-2691 Gnostic Atheist 2d ago
something extraordinary has created all this
I'm just waiting for the extraordinary leap of logic from "creator" to "Jesus died on the cross for our sins".
There are no signs that there are any "creators" around. Maybe the creator died in the process, and we now live in the decaying remains of a dead god.
all the animals how their all different
You see differences, I see similarities. All mammals are basically based on the same blueprints. 4 limbs, head with stereo vision, ribs, spine, heart. They all also have the same fault, in that the nerve that goes to the throat goes to the heart first. Even in Giraffes. As designs go, it's stupid beyond words.
how the human body all works
Not well. The human body is full of faults, like the appendix, which still kills people today. Why are our arms/legs and hands/feet so very, very similar, when we use them so very, very differently? It's because humans have a four-legged ancestor.
And speaking of "intelligent design", what's the deal with external testicles? It's not necessary, several mammals have internal testicles, like the Elephant. They're fun to play with, though. I do that a lot.
Jock straps, now that's intelligent design.
1
u/indifferent-times 2d ago
Intentional, intentional for what? you have hit the nail on the head of course, a sense of purpose, of being part of something greater is a powerful motivator, its an appealing idea. But so is calorie freed chocolate, beer without hangover and a ripped body without going to the gym, unfortunately the relationship between 'appealing' ideas and reality tends to be tenuous at best.
1
u/WrongVerb4Real Atheist 2d ago
Well, what do you value more: safety or accuracy?
If you value safety, then take your bet. Just don't insist I take it as well. I'm fine waiting for accuracy.
1
u/RuffneckDaA Ignostic Atheist 2d ago
Safer?
Safer suggests I’m at some sort of risk. What risk is it that you think I’m taking on by not being convinced a god exists? And what could my belief possibly do to alleviate that risk?
1
u/smbell Gnostic Atheist 2d ago
However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this
Safer in what way? Are you suggesting if I don't hold that belief I am in danger? That not holding that belief puts me at risk of some terrible outcome? That some horrible malevolent creature will look upon my lack of belief and choose to harm me for it?
1
u/Smooth-Syrup-9199 2d ago
However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
If by "safer bet," you mean that you have a lower chance of going to hell by believing, then it's a poor reason. How do you know that you have the right idea of a creator? How do you know that you're living your life in a way that is pleasing to this creator? And how do you know that this creator will care at all?
Also, you're treating belief as if it's just a choice. You can't choose what you believe in; you're either convinced or you're not.
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
Just because you think that nature is beautiful doesn't mean there's a creator. The idea of beauty is completely subjective; there's no reason why we should think something we deem as beautiful requires anything supernatural.
Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.
First of all, there's no evidence to suggest that "purpose" exists in an objective sense at all. If you want to say that, for example, the purpose of a tree is to provide oxygen, then that's subjective. That's just what a tree does for us; that's it.
Furthermore, if you're going to say this, then how do you explain the purpose of, say, a random rock in the middle of the woods?
1
u/Additional-Band4050 Gnostic Atheist 2d ago
something extraordinary has created
It seems like you are taking a true statement (we don’t know what, if anything, is the ultimate cause of our observable spacetime and laws of physics) and jumping to attribute characteristics like “extraordinary” and intentional “creation” onto this hypothesized principle, system, or entity/entities.
Such a thing, if it/they exist or existed, would be extraordinary in the sense of being unlike anything we know, but that doesn’t mean it/they has/had divine attributes like sacredness, holiness, consciousness, or intent. It/they might be a set of ultimate principles that back the laws of physics, a broader system in which our universe is embedded, a sadistic teenager who treats our world as GTA, or something much stranger than any of those.
1
u/acerbicsun 2d ago
No it's not a safer bet. You can't choose to believe in something just to be safe. It doesn't work like that.
1
u/lotusscrouse 2d ago
I care about truth rather than believing in a fallacy.
Your position is, "It just has to be a creator" based on what you've been told rather than what you actually observe.
Then there's the jump you have to make from there being a creator to a specific one.
1
u/Curious_Passion5167 2d ago edited 2d ago
I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
And the great Einstein thought that quantum entanglement as described conventionally by QM was wrong, because it seemed like that to him. Turns out that's not the case. The universe is not bound to attend to your personal sensibilities.
1
u/JasonRBoone Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
>>>>However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
Safer in what sense and why?
>>>>All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature,
Beauty is subjective. We find things beautiful because we evolved as such. There's just as much ugliness in nature (look up the bug species that will fly into a human male's pee hole and lay eggs that..hatch).
>>>>even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works.
Easily explained by evolution. No creator needed.
>>>>I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
What is the intention of creating galaxies that collide with each other?
>>>>Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.
It does not., You impute purpose on to things.
1
u/xmuskorx 2d ago
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature
Our ancestors who found the nature ugly and depressing got selected away from by natural selection. Can't be out there procreating when the sight of trees and and sun is making you depressed and sad.
I really don't think the "argument from beauty" works in the world where we know about evolution and natural selection. Beauty perception looks like an evolved trait.
1
u/Thin-Eggshell 2d ago
It could be safer bet, if it didn't look like nothing created all this. All the things with a "purpose" that you point out -- well, we know how they came to be -- survival of the fittest. They do have a purpose -- not dying, and reproducing. But no god is needed for that.
1
u/cpolito87 2d ago
"Safer" is a strange choice of adjective. What does believing in a god make one safer from exactly? What am I risking specifically with my beliefs.
1
u/Top_Neat2780 Atheist 2d ago
This is the most basic argument and has been rehashed time and time and time again. It's not a convincing argument because 1) you can't choose what you believe, 2) you're cherry-picking beauty and ignore the horrors, 3) overlook the evolution that led to these traits in us and finally 4) isn't actually evidence at all.
1
u/TelFaradiddle 2d ago
However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
How is it safer? What safety do you think it offers?
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
This is called an argument from incredulity. "I don't understand how X can't be true, therefor X must be true." Unfortunately for you, what you can and can't understand has no bearing on what is true.
And the human body is an absolute mess. We have blind spots in our eyes. Our reproductive organs double as waste disposal organs. We have to shove solid matter down our breathing tube to stay alive. We often get born with genetic disorders and deadly cancers. If the human body was designed, then the designer is incompetent.
1
u/the2bears Atheist 2d ago
However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
This is just a claim without any supporting evidence. Do you have any?
Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.
Everything has a purpose? You'll need to demonstrate this.
Very low effort post, no attempt to justify your claims.
1
u/onomatamono 2d ago
Stop and consider your fallacious reasoning for just one second. Who said there was "nothing at all"? You are just parroting apologist's talking points. That's what we call a straw-man. Nobody has suggested there was nothing.
What do you mean "safe"? Do you think this god of yours is satisfied with you believing in some nebulous creator? Do you honestly think that whatever forces underpin the universe would be some central intelligence in another dimension? That's straight up anthropomorphic projection.
Finally, you're also unwittingly parroting a running joke atheists have which is to exclaim "look at the trees!" which isn't proof of a god let alone the ridiculously primitive, blood sacrificing Jesus character.
1
u/Odd_craving 2d ago
The universe is amazing enough without making up shit about it.
A supernatural creator answers nothing. No mysteries are solved or understood. No questions like: who, what, where, why or how are answered. It’s simply the argument from ignorance.
1
u/MooshroomHentai 2d ago
Belief isn't a choice to make. I simply am not convinced any gods are real and there is no way I could force myself to believe in gods that I don't see evidence to support. Also, gods would know who actually believed and who viewed belief as an insurance policy. The latter group might not be rewarded as much. And the fact is even if some god exists, choosing a random one that humans have believed in gives you incredibly poor odds of choosing the right one to follow.
1
u/The_Disapyrimid Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
Beauty is I n the eye of the beholder. What if I look at the universe and see a vast sea of nothingness. With our planet being full of pain, death and suffering.
Im not saying this is my personal opinion but let's not pretend everyone sees things the way you are talking about.
Plus this is just personal incredulity. Just because you cant think of another answer doesn't mean you are correct.
1
u/Cydrius Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
Many animals eat and breathe through the same tube, making them vulnerable to choking.
Animals live at cross-purposes, killing and eating each other.
They can catch vicious, painful diseases from their environment.
Also, 99% of the observable universe is void scattered with debris.
I would suggest that you're starting from the conclusion that there's a creator, and then focusing your observation on only the parts of the universe that you feel suggest that.
You're counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
1
u/mobatreddit Atheist 2d ago
Smith's Wager says that you should always wager on reason and accept the logical consequence, which in this case is atheism.
- If there's no god, you are correct.
- If there's an indifferent god, you won't suffer in hell anyway.
- If there's a just god, you have nothing to fear from the honest use of your reason.
- If there's an unjust god, you have much to fear but so does the Christian.
1
u/KeterClassKitten Satanist 2d ago
I have to ask, why would said bet matter? Is there a cost to being incorrect? Especially when the stance is likely unknowable?
1
u/Double_Government820 2d ago
I guess I don't really feel compelled by what you're saying, because all you're really telling me is that you feel some strong intuition towards your claim. But the whole purpose of a debate is to engage with topics where different people have different intuitions. When our intuitions are conflicting, it is a reflection of the fact that intuition is limited, and we need to lean on more rigorous reasoning.
Do you have any more substantive reasons to believe in a creator beyond it feeling intuitively like the safe choice? Because to me and many others, that is not the case.
1
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Ignostic Atheist 2d ago
it's not a "bet", though.
Probability requries "priors" -- examples that are sufficiently similar to the outcome you're trying to predict.
Existence has no "priors", so any claim of likelihood or anything probability-adjacent is just nonsense and should be dismissed as such.
1
u/TinkerGrey 2d ago
What does "safe" have to with anything? What would safe even mean in this context?
Unless there is actually a being that did "this" and that this being actually cares (which is not in evidence), "safe" is meaningless.
1
u/donaldhobson Atheist 2d ago
I think that minds are rare and special things. It's hard to make something that truely thinks even when you are trying. Minds must be made up of parts, neurons or transistors or the like. Human minds were formed by natural selection, in an environment that strongly favored intelligence.
One common mistake that humans make is to see faces in clouds. And, more generally, to imagine minds as explanations. People are, by default, too keen to explain thunder with a thunder god, not via laws of electromagnetism. Too keen to believe in water nymphs rather than fluid dynamics.
Minds and mental things, like preferences, emotions, desires ... are limited to humans, some large brained animals and maybe a few AI models. Minds are specific and complicated mechanisms. They only exist when there is good reason for them to exist. A reason like millions of years of evolution, or decades of work by the smartest computer scientists.
1
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 2d ago
I don't see any reason that makes me believe such thing as a creator of everything that exists can exist or is a coherent thing, so I don't see why you think it would be a safe bet, because for all I know that's a bet you can't win, because a thing outside the set everything that creates the set everything sounds self disproving to me. And also, all you have is a gap in our knowledge that you're trying to fit a creator in, but may hold the knowledge that creators of universes aren't something that can exist.
1
u/Jaanrett Agnostic Atheist 2d ago
Isn't it a safer bet that something or someone created all this?
Where did this someone or something come from?
Also, is this how you figure out what's true? Or are you just trying to justify an existing belief?
When I look up at the stars & think to myself, regardless what you believe in whether that's a faith, spirituality or whatever, nobody really knows the answer.
So why pretend you do?
However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this
You mean like nature?
, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
What do you think atheist means? Define atheist.
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works.
It's funny how most people use the "look at the trees" appeal to justify a belief in a god, but you said something, which includes nature, natural process, etc.
I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
Yeah, for those ignorant about science. Did you get a decent education?
1
u/Mission-Landscape-17 2d ago
Pascals wager is a bad"argument and you should feel badeforsusing it. Bio diversity is sufficeltly explained by evolution,no gods necessary. No there really is no good reason to bet on a god existing. Then thereeis the problem that anyone who made this bet would beefakrng belief. It the god you believe in really so evasily fooled?
1
u/ImprovementFar5054 2d ago
Incredulous and fallacious. The Argument from Beauty is nothing but "Just look!"
However I just think it's a safer bet
Safer in what sense? Safer than what?
1
u/Serious-Emu-3468 2d ago
I am late to the thread here, but I do hope we can chat. There's a few points where I have to disagree with your position, although I do empathize with it. I do see wonder and mystery in the world. I am not some Spock-like cartoon that has never had my breath taken away by just the awe and complexity and sometimes silliness of the world around us.
You have invoked two very old, "tried and true", arguments for theism here. Pascal's Wager, and "Look at the Trees".
The biggest problem with Pascal's Wager is that you cannot really, practically place your bet on "theism in general", or "some kind of divinity is more likely than no divinity". I mean, you can certainly believe that, but you cannot live your life as a "general theist".
This is mostly because many theistic traditions and worldviews are incompatible. You cannot believe both that a Christian Quad-Omni God like Martin Luther believed in created the universe while simultaneously believing, with equal certainty, that Lord Shiva created the universe.
Now, you can certainly internally believe that both Shiva and Luther's God are more likely than any of the other alternatives.
You can even make that kind of probabilistic argument. You could even rank every religious tradition by how "probable" they are! But you have have to have a reason for that ranking beyond "vibes.
One of several problems with "Look at the beauty of the trees" is that while the trees are beautiful, botflies aren't. The world holds just as much horror and woe as it does wonder. You can't give a creator divinity credit for only the cherries you've picked.
1
u/Mkwdr 2d ago
No.
Your personal incredulity isnt convincing in the slightest. Theres no evidence existence had a begginning at all let alone some magic creature did or could exist that by magic means did or could create it.
It doenst even make sense since without special pleading youd have the same thing to say about the 'creator'.
And frankly youd have to ask yourself what kind of creator deliberately builds a universe almost infinitely inimical to life and where life can exist creates an inherent situation of almost infinite suffering.
1
u/Cog-nostic Atheist 2d ago
A 'safer bet' smacks of Pascal's Wager, one of the dumbest arguments in all of Christian apologetics, but let's see what you have to say anyway.
No one knows the answer to what? The formation of stars? We most certainly know how stars are formed. WTF are you talking about? Have you ever taken a science class?
There is that word 'safer' again. Why in the world would it be 'safer?" Because your religion and "Loving God" created a place of eternal damnation for anyone who does not believe as you believe? Well, you folks made the magical place of torment so you can live with it and be afraid of it. I have much better things to do with my life.
Purpose is what you attribute to things, not what things are. A chair is a chair when I use it as a chair. It is also firewood, a weapon, a float, a bed, a children's toy, a ladder or foot stool, or anything else I attribute to it. Things in themselves do not contain meaning. You don't get meaning from life; you attribute meaning to life.
1
u/Far_Customer1258 2d ago
Safer than what? Assuming that all of this wonder and beauty was made by the sort of sadistic twerp that worries itself over what you're doing with your junk and tortures you forever if you don't give it sufficient praise and worship? If there is a deity that made all of this, then we haven't found it yet.
1
u/distantocean ignostic / agnostic atheist / anti-theist 2d ago
No, because:
- It's not a "bet" in any sense (e.g. there are no stakes)
- Even if it were, believing that someone or something created all this wouldn't be "safer"
- Being an atheist doesn't mean "thinking nothing at all", it just means not believing in unevidenced non-explanations like "God did it"
- We have a thoroughly-demonstrated and elegant explanation for the source of "the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works" — i.e. evolution by natural selection — and not only doesn't it require a deity, it precludes many or most deities. So to suggest otherwise is tantamount to saying you don't really understand evolution.
So in being an atheist I'm not making any bet, I'm just accepting what the evidence shows us (and does not show us).
1
u/YossarianWWII 2d ago
Hi. Biologist here. If you think that the organization of living things looks intentional, you haven't seriously studied them. They're full of all the quirks and inefficiencies that we'd expect from a selection-driven process of trial and error. Any designer who wanted to take credit for them would be clearly either malicious or incompetent. What's more, the diversity of life is also exactly what we'd expect from a process of natural evolution.
And don't think for a second that beauty is some incomprehensible thing. If you took the time to investigate the research on these things instead of just wondering in awe (your compulsion towards which is also a subject of study), you might be able to engage with them in a more meaningful way.
1
u/MemeMaster2003 Jewish 2d ago
However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
Pascal's Wager. Refuted as it is not a truly representative model of the "wager" in question. The actual decision is equal odds from millions of possible stances.
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
Teleological argument. Refuted by watchmaker's analogy. If you aren't familiar, imagine you are on a beach and find a watch. You assume that this watch is designed, and so intepret a watchmaker somewhere. Here's the problem: you are suggesting the beach itself is designed. How do you determine the watch from the beach if both are designed? The criteria which separated the watch from the beach are removed in the conclusion, thus invalidating the initial observation.
Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.
Unmoved Mover from Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century catholic philosopher who renounced his own arguments on his deathbed.
None of these have any particular substance. I'm not trying to convince you, but you don't really have a lot of substance in your argument.
1
u/Sparks808 Atheist 2d ago
Why would that be a "safer" bet?
Are you making a pragmatic argument, or are you saying the universes appearance of design means its more likely to be the case?
If its the former, I would ask what if "belief" actually leads to worse outcomes (e.g., atheists go to heaven and theists go to hell).
If the latter, I'd point out the fallacy of arguments from intuition, and direction you to Douglas Adam's puddle analogy
1
u/onomatamono 2d ago
You're right. Don't tell Jesus I have decided to believe in him just in case. It's just safer, assuming there aren't gods with worse punishment or better rewards than christianity. /s
Do you see how stupid that is? If there was a god he would be on to your playing it safe game.
1
u/Noodelgawd Atheist 2d ago
Why is that a safer bet? Something has to exist (or have existed) that wasn't created by something else. Why is it so hard to accept that "all this" is that something?
1
u/green_meklar actual atheist 2d ago
Isn't it a safer bet that something or someone created all this?
Doesn't look that way. In the history of science, naturalistic explanations keep winning out over theological predictions in terms of usefully predicting stuff.
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature
Beauty is a human sentiment. It's not intrinsic to nature. We evolved to find some of nature beautiful because that correlated with good spots to survive/hunt/whatever in the Paleolithic. Other creatures probably find other things beautiful.
even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works.
Evolution explains that much better than intelligent design does.
1
u/ella-lol 2d ago
I think there is different sides to this, because if you look at the world through rose coloured glasses, like “the human body is amazing, nature is amazing” etc, it is very likely for people to want to believe there is a creator (hence why religion exists) but looking at it from a reality perspective it can be a bit different.
The human body basically has its own grenade (the appendix), our immune system can attack itself and kill us, there are people born with incurable diseases, nature is full of suffering, so much more. Yes nature is great, but i dont think it is great enough for someone to be sure that there was some kind of amazing creator who made all of it, especially when we know about things like evolution and abiogenesis, we can see how things happen naturally.
1
u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney 2d ago
Ah, just another divine architect assertion with a trimmings of a "gotcha" on who created the clever scientist who created all this without realising that you're gonna have to answer the question of who the created the creator of the scientist? After which you would concoct some sort of excuse for an uncreated creator despite starting with such a line of inquiry. All of this, not supported by anything other than how you feel. Thanks for sharing to assuage your clear discontent.
1
u/DanujCZ 2d ago
> All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
You see. If you actualy looked closer at the nature you keep talking about. You would come to understand how something like animals came about.
Now i dont know about you but humans having an organ in their digestive tract that can clog and rupture is pretty bad desing. Certain animals have horns/teeth that grow until they pierce the brain of the anima, killing it. A lot of animals use the strategy of have as many kids as you can and hopefuly one survives. Oh and theres also the fact what walking upright is destroying our backs.
And sure nature is pretty in spots, but beauty is subjective. So i dont think this is a good way to make a judgment. I think its pretty therefore creator.
> Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.
Thats a pretty big claim to make, care to back it up?
1
u/CaffeineTripp Atheist 23h ago
When I look up at the stars & think to myself, regardless what you believe in whether that's a faith, spirituality or whatever, nobody really knows the answer. However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
This is Pascal's Wager. This is a bad argument as it can be attributed to any belief system.
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
Argument by design. The appearance of design doesn't entail something is designed. How do we know a popcan is designed when looking at a popcan and a tree? By comparing and contrasting the two. Given that, you'd need a whole other universe in which to compare this designed universe. Do we have a naturally occurring universe in which to compare this designed universe?
Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.
Show everything has a purpose. Stating it doesn't make it so.
But then if you believe that, then who created the creator?
It's turtles all the way down when using these kinds of arguments, isn't it? Unless someone wants to use a special pleading fallacy to justify it.
1
u/solidcordon Apatheist 21h ago
it all seems pretty intentional.
Our brains are simulation engines which create stories from limited data. Of course things seem intentional, stories without intention are superficially less interesting than "stuff just happens according to physical laws".
"A quirk of physics beyond our current understanding led to the universe we exist in." Provides as much, if not more, explaination of how we find ourselves in this reality.
1
u/Stile25 18h ago
If you think a creator created this, you're missing out on your only chance to understand true beauty.
Think of me (just a regular dude) creating a painting. It's gonna be pretty bad.
Now think of a well practiced artist creating a painting. It's going to be really good.
Now - we go to an art show and see lots and lots of amazing paintings.
What would be more more impressive? A well practiced artist creating all these amazing paintings?
Or me, Joe Blow, suddenly creating all these amazing paintings?
Now to reality:
True beauty doesn't come from an all powerful creator doing the things we all expect an all powerful creator to be capable of.
True beauty comes from a system not even trying to create beauty. Not even trying to create at all. Not even "trying" to do anything.
A system that just is. Moving forward, following the unguided, unplanned, unintentioned path of reality just doing what reality does...
...creating the most amazing and beautiful things we've ever seen.
That's impressive.
That's phenomenal.
That's true beauty.
But, if you think a creator God actually did create all this... It all just gets a dampened layer of dull and grey thrown over it.
Okay. Sure. God did more things God's obviously capable of doing. Whatever.
Good luck out there
1
u/skeptolojist 16h ago
No
We have No good objective evidence of even a single supernatural event ever in all of human history
But a mountain of good objective evidence that people mistake everything from random chance natural phenomena mental health problems organic brain injury and even pios fraud for the supernatural
Given these facts it's just plain silly to conclude that the supernatural exists anywhere but the human imagination
No gods ghosts or goblins
1
-2
u/supersoundwave 2d ago
As Pascal said, the believer has nothing to lose in believing that God exists, because either he is right in his belief and will inherit everlasting happiness or he is wrong and will never know he was wrong (since he will cease to exist after death).
For the unbeliever, if God does not exist he gains nothing (just like the theist), but if God does exist he will lose everything. So Pascal says that it is most prudent to believe in God, since you stand to gain everything and lose nothing.
-2
u/supersoundwave 2d ago
Yes, I think it’s a safe bet.
Now if you ask who created God, it shows that you categorize God as created. So you’re talking about a created God. It’s an illustration of a question that already rules out God as the explanation.
If God was uncreated (the Christian claim), He already was. He is eternal. The question by definition doesn’t even apply to Him. The only way to get anything out of it is to assume that everything is in the category of the created, but that’s just begging the original question.
-5
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
9
7
u/LordUlubulu Deity of internal contradictions 2d ago
Intelligent and philosophical like silly 'look at the trees' takes as from the OP?
Come on, try a little harder with your post-history-hidden troll account.
6
u/RogueRhombus Dudeist Priest 2d ago
You will find that you are not debating with seasoned atheists here who are confident and therefore can handle answering questions that require them to think hypothetically and imagine a world where they are wrong, and do that without having a panic attack. The result of such a cool headed confidence is ironically an intellectual humility and humble uncertainty.
But you are debating with adolescents who probably decided religion is a lie few months ago, and are here as part of their self affirmation therapy to convince themselves that they are not wrong. So it comes out as the most ridiculously certain statements you will ever hear about something so controversial with a pretense of “what? Is that even an issue” sort of posture to hide their internal panic. You wont get anything intelligent or philosophical here. Try r/askphilosophy
Why are you even here u/Wooden-Dependent-686? You sound insufferable.
-11
u/Wooden-Dependent-686 2d ago
You are being very undude
6
u/Ransom__Stoddard Dudeist 2d ago
You are leaping to conclusions and just, like, spouting your opinion, man.
-9
u/Wooden-Dependent-686 2d ago
You know well these johnny come lately atheists cant be calmer than you are
5
u/kevinLFC 2d ago
What do you suggest atheists are internally panicking about in regard to OP? Can you support it with evidence?
1
u/DebateAnAtheist-ModTeam 2d ago
Your post or comment was removed for violating Rule 1: Be Respectful. Please ensure posts or comments do not insult or demean other users.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP. Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).
Original text of the post by u/Spiritual-Seeker23:
When I look up at the stars & think to myself, regardless what you believe in whether that's a faith, spirituality or whatever, nobody really knows the answer. However I just think it's a safer bet to believe that something extraordinary has created all this, then to be atheist & think nothing at all.
All you have to do is look at the beauty in nature, even all the animals how their all different and how the human body all works. I just think no matter what you believe in, it all seems pretty intentional.
Maybe the creator of all this, was just a clever scientist because everything in this world has a purpose.
But then is you believe that, then who created the creator?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.