 |
| "No, woman, I´m just a virtual particle in probability space!" |
The atheist-materialists are getting more and more absurd. Note the admissions (tucked away in two paragraphs) that even in the vast sea of godless randomness there is *some* structure. OK, so where does *that* come from?
Perhaps this structure needs to be postulated, so the random chances don´t lead to *God* sponteneously popping up from the silent expanses? After all, that should be inevitably too, at least after a googolplex of years!
Note also this: "It would remain the case that the Laws of Thermodynamics are evidence for atheism—and always will be, even in worlds made by gods."
That being said, I´m sure some Theravada Buddhists might be interested in this article...
Carrier has simply described the fallen world. Yes, it´s indeed "godless"...after a fashion.
For the record, Carrier´s little essay does appeal to me on a certain gut level, probably because my gut instincts (for all they are probabilistically worth) are "dualist". Of course the universe looks godless and meaningless, and so does life or human existence. That´s because it is...without an outside force "looking in", so to speak. So the intelligent design argument never really appealed to me, except at a very superficial level. I suppose you could say that Carrier has described how the world looks like "after the fall", with no God visible. Indeed, that´s why he writes that even if God had existed, the make-up of the universe we inhabit would still count as evidence against God. Which I suppose is true in some sense. At least on a gut level.
ReplyDeleteAs a good atheist, Carrier of course regards actual experiences of gods as the weakest evidence for their existence. Let that sink in...
ReplyDeleteAs C S Lewis would say: "Really, we are hard to please!"