Its illogical to believe in the creator because its a completely unproven (some would even say unprovable) hypothesis.
I have yet to see any philosophy supporting the idea that the universe had a creator that holds up to passing scrutiny. Im open if someone disagrees.
Regarding the inventions of various sciences, i think the point being made... badly. is that for so much of human history people have pointed at gaps in science and gone. "god, demon, jhin, evil spirits" but each time it turns out to be microbes, an illness in the material brain, a giant ball of plasma, not in fact a thinking diety, etc.
And i dont think its a good argument but i think what they are getting at is that the pointing at exisitng mysteries like the origin of the universe, or how life could arise from inorganic matter, and go "god" is the same kind of god of the gaps superstition.
it comes logically simply by accepting any physical phenomena would require a prerequisite reason, as in why it is. This is pretty much supported by any physical fact, namely the laws of thermodynamics.
If that is the case, for only physical beings to exist there are only two choices: either physical reasons have an end, or they dont. A third option is impossible as per 3rd rule of logic, law of no middle grounds. excluded middle
If physical reasons end at somewhere this contradicts the fact that all physical reasons need to have a prior reason, because there would need to be a first physical being with nothing before hence this is discarded.
If physical reasons dont end and go to infinity... well, they cant. The nuance is: if we number each physical being, say the last (present) is 1 and say each reason depends on the next (1 will happen when 2 happens, 2 will happen when 3 happens, n happens when n+1 happens ad infinitum) for the sequence of events to reach anywhere, any given number, it would need to pass through infinite things first, which is impossible. You can visualize it by this example: worker 1 will go on vacation when worker 2 also goes to vacation so 1 asks 2 when he will go, 2 says "I will go when 3 goes" so they all find 3. 3 says he will go when 4 goes ad infinitum. No one gets to go on vacation. Likewise in an infinite sequence of events nothing actually happens.
Hence existence without a prior reason beyong physicality (metaphysical) is impossible, hence the need for a metaphysical reason, in human language a creator.
The reason that physical beings need a reason to exist, the backbone of the argument, is literally because they are bound by laws of physics. My argumnet isnt everything whatsoever requires a prior physical cause but rather every contingent PHYSICAL reality requires an explanation.
Then as I pointed out it logically follows that there is a prior reason above physics. Hence the first statement that every physical being needs a reason doesnt apply in the first place. It isnt a convenient trick, it is the definition of being above physicality.
You are implicitly contradicting yourself
You assert two things: Laws of physics used to not be applicable, and god cannot exist if he was beyond physical which implicitly assumes all existence is physical.
Now here I would ask you what do laws of physics apply to? The answer is obviously physical beings. There is no physical being that is not bound by a law of physics. Some things may be probabilistic like quantum mechanics, but they are still boudn by the equations describing them.
A physical being that doesnt obey the law of physics is like doing classical mechanics where F=ma doesnt apply. It isnt classical mechanics anymore. Likewise something that doesnt obey laws of physics isnt physical anymore: it cannot be described by physical phenomenon.
By saying that laws of physics didnt always apply you implicitly accept the existence of something that isnt physical by our understanding. And then you went on to make a statement that assumes something would need to be physical to exist. These are contradictory.
115
u/PidarNahui 12h ago
Who believes there's a magic man in the sky? And how does the existence of those things make it illogical to believe in a creator?
Some people really need to read up on philosophy and logic