Why Creation by an Omnipotent, Omniscient Deity Is Even More Improbable than Pure Chance

[Alien826]

I never said we were God’s magnum opus. Just part of it. Why is the latter more likely?

I don't know. On the other hand, most theists tend to think God created us because he wanted to produce some kind of super race, more important than the other animal species, more important than the rest of the universe. I was just trying to prick that bubble.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't know. On the other hand, most theists tend to think God created us because he wanted to produce some kind of super race, more important than the other animal species, more important than the rest of the universe. I was just trying to prick that bubble.

Fair enough, I can see why you would interpret my post to have meant that, but no that’s not what I meant.

 

[PureX]

There is no such state as "pure chance". In fact, there is no chance at all without at least two relatively equal sets of possibility. And those possibilities would have to exist before there could be any "chance" of one occurring. And, possibilities cannot exist without impossibilities. So before chance can even become a factor, all these other factors have to already be in place. And that eliminates chance as an existential origin. Though it is an occasional participant.

"God", on the other hand, is just a label for the great mystery of being. The mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of those aforementioned possibilities and impossibilities. So "God", whatever that is, does logically trump chance as the origin of existence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am not sure if I agree with the OP either.

That's interesting! Is it the overall premiss of the OP you're not sure about, or some of the details and arguments within it?

To me, the notion of a deity creating everything (including time) purposefully is pure nonsense. We'll just ignore how such an entity might exist, rather than simply not exist. Rather, we can ask how, in the absence of time, can you have "purpose" at all? Purpose means a will to effect some change, and change does not occur in the absence of time. And yet, if time existed (i.e. was not created by this entity), then the entity existed through all of it -- essentially eternally, doing nothing, and then all at once after that eternity, puts its "purpose" into action.

This is all just untenable, in my opinion.

 

[Colt]

One of the most common dichotomies in theological debates is the notion that creation by a deity is necessarily less random or more probable than pure chance leading to the existence of the universe or life therein. In this thread, I'm proposing that not only is the latter a more plausible explanation for existence but also a less improbable one even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that an omnipotent and omniscient deity exists.

Proceeding from the premise that an omnipotent, omniscient deity exists, one conclusion we can make is that this deity would be capable of creating a universe in an infinite number of ways in one of an infinite number of configurations.

Now, what is the probability that out of these infinite possible methods and configurations, the deity chooses precisely one method to give rise to the universe and then further proceeds to create human life on our planet in the one specific sequence of events that has occurred out of the infinitely many that said deity could have used instead?

Put differently, if we don't assume that the universe or life was created by a deity, we don't necessarily have to assume that the way in which the universe started was one out of infinitely many possible ways, nor do we have to assume that life could have arisen in infinitely many ways but only arose in the one way we know of. The pool of possibilities becomes arguably much smaller, even if still vast, by sheer virtue of no longer being infinite—unlike the scenario where an omnipotent, omniscient deity is in charge.

In my opinion, the addition of the abovementioned concept of deity to the equation only makes the already improbable existence of the universe and life even more improbable due to the consequent addition of the deity's capability to choose from an infinite number of ways in which they could create the universe and life.

Discuss.

This life that you claim is an uncaused cause of a self creating phenomenon, responds to spirit. Life is responding to the stimulus of its creator. Material mind perceives another higher realm.

 

[sun rise]

I've thought a bit about that but I'm sceptical. There are micro-organisms everywhere now. Anything that could be nourishment for something would get ingested before it could do anything.

There's still occasionally an isolated place uncovered but even the most extreme have had life such as Spectacular creatures in a poisonous sulphidic atmosphere – Movile cave, Romania – 5.5 million years time capsule – GeoERA

 

[URAVIP2ME]

One of the most common dichotomies in theological debates is the notion that creation by a deity is necessarily less random or more probable than pure chance leading to the existence of the universe or life therein. In this thread, I'm proposing that not only is the latter a more plausible explanation for existence but also a less improbable one even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that an omnipotent and omniscient deity exists.
Proceeding from the premise that an omnipotent, omniscient deity exists, one conclusion we can make is that this deity would be capable of creating a universe in an infinite number of ways in one of an infinite number of configurations.
Now, what is the probability that out of these infinite possible methods and configurations, the deity chooses precisely one method to give rise to the universe and then further proceeds to create human life on our planet in the one specific sequence of events that has occurred out of the infinitely many that said deity could have used instead?
Put differently, if we don't assume that the universe or life was created by a deity, we don't necessarily have to assume that the way in which the universe started was one out of infinitely many possible ways, nor do we have to assume that life could have arisen in infinitely many ways but only arose in the one way we know of. The pool of possibilities becomes arguably much smaller, even if still vast, by sheer virtue of no longer being infinite—unlike the scenario where an omnipotent, omniscient deity is in charge.
In my opinion, the addition of the abovementioned concept of deity to the equation only makes the already improbable existence of the universe and life even more improbable due to the consequent addition of the deity's capability to choose from an infinite number of ways in which they could create the universe and life.
Discuss.

I find the God of the Bible is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.
Because the God of the Bible created His creation to have free-will choices then God chooses Not to know all.
Because the God of the Bible is Not omnipotent then He can't tell lies - Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18
Because God can't lie that shows He is limited, and God forces No one to obey Him.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't know. On the other hand, most theists tend to think God created us because he wanted to produce some kind of super race, more important than the other animal species, more important than the rest of the universe. I was just trying to prick that bubble.

If by ' super race ' one means the ' human race ' then "yes" more important then animal life.
More important because God offered the 'human race' the opportunity to live forever.
Although Adam blew it, so to speak, we are innocent of what Adam did, so to undo the damage Satan and Adam caused is why God sent pre-human Jesus to Earth for us in order to balance the Scales of Justice for right-hearted people to inherit the Earth as Jesus promised about the humble meek at Matthew 5:5 from Psalms 37:9-11,29

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's interesting! Is it the overall premiss of the OP you're not sure about, or some of the details and arguments within it?

To me, the notion of a deity creating everything (including time) purposefully is pure nonsense. We'll just ignore how such an entity might exist, rather than simply not exist. Rather, we can ask how, in the absence of time, can you have "purpose" at all? Purpose means a will to effect some change, and change does not occur in the absence of time. And yet, if time existed (i.e. was not created by this entity), then the entity existed through all of it -- essentially eternally, doing nothing, and then all at once after that eternity, puts its "purpose" into action.

This is all just untenable, in my opinion.

I think that it is rather unlikely as well. But since there is no evidence either way I am willing to keep an open mind for some religions. As to why God would do it maybe he was lonely, maybe he was bored/ Personally I am leaning towards him losing a bet of some sort with his other god buddies.

 

[Heyo]

The improbable is always more likely than the impossible.

 

[rational experiences]

The answer would be as it's status the creator of causes to origin eternal was held O portional change to its natural body once.

It's not in created creation itself. Eternal as eternal it never left where it exists within that body type. As it's still Eternal it isn't change of a portion O of the eternal.

So of course it's not in creation.

Men hence said it's indescribable as to describe means I'm trying to form a thesis on a statement I already advised my own self about consciously.

As theism isn't consciousness.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why does an all powerful God existing from nothing make sense in the first place? It's just kicking the can down the road.

Existing “from nothing”?
Why would you assume that?
Science has already answered this question… ‘Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” IOW, energy in one form or another has always existed.
So God as energy has always existed, being the source of all energy.

“…. from nothing”? Time to put this argument in the trash can.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The improbable is always more likely than the impossible.

So, what’s impossible?

 

[Heyo]

So, what’s impossible?

An omnipotent being. We established that with the question whether such a being could make a stone that is so heavy that it can't lift it.

 

[Heyo]

Existing “from nothing”?
Why would you assume that?
Science has already this question… ‘Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” IOW, energy in one form or another has always existed.
So God as energy has always existed, being the source of all energy.

“…. from nothing”? Time to put this argument in the trash can.

I think that makes you a Pandeist. God, as the primordial energy, transformed itself into the universe. Now god is everything (and thereby omnipresent) but as dead as Ymir.

 

[RestlessSoul]

No, there is no way to calculate the odds of the formation of the universe. There are far too many unknowns.

Doing so would be well in the realms of speculation, certainly. That hasn’t stopped a few physicists from making the effort. 10^229/1 are the odds proposed by Lee Smollin, and referred to here…

Our Improbable Existence Is No Evidence for a Multiverse

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I think that makes you a Pandeist. God, as the primordial energy, transformed itself into the universe. Now god is everything (and thereby omnipresent) but as dead as Ymir.

No, not me… I believe in a personal God, one who created man “in His image”. (Genesis 1:27) He just has control over all energy. At His discretion.

If that’s true, then you’d have to agree that His patience is the greatest anyone has ever had!

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2012683?q=jehovah's+patience&p=par

Take care, my cousin.

 

[exchemist]

Maybe so, but in that case the "life" would have been created even if it only survived for a few seconds. The original point was that we don't see life being created on Earth now. Maybe we don't see it created because it gets gobbled up immediately after creation. Life was still created from non-life, which is the thing that is supposed to be impossible.

No, what I meant was that precursor molecules to life would be nourishment for some organism, so it would never even reach the living stage. This could be why all living things today seem to have come from one common ancestor, rather than from several independently evolved systems of biochemistry. The first one to be successful would eat the precursors for anything else.

 

[exchemist]

Existing “from nothing”?
Why would you assume that?
Science has already this question… ‘Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.” IOW, energy in one form or another has always existed.
So God as energy has always existed, being the source of all energy.

“…. from nothing”? Time to put this argument in the trash can.

Not really. Conservation of energy is a consequence of Noether's theorem and is true so long as the laws of physics do not change with time - which is what we empirically observe today and in the past in the observable universe. But if it was not always so, back in time beyond the reach of our observations, then all bets are off.

That "God" is the "source" of all energy is a mere assertion, unsupported by evidence: a purely religious statement.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So, what’s impossible?

I must admit to having sympathy for the view, although a bit mashed, of Sherlock Holmes - that is, eliminate all possibilities before arriving at what then remains as to being the truth. And which is why the 'obvious' is just such a ludicrous attitude to take towards any problem.