This article was written by a friend of mine. He will be very happy to read your comments.

___________

Before I talk about the reasons why God exists, I want to share a very
interesting little story with you. It is about Leonardo Fiorentino, the
famous Italian author. He is well- known for his innovative book:
Dieci Sensi Interessanti Alimentare Le Scimmie. You probably have
not heard of him, and that is because his writes solely in Italian;
actually, to be more accurate, because his Monkeys write only in
Italian, and for some odd reason humans hate to translate for Monkeys.

This guy – it is said – has a very interesting way of producing the
books. He has thousands of Monkeys, all trained to typewrite at quite
fast speeds. They just sit down in front of their typewriters and type
stuff for him, and then he revises this stuff. Of course they produce a
lot of junk per day (They work for 8 hours!), in fact most of what they
produce is junk; however, he has a look at what the produce and – well –
one of his Monkeys was lucky enough to hit the jackpot; he wrote a book
in two weeks! That, he admits, was after trying with these Monkeys for
years.

You do not believe this story; neither would I if you told me about it,
and that – I am sure you agree – is because such a story is
illogical and defies our human sense. Monkeys have no
sense of language, so what they type is completely random. Even though
it is theoretically possible that a Monkey writes a book, and a
meaningful one at that, it is totally not plausible. A
coincidence as rare is this is not something one is going to basically
believe without a very solid proof, and even when a proof is provided,
we would question it over and over.

Our human sense basically doesn't accept very low probabilities. A
Monkey writing a book is by all means a supernatural thing. If, somehow,
this guy proved to us that the Monkey wrote the book, most people would
find it more sensible to believe this is the result of magic than those
who would attribute it to the almost zero probability.

Yet, many people disregard the existence of God as nonsense, and
look disdainfully at those who believe in the existence of God; the
existence of God, they say, is illogical and unscientific. The
worst thing about some of these people is that their believe makes them
feel more modern and worldly; just like we have the religious extremists
who think they speak the word of God – or sign for him, we have those
atheists who believe they speak the word of reason; that is right, they
speak for the sense and logic that is built into us.

But again, what is logical? We agreed that a Monkey writing a book – not
to mention a best-seller – is possible, but very illogical. This makes
me wonder, why would these people then find it logical that the universe
was created with the correct values that made it survive and become what
it is now, given that any slight change in these values would have
created a broken – or totally different – type of universe? Why do they
find it logical to have introduce the concept of parallel universes, and
assume an almost infinite number of them, so as to make it possible for
the universe we live in to exist and be the result of this
coincidence?

I do not know about you, but I personally find this just as supernatural
as saying that a supreme being created this universe. After all, I am
talking about the creation of the universe, so the cause has to be
something outside this universe. Maybe we need to start asking the right
questions, like – for instance – why could a supreme being not exist? I
see no reason.

I am not asking you to marvel at the beauty of the universe and realize
through this beauty that God exists; this works with some people, but
apparently it makes us – believers in a supreme being – sound
unscientific; so I am trying to talk science. You know what science has
to offer about this bit?

There are two theories that are supposed to attempt explaining the
creation of the universe: The weak anthropic theory and the strong
anthropic theory. In fact, the only one that is worth looking at is the
weak theory; the strong anthropic theory, when attempted, gets reduced
to the weak anthropic theory. So, do you know what this weak anthropic
theory says? I will tell you. Or even better, how about we ask Stephen
Hawking to tell us? Here is what he says:

According to [the weak anthropic theory], there are
either many different universes or many different regions of a single
universe, each with its own initial configuration and, perhaps, with its
own set of laws of science. In most of these universes the conditions
would not be right for the development of complicated organisms; only in
the few universes that are like ours would intelligent beings develop
and ask the question, “Why is the universe the way we see it?” The
answer is then simple: if it had been different, we would not be
here!

So in simple English: The universe exists because we are here; that is
all what science could offer so far. But wait, you say, our
understanding of the universe is not developed fully yet, and we will
probably find the answer in the future. That is right, but don't you
think that sounds a bit like Aristotle, when he believed that the Earth
was the center of the universe, and that the movement of celestial
objects was managed by an engine - something he could not prove –
and any other theories about the universe were basically killed for many
years?

Science is all about having hypothesis and predictions; as long as those
predictions hold, and there is no proven replacement, there is no sense
in disregarding the hypothesis as wrong simply because it involves
something you cannot touch. Take the existence of a supreme being as
just that, a scientific hypothesis. In fact, one that is far more
reasonable than any other. The weak anthropic theory is just what the
name suggests, weak; imagine me telling you that my house exists
because I am here to realize its existence. You would think I am being
ridiculous. The fact that I did not exist before the house does not
permit me to assume that it is there because I exist. You know that
someone has built it. Why, again, did you say that no being outside the
universe could have built that?

Now that put aside; I need to mention another important point. Some
people believe they have a good answer to the question I posed (Why
could a supreme being not exist?). If such a being existed, they say,
then why are there poor people? Why is everybody not happie?

I will give you one good reason, would that be enough? See, in the last
statement in the previous paragraph, I made a silly spelling mistake. I
spelled happy as happie, even though I totally know how to spell happy,
and I kept it even after my text editor complained about the wrong
spelling. I am a mere human being, and I still did something you find
meaningless – I made a mistake I am aware of and kept it. Believe me
though, I made it for a reason; specifically: I made it to prove a
point, the point I am making right now.

For one thing, even though I could have done this the perfect form, I
did not; why do you believe that I can do that, being the weakling I am,
and the supreme being who created this universe cannot? He can create
imperfection as he wishes; in fact, this imperfection might be more
reasonable than perfection itself. You see, by introducing a mistake, I
could make this point. If I had spelled happy correctly, I could not
have argued that with you properly.

So, now that the existence of God is both scientifically and emotionally
acceptable; why do you think God does not exist?

If the complexity of the universe requires that a God exist, then what about the complexity of God himself?

You can't have it both ways. If you say that the universe is so complex that it needs a creator, then God needs a creator too. If you believe that the complex God does not need a creator, then neither does the universe. Your logic is a circular trap.

Saying that complexity needs a designer is a very problematic argument, because it creates an infinite chain of creators.

I am the author of the above article; I just didn't have an account here earlier. With all due respect, I believe the argument you mentioned does not have anything to do with the article.

You obviously seem to be so fond of this argument; I noticed the link in your signature leading to the same argument in another post. However, nowhere in my article did I mention anything about the complexity of the universe requiring that a God exist. On the contrary, I believe I mentioned that my aim is not to walk that road, because - even though marvelling into the beauty of the universe could lead some to belief in God - this path is unscientific.

Thus, I have nothing to do with the argument you are trying to refute. Bringing up circular logic and then refuting it is just meaningless. I would appreciate to hear your opinion again when you have read the article thoroughly, understood it, and actually got my position.

Good luck! ;)

اقتباس:So, now that the existence of God is both scientifically and emotionally
Acceptable; why do you think God does not exist?

You've put here two arguments, "emotional" and "scientific"

Before i start, i want to state two things from my own point of view:

1. If we gona discuss moral God, it is an endless discussion with no result in the end as each one could still hold his opinion as per his believe.

2. If we could prove the existence of god in a scientific matter this well lead to a god that obey our own understanding of the universe, a material god, not an absolute one.

now i am trying to find your scientific argument.

the story about monkeys is not a good example cuz i see the universe random and not organized, take the earth for an example which is in a relatively quiet place in the universe, it is hit by a large asteroid every 400-500 thousand years!

let me discuss hawking quote:

1. in a strong anthropic theory, endless parallel universes exits, so it is not a major thing that biological systems evolve to create life forms in one of the tiny planets in one of the huge number of galaxies in one of endless universes.

2.about the weak anthropic theory, i did not understand what you wanted to say, but for the house example this is not the way, a anthropic point of view tells me if i wanna put an understanding for the exictance of the house, i should take the fact that i live in it in my understanding so i do not put a hypothesis that contradicts with the fact that i live in the house in this moment.

Finally, wellcome to our forum ,

اقتباس:1. If we gona discuss moral God, it is an endless discussion with no result in the end as each one could still hold his opinion as per his believe.

I am not attempting to discuss morality here, because I know it is a huge discussion; however, I am merely saying that the fact that we find forms of unfairness and/or imperfection and the like in this world is no grounds for disproving the existance of a supreme being or considering the supreme being's motive behind doing this bad. In order word, we don't need to be able to see the fairness of God in every situation in order for God to exist (Like, if someone is poor, sick, and treated badly; this is no reason to say there is no God).

اقتباس:2. If we could prove the existence of god in a scientific matter this well lead to a god that obey our own understanding of the universe, a material god, not an absolute one.

I agree with you totally on this regard. I have not claimed to be able to prove the existance of God; I basically tried to show that the theory that a God exists does not disagree with science, and that the current scientific theories that explain the creation of the universe do not describe it any better than the presence of God.

As you see, in both points, I am holding a defensive position, and not trying to make a positive proof that God exists.

اقتباس:the story about monkeys is not a good example cuz i see the universe random and not organized, take the earth for an example which is in a relatively quiet place in the universe, it is hit by a large asteroid every 400-500 thousand years!

The universe is not random. The fact that it is governed by laws that allow life, and the fact that it exists after all that time is an indication of it - to say the very least - being a best-seller. I haven't said it's the perfect book (In terms of monkeys writing stories).

Even if stars collided with each other; as long as the universe as a whole is working fine, and - for us - as long as we are alive, I believe it's a very successful project. After all it has the exact values we needed in order to live.

اقتباس:1. in a strong anthropic theory, endless parallel universes exits, so it is not a major thing that biological systems evolve to create life forms in one of the tiny planets in one of the huge number of galaxies in one of endless universes.

The problem with the strong anthropic theory is that it assumes the existance of endless universes. These endless unvierses are a mere assumption, and have no effect on our universe, which means - as I have learned from reading for Stephen Hawking - that we should remove them from our theory, since they have no effect on the system (because of the economic theory), which effectively reduces the strong anthropic theory to the weak one.

That is, introducing additional variables into an equation when they are not part of the equation is meaningless, and that's what we do by assuming parallel universes, basically to avoid answering the question: Why did the universe survive and take the form it has now, which allows for intelligent life?

اقتباس:2.about the weak anthropic theory, i did not understand what you wanted to say, but for the house example this is not the way, a anthropic point of view tells me if i wanna put an understanding for the exictance of the house, i should take the fact that i live in it in my understanding so i do not put a hypothesis that contradicts with the fact that i live in the house in this moment.

I am just saying, that the weak anthropic theory, which is the only standing form of scientific explanation for the existance of the universe, as far as I know, is weak. Its conclusion is simply a reiteration of the input. I know that the fact that we are here to view the universe is a proof that it exists. However, it provides no acceptable scientific explanation for the creation of the universe.

Saying that the universe exists because an external supreme being created it is of the same scientific value. However, does it prove that this supreme being indeed created the universe, or that a supreme being exists? I never said that. I am merely saying that we can't tell, and we shouldn't deny the possibility before we can scientifically disprove it, or provide a better sound scientific proof.

اقتباس:Finally, wellcome to our forum ,

Thanks!

God is not, and cannot be, a scientific hypothesis.

Look at this website to find out why
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/Theories.shtml


Back to your argument. You're saying that if we have to choose between the "weak anthropic theory" and God, God is more probable.

How do you know that? That is a totally subjective judgement. I advise you against using the word "probable" so loosely. What numbers do you have to weigh the probabilities of these two possibilities? Have you measured their probabilities somehow? Do you have any statistical data to allow us to examine these "probabilities"?


As for your argument that God chose to create an imperfect world, it is an infalsifiable subjective claim. Let's take the monkeys example. Say a bunch of monkeys wrote a meaningless book. Someone like you might come along and say, "This book was actually written by Shakespeare, but he CHOSE to write such mumbo jumbo. Even though he is a great writer, he chose to write something so imperfect."

Again, that is a subjective claim that can neither be proven nor disproven.