If I may I'll just post a very basic case against one of the arguments for the existence of God for the moment, Skinny.
The cosmological argument for the existence of God holds that there has to have been some pre-existing force or intelligence to set this or other universes in motion, a first cause or prime mover.
According to some supporters of this argument the truth of it simply must be recognised, as not to do so is counter intuitive. They somehow succeed in ignoring an obvious extension of that same "intuition": that God, the first cause itself, must therefore have had a first cause to cause itself and so on. In short, if the universe has to have had a God as maker and mover, who the heck made that and set it moving?
Unless you can get on with the idea of gods designing other gods that set each other working like infinite cosmic dominoes, accepting the cosmological argument is far less intuitive than the notion that the universe simply exists because it does.
__________________
The Relic
Richard Dawkins for Pope. |