TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Against obvious logic, what is the reasonable case for Intelligent Design/God's existence? If not, why is the thought of such so prevalent?

The case for atheism is, frankly, obvious. To think otherwise is to put one's moral reasoning, partial life's purpose, and partial opinions behind the imaginative, to say the least, seems careless at best and wishfully apathetic at worst. As Richard Dawkins says, in the above video, the easy answers found in an unrealistic dogma can all too easily supplant scientific thought. A ignorance of such atheist precepts is rampant as well, at least in the U.S.; this quote from George H.W. Bush, though outdated, is quite revealing; "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." Extrapolating, more than 1/2 of U.S. citizens voted for him, and it was never really questioned fully by the media. How many Atheist congressmen are there today? Feel free to debate, haha.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Dec 22 2011: Thanks for the response. I want to make sure I understand you though so let me get a little clarity. My understanding of the self-reproducing inflationary model is that it merely kicks the can down the road from a prior universal model to this one. In that sense it doesn't answer origin questions but instead confuses the issue (for me at least) by creating a chain that is reliant on prior events but offers no original event, a dissatisfying answer.

    Although I follow your point about the boundary issue I was under the impression that this was a solution to topographical questions about the universe more than it was an answer to the issue origin. Also, you lose me when you refer to arguments that "Quantum mechanics considers the origin of the universe as a quantum event" while saying that there is no need for a singularity. A singularity is a quantum event by strict definition, albeit one we don't fully understand because of the relativistic implications. This has the effect of making me feel much like I'm with an interior decorator who says "It's not crimson, it's ox blood". Forgive me here if I seem thick.

    In either case perhaps it's the limit of 1500 characters but I don't see any clear answer to the issue of defining a means for a change to occur in an a-temporal world. This it would seem is a requisite for a hot, dense beginning. I look forward to your response.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.