Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio View Post
Quantum theory is highly logical and consistent. I think you are confusing it with String theory...
I don't think I am - The Uncertainty Principle was what I was referring to - the equation can have any one number of solutions and we don't know which.

If the Universe requires a complex being to create it, the complex being requires an even more complex one to create it. Until Christians can show proof of God's mum and other ancestors, I will go with emergence since we see it all the time.
Firstly -

The Universe is infinitely complex, therefore the likelihood of the universe spontaneously coming into being via "emergence" is infinitely unlikely due to the infinite number of alternative outcomes.

Secondly -

All evidence point towards God being simple, not complex. God is neither one thing nor another, is not divisible, has no dimension of space or time and no discernible qualities other than existence.

Thirdly -

The atheist position is that an infinitely complex system came into being spontaneously. The theist position is that an infinitely simple being created an infinitely complex universe. The two positions both involve infinity and therefore you cannot apply Ockham's Razor because both propositions are equally likely because whilst the theist position initially appears more complex in reality infinity multiplied by infinity, or divided by infinity, is still infinity.

Fourthly -

The suggestion that God himself requires a "cause" i.e. parents would imply that the universe requires a cause - and if we accept that then we accept the existence of God. One could, if one wishes, argue infinite regress but in reality both the atheist and theist positions deny it. The difference is that the theist position posits an extra-universal cause for the creation of the universe. Now, an extra-universal cause may or may not be subject to the problem of infinite regress of creation - it is impossible to know.

In summation -

Atheists and theists have been having the same arguments fore at least 2.5 millenia and neither has ever found a single jot of evidence to support their position. Whilst the argument has become more nuanced over time the reality is that for each point made there has always been an equally valid counter-point because, ultimately, both sides are making a fundamentally unprovable claim.

So - it we could stop calling the religious irrational and the atheists soulless, I think that would be a nice advance in human society - even if it's just on this forum.