Here's my question, and apologies if it's been asked before:
In response to statements along the lines of 'the universe is just too vastly complicated to come into existence without a creator'. Presumably such an omniscient, omnipresent creator would have to be just as, but likely even more, complex and powerful than the universe they create, no? So the question is, if there's a problem with the universe being too complicated to not be created by a 'God' of some sort, then..
Who created the God? Another God? Ad infinitum.
The issue being -- you can't claim the universe is 'just too complicated', etc, and then go invent some greater, even more complicated entity to create it and make it all better.
To be fair, the same could be applied to the idea of a superforce of some sort: what created the superforce in the first place? So forth and so on.
I don't know if there's an answer. I've read some interesting things. But really it all comes down to how one perceives the world and how one chooses to interpret that perception.
If there is a 'God', I personally see it as some sort of all-pervading force rather than conscious, omniscient being. And ultimately, I choose to live life for the here and now.
Regardless it is a matter of personal perception. Whether you see the world empirically or spiritually. And there shouldn't be anything wrong with that, except then people have to extrapolate their beliefs, and assume that everyone else should believe the same, and then wars start (whether they be micro or macro) and things go to nasty real fast *nods*.
Dialogue and opining is excellent and fun and good. It's just the whole 'If you disagree with me I have to make things personal and hate you now goodbye' (or, if you're a crusader of a different sort, 'NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION! *STABS*')
----EDIT----
Extended views on the genesis of religion:
Once upon a time, man saw the stars, and wondered why they are there. He had no telescope to see that there was a world beyond, so he invented the heavens.
He then wondered why he was here, and why all this other stuff was here, and why it was so awesome. So he invented great tales of gods and demigods (think: Native American myths, etc).
So forth and so on, some other things that may or may not be offensive oops (hence why I'm not saying them), et cetera, et cetera.
In addition, these tales, oh by the way let's call them religion, had an added benefit: moral framework and mass communication.
An outbreak of disease hits a collection of villages, all seemingly connected to the ingestion of shrimp. Divine decree from our friend god, shrimp is unholy. Et cetera. It's a lot easier to govern people when the threat of divine retribution is involved. I by no means think religion invented law, merely that it served as a convenient means to enforce it. Nor am I saying 'religion only invented as a way to enslave the masses'.
It's also certainly more comforting, perhaps, in cases of negative events, that it's all okay, because there is a God or Gods out there who are guiding your life, and will make everything all right in the end.
(Hey, if you believe that, that's a-okay. I've got nothing against you!)
I find it interesting how religions, when you really dissect them, really have more commonalities than differences. The Christian god is deliriously similar to the Egyptian god, Horus. Both were born virgins, both had 'wise men' of some sort who followed a directional star (morning star of Sirus vs. the eastern star), Horus resists the temptation by the evil deity of Sut on a high mountain, as does Jesus (with Satan). Horus and Jesus both had 12 disciples. Both were killed by crucifixion (and, in both stories, two thieves were involved in the crucifixion). And so on. And of course, many Christian holidays overlay neatly with Pagan holidays (Historically, Jesus was not born on Christmas day -- fun fact.), but that's a whole other matter.
Not to mention other general templates and patterns things follow. The mysticism of the number 3, for instance.
Do these inherent similarities negate religion? Not at all. In reality, I'm sure one could construct an argument in which they in fact support the idea of some form of 'God', in reality. I just think it's fascinating. We get all pissy (well, not us upstanding and mature furs, of course) over who's religion has the bigger wanker (excuse my French >.>), but in reality they're all far more similar than different.
But anywho.. to the question at hand in the first place..
I don't believe in a God, and, lengthy personal opinings aside, psycho-analytically you can break it down into a variety of reasons:
-I see the world empirically, logically, and skeptically, as I always have. I look at things and like to consider how things work. As I kid as well as now, I'm never satisfied with looking at something and going 'It just works, because it works' -- I want to know how it works. Why it works. What makes it work.
-I'm independent. I like to think that I, and only I, affect my own destiny. And, likewise, I, and only I, take responsibility for that destiny and my actions.
And, lastly:
-Religion just never made sense to me
.
(probably as a result of the last two things mentioned, as well as other factors)
