Why many people think rajini's this crappy talk and all other con men talks are attractive and valid argument ?
Rajini's Arguments for existence of god
Rajini's Arguments for existence of god
Here is why.
1. His first part of the argument is this : There are scientist and genius who believed in god, so existence of god has more Epistemological advantage. But the people's predilection for these crappy talks is from the way they formulate it. First they sound it like a skeptic is trying to emasculate and ridicule a god believer, then it turns out to be the god believer is a proven genius and scientist. So now our skeptics, atheists, looks dumb and imbecile. Now all the god believers elated with smug and chortle how atheist were so idiotic in that situation.
But if you remove those dramatic scene, and dialogues, then ask how because some genius people believed in god is a proof for the existence of god ? Then it does sounds like gloomy argument, in otherwords philosophy, so ignorant and credulous people won't have any attraction to those kind of discourse.
2. To be clear Big bang theory is not a theory which explains how Universe came into existence. Anyway, if you make arguments appealing to anthropomorphism, then it sounds attractive to commons and it is a banal argument. There is a solar model on the table, non living matter didn't just assemble itself and came into itself there, but someone made it, created it, so it came into existence.
This is the very watchmaker teleological argument made by William Paley and refuted by as recent as Richard Dawkins in Blind watchmaker.
Human's are being, living being, intelligent living being, we do make tools, we do make things out of things, we create objects out of non being things, human intuition is anthropomorphically wired to look at objects as created by someone. And you apply that to the very Universe itself and that never proves Universe is created by a creator.
You take objects created by a creator, other human beings and apply it to origin of Universe, and telling us that's how Universe is created. But if a skeptic asked, how does that creator created the Universe, how he is creating quantum world from which this Universe raise as it is now ?
well, then your answer will be like this : I don't know how and why he created Universe, but I can tell you creator can create things. You take this idea of creator creating objects in daily life and apply to Universe, and knowing nothing in between, from origin of Universe, photons existence, sub atomic particle formation, atomic particle formation, then molecular level, then macro level, then stellar to galaxies level, astronomy, astrophysics, physics, chemistry, biology, biochemistry, all of these you are aware of nothing.
But you are familiar with beings, human beings, the creator of daily life things. If you knew any tiny bit of how things come into existence, then you will go on to use it to explain how the creator created Universe. Since you are living with no clue about those, you are satisfied with the argument that you don't know how, why, when and where creator created the Universe, but you know creator created the Universe because a model globe was created by a creator called human beings.
If you look at things created by creator called humans and also look at things seems not created objects but exists on it own, then the proportion of things created by creator is mathematically negligible in this Universe. Still you wanna neglect all those things exist without any human creator, but take the few things created by humans and apply the same to the existence of Universe.
Scientists doesn't simply say or believe that Universe came into existence out of nothing. Scientist has very good understanding of what 'nothing' means than a believer like you. Models are derived from the existing evidence, mathematical models are created out of existing proofs. Scientists reasoned it when they say Universe didn't need a creator to came into existence. It's the people like you who allude to intuition, see daily life things and spew the anthropomorphic quibbles.