Because of the amount of information that is associated with the thing.
For example, if you find rocks in a disposition such that they form the word "help," you must assume that they were put there by someone.
Now, imagine billions of monkeys with typewriters. What would they find first? Your bitcoin's private key or Little Red Riding Hood? We know that the probability that Little Red Riding Hood was the result of pure chance is zero; therefore, it has to have a creator.
The classic leap from pattern to purpose. You see a word spelled in rocks and assume a mind behind it. Then you see the complexity of the universe and assume a god. But that’s not reasoning; it’s projection. You're not proving a creator... you’re demanding one because you’re uncomfortable with chaos.
You confuse improbability with impossibility. Just because something seems unlikely doesn’t mean it must have been intended. The universe isn’t a sentence waiting to be read... it’s not trying to say anything. That need to assign meaning to randomness is your own, not the universe’s.
And what’s behind this argument? A refusal to live with uncertainty. You’d rather invent a cosmic author than accept that existence might simply be... without script, without narrator, without purpose.
It's a pity you take this to the personal level, assigning some kind of psychological bullshit to me. Sadly, you refuse to use logic.
> Just because something seems unlikely doesn't mean it must have been intended.
I believe we both agree that it is very unlikely that Little Red Riding Hood was the result of randomness. I think that it is unlikely and therefore it must have been written by someone. You, instead, according to your own words, believe that just because something seems unlikely doesn't mean it must have been written by someone.
The refusal to even accept the possibility of the existence of something bigger than us makes a lot of people say stupidities like the one I quoted from you above.
You call it "psychological bullshit"... but what is belief, if not psychology? You think you're reasoning, but you're only rationalising a need. A need for order, authorship, and a sky-father to make the chaos less frightening.
You keep leaning on the analogy of Little Red Riding Hood, but you forget one crucial thing: stories are made by us. They're artifacts within the universe... not evidence about the universe. To leap from "a story must have an author" to "existence must have a creator" is a category error, born from your discomfort with uncaused being.
You accuse others of refusing logic, yet your entire argument is built not on proof, but on personal discomfort with uncertainty. You don’t want a universe without meaning... you can’t stand it. So you dress your fear as reason and call it faith.
The possibility of something “bigger than us” isn’t what’s being denied. What’s being challenged is your insistence that the only way to respond to mystery is with worship.
