Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm suggesting that the timeless, ageless being created physics. Physics explains nothing but the current situation. Can you explain, with physics, how it all started?
It's irrational to hold to the notion of no creator despite all the evidence contrary.
I realize there is much that science hasn't discovered yet but whenever religious people are confronted with an unknown they immediately suggest that this is the part where the creator fits in. Why does it have to be a creator? Isn't it more realistic to believe that there are natural processes in the universe that we don't yet understand that are the cause of all phenomenon in the universe as opposed to an invisible being with magic powers? If you look at our history you'll see that we've invented gods for every force of nature you can think of such as lightning, thunder, the sun, etc. until we finally discovered what they really are. You're doing exactly the same thing today as our ancestors did thousands of years ago when they invented all of these deities, you're creating an imaginary being to explain away something that science and rational thinking hasn't yet discovered the real explanation for.
I realize there is much that science hasn't discovered yet but whenever religious people are confronted with an unknown they immediately suggest that this is the part where the creator fits in. Why does it have to be a creator? Isn't it more realistic to believe that there are natural processes in the universe that we don't yet understand that are the cause of all phenomenon in the universe as opposed to an invisible being with magic powers? If you look at our history you'll see that we've invented gods for every force of nature you can think of such as lightning, thunder, the sun, etc. until we finally discovered what they really are. You're doing exactly the same thing today as our ancestors did thousands of years ago when they invented all of these deities, you're creating an imaginary being to explain away something that science and rational thinking hasn't yet discovered the real explanation for.
Sorry . . .but logically all you are saying is that your name for God . . ."Nature" . . . is superior to all the other ones that have been suggested through time. The appeal to "natural" processes is no different than an appeal to "God's will" . . . in the abstract . . . we have no idea why they should be the way they are or why the "laws" we have discovered should be the way they are . . . etc. That seems a lot like accepting God's works on faith because they "just are." Hardly a superior position logically to any other such "acceptance" . . . just saying.
That's the point though--people would would rather choose the irrational belief in a big bang (no word on what existed prior to that, btw) and evolution over the simple observation of cause/effect relationships.
The existence of the universe mandates a cause. The big bang and evolution are simply illogical when it comes to explaining our existence. It's just irrational to continue to believe in that which has no evidence. At least be rational and look at the facts. That's all I'm asking.
Hummmmm.......My suspicion is that you do not understand the definition of logic. Both the Big Bang, and the theory of Evolution came about by systematic study of events as they were/are. They were not arrived at loosely or without just reason. Logic---log'-ic---loj'ik--- "The study of the principles of reasoning." Darwin, in the course of years of travel and close study, noticed that specie changed according to their environment, not huge changes, but changes none-the-less, one of the key pieces of data he recorded was the neck notch on the tortoises (chelonian) on the Galapagos Islands, the vegetation grew taller on this one island, and the tortoise adapted by evolving a larger neck groove in the front of their shells that allowed their necks to stretch farther up the plants to reach the edible leaves. This one notation was his "AHA" moment, all of his reams and reams of data fell into place and a beautifully simplistic theory came into being, this theory, also evolved. I suspect when you claim so many things to (not be logical) you are making the common mistake of expecting logic to fall with-in the realm of your belief structure. Logic does not fall victim to wishes, hopes, or starry eyed notions, it is a tool of mathematical precision. Back in the dark ages, when I was in school, the requirement was at least 2 semesters of calculus to take the logic course. Research, then speak, is a logical course of action.
Sorry . . .but logically all you are saying is that your name for God . . ."Nature" . . . is superior to all the other ones that have been suggested through time. The appeal to "natural" processes is no different than an appeal to "God's will"
I disagree, a god or a creator is by definition a living entity with certain powers that allows it to create something with a purpose in mind. That is completely different from the natural phenomenon that exist in nature. Nature is not conscious and it is not driven by purpose, it just follows the laws of physics in an unthinking manner. God and nature are not interchangeable concepts when you consider the religious foundations that support the belief in a God.
If your God really existed and is all knowing like so many say, wouldn't he/she/it see right through this attempt? Also, how do you know you are praying to the right God? how do you know that you aren't leaving a bunch of Gods out, and those Gods will be angry and keep you out of heaven. This argument is so flawed because it only takes into account two options. It is an illogical appeal to fear.
That is the thing, you don't! That is where faith comes in but very few people know what that is all about. You have to have faith that you are preying to the correct God. No one knows for sure and if it were only that simple. There is never going to be a black and white answer to this until the "End" of time. The only ones who will find out before then are the ones that die and they that's it they are dead can can't give us the truth. Well even if someone was to come back to life we would not believe that either.
Why do you refuse to answer my question? Do you agree that the original ideas of a "God" is a man-made creation? If no, where do you believe the concept originated?
You look new here, so I'll just give you a heads-up. Kdbrich is one of the type of posters that never answers questions, but rather simply prefers to be evasive and just continue to spout fundie rhetoric. So don't ever expect a straight answer from that one.
He (or she?) is amusing from time to time, though.
I disagree, a god or a creator is by definition a living entity with certain powers that allows it to create something with a purpose in mind. That is completely different from the natural phenomenon that exist in nature. Nature is not conscious and it is not driven by purpose, it just follows the laws of physics in an unthinking manner. God and nature are not interchangeable concepts when you consider the religious foundations that support the belief in a God.
Not very clear thinking, IMO. The bolded section simply says that the BS in the other definitions of God is unacceptable . . . not that your God is any more logical. You still must resort to unqualified acceptance of "what is . . . as is." Also . . . you have no way of knowing that "Nature" is not conscious . . . and those of us who experience "nature" in deep meditation would disagree with your brash assumption. Using the word natural to "explain" what we have no way of knowing the reason for . . . is NOT an explanation . . . it is an unqualified acceptance . . . "it just is." How is that different from accepting that it is God's will that it be that way. You have no way of knowing that there is no purpose to the existence of rigid "laws" and processes simply because we have to resort to artificial mathematical processes to predict various outcomes. That is a result of OUR ignorance . . . not lack of purpose or design. In fact, our ability to comprehend ANYTHING about our reality is . . . to paraphrase Einstein . . . the true mystery.
I disagree, a god or a creator is by definition a living entity with certain powers that allows it to create something with a purpose in mind. That is completely different from the natural phenomenon that exist in nature. Nature is not conscious and it is not driven by purpose, it just follows the laws of physics in an unthinking manner. God and nature are not interchangeable concepts when you consider the religious foundations that support the belief in a God.
It's obvious that theists only do that to try to make atheism look like a belief system or religion. It simply doesn't work.
The fact that we don't have a perfect explanation of how the Universe originated is not an excuse to support Creationism or stuff like that. That is faith, and shouldn't be mixed with science.
The fact that we don't have a perfect explanation of how the Universe originated is not an excuse to support Creationism or stuff like that. That is faith, and shouldn't be mixed with science.
Are you not acting in faith yourself when you claim it's true, even though you don't really know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Rhodes
Hummmmm.......My suspicion is that you do not understand the definition of logic. Both the Big Bang, and the theory of Evolution came about by systematic study of events as they were/are.
I understand that the fact that the galaxies are moving away from each other points to the fact that it started with a Bang. I don't dispute that. I'm suggesting that the big bang does not explain what existed prior to that, or what caused the big bang. It can't explain it.
Quote:
They were not arrived at loosely or without just reason. Logic---log'-ic---loj'ik--- "The study of the principles of reasoning." Darwin, in the course of years of travel and close study, noticed that specie changed according to their environment, not huge changes, but changes none-the-less, one of the key pieces of data he recorded was the neck notch on the tortoises (chelonian) on the Galapagos Islands, the vegetation grew taller on this one island, and the tortoise adapted by evolving a larger neck groove in the front of their shells that allowed their necks to stretch farther up the plants to reach the edible leaves.
He also noticed that certain finches with longer beaks survived, while short-beaks died. But once the famine was over and the short beaked ones were able to get to the seeds, the short-beaked started thriving again. The species did not change.
Same with the tortoises. The species did not change.
Evolution between species has yet to be observed or proven. It's a fairy tale.
Quote:
This one notation was his "AHA" moment, all of his reams and reams of data fell into place and a beautifully simplistic theory came into being, this theory, also evolved. I suspect when you claim so many things to (not be logical) you are making the common mistake of expecting logic to fall with-in the realm of your belief structure. Logic does not fall victim to wishes, hopes, or starry eyed notions, it is a tool of mathematical precision. Back in the dark ages, when I was in school, the requirement was at least 2 semesters of calculus to take the logic course. Research, then speak, is a logical course of action.
With all due respect, I don't think you understand the argument that I'm attempting to make.
My argument is that you have yet to explain how this whole thing started. What caused the universe to exist?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
