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.
The god we've been taught of, the one based on the bible, is not a figment of someone's imagination.
Of which you no doubt have independent verification...?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley
Human's really need the concept of a god or gods who will help them during times of trial. The inability to have a god or gods leads some people into severe depression and other mental illnesses.
And in others, the belief in that existence fuels the same. And in still others, it's merely a symptom of the underlying insanity.
Reposting a graph I made for kdbrich's last "who created the universe?" bait-thread:
I believe that whether or not you believe in a god, you're stuck with a paradox - which means we're probably asking the wrong question. Science does not have the right tools to answer this yet, if ever.
Reposting a graph I made for kdbrich's last "who created the universe?" bait-thread:
I believe that whether or not you believe in a god, you're stuck with a paradox - which means we're probably asking the wrong question. Science does not have the right tools to answer this yet, if ever.
What's so horrible about an infinite chain of causality? It is simple. It is concise. It conforms to Occams Razor -- I think....?
Well, kdbrich correctly objected that if God was created by a "bigger" god, which was himself created and so on, it would require the passing of an infinite amount of time before we get to "now". Which, if time flows (as it appears to us), is probably impossible. And if the flow of time is only an illusion, then our perceptions are completely wrong and we'll need to completely rebuild physics to begin understanding how it could work (hence the "that's way too weird").
Note that the objection also stands if there is only one "eternal" God.
Well, kdbrich correctly objected that if God was created by a "bigger" god, which was himself created and so on, it would require the passing of an infinite amount of time before we get to "now". Which, if time flows (as it appears to us), is probably impossible. And if the flow of time is only an illusion, then our perceptions are completely wrong and we'll need to completely rebuild physics to begin understanding how it could work (hence the "that's way too weird").
Note that the objection also stands if there is only one "eternal" God.
Sorry, it's hard to explain. Maybe kdbrich can help? It was his argument, after all.
Here's an analogy: a bunch of people are standing in line. A bucket is being passed from the beginning of the line towards the end. If the line has a beginning, this makes sense. However, if the line is infinitely long, the bucket would have to have travelled an infinitely long distance to reach any specific bucket-carrier, which is impossible (or at least it appears so to me).
The line represents the chain of causality, while the bucket represents the present time, the "now". Of course, maybe this is a very poor analogy. Maybe there is no bucket at all. Maybe every single person in the line has a bucket. But if that's the case, we have a very poor grasp of the nature of time, and we must re-write some of our physics.
I don't agree. We have physical knowledge of the universe around us with enough complexity to hint at design. We do not know enough about a possible creator to assume the same. Who is to say that such a creator does not act completely from it's nature to create? The argument is based more I think from an appraisal of what we know of our universe rather than assumptions made about a supernatural realm.
How could observing our world, which has no perceivable creator, lead to the conclusion that there must be a creator? You've never seen god, let alone a god creating things.
It must use the argument "complex things had to be made by more complex things" correct? Well, you either assume your creator is more complex or the argument does not lead to its conclusion. Intelligent design arguments don't work without assumptions.
How could observing our world, which has no perceivable creator, lead to the conclusion that there must be a creator? You've never seen god, let alone a god creating things.
Your assumed creator is "nature" . . . or you have to deny the abundance of creation going on around you . . . you just think your creator is stupid and unintelligent and indifferent.
Quote:
It must use the argument "complex things had to be made by more complex things" correct? Well, you either assume your creator is more complex or the argument does not lead to its conclusion. Intelligent design arguments don't work without assumptions.
What assumptions do you make about your creator . . "nature"?
Your assumed creator is "nature" . . . or you have to deny the abundance of creation going on around you . . . you just think your creator is stupid and unintelligent and indifferent.What assumptions do you make about your creator . . "nature"?
"Nature" is not a perceivable creator - as was stated. The abundance of observable masses of energy does not tell me anything at all other than that they exist -- that's the only "assumption" that I feel comfortable making (I don't assume that "nature" has an intelligence level).
Any further assumptions move into the realm of presumption.
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.
