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.
What is more logical about assuming the supernatural? How can logic be applied to something which, by definition, cannot be understood, explained or evidenced?
Why would this cause be a deity? I could just as easily claim that first cause is a force rather than a being. Either explanation is equally in/valid.
Maybe logic is not the best word to describe what I mean. I just feel it requires a smaller leap of faith to think that whatever this first cause is, consists of something outside the bounds of natural laws and phenomena. Could be a "force" or something natural, but that seems less likely to me. But then that's part of why I'm not an atheist, I guess.
Maybe logic is not the best word to describe what I mean. I just feel it requires a smaller leap of faith to think that whatever this first cause is, consists of something outside the bounds of natural laws and phenomena. Could be a "force" or something natural, but that seems less likely to me. But then that's part of why I'm not an atheist, I guess.
It requires no faith at all to admit "I don't know," which is what science and I (and I'd bet most atheists) say on the matter.
When you use the word "likely," you are indeed implying logic and reason. However, one cannot apply probability to an occurrence in which the variables are unknown.
It requires no faith at all to admit "I don't know," which is what science and I (and I'd bet most atheists) say on the matter.
When you use the word "likely," you are indeed implying logic and reason. However, one cannot apply probability to an occurrence in which the variables are unknown.
Well, essentially, then, it sounds like you are saying that it is "unknowable." So how can you be sure first cause was not a deity? Wouldn't that make an agnostic position more accurate than an atheistic one?
Well, essentially, then, it sounds like you are saying that it is "unknowable." So how can you be sure first cause was not a deity? Wouldn't that make an agnostic position more accurate than an atheistic one?
What does "true believer" mean? I'm a "true disbeliever" in God. Anyways, you have no need to share your belief in God to those who disbelieve. They've already proven God doesn't exist in their heads.
You obviously knew what I meant by "true believer", so no further comment.
And yes... some of us do believe we "have a need" to share our beliefs. The Bible tells us to spread the Word of God. Never be ashamed of Him.
I don't intend to change everyone's mind about their beliefs. No one could do this feat. I do however intend to tell people what my experiences, beliefs, hopes and dreams are. You don't need to listen, agree, nor understand. But I do so, just because there is a slight chance that something I say, something I believe, something I've gone through will help one person in their quest.
Well, essentially, then, it sounds like you are saying that it is "unknowable." So how can you be sure first cause was not a deity? Wouldn't that make an agnostic position more accurate than an atheistic one?
Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Atheism describes belief. The two are not comparable. This is a common misconception, but I and others have covered it before.
I believe my car will start today. (compare to a/theism)
I don't know that it will start. (compare to agnosticism)
No, I didn't say it is unknowable. I said it is unknown. Big difference.
My only comment on this would be that assuming an alien civilation theory still leaves the philosophical "problem" of first cause. Assuming that, what would have caused the aliens to exist? I know you atheist will disagree but I find it a lot easier to believe in a uncaused, eternal deity than something in the natural being eternal or "uncaused." But that's just me.
I have NO problem with uncaused origins. In quantum physics there is an entity called a "virtual particle" that just pops into and out of existence completely at random. Now, I will grant you that subatomic particles are not visible, therefore no one has ever actually seen a virtual particle, but the solutions for certain problems that consider the existence of them are much more "elegant" than the solutions to the same problems that do not consider them.
I have a great deal more problem with the idea of an uncaused "intelligence."
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.
Seems logical to me...
Question...
