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.
Given what we know about the universe and it's laws, that something other than natural law has to be the foundation for existence.
Why? Because you declare it to be so, or can you back this assertion up in any way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
I'm working on it. I'm very confident in that regard in there being evidence.
So you say you are willing to give some if asked.... then when asked you proceed to not actually give any but revert back to simply talking about how much you think there is.
You will forgive me therefore if I simply add you to the list I just mentioned above.
Why? Because you declare it to be so, or can you back this assertion up in any way?
It's more common sense than anything else. Unless you can show me a natural law that didn't come into existence. So far, that is the speculation, especially if you consider the multiple universe hypothesis. When you get down to it, there's a lot of strange things to discuss concerning reality itself. Just take a look at the world of quantum physics. This stuff would be right out of a book of religion. Is the existence of a god that hard to believe and consider?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
So you say you are willing to give some if asked.... then when asked you proceed to not actually give any but revert back to simply talking about how much you think there is.
You will forgive me therefore if I simply add you to the list I just mentioned above.
Reliance on common sense is a poor approach I am afraid. Firstly it is not all that common. Secondly it rarely makes sense.
Our "Common sense" evolved in the middle universe. The world of the very large, the very small, and the very long (in terms of time) is simply alien to us. Applying "common sense" as a tool to answer our open questions about the universe makes as much sense as using a hammer as a tool to build a house of cards.
How often - and spectacularly - our common sense fails us is very easy to demonstrate. The world and the internet are full of little tests you can do to show just what a failure human common sense is when it is applied to anything else except what it evolved to do. In fact the best advice I can give the human species is that you should question a conclusion ALL THE MORE if it appears to fit "common sense". Not less.
So no, I am truely and wholly unimpressed by anyone who presented "It is just common sense" as anything even approaching an attempt to substantiate the existence of a god.
Clearly the invention of man to alleviate fears of all that was unknown in a time when much was unknown. Fear is the most uncontrollable and irrational emotion that affects man, and fear is still the reason such nonsense about gods continues today, in spite of knowledge.
You are right, but I think the invention of god is also a form of "crowd control." Christian religion does rule with fear. In order to keep people in line, followers are told if you don't believe in god, you will burn in hell for eternity ... Oh and let's throw in a few talking snakes, just to keep things interesting.
Reliance on common sense is a poor approach I am afraid. Firstly it is not all that common. Secondly it rarely makes sense.
Our "Common sense" evolved in the middle universe. The world of the very large, the very small, and the very long (in terms of time) is simply alien to us. Applying "common sense" as a tool to answer our open questions about the universe makes as much sense as using a hammer as a tool to build a house of cards.
How often - and spectacularly - our common sense fails us is very easy to demonstrate. The world and the internet are full of little tests you can do to show just what a failure human common sense is when it is applied to anything else except what it evolved to do. In fact the best advice I can give the human species is that you should question a conclusion ALL THE MORE if it appears to fit "common sense". Not less.
So no, I am truely and wholly unimpressed by anyone who presented "It is just common sense" as anything even approaching an attempt to substantiate the existence of a god.
Perhaps I should have said scientific sense. Yes the universe is hard to comprehend, but that doesn't mean it do not follow rules or patterns. Now in the quantum world, the rules that govern the larger world break down, yet even the quantum world follow laws. There is sense behind it, or else we couldn't say anything about it. We speculate the entire universe had a beginning, and that includes the quantum world. Meaning everything has the same origin. Is this origin the same as everything else? If it is, that origin also had a beginning somewhere. This would lead to a dead end for science, if the origin is the same as existence itself.
Now even if all that is true, would that be evidence for a god? No, not specifically. Yet a god would be a better answer than saying existence's origin is the same as every natural scientific law.
Should you have? I am currently unaware of ANY science knowledge that lends even a modicum of credence to the notion that our universe was created by a non human intentional agent. Is there some science I missed somewhere alone the way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
We speculate the entire universe had a beginning
That is not just speculation. It is well substantiated Theory. That a "god" created everything.... THAT is speculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese
Now even if all that is true, would that be evidence for a god? No, not specifically. Yet a god would be a better answer than saying existence's origin is the same as every natural scientific law.
"Better" here being your personal subjective preference. It is not "better" in any other sense. The "better" answer to our open questions would be SUBSTANTIATED answers.... not fanciful speculation that personally pleases or titillates us or conforms to this obscure "common sense" you seem to feel we have.
Should you have? I am currently unaware of ANY science knowledge that lends even a modicum of credence to the notion that our universe was created by a non human intentional agent. Is there some science I missed somewhere alone the way?
I meant scientific sense would say our origin can't have the same fundamental make up as every other law of nature. If every law came into existence, our origin must not have. If our origin came into existence, then science breaks down and becomes nonsensical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
That is not just speculation. It is well substantiated Theory. That a "god" created everything.... THAT is speculation.
Of course if that is so, our origin would have to be fundamentally different from the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
"Better" here being your personal subjective preference. It is not "better" in any other sense. The "better" answer to our open questions would be SUBSTANTIATED answers.... not fanciful speculation that personally pleases or titillates us or conforms to this obscure "common sense" you seem to feel we have.
Better in the sense that a god wouldn't be the same in make up as the universe and it's make up.
It's more common sense than anything else. Unless you can show me a natural law that didn't come into existence. So far, that is the speculation, especially if you consider the multiple universe hypothesis. When you get down to it, there's a lot of strange things to discuss concerning reality itself. Just take a look at the world of quantum physics. This stuff would be right out of a book of religion. Is the existence of a god that hard to believe and consider?
The first time I ate at a fancy restaurant, I was probaly 6 or 7 years-old. When I sat down at the table, I was confronted with a bewildering array of forks and spoons - why on earth would I need so much silverware? After all, we only ate with one set at home, so what gives?
Then I struck up a very common sense answer. I had all of this silverware in case I dropped one of the forks or spoons. That way, I wouldn't have to bug the waiter for another one.
Makes sense, right? Is there a reason to doubt my rationale? Even a child can come up with seemingly rational explanations for things she doesn't understand - and even though the common sense holds true as far as it goes, the conclusion is still very, very wrong.
The moral of the story is that common sense does NOT inevitably lead you to the truth. In fact, it often does just the opposite when dealing with unknowns. This is precisely why a lack of information about events causes rumors to circulate at best - or panic and conspiracy theories at worst.
Common sense is not a substitute for fact.
Plus, how do we really know that anything "came into existence"?
Science has never proven that a state of nothingness has ever existed or can exist. Certain concepts could be eternal.
And why would that be so hard to swallow if you believe in an eternal god?
Just my opinion, but I believe the actions of us Theists is a primary reason Atheists do not believe.
We give very little reason for them to and often give very many reasons they should not.
Allaah(swt) will lead those who desire to be led. It is our responsibility to live a life that instills a desire to find God(swt). Most of us tend to lead a life that gives the impression it is not wise to believe in a Supreme being.
They say the only intellectually honest position to have is to be agnostic.
Well, the agnostic is an atheist since the position that the existence of deities is unknown (weak) or unknowable (strong) does not actually lend itself to active belief.
How many agnostics do you know believe in Zeus? I'd reckon none. How many believe in Odin? Again, none. They are atheist, and I'd hazard a guess they're strong/explicit atheists relative to these and virtually all other deities.
It would be inconsistent of them to not be atheist relative to the Abrahamic deities, for they are no different than the others.
Quote:
I think for most atheists, they wouldn't say there is no god period, but when it comes to religion, they say our gods do not exist.
Most atheists are weak in their position, which is: "I don't believe in deities." The strong position asserts to the nonexistence of said deities a la "Deities do not exist."
Just curious, do you believe in the existence of Poseidon? Most do not. The vast majority of people are relative atheists, of the strong variety, to virtually all deities. Strong/explicit atheists simply go one step further by asserting to the nonexistence of not only deities, but the concept of a First Cause, which should not be confused with "god." They're very different concepts being tackled and addressed. Strong/explicit atheists are often metaphysical naturalists.
Quote:
Coming from that perspective, if there was an inborn trait, then atheists still have it. Just using it in a different way. They are basing what they believe on what is proven.
Not all of them. Atheists aren't asking for proof for invisible wish-granting fairies or Jedi Magic. I have no reason to seek or require proof for unicorns or mermaid goddesses. The existence of fantastical, literary, and mythological characters is simply not on my radar. That goes for fairies, gnomes, Loch Ness Monster, mermaids, wizards, vampires (hey, it may be true, look at Blade! -- the unknown world of vampires!), deities, and superheroes we don't know about.
Quote:
Now speaking on my reasons for my belief in God, atheists wouldn't consider it good. Yet if they want more evidence, then more evidence I will give them because it is me making the claim. I'm really confident God exists,
Which deity? El/Yahweh, Jesus and Holy Spirit as opposed to Brahman or Ahura Mazda? What about Ra, Sol Invictus, Mithra, and Horus?
Quote:
and that's why I'm confident there is hard evidence as well.
Like? This simply makes no sense, but it's apparent you're operating under a false dichotomy, which is a logical fallacy. There is no more "hard evidence" for your pantheon of deities than there is for the Greek pantheon of deities, and the Greek pantheon is tons cooler.
Quote:
(Of course going back to my op, belief in God's existence and faith aren't the same thing. There's nothing wrong with hard evidence and factually acknowledging God's existence)
Yes, like I can "factually acknowledge" the existence of Thor. I feel his presence around me, and All Father Odin, well, there's no denying the magic and power of his Greatness. Wait, no, it's Brahman's presence that permeates the universe. Brahman resides within it and transcends it, for he is Ultimate Transcendence, and he's been around far longer than the desert deities of Canaan. Ahura Mazda is pretty awesome as well as the Wise Lord, and One True God. It even says so in the Gathas. See how circular logic works.
You say creation is evidence for your deities, and another can argue creation is evidence for Ahura Mazda or a 5th grade extraterrestrial's science experiment (whoops!), yet we have no reason to believe either, for 1) the evidence for Ahura Mazda is based on ancient literature, like all other deities, and 2) the metaphysical, the Cause of things, lies outside the natural and knowable universe.
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.
