if not God then who/what?

Again. I offered a plausible argument that provides evidence of a creator. Ignorance, by definition, is a lack of knowledge. I offered knowledge that people can except or reject............honestly.

- - - Updated - - -

Again. I offered a plausible argument that provides evidence of a creator. Ignorance, by definition, is a lack of knowledge. I offered knowledge that people can except or reject............honestly.

Gullibility would be to think we appeared out of nowhere.

 

I don't state whether a God created the universe or not because I don't find it relevant.

I believe that there was a point of time when the universe existed very differently perhaps laws of physics were not applicable. This is the universe prior to the big bang.

I don't think the God question is really relevant when it comes to science. Science is about understanding why things happen and asking the question without assumptions that a God or supreme being did things that we can't explain. In fact that it's the death of science.

Belief in a deity is really not part of the equation.

 

Humans get too stuck up in their arrogance. We don't know (*)(*)(*)(*) about this sort of thing. We understand, to some extent, stuff on our own scale. Stuff that makes sense to us: atoms, subatomic particles - even these we don't understand. We only discovered quarks 45 years ago. Existential questions are even less certain because as you approach more general questions you require more general data: you need a more complete view of the universe. Then there's all the limitations associated with our senses and faculties which are completely unavoidable.

And that's what it really comes down to. Our intuition that something cannot come from nothing is just that - an intuition. Whether that intuition correlates with the external world is entirely down to the fallibility of those faculties. Faculties which we have known to be completely backward roughly 95% of the time. They were designed to get us from dawn to dusk without being eaten by a lion, not contemplate deep and meaningful questions about the universe at large.

[hr][/hr]

Anyway, a God doesn't solve the problem any more than the universe itself - God then becomes a property of the universe, and the question is merely moved back a step. Is God eternal? if so, why does that eternal being exist rather than no eternal being. There is no way to solve the intuition that something cannot come from nothing - short of appeal to magic. Which is basically what the God argument is.

But that magic itself is 'something'.

 

I agree, you can never answer a scientific question with God. It's a non sequitur.

That doesn't necessarily mean their is no God, just that it has no place in science.

 

Thank you for your theory. Yet I see many scientific arguments being made that support a creator if some kind.

Now can you explain why scientists would use a term called abiogenesis which actually is an admission of creation?

 

LOL! " A reasonable doubt"? Who defines reasonable? Now you and a scant few here may be reasonable, many others are not. I'll go with a preponderance of evidence.

 

Humans get too stuck up in their arrogance

Especially those that accuse others of that trait.

'Magic' would be putting car parts in a garage, coming back years later and seeing a fully built automobile. It needs a creator. Does it not?

 

Science as pragmatic knowledge (noticing patterns in sense data) is really all we have in the way of access to the external world. I think it's a bit of a mistake to conflate our internal model of how things work with how things actually are.

Maybe magic does govern the universe. Maybe God does play dice. Who the (*)(*)(*)(*) knows? All swans are white until you see a black swan. Logic is not immune from this.

 

Each individual.

As do we all.

 

I despised prob and stats. DESPISED it! Your correlation does not imply causation was pounded into my head in P&B 101, and I grate my teeth when I hear it these days, especially when its quipped by someone rebutting me when I am defending Gods probability to exist. The statement is INCORRECT too, at least in a nit picky fashion. How? Think hidden variables.

Not so fast! The KCA takes into account much more than the simple points you make. I would ask what can cause a universe to begin to exist? What is eternal and forever? What can exist independent of time and what can causes causation independent of time? Those are attributes assigned to God, and so if a thing what ever it is has attributes of God its more logical to assume that it IS God, than to call on unknowns etc. I could even make a claim calling on Mr. Occam to validate that ‘God did it’ as more logically appealing than to construct competing explanations.

God bless this forum, and remember God loves all of you and I am trying to....(lol)


reva

 

the way I question it with people who are religious (they seem to be extremely sensitive with these matters) is not that God did something, but how he did it. It seems to keep more rational religious folks in the conversation.

You are correct, there was no logical explanation of where lightening came from so Zues was forging in the clouds. Or Thor or which ever deity you choose. Once we explained it that old superstitious explanation became illogical.

Seeking answers to how and why is encouraged by the bible I just wonder why so many Christians reject that quest.

I stand by Einstein's message, "question everything.". That includes religion, faith and God.

Once I was booted out of my religion I was forced to evaluate it as an outsider. I learned some rather sinister truths about it

 

Why do you assume that Christians are religious?

If you find God to be a myth, fine. To each their own. Mod Edit ~ Focus on the thread topic. Don't make it personal.


I have sought answers personally and I am sharing therm. You simply 'reject' my answers.

Why and how were you 'booted out' of your religion?

 

Who assigned those attributes to God?

And why the need to assume?

Occam's razor is a reflection of ones own perspective and not a tool used to accurately distinguish fact from fiction. One can just as easily use it to support a deity as another can to reject a deity.

 

Because Christianity is a religion.

I never said I find God to be a myth. My position on God is that I don't know anything about it. I am not an atheist but I am not religious.

why shouldn't I reject your answers? You sought them personally, do they are personal. I don't have an issue with you liking your answers, but they leave a huge gap.

I am male and I fell in love with another man, I was catholic at the time. I was not received well. Though I was never officially excommunicated, I heard a resounding "(*)(*)(*)(*) OFF!!" From my religion when I asked for concession. The fellowship had been revoked. Thus I never returned.

 

Christ had no religion. Catholicism is a religion.

You have ever right to reject my answers. Your claim was that we do not seeks answers. That is wrong. And in your opinion there is a gap.

So you reject religion and God because of your sexual preference? As you said, you were not excommunicated. You left of your own accord.

 

I could say the same for those that cling to the old-fashioned error prone concept of (positive) science (PS). Darwinism and ‘evolution’ now applied to everything from origins of the species to origins of the universe, and its become the ONLY acceptable process.

I am fully convinced natural climate change is a real process and we only need look at the ice cores or fossil records to prove it as true. However Anthropogenic global warming is clearly less creditable claim. In fact it’s most likely a fraud in most cases in my opinion, again because of fossil evidence and other damming evidence from empirical to circumstantial. AGW is simply a method to earn membership as a PC world citizen. For myself the price of prostituting my values morals and intellect is far too high to become popular.


reva


PS and Disclaimer;;;;; >>>> I see a few new names here so let me say again, something I have said many times before. And that is I am all for applied science and science as a means of discovery. However its simply a tool not much more than an educated guess. I enjoy most forms of science and consider myself a serious naturalist, specifically I enjoy astronomy. So I don’t dislike science, I dislike the highly arrogant* entrenched, tenured, God hating scientists that absolutely exclude anything and everything that is not empirically vested, and belittles those that they exclude as painfully as they possibly can.

* think Dawkins

.

 

Yeah - I really reckon more people should look into existential philosophy. Our initial impressions of how reality works are really quite indefensible in my opinion.

I'm not saying you're arrogant - I'm saying that us humans generally are arrogant now that we've had 200 generations of civilization.

Nope. Could be cars spontaneously assemble themselves on occasion. Nobody knows. All we can really say is that we've never observed such a thing to happen, even with millions of 'experiments'.

The problem I see with the something from nothing argument for God is that he himself is just as subject to it as the universe. A creator just pushes it back a step. The problem still remains, unless you exclude that logical rule from God. Alright - why not do the same for the universe?

 

Understood.

And monkeys can fly from one's arse. And?

Okay. Then there may be a power higher than God. But we still come back to the same place Steady. Creation. Do we not?

 

Christianity is a religion also.

I don't believe I gave an opinion.

When did I say I rejected God? You have a nasty habit of making false accusations.

I don't reject God, I just have no use for organized religion for all it's claims to be about God it clearly isn't.

Religion rejected me because of my sexual ORIENTATION. The formal ceremony is moot. The church isn't some guy in Italy, it's the congregation, they made out clear that I was not welcome. Thus removing my welcome in effect kicking me out. I don't really have any hard feelings.
to think that I left of my own accord is absurd.

 

Okay, how did God make something from nothing?

 

You can't get something out of nothing, except for the greatest, most intelligent and powerful being ever. Yup, that makes total sense. This rock can't create itself, but this omniscient/omnipotent being? Yup, totally created itself.

And trying to use our understanding of the laws of nature on something that's not in our universe doesn't work.

 

You will have to ask God that when you get there. Ummm' unless you happen to meet the other guy, you know the one that is red with horns and a pitch fork? lol ~

reva

 

Disagree. I am a Christian who attends no church and recognizes nothing but the Bible. The Bible is religion neutral.

You claimed that Believers should seek answers. Why do you assume they don't?

Make up my mind. Either you reject God or accept Him. You have a 'nasty habit' of dodging.

If you were not excommunicated then you left on your own. Find another church like the Episcopalian church.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/...l-church-moves-toward-greater-lgbt-inclusion/


The Episcopal Church, which is already well-known as one of the most LGBT-inclusive denominations — the church confirmed its first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson, in 2003 and has supported same-sex marriage since 2005 — is taking steps to codify LGBT equality into its liturgy at its General Convention this week.

 

That's the point! It would take a supreme being to pull that off. Would it not? For those who seek answers you have to eventually consider that possibility.

 

or perhaps science can explain it. I am not so quick to give up on questioning. That is the hole I alluded too.

And for all of the judgement I get from Christians about who I am tells me unequivocally that Christianity is not about Christ.