[QUOTE="Golfer4Life"][QUOTE="alexgangur"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="alexgangur"] I've never heard that phrase before, but I actually recognize it as being a pretty good analogy. To reason that its unlikely that there is a cow in the sun is fair - it defies physics and chemistry as we know them. And then beyond that there are the simple questions, such as "how did it get there", and "why a cow", the responses to which are likely to, again, defy science (and statistics, possibly). Similarly, religion (well, perhaps not all. I don't claim to understand all religions) tends to rely upon theories that defy science. God made the universe from nothing? That certainly defies the law of conservation of matter, and the law of conservation of energy. There are only two arguments that can be made against this (forgive me if there are more, I would be glad to explore any other arguments): that those theories are wrong, or/and that this situation was an exception of those theories. However, both are fallacious in that they suggest that the possible incorrectness of those theories enhances the credibility of the argument. That is wrong. Those theories have been supported by cold, hard evidence, and countless physicists have failed to disprove them since their inception. Therefore, conversely, the possibility that they are incorrect is proportionally small. Similarly, to suggest that the creation of the world was just an exception is totally lacking in evidence, other than the Bible (Q'uran, etc.), but to reference these as evidence creates the circular argument fallacy, rendering the argument invalid.
Whoopsie, nearly forgot my other point :P. Athiests do NOT rely on mere "common knowledge" they rely on knowledge claims (ie. facts; syllogisms), derived from evidence. Commen knowledge is closer to assumed knowledge.
TongHua
Ah but...basically whichever way you believe the universe was created...it started out as nothing. So that's a moot point to bring up as evidence.
Edit; Whoopsie, nearly forgot.....the evidence is generally scientific theory which may be correct...or may be incorrect. As accpeted scientific theory it more often than not fits. But so far science hasn't created an universe.
Yes, you're quite right here, but I'm unsure as to your stance on the issue. Do you believe that the lack of a scientific explaination gives a greater probability to the possibility that the universe was indeed created by a god? Becuase let's clarify here - the lack of a scientific explaination does not at all mean that it is any more likely that a god created the universe from nothing. There still are a very large number of theories to suggest that the universe came from something, ie. a massive element/matter cloud. But as to what this comes from... to explain that requires us to question the very nature of reality. Yes, that does include the possibility of a god, but that is a lone explaination amongst many. Actually, I've come across a number of very interesting theories regarding this - try google-ing "holographic reality" (believe me, so long as you find the theory I'm talking about, it has nothing to do with literal "holograms") - regardless of your stance on reality, I would expect that someone who seems to be intellegent as you are would at least find the theory interesting. Nonetheless, I should point out that it is the uncertainty in this field that makes pandeism so solid in its claims - it claims that god "became" the universe.
I have another question for you. I have been wondering how religious people approach the question of (assuming that a god/gods do exist) how they know that their god is the god, or how they know that their god is the only god. No insults intended, but I am curious.
Alex, you seem to know a lot about what you are talking about. I would just like to point one thing out. Religion is based on faith and that soley, something some of us need more. I am, for the record not a very religious person but from what I can gather through out history and the mind of a human; I have come to a conclusion that we need a higher being to look towards. What justifies our morals? Our actions? What defines them? People need God during hard times, someone that they can look up to. God gives the pressence of energy, hope and power. For example, Moses commendments were used to help our forefathers devise our country. Even when they choose to seperate, build a wall between church and state, they knew that without religion man cannot be told what is morally right or wrong. Many experts today argue that while they (our forefathers) wanted seperation (due to history of religious influence etc.) they also believed religion was needed and had to carefully draft the words to the constitution (not stating our right that there is indeed a wall of seperation). And soit is in this one (or many) gods that people determine who they follow.
Here let me explain another example. Is the Shroud of Turin in fact authentic? Depicting the image of Jesus? Well, it doesn't have to - it is merely a relic that conjures faith out of people. If you believe it, then it is justified by you, and only you.
God, I believe is a figure that many draw strenght from and thus they follow and are loyal to that god.
What you are saying makes very little sense if i am interpreting it correctly. I don't need a god to tell me that killing someone is wrong. I certainly don't need someone else to tell me stealing is wrong and that helping otheres is right. I will justify my actions, whether they are good or bad, with "because i thought it was the right thing to do" not "because my god told me i should've"
What I am saying is, who is to say what is right or wrong? Who is to say what Hitler did was wrong? Yes, I believe it was wrong and you probably do too. But it's our words against someone elses. What religion tries to do is to interpret these ethics and morals. But I do agree with you, God shouldn't be the one telling you it's wrong it should be you. However as Alex said, I believe organized religion has no right to interfere in science and matters where only their faith is the "evidence". It is a repeating trend, as evident in cases like Galileo with his heliocentric systemand Charles Darwin's theory on human evolution. It henders society. Religion, I believe was suppose to help and benefit society, not the other way around.
Good words though, "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" Morality is a whole other subject to itself :)
Log in to comment