Discussion in 'Religion and Lighthearted Discussion' started by IcyPatriot, May 2, 2014.
You mean that it is super-natural? Cool. Glad we are in agreement.
What is supernatural?
My view is that anybody claiming that they can prove god exists or does not exist is full of shit. Claiming to arrive at either point of view via "logic" will always fail.
When it comes to the argument that life is too complex to have come about without a "creator," the failure of the logic is the different standard applied to the existence of the creator versus the existence of life.
I am not sure who argued that, but ok.
I think the argument is that while theoretically possible given infinite time and space, it appears highly unlikely given a finite universe over a finite period of time.
The idea of the creator existing is that he is not bound by the limits of the physical universe. He is super-natural.
Well, many people do on both sides.
But I wasn't saying that somebody here did, in this thread. I was stating my pov.
Right, but like I said, that's applying a different standard, so it's not the logical argument many people try to claim it to be.
People have tried to calculate probabilities -- ignoring the vast size and age of the universe. They try to claim how unlikely it is. And certainly, the likelihood of it occurring seems low.
But when all of that is thrown out the window, the logic or rationality of the argument is gone. There was really no point in making the argument of how unlikely life is if the person making the argument simply defaults to "it must be some creator." It's essentially the "god of gaps." (And I would bet that many of the people who do believe in a god now would look at the beliefs our predecessors had regarding gods and consider them primitive, or even foolish and laughable. When, really, those people were doing the same thing. They saw something and couldn't explain it, so they attributed it to some god.)
The universe itself could just as soon be "supernatural" and we're just not aware of it.
Many people do claim just that. They believe in an "energy". That's fine. I can't argue with them metaphysically. I believe in a historic figure (Jesus). I didn't come to that belief because I decided that's where the universe came from. Plenty of people decide against faith because they have been convinced (fallaciously) that science can explain origins and thus the non-existence of God.
In geometry, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
Can you prove it? No.
It's an article of faith. For some of the non-religious, they strongly prefer another word other than faith. Whatever you call it, there are a few things we can't prove and simply believe in.
Some believe the Universe created itself - I and others believe there is a Creator.
Either way, you have a belief that can't be proven in the strictest sense.
fwiw, I've never met anybody who doesn't believe in god because of what they learned (or "learned") regarding science
A belief that can't be proven in any sense, not just the strictest sense
and the same can be said for anybody claiming there is no god, yes
I have and do all the time.
That's just bizarre. What do these people think they've learned that somehow disproves the existence of god? eh, it really doesn't matter... they're not bright
who is that -- Dawkins?
When were "the teachings of Christ" ever taught in public school?
Just like my reference to the shortest point between two lines.
Our understanding of the Universe has changed since Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Hawkings...with corrections every step of the way.
We were not aware of atoms until a century ago - now we have charted many sub atomic particles. At this time, dark matter is more massive than known matter. And is the Universe just matter and energy?
anthropic principle and infinite monkey theorem seem intuitive enough for me
Massachusetts Constitution of 1780
"Art. III. As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffcused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of the public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, To promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subject an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.
Provided, notwithstanding, That the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, shall at all times have the exclusive right and electing their public teachers and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.
And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship and of public teachers aforesaid shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; othewise it may be paid toward the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.
And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law."
This thread is being moved to the Religion Forum.
Edit: Whoops, this already is in the Religion Forum.
Sure...if you have infinite time and space, neither of which exist. Universe is finite in size and age.
no consensus that universe is finite in size........anthropic principle doesnt need infinite universe........in regards to monkey theorem.....that monkey typed hamlet quicker than one might have thought
Separate names with a comma.