Morality and law (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter mikhail
- Start date
No, that's not it. You are unable to make a judgment on the existence of something directly contrary to our basic definitions of the world. It has nothing to do with science, science is concrete and unambiguous. Religion is redefining words like "existence", rendering them meaningless. Just like "benevolent" and "cruel" are smashed together into an unintelligible soup.
Btw Irish, after a long time I found a definition that I agree with fully. Theological noncognitivism.
Btw Irish, after a long time I found a definition that I agree with fully. Theological noncognitivism.
No, that's not it. You are unable to make a judgment on the existence of something directly contrary to our basic definitions of the world. It has nothing to do with science, science is concrete and unambiguous. Religion is redefining words like "existence", rendering them meaningless. Just like "benevolent" and "cruel" are smashed together into an unintelligible soup.
Btw Irish, after a long time I found a definition that I agree with fully. Theological noncognitivism.
Btw Irish, after a long time I found a definition that I agree with fully. Theological noncognitivism.
Snake Midget, im an anti-theist but i cant 100 % deny the existance of god,im 99.9999999999% sure he doesnt exist, but whilst there is no proof for his existance and we are only proofing little by little that he cant exist, there is still proof that he exists in peoples faith. The only time i can allow for people to be agnostic is when they are apathetic agnostics which is basically an athiest (the view that you dont know and you dont care). Being agnostic must be a horrible way spending your life, never knowing if you are right, "isnt enough to accept that the garden is beautiful without worying about whether there are faries at the bottom"
That's a generalization. If you were talking about theists who adamantly believe that the earth was created in 7 days a few thousand years ago in the face of all scientific evidence that points to the contrary, then yes, these theists cannot stick to reason.
Theistic evolutionists. These are theists that accept evolution as a scientific fact but also believe in intelligent design. I would personally place myself in that category.
We are faced with an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that ultimately do contain divine implications which I have posted many times before on this forum.( The cosmological theory, the fine-tuning theory). Also, and perhaps even more importantly, there are philosophical questions that point to the divine.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Can non-life give birth to life given an infinite amount of time? If I built a wooden chair, can it turn into an animal a few hundred million years from now .Are physical laws man-made(constructivism) or are they part of nature? If they are an innate part of nature, who or what set up these laws?
There a countless number of questions one can ask about the nature of life that would really point to God, and would get an atheist thinking, It did so to the most prominent and influential atheistic figure in the past century, Antony Flew.
It's very unintelligible to label theistic arguments irrational or unreasonable. I would agree with Martin here that much of the scripture is filled with contradictions, at least this is what it seems. But this is not what I am personally interested in, I am more inclined to exploring the possibility/plausibility of God's existence.
Theistic evolutionists. These are theists that accept evolution as a scientific fact but also believe in intelligent design. I would personally place myself in that category.
We are faced with an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that ultimately do contain divine implications which I have posted many times before on this forum.( The cosmological theory, the fine-tuning theory). Also, and perhaps even more importantly, there are philosophical questions that point to the divine.
Why is there something rather than nothing? Can non-life give birth to life given an infinite amount of time? If I built a wooden chair, can it turn into an animal a few hundred million years from now .Are physical laws man-made(constructivism) or are they part of nature? If they are an innate part of nature, who or what set up these laws?
There a countless number of questions one can ask about the nature of life that would really point to God, and would get an atheist thinking, It did so to the most prominent and influential atheistic figure in the past century, Antony Flew.
It's very unintelligible to label theistic arguments irrational or unreasonable. I would agree with Martin here that much of the scripture is filled with contradictions, at least this is what it seems. But this is not what I am personally interested in, I am more inclined to exploring the possibility/plausibility of God's existence.
Evolution isn't a fact, it's a theory.
Anyway, I have yet to encounter any Theist that can have reasoned debate. Now I can't be sure how many people I've ever debated religion with but it has to be close to 1000 people from varying, races,colours and creeds.
Again, a reasoned debate not resonable.
The argument of something from nothing is really a moot point, The universe in terms of composition is both time and space, its inseperable, who created the universe? is a ridiculous question for something which for all intents and purposes is a constant, it always is and it always was and it always will be, just because humans feel the need to lineate everything due to their own fear of mortality is not a valid badge of philsophical thought.
Anyway, I have yet to encounter any Theist that can have reasoned debate. Now I can't be sure how many people I've ever debated religion with but it has to be close to 1000 people from varying, races,colours and creeds.
Again, a reasoned debate not resonable.
The argument of something from nothing is really a moot point, The universe in terms of composition is both time and space, its inseperable, who created the universe? is a ridiculous question for something which for all intents and purposes is a constant, it always is and it always was and it always will be, just because humans feel the need to lineate everything due to their own fear of mortality is not a valid badge of philsophical thought.
If you've read david hume you'd know exactly my agnosticism. I am like you that i am highly leaning towards atheism. My mind tells me that a statement like "God does NOT exist" cannot be justified. My heart sometime tells me to give religion another chance, but usually turns me to atheism.
I can be intellectually agnostic but my nature never leaves me standing on the mid point between theism and atheism.. i almost always get pulled nearer to atheism.
A big reason for this is Russell's Teapot and especially Dawkings' use of the argument. but again it makes god sound less likely and more silly but is never sufficient to be called certainty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
I can be intellectually agnostic but my nature never leaves me standing on the mid point between theism and atheism.. i almost always get pulled nearer to atheism.
A big reason for this is Russell's Teapot and especially Dawkings' use of the argument. but again it makes god sound less likely and more silly but is never sufficient to be called certainty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Right, the Big Bang was the starting point in time. Meaning that if the universe had a timeline for example, the Big Bang would be the very first point in that timeline.
Now, in standard argumentation I will present to you with basically true premises and a valid conclusion that that the argument for creation is a sound one.
1) Everything that comes into being has a cause.
2) The universe came into being.
Conclusion: The Universe had a cause.
If the premises are true, the conclusion is a sound one and undoubtedly a valid one in that sense.
Now, I will not continue. If you agree with me untill now, I will show you why this cause must be supernatural. If you don't, please tell me where the flaws in the argument are.
Now, in standard argumentation I will present to you with basically true premises and a valid conclusion that that the argument for creation is a sound one.
1) Everything that comes into being has a cause.
2) The universe came into being.
Conclusion: The Universe had a cause.
If the premises are true, the conclusion is a sound one and undoubtedly a valid one in that sense.
Now, I will not continue. If you agree with me untill now, I will show you why this cause must be supernatural. If you don't, please tell me where the flaws in the argument are.
I disagree with #1 but i am not equipped enough to explain myself because we would be arguing with vastly different back grounds (my bad). i can refer you though to a book to read: David Hume - a Treatise of Human Nature... If you are interested in Epistemology, this is the most important book to read.
since i am sure that you will not read the book, I'll try to judge your argument in popular terms on popular grounds.
and i hope your argument is not "The universe came in to being while God did not and so we cannot ask who created god but we can ask who created the universe"
since i am sure that you will not read the book, I'll try to judge your argument in popular terms on popular grounds.
and i hope your argument is not "The universe came in to being while God did not and so we cannot ask who created god but we can ask who created the universe"