I didnt say I had faith that those were “lying about before the big bang” … I asked why God gets to exist without cause, but the universe cant. Also, the concept of “before the big bang” may be nonsensical, as time appears to have started at that moment as well. This is all over my head, but that is my understanding of the big bang.
How did they come into existence? I dont know.
I didnt say I wouldnt seek God, I said I probably would not start going to church.
As far as my purpose, I’m not sure If I know yet. I certainly wouldnt be fulfilled if my purpose was to subject myself to servitude of a selfish God who desires constant worship and praise.
The person I was replying to seem to suggest this, thus I personalized my reply to them. I wasnt making my ultimate philosophical argument. But yes, your point is well taken.
I read the article, and have spent quite a bit of time studying the subject on my own (school, reading, audio lectures, etc…) for the last 10-15 years. I am not swayed by the cosmological argument, and explaining why would take much longer than anyone here has time or inclination to read. Suffice to say I think its a bit of a special pleasing argument. Its very, very possible I’m wrong about, or simply misunderstand, that though, and a “God” that is the prime mover exist, I’m willing to accept that if that.
I will say this about the article you posted - He seems to be criticizing people for attacking arguments no one is making, and while that may be true of the most prominent philosophers, it isnt true of the lay population those books are for. For instance Many, MANY people still make the “if evolution is true why are there still monkeys” argument (not you, not any serious scientist or philosopher, but for the general public this is still a legitimate idea for some). In that same way, many laypeople DO make the arguments he dismisses as “no one is making those arguments” when it comes to these kinds of questions, so I think it is legit for Dawkins and others to bring them up, for example.
I dont “hate” the idea, It’s just unproven and thus I have no time for it.
It actually doesn’t conjure that God up for me, but it does for many people, and in the interest of argument and relate-ability I use that God to discuss most of the time because most people are familiar with it and that is the God they are talking about (and not the philosophical God that was simply the first cause of the universe, for example)
Yes, I believe there are too but given that entire books have been written on the topic, and as much as @pat seems convinced by it and I dont think my dime-store-philosophy musings on T-Nation are going to be worthwhile enough to spend time debating it.
It’s not ‘my’ theology. I merely apeal to the logic that does in fact establish the existence of something fitting the description of that which we call God as a fact. And the logic is sound and nothing you or I can do, will disprove it. They are not ‘my’ arguments and it isn’t my God.
These are arguments that soundly establish the existence of that which we call God.
Basically I am asking where scientists think energy or matter originates. They have proposed every conceivable theory speculating on various facets of the natural world - some proven, some not. You seem to have an overwhelming compulsion to follow my posts and refute them. I will ask you instead, where did these 2 ‘things’ have an origin?
And if your answer is “I don’t really know.” or “Well, we see what happened at 1 zillionth of a sec after the bang, but have zero idea why there was any matter or energy to begin with.” - then I consider my and untold tens of billions of humans who have believed in a deity, to have as valid a ‘theory’ as the unsure scientist.
How many times do I (treco personally) have to say that I haven’t the slightest trepidation over the discoveries of science somehow making my faith less. None.
Secondly - a person that does not ponder the ‘meaning of life’? You are either just being argumentative or this is failed internet sarcasm.
No offense, but this seems prima facie incorrect. If an irrefutable proof of “that which we call God” existed, then it would be taught as a matter of course during primary education in every school on the planet.
Further, it makes a mockery of the entire notion of faith. You seem to be convinced that God is a fact in the same sense that 1+1=2 is a fact. Needless to say, no faith is required to believe that 1+1=2 (with apologies to Whitehead and Russell).
I think that’s a good idea. Smh spent 600 (or something, can’t be bothered to go look) posts explaining the clear flaw in the logic. I’ve never heard the arguments before so it was interesting to me but it was very obvious who won that debate. if that wasn’t enough to convince somebody that their position was wrong, I think it’s a good idea not to waste your time debating it. although I would like to hear why it does not convince you as the only exposure to the topic is what I’ve read here and I’m curious to your thoughts on the matter.
I will add that smh acknowledged it is a strong argument, but not a provable one.
I think thats really what it boils down to for me. I dont know that the premises are True. Does that which exists NEED a cause? It sure seems like it to me, but maybe my little human brain just can’t comprehend something like that, so I am not 100% certain that the first premise of the argument is true.
My incredibly narrow understanding of physics seems to indicate things can in fact just “pop into being,” but that may be wrong.
I also haven’t really dug deep on this stuff for 5-6 years, so I’m trying to remember the stuff I read that was convincing back in my philosophy hay day. I do remember my conclusions but don’t quite remember all the material I studied to arrive there, so if my arguments seem lack luster that’s very likely why.
I didnt read that thread, maybe I’ll bookmark it and check it out as free time allows.
I think when people refer to things “popping into existence” they are referring to random fluctuations in entropy on extremely HUGE timelines. Probability speaking, crazy things are possible I guess…
In any case, from a quantum-mechanical perspective, particles can pop in and out of existence-- which by the way, their effects can be measured. An interesting topic you might find worth investigating would be the Casimir Effect…
Atheist leaning agnostic (I prefer “I don’t know” to “I believe there is nothing”). I simply fail to see how any religious text can provide knowledge or wisdom. Call it too many years trapped in parochial schools listening to BS.
At a personal level, I get annoyed with claims of knowledge of absolute truth by those who aren’t scientists (or specialists in the relevant field) in the specific area in which they claim knowledge. I’m also perfectly fine accepting the idea I’ll never acquire all knowledge and will eventually disappear into dust. That helps me focus more energy on what mattes to me, work, family and leisure time (exploring the few areas that interest me), without wasting it on futile endeavors like spending my weekends begging for forgiveness from some deity for my being human.
But hey, if you believe no worries. Just please don’t think I will change my mind because some passage in your religion’s book or some miracle you claim to have experienced.
I’ll add that while this comes off as very anti-religion, I tend to keep that to myself out here in the world. I’m not trying to convert anyone.
Your analysis is completely incorrect. If I have certainty, I will take it, but it does nothing to nullify faith. You simply don’t understand the difference between philosophical analysis and faith in a loving God. The two are different, you can be certain about one and have faith in the other. There is no mutual exclutivity.
I also think religious people tend to use the word Faith as a synonym for Trust or Confidence, than as a belief without evidence.
I think many religious people would claim with certainty that God exists, which is to say they “know” that God exists. They have faith that He is watching over them, or guiding them or whatever. Or they “put their faith” in God to give them strenght/wisdom/courage etc… And while they may have a “crisis of faith” or are filled with doubt about God at times, I generally think that a devoutly religious person “knows” that God exists.
So what you’re saying is, the existence of a singular God is an objective fact, but believing said God cares whatsoever about humanity (much less is the God of Christian tradition) is the step that requires faith?
Yes, I agree that many religious people have a subjective sense of certainty that God exists. But what @pat is claiming goes well beyond such subjective certainty. He is claiming the existence of God has been proven logically–that it is a fact independent of subjective experience, in the same sense that 1+1=2 is a fact regardless of whether people are around to understand what the phrase means. If this were true (it’s obviously not), the implications would be literally world-changing.
In short, there’s an enormous difference between ‘I feel certain God exists’ and ‘it has been proven that God exists.’
I think his logical statement was intended to prove that “something” had to be the cause of the universe. Again, a statement I think many would already agree with. We are using the word God to describe that "something "
I don’t think that’s the case, but even that limited assertion is incorrect. Quite clearly, there is no consensus among logicians (or experts in related fields) that a sound syllogism exists the conclusion of which is Something had to be the cause of the universe.
We do indeed ordain women, as well as gay individuals (in some dioceses at least). The Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA) has had a Presiding Bishop (ie, head honcho) who was a gay man, as well as another who was a woman. Our current PB is an African-American. (Along these lines: While it is not currently a stated goal of hers, I would not be surprised if my daughter entered the priesthood someday.) The open-arms, welcoming, inclusive stance of the ECUSA is one of the attributes that make me proud to be a member.
Speaking solely of the ECUSA, our parishes/churches run the gamut from those which are very High Church (highly ritualized/ceremonial; solemn; an emphasis on ancient displays of religiosity such as ornate vestments, incense and sanctus bells) to those which are quite ‘low church’ in nature. A layperson can lead many services, but only ordained clergy can perform the Sacraments (although laypersons can and do participate actively in their performance).
And speaking for myself (although I know many who agree wholeheartedly), I love having noisy little kids in church.
It was very obvious that SMH was running circles around the competition. Like I said no one is changing anything based off internet discussion really. If someone was going to that would be the thread to look at and say ok here is someone who is shooting down all arguments and making his case with sound logic and reason.
