- Joined
- Sep 14, 2011
- Messages
- 26,629
- Reaction score
- 6,661
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I wouldn't be insulted at all. I'll admit to being a bit skeptical, however: I'd think that if evidence existed for God I would have heard of it by now. Then again I don't claim to keep up with all the latest scientific quarterlies.
Why is hypocrisy when Christians do it but not others? We setting 2 different standards for some reason?
For example:
Christian mocks Athiest for having different beliefs = them being a dick (and i agree)
Athiest mocks Christan for having different beliefs = Ok, funny, acceptable to some of you.
Why is that?
The only thing I can think of is you think it is wrong for people to be intolerant and mock your beliefs, but it is ok for you to do it to others because you are oh so super special.
(I dont mean you personally since I haven't seen you doing it, I mean that last statement more for those who actively do it on here and there are plenty).
That is your argument as a justification for the discrimination. But unless you can show how you apply the same standard to EVERY candidate you vote for--in other words to be wrong about something or inability to prove what they think or believe is an automatic disqualification, I stand on my conviction that you are discriminating against Christians.
My very simple logic is based on my agreement on these 3 statements:
The universe exists.
For something to exists it must have been created.
If something was created then someone/something created it.
Since I believe that since someone/something created the universe and at its core a God is someone/something who created there universe, I believe there is a God.
I've bolded the core of your argument.
This is an argument from design, and is an outmoded approach because it worked better in a time when our understanding of the universe determined that if a thing exists, then it has a creator (see Clockmaker's Analogy). However, with the advent of our understanding of evolution we discovered that life could arise and evolve without the guidance of an overt God. Basic chemistry and biology explains it and predicts it. .
That means that whereas before we had one possible choice for the creation of the universe (god), today we have two: god and, well, hell if I know.
So it's not a guaranteed thing that if something exists then it must have been created.
Occam's Razor, based on what we know today, would lead us to naturally conclude that some other avenue resulted in the creation of the universe.
It's not real logic, since you don't apply that same logic to God. You're just passing the buck, moving the goal posts, and throwing your hands in the air by attributing everything to God. Saying that 'God did it' is really saying, '**** if I know.'
I've bolded the core of your argument.
This is an argument from design, and is an outmoded approach because it worked better in a time when our understanding of the universe determined that if a thing exists, then it has a creator (see Clockmaker's Analogy). However, with the advent of our understanding of evolution we discovered that life could arise and evolve without the guidance of an overt God. Basic chemistry and biology explains it and predicts it. It's why modern medicine even works. That means that whereas before we had one possible choice for the creation of the universe (god), today we have two: god and, well, hell if I know. But basically if we know that life can be created and evolve without a Designer, and were in fact even wrong about this assumption in the first place, then we have to seriously entertain the possibility that the creation of the universe came about without a Designer as well.
So it's not a guaranteed thing that if something exists then it must have been created. And it's absolutely not guaranteed that there is a "someone" in that creation. Occam's Razor, based on what we know today, would lead us to naturally conclude that some other avenue resulted in the creation of the universe.
I am explaining to Cardinal what I believe. It is logical. If you think it is not, explain it.
Evolution did happen, but everything evolved from something. It didn't just appear. And with evolution, if you accept the possibility of a God (and I do) then it is not a stretch to say that evolution happened by design, or at the very least designed with the possibility of evolution. And even if God created or put in to place the process to create life, and then evolution happened completely independent, that does not exclude the possibility of a God. It just means that life has taken off beyond control of a God. The existence of God as a creator does not even mean that God knows or cares about human choices, morality, or in this case evolution. God may not even still be alive. Our universe could be a toy created in some cosmic factory, bought for some kid who long ago discarded it for all I know. But I believe, and have never seen anything to dispute, that everything that exists was created.
I agree almost completely. But I wouldn't limit it to two. There are probably a countless number of explanations and possibilities that we have not yet evolved enough to yet understand.
Wasn't guaranteeing anything. Just my logic behind why I believe it. I am very accepting of the possibility that I am wrong.
I would argue that it would lead us to conclude that some other avenue could have resulted in the creation of the universe.
I did. You use logic, and then you stop using logic. If you follow your logic to its conclusion, you have to ask the same question about God's origins. Who created God? If God is immune to logic, then at least stop pretending that you're making a logical argument.
I dont pretend to know the answers to those questions. I am concluding that since our universe exists, it was created.
This is a variant of the God of the Gaps argument, where if you accept a natural explanation for one thing, then you push God further back to a place that has yet to provide a natural explanation. There's a really big elephant-in-the-room problem with the God of the Gaps argument, however: if you move God over to the place that we cannot explain, you're essentially ceding ground on the idea that God is omnipresent or omnipotent. If He is no longer required to explain one thing, why assume he is required to explain anything?
.
Seeing as we understand basic biology in way that doesn't require the supernatural (and again, we can even predict it reliably),
then the natural as an avenue for the creation of the universe is plausible
That's a start. I'm not hating on you because you believe in God, just pointing out that logic has little place in a theological argument. My view is that since reality and physics become less complex the further into subatomia you go, that the ultimate answer to creation is very simple, not infinitely complex.
What is your belief as to the answer to creation?
I don't know, but I doubt there's an intelligence behind it. And if there is, it would be such an astronomical intelligence that it couldn't possibly care about what we do.
Is he? Or is he correct that the executive branch and SCOTUS overstepped their constitutional authority in imposing SSM marriage on all the states? Here we have a legitimate debate.
The only reason anyone opposed SSM in the first place was because they wanted to force society to conform to their religious mores. And no, we don't have a legitimate debate. If Loving was constitutional, then so was Obergefell. Huckabee, and many others on the right, think that their religion overrides the law. They are wrong and they have no business holding any public office if they hold allegiance to some other set of rules besides the constitution.
Do you think they are?
The only reason anyone opposed SSM in the first place was because they wanted to force society to conform to their religious mores. And no, we don't have a legitimate debate. If Loving was constitutional, then so was Obergefell. Huckabee, and many others on the right, think that their religion overrides the law. They are wrong and they have no business holding any public office if they hold allegiance to some other set of rules besides the constitution.
Very shallow understanding and a load of red herrings to boot. Did you read Thomas' dissent?
The only reason anyone opposed SSM in the first place was because they wanted to force society to conform to their religious mores. And no, we don't have a legitimate debate. If Loving was constitutional, then so was Obergefell. Huckabee, and many others on the right, think that their religion overrides the law. They are wrong and they have no business holding any public office if they hold allegiance to some other set of rules besides the constitution.
The only reason anyone opposed SSM in the first place was because they wanted to force society to conform to their religious mores. And no, we don't have a legitimate debate. If Loving was constitutional, then so was Obergefell. Huckabee, and many others on the right, think that their religion overrides the law. They are wrong and they have no business holding any public office if they hold allegiance to some other set of rules besides the constitution.
Very shallow understanding and a load of red herrings to boot. Did you read Thomas' dissent?
I opposed changing the traditional definition of marriage. And it was for reasons that had nothing to do with my religious beliefs.
Case in point...
The remarkable thing was the extreme velocity of change to a social convention that had existed for thousands of years, among the religious and non-religious alike.
No, here is another pivotal point. Supernatural is by definition outside of reality. If there is a God, and this "god" is outside the universe, it is supernatural. If there is a god, and this god is part of the universe, it's NOT supernatural. (and certainly not the christian god!) Notice that the term supernatural by definition carries the qualification "does not exist". Existing things are by definition, real (Or where evidenced to be part of reality). This is why for every other reasonable claim it all makes sense, it's only when you ponder "god" you are OK making these mistakes. vampires as an immortal human-like creature that turns into a bat and feeds on blood as popularized in Dracula are supernatural. They do not exist. Unicorns, as in the magical horses with rainbows coming out their behinds, are supernatural. They do not exist. Yet strangely you choose to then claim God creating our universe is supernatural-----but real?? Or that the universe itself is supernatural, therefore not in the universe??? Claiming that science as related to the origins of our current universe, are "supernatural", is absurd. And yes, that's god in the gaps. Go back to creation and suddenly it's OK to claim the supernatural is natural and this is somehow logical? No, they are opposites.No matter how far you go back to the creation of the universe, it always comes back to supernatural. Different types of supernatural but neither seems natural to me. If there is a God and this God created our universe that is supernatural. If an entire universe created itself from absolutely nothing that is pretty supernatural as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?