Holy Crap wrote:That is probably the most reasonable and thought out arguement for god exisiting that I have seen, however I still disagree.
I'm too tired and lazy to explain why though... Tobbe will probably do that when he gets around to it anyway...
There are lots of people who get angry when they see a post like this, but it's good to see someone who can recognize a reasonable argument for God. Well I hope we'll get along fine even though you're atheist and Im Christian.
spiraldoor wrote:Why can't the First Cause be the Big Bang?
As I understand, evidence for the Big Bang is an "expansion" of the universe. I haven't looked into it much myself so I'm not sure if that evidence has true scientific grounds or not. For sake of argument let's there *was* an explosion somewhere in the universe that continues to cause expansion even today. Even so this doesn't necessarily negate God. However, if you're going to put down an explosion to *the* First Cause, it's like adherring to the first point: everything magically exploded out of nothing. This is logically ridiculous.
Someone who says that the Big Bang is the First Cause must, if their argument is pressed, be made to admit that they feel the entire Universe is the work of chance, yet, as I said, the chances of this are so infintesmal as to be ridiculous. Perfectly functioning organisms randomly appearing for no reason? Entire world(s) that seem designed to the purpouse of supporting the life of those perfectly functioning organisms just because... why? Morality and the knowledge that "this action is wrong" and "this is right" simply appearing out of nowhere, whether in a moment or over billions of years? The First Cause cannot be the Big Bang because that would illogical. The First Cause can only be God because that is the truth.
Xenon wrote:It is indeed the most plausible argument, but there are still flaws in it. The 'First Cause', you say, created everything, yet any matter is impossible without a cause. So what do you suggest created this 'First Cause' or God? You can't be suggesting this just materialised out of nothingness because as you said, it's ridiculous to believe nothing could produce something... so you've essentially subverted your own point.
No, because as I said, if the *First* Cause must have a cause that defeats the point of *First* Cause, which is why the nature of the First Cause should logically be like what I described in my post.
Tobbe wrote:Oh, the stupid! Oh, the logical fallacies!
Firstly, you seem to dismiss evolution because you don't understand it, which is of course ridicolous. You simply sit in your armchair and declare that the human body is too complex to have evolved from the first replicating molecules present . How this has happened isn't even unknown to science; it's been explained in great detail! I suggest you watch the following playlist on YouTube:
Think about it! It's a brief and simplified explanation of abiogenesis and the evolution of multicellular life, and hopefully it will make you realise that your argument of irreducible complexity is a load of bull.
Your most ridicolous statement, however, is that that the Earth is very well suited for human life is a valid argument for the existance of a designer. It's actually the other way around: The Earth is not perfectly suited for humans; we are perfectly suited for it. This is due to the mechanism driving evolution; natural selection. If you don't know what it is, or don't fully understand it, watch this video:
Natural Selection Made Easy.
If you still think creationism is teh win, please explain to me why, and I will be more than happy to destroy your arguments.
Tobbe
Firstly, I don't dismiss evolution because of a lack of understanding regarding the so-called theory. I'm made to denote it for the reason that I've studied the promotional propaganda of evolution and found them illogical, empty, false.
Secondly, the earth being suited for humans and we being suited for it is much the same thing. This only validates my point: this world and human life were designed for each other. Although there is maybe a little truth in what you said, since the earth did come first.
neo wrote:Its more of a maybe. Its ok to think of it that way I guess, but I don't know. I haven't read the bible, though. I haven't been to church for god knows how long. I'd only BELIEVE if I did some really low and stupid shit. I don't know. I mean, people that get into it, like one of my uncles, he seems really into it... Makes me wonder when he STARTED BELIEVING. "HOLY SHIT LORD IF I LIVE PAST THIS DAY I WILL PRAY ALL THE TIME" and shit like that.
I'm catholic... but yeah. I'd rather just make the most out of my life instead of believing in an after life, because I don't really know if one exists. Its so deep, and its been a while since I have thought of this. I guess I have been caught up in an annoying situation that I didn't have the time to think of life.
The reason for the "maybe" is simple. In all the media, which many have been subject to the influence of throughout childhood, evolutionists are presented as rational, scientific and intelligent. Likewise, in all the nature shows or in anything that references science, evolution is often posited as well. This gives the impression that evolution, an unproven, so-called theory, is somehow inseperable from science. In other words, the impression given throughout the media is that if one dares question belief in evolution, one has denied logic and denied the truth. This is re-enforced by Christians being presented as ignorant, blindly believing and in many cases downright evil. The basic message is: the ones who believe evolution, which even Darwin admitted as having no grounds beyond "circumstancial evidence" (though even this is an understatement), must automatically be intelligent, rational, capable of weighing logical argument and so on. Christians are automatically either evil demonizers of other religions, homosexuals and science (by which they mean evolution).
If someone has been subject to this message throughout their childhood, its only natural that they would be positioned into believing evolution, or at least having doubts about God. After all, no reference is made to the hundreds of Christian scientists who all agree that their work points towards the existence of God. No reference is made to the Christians who spoke out bravely against slavery, or condemned Nazism, or who began charities and orphanages, or who disproved evolution constantly, or were demonized and sentenced to death because they wore crosses around their necks. The only Christians allowed to be seen must be fanatics, or madmen, or people who for some reason need to "believe" for the sake of believing. Likewise, the only people pointing to atheism in the media must seem rational and intellectual. This propaganda is largely the reason why evolution is so popular, and the same goes for the Big Bang.
As for the after-life, another thing that apparently "goes against science", look at the amount of people who have had some connection to an unknown world. Whether it's a ghost sighting, or suddenly feeling "one with the universe" or very powerful experiences felt by people with *no signs of mental disorder*, the fact is there's a lot of evidence supporting something beyond our reality as well. A wise evangelist once described the case of someone overwhelmed in the nature and entertainments of this world as a person examining a pearl, when, if he could only life up his gaze, he could see the sight of an entire sparkling ocean. After all, what's more real? A temporary world or an eternal one?
