by sabastious 376 Replies latest jw friends
Their fall back position, when you point out the stupidity in nature and in it's history, is to point out the human short comings. Humans aren't the main point. It's the claimed creator and his record. All the extinctions and screw ups over the eons of history, long before humans set foot on the panet. That is the testement to his stupidity.
S
you said it, humans aren't the main point. Just a bunch of arrogant idiots slinging their crap. And in the end thats what is left, stinky crap that can't talk
if god created everything...where is he?
if god created everything...why is there no evidence of his existence?
here we have a universe built on concepts that could only be discovered with hard data. everything we know for fact is replicable by anyone, everyone can see the data and work out the math for themselves to verify whether the principle is true. you don't have to take a textbook's word for the existence of dna, you can extract it from any organic material yourself. if you want to take some time trying to understand some of the basic concepts of genetics and evolution, you can experiment with breeding animals or plants for yourself. these techniques have been used by farmers, ranchers, people who breed cats, dogs, race horses, you name it. we see the development of superbugs and we're cautioned to take all of our meds for a reason.
all of this stuff is observable by anyone and everyone.
so why is it, that this god whocreated this type of universe be so different from the universe he created?
so far, every explanation man has used to explain the world around us has been based on mythological teachings based on shits and giggles. each one of those myths has been systematically dismantled to the point that now most people who bother trying to reconcile the physical reality we know and every single god we've come up with on this planet (and there's a LOT of them) are forced to reject all of that and are left with, "well i believe in a god...but not those gods...though i have no evidence there is a god or that there even needs to be one." and at least some are willing to admit there's 0 evidence for a god of any sort.
not very convincing to say the least.
so we have a universe that is described by laws that were discovered by a single method of making an accumulating data regarding something we observe and carefully examining the data to discover the underlying cause.
this method has knocked off every god conceived so far by way of tangible, you can see it, touch it , taste, it, smell it, hear it and most importantly...perform it for yourself...evidence that does not fail.
we have a god that is said to have supposedly created this universe in which it is necessary to gather that tangible evidence to discover it's inner workings
yet we have no evidence for this god.
mighty peculiar.
also peculiar is the sometimes used defense of, "well you can't not prove it", which seems somewhat related to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk
or basically a wild ass guess. it certainly isn't a scientific one. banking on god because we can't disprove him i mean. what rummy and co knew then are still unknown unknowns. or known unknowns? or would it be unknown knowns? i mean they could have known there evidence was all a crock of shit and been lying all along for a totally seperate agenda...but i digress.
one last thing, about personal/anecdotal evidence...
for everytime that god may have stepped in to get you out of a jam, where was he for the estimated 20,000 people who died from hunger alone today?
can we be certain that it wasn't some combination of your hardwork, your preparation, and a little luck? what evidence do we have that it was god who caused (or in retrospect, saved you from doing) whatever it was that happened?
at what point do we take a step back and ask ourselves if we've been looking at this "god" thing all wrong and start applying the techniques that has advanced our understanding of the world around us?
If God created everything, where is he? Above and beyond human comprehension, yet closer to us than our jugular vein. Evidence: an insignificant drop of fluid e.g. sperm to a clinging clot of congealed blood in the wound of the mother, under powerful microsopes, science in the late 1950s have discovered embryology develop in stages,. the human being. The day merges into the night and night merges into day in a very calm and beautiful way. The estimated twenty thousand who died today and the suffering throughout history. It HAS to be made right. this whole thing of temporary life is a TEST. Do what is right and be patient. So this whole God thing will make some sense and give us some real peace. I understand your feelings. Salaam, peace.
Finkelstein said:
"If you were to make a compressed short answer to how creationism is disproved, you could
say all the known Sciences combined together to come to this conclusion.
Genetic organic biology, the geology of the earth and its apparent ever changing evolution, Astronomy to name a few. "
First you need to establish whether there is consensus among scientists that God doesn't exist. Then, and only then, can you rely on science as your crutch.
Science does not rely upon, or even take any notice of the beliefs of scientists.
The facts discovered by a Muslim scientist are just as valid as the facts discovered by a non-Theistic scientist.
The facts of Science do indeed combine together to suggest that a "Designer" of the Universe is not a necessary concept to explain those facts.
Science is not really about disproving stuff as a rule, more about proving stuff, which may in the process debunk previous ideas.
So, I guess, Sab, we are in to the realm of Philosophy to answer , or attempt to answer, your thread title.
We then need to get in to the deep philosophical questions such as could the "Designer" create the Universe from "nothing" ? or did he/she find some Matter to play with ? if so, where did that come from ? and so on.
Sab, this thread could go on forever !
Kun faya kun= Be and it is
A lot of people want to bring up what they believe to be inconsistencies in creation or bad creative engineering. These are valid concerns, but in no way does morality factor into the possibility of an intelligent being creating the universe. At this point, logically, we don't factor in morality, that is hashed out later on. The question is DID an intelligent being set the universe into motion at the Big Bang? If one has to fast foward to humanity and speak about the morality of our suffering or that of the animals that is slightly off topic in this thread because we simply are not there yet, the original question has not been satisfied. When that happens to satisfaction, we move forward in time and then we can talk about morality at and after the Big Bang. So far, we have not been given any substantive argument for non intelligence being the more logical choice to be the cause of the universe than intelligence. All the answers have had to lean on philosophy coupled with known facts. If facts alone could do the job, then this thread would be over, but we simply just don't have enough to conclusively say that the universe was not created by intelligence. It seems like cognitive dissonance to me when non believers refuse to entertain the idea of a Creator by brushing it off with moral philosophy. This could be because of some really bad circumstances that they went through or that they just really love the animal kingdom and hate to see it suffer. This is all understanable, but in no way does it disprove an intelligent being present before and during the Big Bang. Like I said God could be evil, it's not an illogical proposition.
The facts of Science do indeed combine together to suggest that a "Designer" of the Universe is not a necessary concept to explain those facts.
I agree that it's not necessary, but that's only because the goal is to get information, not prove that we were created. If we WERE created then the being that did it might be beyond our capacity to understand. This doesn't mean that we don't have partial capacity or that we even have FULL capacity, but are unaware of it. When working with a creation theory that starts off with the Big Bang there are endless possibilities, but only a single set of them are true, if God exists.
-Sab
It's something I believe in, which I have a right to. You are also free to call me a liar, but it will only serve to make you look foolish, imo. It's really not that far fetched, because Einstein knew how to hide his beliefs. He was pretty clever after all.
The universe was created by an unintelligent being.
How is this disproved?
Evidence that it was created by an intelligent being is the Big Bang itself and the creative expansion it provided. Also, the fact that we (matter) transcended into moral creatures 13.7 billion years later.
The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG) is the argument that attempts to prove God's existence by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose a theistic worldview, and that God must be the source of logic and morals. A version was formulated by Immanuel Kant in his 1763 work The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God.
The TAG is not considered a mainstream subject of the Philosophy of Religion and is rarely addressed in textbooks on the topic. Most contemporary formulations of the Transcendental argument have been developed within the framework of (Christian) Presuppositional apologetics, hence they tend to conclude that the God of Christianity is the one whose existence is being demonstrated.
-Sab
