Posted on 06/11/2013 3:34:14 PM PDT by NYer
“In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.”
I hear and read this assertion all the time and it is always stated as an axiom. I don’t think it is even a proper question to ask who created the universe because it denies that the universe is an absolute. Existence doesn’t need to be explained or justified, in my opinion. It just is. As far as we know it has always existed and always will. After all the big bang doesn’t say anything about the universe popping into existence from nothing. It simply says that at one time it was a very small package of energy or a singularity. If a god can “just be” why can’t existence. To say that God can “just be” and the universe has to have a creator or first cause is special pleading. If someone can prove that a god exists with evidence then fine but until then the only rational thing to do is to start with what we know, existence exists, and go on from that point and learn as much as we can about it with reason and logic and not fill the gaps in our knowledge with articles of faith.
The alternative to a creator is not random chance or accidents. It is natural law. Who created the natural laws? That is another improper question, in my opinion. The natural laws are absolutes and don’t need a cause. They just are. Again to be consistent, if a god can exist without a cause then so can natural laws or else it is another case of special pleading.
Evil exists. What makes you think that if God that would mean He likes it?
If there's no God, where do you get your concept of good and evil?
What makes me raise an eyebrow is the ridiculous theories that atheism leads to. Intellectual atheists are usually adherents to a very strange belief called ‘metaphysical naturalism’, and they begin to make bizarre claims such as we don’t have free will, we don’t plan anything, sentences don’t mean anything.
This is a form of scientism at its worst. If you can’t prove it with science, then it isn’t true. Of course, this means every element of human history is BS. I can’t scientifically prove that the Sassanid Empire existed, but I believe it to be the case from accounts and carvings and such.
My experience with atheism is that it serves as an excuse for personal views that do not conform with our natural apprehension of God-given morality. Essentially, its for people who read a religious text, disagree with aspects of it, and so choose not to believe. Can you imagine if we did that with earthly authorities. XD.
Given the astounding number of factors that had to have their outcomes fit in very narrow windows for life to exist and teh massviely minimal probability of all of those things occurring, it’s much more rational, applying Occam’s Razor, to presume that something “drove” the process than that it just happened by accident. Thus, it’s much more rational to believe in God than to believe in atheism.
Say, is the atheist deity Nogod?
Deductively, you’re correct. Neither view can be proven deductively.
However, using inductive reasoning, it is much more reasonable to believe in God than not.
I remember asking my science teachers when we were learning about the Big Bang, “What banged and where did it come from?” they hemmed and hawed A LOT. (This was my idea of fun.)
The universe is governed by the laws of metaphysics. Out of nothing, comes nothing. This has been around since Plato, and we have yet to discover anything that violates this rule. The universe cannot have always existed, because infinity is a theoretical construct that can never exist in our universe. It causes mathematical inconsistencies, as outlined in Hilbert’s Hotel.
To summarize the case -
1) The universe exists
2) Governed by natural law, everything that exists has a cause or a ‘beginning’
3) The universe has a beginning
You only have two explanations for its existence. One is that it appeared from nothing, which defies logic. The other is that a transcendent cause brought it into being.
The only transcendent cause that makes sense is an unembodied mind. God.
Sorry, can’t get past the non deductivity. I really do think about this stuff a lot.
Have you heard of the ontological argument?
Happiness occurs between the ears. I hope that everyone can be happy...mostly, though, I try to ensure that I am happy...as do we all. I find that my happiness quotient increases as I discard fallacious assumptions and then view the resulting world view hoping that I am approaching the truth of the matter.
I have.
What do you think of it? It kind of rules out agnosticism as a logical option, leaving only the two distinct sides of the argument.
What is evil?
I seek truth. My willingness to profess ignorance in an area that has so consumed human thought for much of our known history does not disturb me in the least. I will continue to seek truth. Every man is an island.
Well, I wish you all the best in your search for the truth. I hope it leads you to belief. :)
Logic begins with premises. Premises are not proof
I believe a lot of things...and can still recite the sucipiot from my latin mass altar boy days.
I think it is MUCH better to believe in God. Heck if he doesn’t exist than we had a great life because of God. If he does exist, I am sure glad I believe because those who don’t....look out.
Spent a little time in detention didn't you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.