It's not something I can believe in definitively one way or the other, based on the existing evidence. I do believe in the Big Bang theory, but it isn't quite complete as an origin explanation.
You seem to be trying awfully hard to demonstrate that there is nothing in the world you simply accept on faith. You even going so far as to say that acceptance of a spouse's love is supported by "empirical" evidence. That's definitely reaching if you ask me. Alright then. If your loved ones' actions toward you could be quantified in such a manner, then do me a favor. Rationally explain to me how you know your parents/spouse/kids love you. Prove it to me beyond all reasonable doubt. I can guarantee that no matter what you say, there is a completely different (and perfectly logical) way to interpret your "empirical evidence." There's no way you can convince me that there isn't a leap of faith somewhere amidst all your empirical observation of love. However, since you seem so bothered by the idea of "unfounded belief," then I'll work my defense of faith from my original angle. The way I see it, there is no such thing as unfounded belief. Ultimately, we all believe things for a reason. A belief that may seem unfounded or irrational to you may make perfect sense to someone else based on his interpretation of the facts. Again...it's about perception. And I have to reiterate: I'm not trying to argue whether or not God exists. I'm not here to argue which one of our worldviews is the correct one. I'm just trying to say that faith in God is NOT the result of what you consider irrational or illogical thinking. (Although apparently Nomar thinks it's an insult to all rationally-thinking people to justify faith in such a manner ).
When conditions are sufficient, things manifest. When conditions are not sufficient, they do not manifest. That is all.
What would be the point? The whole reason why I was even using the "logic" argument in the first place was to demonstrate that multiple people can draw multiple conclusions from the same set of facts. In order to draw conclusions from a set of facts using logic, there need to be assumptions made. The way I see it, these assumptions are in fact "leaps of faith" based upon your perception of the way things should be. To you, a conclusion you don't agree with is not only wrong, but it signifies that the person must have been thinking irrationally. To me, a conclusion I don't agree with is wrong, but I concede that the person may have come to the wrong conclusion despite using rational thought. No matter what "logical" thought process I give, you're just going to take the same facts, interpret them in your own manner, put on your usual condescending air, and then quote Nietzsche a few times.
If that's really your stance on logic, then do you view all things in this world where assumptions are made to be inconclusive? Drawing a conclusion from assumption would be illogical right?
Know probleme - KomuniKations wernt me magor... When you see the world and all it's complexities and how fragile some/most pieces are and how pieces rely on other pieces... did this come about after the bang? If so, how? If not, how could it have survived? When an amoeba splits, what do you get? 2 amoebas? Can 1 amoeba "evolve" into a tree and another into a goat? And can 1 become a female goat and another 1 becomes a male goat before the female goat dies? These are questions I would have liked to ask my previous self.
The Big Bang is quite possible. And I would agree that if it did happen it was a "planned and controlled" bang.
That's pretty broad, I don't want to make a generalization like that. But when dealing with existential questions, be careful about saying that certain beliefs are logical.
Are you serious? Don't tell me you've primarily been concerned with semantics this entire time. What if I left out the word "logic" and said, "From my current observations of the world and interpretation pertaining thereto, the Christian faith appears to be a steadfast, universal truth." Would that offend your "logical delicacies"?
That's completely different then. That's using your own personal interpretation of what you see. When you say logic, that's a very specific system that you can't just twist around to fit whatever your beliefs are.
To be honest - and objective - I don't "know" that my loved ones love me. All I can do is believe it, but if the evidence changes and I am estranged then I will have to believe that they don't love me any more I place the word "know" in double inverted commas because I'm trying to make the point that none of us really KNOWS anything for sure. Arguing semantics, perhaps, but what I'm saying is we can only BELIEVE things.. and such belief comes from our interpretation of the evidence before us, or indeed our interpretation of whether observed events are even pertinent evidence in the first place. You may find yourself in trouble one day, then be pulled out of it by what you imagine to be divine intervention, and this whole sequence of events may be accepted as evidence by you (I know many Christians who were converted by a scenario like that). It's your prerogative, but to me such a thought process is wrong, wrong and wrong And this time it's my turn to mess up with choice of words I should have said unscientific - not unfounded - belief, because that's what I really meant. I'm sure there's good reason for Christians to believe in God. I don't think they're acting irrationally in making that decision (although I won't say the same for the way in which they execute it). But I will stress that there is nothing scientific in the way they have come to their decision, and to me it just feels like a strange way of doing things.. of living life Sometimes I allow myself the fantasy that maybe, just MAYBE, everyone is right: The theists go to heaven (or its equivalent), the Buddhists are reincarnated, and the free-thinkers decompose But that's too much to hope for, I guess..
I attribute possibility to the Big Bang theory and its counterparts such as Big Chill, Big Crunch and Big Rip.. until alternative scientific theories emerge, upon which they will be considered as well. I believe God is the cause of all existence. I believe the truth behind this "God", however, is known to no living human - nor will it ever be God is just a word.. fate, destiny, love, life, nature, science, the universe, the unknown
