This thread has gotten interesting! I'm an agnostic. I don't believe in pink unicorns, but I believe that there is a very high probability (99%) that 'supernatural' things like ghosts/spirits do exist. Going from believing supernatural things do exist to believing a creator could exist isn't exactly logical... but it's easier to make that jump I guess. Why believe in god and not pink unicorns? Because there is even less evidence for pink unicorns than a god. If there were documents, witness accounts etc. of pink unicorns I would probably be open to the possibility of their existence. (My personal position is more complicated because of having previously gone to church years ago, but for argument's sake, I think it is sufficient to say that the existence of the supernatural leaves me open to the existence of a god.)
I disagree. There is a "robustness" to the existence of God that the unicorns, Santa Claus and the teapot cannot match. By robustness, I mean: while conclusive proof is not available, there is suggestive evidence from a number of different, independent sources that corroborate each other in implying the assertion is true. So, a Christian could claim robustness because (1) the historical record of the Bible, (2) his personal experience with God, (3) the divine experiences of others that are relayed to him, (4) the percieved miracles he witnesses in the world, (5) the internal logic of the theology, (6) etc., all seem to point harmoniously in the same direction of Jesus. He may be wrong, but that network of inter-supporting evidences can be compelling. Evolutionists, btw, also rely on robustness for their theory on how life came to be: (1) micro-evolution witnessed in experimentation, (2) fossil records of macro-evolution, (3) geological changes, (4) astronomical observations, (5)etc. all come together and support each other in painting a picture. The unicorns have got what? No authority believes in them. There is no perception of them by anyone, nor personal experience, nor peer communication, nor implied effects of their existence, nor logical explanation for their existence. They have a robustness score of zero. Santa Claus is a little better, since someone in authority probably told you at some point that he did exist. Beyond that, however, you know if you asked them about it now, they'd tell you they were lying. The purported abilities of Santa Claus are amazing and defy credibility. He has no real, sensible purpose and his existence is unlike anything else we know to exist. We have countervailing evidence of the actual and mundane creation of the Santa Claus myth. He gets a robustness score of maybe 1.
Great point! I'm willing to say that I can't completely rule out invisible unicorns but the existence or lack of invisible unicorns has very little bearing on an isuse of faith. Faith by definition is belief with out solid proof and to me it would be a very shallow faith if it depended upon scientific proof to validate it.
I would have to disagree and say that there are material causes for the phenomana you cite. Otherwise, they would not occur. Bringing in god or any other supernatural thing as a cause is simply unjustified at this point. My understanding is that we do have knowledge of pre-BB events, but there is a certain point in time before which we are incapable of making observations. That's exactly my point. Just because something exists, does not imply that it had to be created by something else. Positing god as the origin of existence doesn't really get us anywhere, philosophically.
I said that Christians would attribute a God influence to these things, not non Christians, and if material causes were in play then the results would be consistent and in the case of the phenomana I cited a material solution could be marketed and you would be richer that Gates and Buffet combined. My understanding is that no one knows where the dot came from that banged big, really BIG In fact my understanding is that the BB is 'believed' by scientists to be the best explanation of the universes origins and it isn't the only explanation held by all legitimate scientists and it is still being studied and challenged. And I also understand that the BB was not observed and we are relying on a specs of cosmic data over a trillion years old in context to the event itself. Neither does a dot exploding and becoming the universe, BTW how big is the universe, not the known universe, THE universe?
I rule out invisible unicorns because invisible red necks caused their extinction by over hunting them.
Email would have been simpler, if God is omnipotent he could have a computer large enough and software powerful enough to send it pdf. format- without editing capability. Simplistic logic is a good definition of God's character to me. It is so simple smart people stumble all over it. Yes- death is a higher power. A higher power than you and I combined. Is there a higher power than death? I have sat by many people in hospitals as they have let there last breathe out, I have watched them fight and scream and some go in peace and quiet. The strong the weak the conservative the liberal the atheist the religious, I've seen them die. The power to resist death is futile and empty for humans I have seen very strong men yield to it, in fact everyone death comes for loses. I can't think of any more higher power on earth. Unless it is life after death. If that exists it is the highest power in my book.
Yes, there are some Christians that make this assertion, but there are many more who don't. I believe it is in Phillipians where it states that a day to God is like a thousand of our days. This would seem to suggest to me that the original 7 days of creation are not 6 of Man's days, but a much much longer time-span. Could evolution be HOW god created man? Could it be that God said "Let there be Light" and Bang (big) there was light?
Curious...does Dawkin explain how he believes it is possible that Aliens seeding earth to create life? In an interview I watched, He's said that it was a possibility. ...but in the same interview he said the notion that God created man was not possible at all
My layman's understanding is that there are mathematical theories regarding what came before the Big Bang but there is no way of observing before the Big Bang or even the moment of the Big Bang. Since we are part of the Universe its impossible for us to observe beyond it or even the moment it came to being since that would require having a frame of reference beyond the existence of the Universe.
Scientific theories always leave room for doubt but so far it is holding up to what we are observing. The latest theories of the age of the Universe put it at about 15 billion years old. Since we can't directly observe the Big Bang the theory is based upon specs of cosmic data but even more on mathematical modelling of the behavior of the Universe.
Why are certain conservative factions trying to do this, when it is only going to end up as a fire-starter, anyway? Amazing Grace is celebrating Halloween in the style with a good old-fashioned book burning. http://www.amazinggracebaptistchurchkjv.com/Download99.html http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=16066248&ch=4226713&src=news
corrected should have been 'billions' my understanding is not very recent, but I thought it originated by observation of microwaves or something that indicates an expanding universe. the idea of an expanding universe I think is widely held although BB theory I thought was just a logical extrapolation of expansion back to origin... and I also thought there is still great debate about why certain energy inconsistencies in observation do not support the bang model. I am a little aware of inflation theory and I know just what I've read on the internet on string theory... I was taking physics on drugs in college at Cougar High in the early 70's so I am sure I don't have a good grasp on BB, except to say an expanding universe theory sure has gotten alot of play for just one possible explanation of red shift etc
I personally don't have any problem with the big bang theory but I don't agree with scientists being so absolute about it.
Imagine that god has in fact been around up until this point in time, when all of a sudden she ceased to exist. What would change? I suppose there are a number of possiblities. Perhaps the universe would itself be obliterated, implying that god and the universe are one and the same. And if that were the case--that god and the universe are synonymous--then it would seem as if the concept of god does not, in fact, have any existential weight beyond that of the universe itself. Similarly, what would change if god just now, for the first time, popped into existence? Everything we know about the world pre-god obviously did not depend on her existence, and any change that effected us in a post-god world be measurable. What matters when comparing the relative importances of the existential questions of god and invisible pink unicorns is this: to what extent does either concept help us explain anything about the world? In both cases, the answer seems to be that they don't contribute in any way to our understanding of the world. Your profit criterion is a rephrasing of Pascal's Wager and thus has the same weaknesses. The question whether believing in god is profitable is meaningless until we establish that a god exists and what are its attributes. This is because, before examining the evidence, there is an equal possibility that one god exists as another that has the exact opposite effect, thus cancelling each other out in terms of expected value from believing in them.
Except that none of the points you listed as contributing to the robustness of Christianity in any way suggest that Christianity is true. They are not valid arguments. I could just as easily make invalid claims about the truth of the existence of IPU's. Your robustness rating system is rather arbitrary.
This depends on what questions you are asking. I accept the view that evolution is the method by which humans came to be yet that doesn't tell me if there is some purpose to my existence. You are right that the existence of non-existence of God(s) at the moment doesn't really add to a material understanding of the Universe but that doesn't stop us as being creatures with self-awareness for gain an overall understanding of our existence. Some people might be satisfied with a completely material existence but I think as rational beings we can't hellp but wonder if there is something more.
Just because we as of yet have no material explanation for some phenomena does not imply that god or any other supernatural thing are responsible for them. Ummm... yeah it actually does. The BB theory produces all sorts of predictions and implications that can actually be studied. God doesn't. I don't know.
