Religion is a hypothesis.

[stu]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

That's a damn good question. I am conflicted, but if I had to make an assumption right now, I'd be more inclined to believe the Universe was created with all elements for life to occur in whatever random twists and turns those elements would take until a higher level being evolved. That would be us. At that point opportunity would exist to establish communication with the Creator. While communication is now possible, I think there's a long ways to go in perfecting that communication. It's easy enough to believe that all events occuring are still random, but I suspect we humans are mucking up the events rather than the Creator. It's all about evolution and we are still evolving to a higher level of understanding. What appears to be cruel, may all be part of the learning curve. I know, there are many holes in my theory.

Your Theory accepts that a Creator, which is not known to exist, could come from nothing or always have been in existence. Is that correct.

But your theory cannot accept how the Universe, which does exist, could come from nothing, or always have been in existence.

Isn't the evidence of the existence of a Universe , evidence of a Universe.
Why say it is evidence of something else like a Creator, when there is no such evidence for a Creator?

Is there any real purpose in holding a theory which has evidence of a Universe and no such evidence of a Creator and therefore only begs the same question to infinite regress?

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from stu:

Your Theory accepts that a Creator, which is not known to exist, could come from nothing or always have been in existence. Is that correct.

But your theory cannot accept how the Universe, which does exist, could come from nothing, or always have been in existence.

Isn't the evidence of the existence of a Universe , evidence of a Universe.
Why say it is evidence of something else like a Creator, when there is no such evidence for a Creator?

Is there any real purpose in holding a theory which has evidence of a Universe and no such evidence of a Creator and therefore only begs the same question to infinite regress?

stu, this really sums it. great post, great!

we KNOW the universe exists, but why does that presuppose a Creator? the obvious answer, human foible

after all, even 777 asserts how can the limited mind of the human comprehend Almighty omnipotence ..

or is that IMPOTENCE

 

[Index piker]

Quote from stu:

Are you seriously suggesting it is true the Universe exists or not , simply depending on what someone considers to be evidence?
Only personal evidence leads to fact?

You can have your own opinions but you cannot have your own facts. Or had you not noticed that?

That's exactly what I am trying to tell you.

You are only accepting part of the facts science tells you about the nature of our being and existence and conveniently exclude what you find uncomfortable.

Why do you shy away from the evidence that science has revealed concerning the infinite egress of the universe on a cosmological and subatomic scale?

Your belief in matter despite sciences inability to discover or describe it, is the same as a theist's belief in God.


When one has a more enlightened viewpoint the inability of science to describe matter and God are not surprising in the least.
HINT HINT

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Meanwhile the facts and truth of non physical existence (i.e. ideas, mathematical truths, laws of nature, etc.) continue to shape and control physical existence perpetually baffling those two dimensional thinkers...

...so the two dimensional thinkers don't address it.

Content to build their castles in the sand...

 

[jficquette]

Quote from stu:

Your Theory accepts that a Creator, which is not known to exist, could come from nothing or always have been in existence. Is that correct.

But your theory cannot accept how the Universe, which does exist, could come from nothing, or always have been in existence.

Isn't the evidence of the existence of a Universe , evidence of a Universe.
Why say it is evidence of something else like a Creator, when there is no such evidence for a Creator?

Is there any real purpose in holding a theory which has evidence of a Universe and no such evidence of a Creator and therefore only begs the same question to infinite regress?

Stu, the evidence a Creator is all around. It's silly to think that there is not one. You have all creation staring you in the face and you want to argue that all this just came out of nowhere.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jficquette:

Stu, the evidence a Creator is all around. It's silly to think that there is not one. You have all creation staring you in the face and you want to argue that all this just came out of nowhere.

That to me is the starting point for these arguments. There are those on one side with an overwhelming sense of the fantastic of the very fact of existence, and those on the other side for whom all this is, "it's nothing but, it's nothing but..."

 

[OPTIONAL777]

It takes much more energy, and actually a more magical unprovable argument to think and sustain a belief that all of the physical universe's complexity, order, diversity, and sustainability (not to even begin to mention the non physical world) are the product of ignorant chance...

Quote from Ricter:

That to me is the starting point for these arguments. There are those on one side with an overwhelming sense of the fantastic of the very fact of existence, and those on the other side for whom all this is, "it's nothing but, it's nothing but..."

 

[Ricter]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

It takes much more energy, and actually a more magical unprovable argument to think and sustain a belief that all of the physical universe's complexity, order, diversity, and sustainability (not to even begin to mention the non physical world) are the product of ignorant chance...

Why does it take more energy? One explanation is, "random action of hydrogen atoms over eons", vs. the other explanation, "God".

Well, ok, the first explanation uses more letters, you got me there. Other than that, they are both equally simple.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Simply because the beliefs of science keep changing as they discover their own ignorance has fooled them over and over and over and over again...

What is happening actually is less about the beliefs themselves, and more about the intellectually inclined thinking they are superior to the faithful.

They believe their approach is superior when it comes to knowing the important aspects of human life...

...and it is mostly true that the physical sciences have improved the material quality of life, all a sane person has to do is look around to the inner quality of life of humans on the planet to figure out that materialism doesn't achieve any of the important inner components of human life.

Human beings are no more satisfied or content in life now than they were thousands and thousands of years ago, which indicates that materialism is not addressing the core nature of what human beings need to reach contentment.

Seriously, how can anyone actually read these threads and not get a sense that the atheists are seriously pissed off most of the time when it comes to these topics?

They want to blame religion for so many ills, when those same ills are seen in atheistic societies.

I am pretty sure you won't ever get the atheists to cop to it, but I am convinced they are still working out something deep inside that is not yet resolved.

Think about it, what could be the harm in teaching ID along with their creation theory in the same class?

If teachers tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about what we actually know, and what we don't know, and the amount of guessing there is in cosmology or evolutionary theory that is beyond verification...and let the children decide for themselves...why on earth or in heaven would anyone be fearful of that?

Schools should not be Fox News slanted to one side or the other no matter how much they claim to be "Fair and Balanced."

The very best teachers are ones who present all ideas, and then explain the logical rebuttals to the salient arguments contained within, never leading the students to a conclusion but rather leading them to think for themselves and decide for themselves.

Science is not to blame in any of this any more than religion is to blame for any of the problems.

The problems have to do with the unchanged human nature, unchanged since the beginning of human history which science does not want to incorporate into their work.

The human mind, which is the filter of everything that we know, is left unexamined by the atheists or the theists who want to work so hard to avoid the reality of life...

Okay, so you have a better TV, a better car, a wife with plastic tits, a boat...but are you content?

Quote from Ricter:

Why does it take more energy? One explanation is, "random action of hydrogen atoms over eons", vs. the other explanation, "God".

Well, ok, the first explanation uses more letters, you got me there. Other than that, they are both equally simple.

 

[Ricter]

The whole edifice of science, which yes, does adjust with new observations ("when the facts change, I change my mind"), would still be built whether God exists, or does not exist. That's therefore a "wash. The edifice is useful.

But, I'd agree that in schools, though perhaps limited to philosophy class for the early years, it would be useful to mention that science is a utilitarian worldview and not the only worldview. Of course, who doesn't really already know that?