|
duodenum posted:I'm sure I'll regret touching the poop, but the point is that these Bronze Age cultures ascribed anything they didn't understand to the acts of a supernatural power. You're doing the same thing if you misunderstand how flawed the senses and brain can be, especially in extraordinary circumstances, and ascribe your "experiences" to the supernatural. It's telling how all of the testimonials I've cared to read in this thread describing why one believes seem to boil down to such "experiences." I've had no supernatural experiences. I don't believe you can have a truly supernatural experience. I believe the fact of existence at all is sufficient proof of God's existence. So, the strong anthropic principle?
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
Dragonshirt posted:The Abrahamic God? I mean, technically yes I suppose, in that I believe there is one supreme being, so therefore those Bronze Age people were worshiping the same god through whatever imperfect form they imagined it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why do you believe existence necessitates a god? Partially, I not found a viable logical framework that does not include a prime mover. The other part is my definition for god is not really more detailed than "that which causes existence".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you need to believe in a prime mover I'm not really sure how God solves that problem. Am I using the term incorrectly?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Why do you believe the universe was "caused", though? Because the concept of an infinite universe never made any sense. I'm willing to entertain alternate theories, but none have ever seemed to hit the mark.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No you're using it correctly, I just haven't ever really understood how it is possible to satisfy a belief in a prime mover, if you believe that everything has a cause then so must have the thing at the front of the chain. And if some things can just be exempt from cause, then that can be assigned to anything. I'm not going to have a great answer for you because in the end my reasoning is circular and I can't claim anything better than a gut feeling, but taking all of the universe, with all of its histories and interactions, and considering those to be just a part of god settles the causality issue in my own mind. Though again, that's still the philosophical equivalent of "seems legit". However, that's why I believe.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:The point is that you can ask the same thing of God: what caused him? If you aren't bothered by him not having a cause, why couldn't the universe be uncaused? Why does God solve the problem rather than pushing it one step further back? An uncaused creator is easier to imagine than an uncaused creation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Only because it's been drilled into us for centuries. It actually doesn't make a lick more sense. Maybe. Hard to judge from within the belief 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This assumes the universe is, in fact, a creation. There's no reason to believe that. I'm not assuming any type of intelligent design, but most of the current theories look a lot like a process of creation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:For god's sake pick a lane. Either you believe in an ancient creation myth to the exclusion of science and evidence, or you care about the science and evidence. Sounds like a pretty lovely worldview for everyone involved.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Did you think nice ones were available? Atomic weapons are real and humankind will be annihilated. No sense of creation or meaning will be evident in observing the resultant debris, any more than it is from the rest of space. Perhaps a likely outcome, but it doesn't seem like a fact that would make it hard to reconcile the concepts of god and science. Who What Now posted:And a bowl of wax fruit looks a lot like the real thing, too, but that doesn't make it so. I may very well be wrong. I totally accept that. But for all intents and purposes it is an unfalsifiable belief. With the fruit you could at least check. OwlFancier posted:Why? A creator by necessity must be more complex than its creation, you're essentially asking me to imagine not just the universe but also something intelligent enough to completely understand the universe in every possible way, that's a pretty big leap. That just feels inadequate, but then again maybe that's just conditioning. Alhazred posted:Most of the current theories makes the existence of a creator unnecessary. I have seen a good bit of commentary to that point, but most of it seems to be opinions of the implications of a theoretical or experimental result. Happy to read more on the subject if you have a suggestion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think if you wanted to convince me one existed I'd need to know why it should exist, and how it came to, in order to justify believing in this hypothesis. I don't expect that you can answer why and how. Maybe the questions don't have an answer. I definitely don't think I could convince anyone. Thankfully there doesn't have to be a functional difference between believing and not believing. quote:I guess maybe if I started from the presumption that God existed I would perhaps find it easier? Oh definitely.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2016 05:11
|
|