DWYP Round 2: RDK vs DeLoRtEd1 - How can anybody believe in God?

[Deleted member]

This debate will surely deviate in many ways. This initial post is to get the ball rolling. Good luck, RDK.




In the opening chapter of the brilliant novel Sophie’s World, by Jostein Gaarder, the title character receives a mysterious letter containing only two short but enigmatic sentences:

“Who are you? Where does the world come from? ​

Humans, as intelligent creatures, have tried to tackle questions like these since our very beginning, sparking infinite amounts of debates, discussions, and theories to answer questions like these.

Within all of the realms of philosophy, however, only one field seems to be truly unanswerable. This is of course metaphysics, which is ultimately concerned of the true nature of reality and the world. When studying metaphysics, the field seems to becomes more and more subjective, with less focus on objectivity, because of the subject’s innate obscurity. For this reason, arguments that rely on opinion are generally most common, as seen in any debate on God’s existence. However, this does not mean these arguments are valid. In fact, it is clear to see that logically, the only viable stance on the subject of God’s existence for the time being is agnosticism.

Metaphysical questions have no right answers, or at the very least, not yet. Debating the "truths" and finding the answers is up to us. So when debating whether or not God exists, what can we do?

This question has generally been viewed to have 3 basic choices - theism, agnosticism, and atheism. Within this trifecta however, we have some alternatives. For example, atheism has two distinct flavours that deal with strength of argument and basis of viewpoint. These subcategories divide the position into strong and weak standpoints.

Theism also has subdivisions, but these different options consist of different religions, pantheisms, deisms, etc, and all share the same basic belief tenet. However, the differences in atheism do not, and it is with the correct classification of the differences where we begin to see problems with atheism.

Weak atheism is one of these atheistic subdivides, and is the temporary rejection of a God until decisive proof arises. Weak atheists have a lack of belief in God, which is not exactly what you might think it is.

Logically, not believing in a God is different than believing there is no God. As we can see, there is a distinct difference between the two. For example, a person’s view on stamp collecting can be analogous to the religious standpoint differences:

A person can enjoy collecting stamps,

They can hate collecting stamps,

Or they can simply not collect stamps, with no absolute opinion on stamp collecting.

Often, when philosophical discussions turn to the question of God’s existence, the debate usually begins to become hung up on certain arguments, most notably the burden of proof point. The burden of proof is a logical fallacy commonly attributed to theistic arguments. You cannot claim something exists when it is still unproven. This is the fallacy of theism. On the other hand however, you cannot claim something does not exist because there is no proof for it. This is the fallacy of atheism.

While weak atheism and agnosticism share many of the same perspectives, only agnosticism has an active interest in theism, which is key to having the safest and wisest outlook. This, I feel, is the difference between the two.

In Chris Hedges’s new book, titled “I Don’t Believe in Atheists”, he outlines how true atheists are just as dangerous, deluded, and eager to brainwash as any religious fundamentalist, and that hardcore, vigilant atheism is in many ways its own form of strict religion. This is true in many ways. Encouraging more and more atheists to accept agnosticism can only be a good thing. Because agnosticism ideally is not critical of either theism or atheism, what equates is the promotion of higher levels of tolerance, not only across the religious divide but within internal communities as well, because obviously both a Christian and a Muslim have many theological differences.

With agnosticism, we are united in our ignorance, which is easily much better than fundamentalist single-mindedness. Promoting agnosticism is beneficial to the world community, as it encourages personal reflection, freedom of thought, and highly stimulating discussions on the topic of God’s existence. It is clear that in many cases, having an open mind is extremely healthy.

I expect, that as this debate goes on, the topic will shift continually. Good luck once again, RDK.

 

[RDK]

Great first post Delorted. This will no doubt be a great debate, and I know I'll have alot of fun participating in it. Good luck to you to.

***

The philosophical questions mentioned by Delorted have plagued the human race for as long as our ancestors rose from the mud to form thinking civilizations and to reach new heights of accomplishment. It has been a main staple of successful societies to question our very existence, and look to things beyond us to explain the gaps in our limited knowledge. For centuries, all we had to understand the world around us were our highly evolved brains and our ability for abstract thinking. However, this, coupled with the emotional tendencies of humanity, turned out to be more of a burden than a gift in our earliest attempts at explaining our purpose.

The very nature of theism and religion, especially the kind rampant in today's society, is to acknowledge even the possibility of a higher power beyond our understanding, whether at the moment or forever, at the expense of objectivity. Religion, to put it simply, is the enemy of science, if not only because science, outside of fallacious claims such as "creation implies a creator", does not point to a higher power.

Delorted makes a good point about agnosticism being the wiser choice. However, in this regard he fails to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of evidence seems to point to our world, if not our whole universe, having arisen naturally. Simply put, there is no reason to believe in a deity or higher power outside of philosophical discussions because there is no evidence for one. Atheism, whether strong or weak, is the position that many are led to after objectively considering the evidence.

Even at this point, the definition of what is natural and supernatural may vary. For the scientist and objective thinker, why would one turn to theism when there simply is no conclusive evidence for one religious camp over another? Pascal's Wager is a failed attempt at trying to justify theism. Logic dictates that atheism, while still an argument from ignorance seeing as how we still don't know everything about the universe in which we live, is clearly the lesser of two evils. Whether strong or weak, atheism is not a religion for primarily one of several reasons: atheists who embrace the spirit of the scientific method realize that world views change just as rapidly as our knowledge of science does. For the atheist, his world doesn't crumble if a higher deity or power is discovered; this is actually and enlightening experience, as it represents the crumbling of a wall of ignorance--the destruction of an incorrect view. Atheists hold no fanatical ties to their system of beliefs, as do some theists. It is simply the conclusion that the evidence takes them.

In closing, I'd like to address one specific argument used by many theists today--the argument of creation. The question solicited by theists and agnostics alike usually takes the form of "How can you look at the vastness and beauty of the universe and not consider that a higher power exits?" First of all, they fail to acknowledge that beauty and greatness can come from other sources than solely a mysterious deity. They hold to the belief that atheists have no interest in things of this nature simply because they don't believe in a higher power, that is somehow more mysterious and beautiful than naturalism. I submit to you, however, that the mysteries of the universe that we live in are far greater than any theistic deity has to offer us, and the very fact that we can comprehend these mysteries is a case for the greatness of man and his ability to achieve anything, without the powers of the nonexistant supernatural, if he would only just try.

 

[Deleted member]

The philosophical questions mentioned by Delorted have plagued the human race for as long as our ancestors rose from the mud to form thinking civilizations and to reach new heights of accomplishment. It has been a main staple of successful societies to question our very existence, and look to things beyond us to explain the gaps in our limited knowledge. For centuries, all we had to understand the world around us were our highly evolved brains and our ability for abstract thinking. However, this, coupled with the emotional tendencies of humanity, turned out to be more of a burden than a gift in our earliest attempts at explaining our purpose.

While I don't necessarily believe our curious nature is a burden per se, you illustrate our situation nicely.

The very nature of theism and religion, especially the kind rampant in today's society, is to acknowledge even the possibility of a higher power beyond our understanding, whether at the moment or forever, at the expense of objectivity. Religion, to put it simply, is the enemy of science, if not only because science, outside of fallacious claims such as "creation implies a creator", does not point to a higher power.

We can call science logical. Forgive me if you insist this is an ever so small straw man, but having a definitive opinion on God is illogical, no matter how you look at it. This is to say that both atheism and theism can be enemies of science. Yet I don't feel that's a wise way of putting it. Rather, they are enemies of logic, or fallacies, because those opinions are simply thus.

I know plenty of scientists who vary on the God spectrum, yet this is irrelevant, no? How about the philosophers, whose only interest is wisdom? Was Socrates a scientist? No, he was a lowly shoe maker, and perhaps the world's first great agnostic. It was he who once so perfectly stated, "wisest is he who knows he does not know." Therefore I can say that having an opinion on God has nothing to do with science. It is a matter of philosophy and nothing more.

To expand on that previous thought, I bring up the Strong Anthropic Principle (hereby referred to as the SAP) - or the idea that both magisterium (science and religion) can indeed overlap. Has this not occurred to you? Is it not obvious that if we were in fact "created" that we could not exist with nothing? If we were created, the human race would not be the only thing that was on purpose. That would frankly be highly unlikely, in my opinion. If we were created, then it only makes sense that the creator would also set the natural laws of life as well, which we can basically sum up as science, which again has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Science is not an enemy of metaphysics - in fact, as our studies become more and more thorough, and the human race becomes more and more knowledgeable about the world around us, we begin to see how complex our world really is, which some can take as evidence of a creator, which is entirely plausible.

I also take offense at the other end of your idea that science and religion can't get along in the sandbox. Why do you bring up religion? Forgive me as that rhetorical question may sound obvious in a debate about God - but I ask again. Why do you bring up religion? I believe firmly that the concept of a creator is not exclusive to the binding of a religion. You either collect, hate, or shrug at stamps. Whoever brought up the idea that we can't lick a certain type of stamp or that all stamp-lickers must kneel while doing so doesn't understand this concept. Religions make me sick at their most orthodox, while making me slightly amused at their lesser forms, but this, again, is irrelevant.

Now that I have outlined that both science and religion are irrelevant to this discussion, I propose we discard the topics from play. They aren't needed, aren't important, and aren't pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Further, I propose that instead of referring to the creator we are debating about as God, we discuss that idea as an unknown. For example, saying "a God" is completely different than saying "God".

Delorted makes a good point about agnosticism being the wiser choice. However, in this regard he fails to acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of evidence seems to point to our world, if not our whole universe, having arisen naturally.

And yet the SAP disagrees. If a creator set natural laws, then clearly our world would arise naturally, would it not? I don't see the logic behind calling this method unnatural - because under the logic in the main God thread, everything that occurs in life is "natural". There apparently is no supernatural, for nothing exists exclusively under that definition. Semantics yes, but do I care?

No...

Simply put, there is no reason to believe in a deity or higher power outside of philosophical discussions because there is no evidence for one. Atheism, whether strong or weak, is the position that many are led to after objectively considering the evidence.

How wonderful! We just happen to be having a philosophical discussion right now. It's time for a celebration, no? I propose that there is plenty of potential evidence around us, especially if you escape the city. Those trees and rocks had to get there somewhere - not to mention the fauna! We can both agree on this fact. How it got there is what we're discussing. I'm proposing the plausible and entirely possible idea that it was placed there purposefully.

Atheism, whether strong or weak, is still a fallacious position, and in a philosophical debate the soundness of your argument falls through. If they consider objectively the evidence and land upon atheism, they are forgetting the fact that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Combine this fact with some of life's greatest wonders, and you have a compelling view of potential creators.

Even at this point, the definition of what is natural and supernatural may vary. For the scientist and objective thinker, why would one turn to theism when there simply is no conclusive evidence for one religious camp over another? Pascal's Wager is a failed attempt at trying to justify theism. Logic dictates that atheism, while still an argument from ignorance seeing as how we still don't know everything about the universe in which we live, is clearly the lesser of two evils.

Edit - did not quote this section properly

How this is clear to you I don't know, for you'll have to explain to me how you're trying to use a reversed Pascalian wager to discredit the original.

Whether strong or weak, atheism is not a religion for primarily one of several reasons: atheists who embrace the spirit of the scientific method realize that world views change just as rapidly as our knowledge of science does. For the atheist, his world doesn't crumble if a higher deity or power is discovered; this is actually and enlightening experience, as it represents the crumbling of a wall of ignorance--the destruction of an incorrect view. Atheists hold no fanatical ties to their system of beliefs, as do some theists. It is simply the conclusion that the evidence takes them.

If I were a theist and God was successfully disproved, my world would not crumble. A man of religion might have their comfort blanket stricken from their beds, but you and I both could care less of these men. You are mistaken if you believe atheists cannot be fanatical. There is no point in bringing evidence of their fanaticism because it will surely be anecdotal, and we both don't want that.

I will however agree with you that atheism is in no way a religion, I was merely pointing out the silliness of this fanaticism that Mr. Hedges so brilliantly shows. It is in this point that I also wish to remind you that theism is not a religion either. They do not necessarily pray to anything specific. Therefore if it is ever shown how the universe came to be, the theist's world would not necessarily crumble.

In closing, I'd like to address one specific argument used by many theists today--the argument of creation. The question solicited by theists and agnostics alike usually takes the form of "How can you look at the vastness and beauty of the universe and not consider that a higher power exits?" First of all, they fail to acknowledge that beauty and greatness can come from other sources than solely a mysterious deity.

You don't know the definition of an agnostic if you think the only sources of creation is a mysterious deity. I'm not failing to acknowledge anything - it's just an idea. That's all we have. Hold on to them. Let them fester and grow in your mind. They will cultivate.

They hold to the belief that atheists have no interest in things of this nature simply because they don't believe in a higher power, that is somehow more mysterious and beautiful than naturalism. I submit to you, however, that the mysteries of the universe that we live in are far greater than any theistic deity has to offer us, and the very fact that we can comprehend these mysteries is a case for the greatness of man and his ability to achieve anything, without the powers of the nonexistant supernatural, if he would only just try.

What you are submitting to me is entirely fair. However, if there was a creator and his destiny was to create the universe, his legacy would be seen for eons and eons, would it not? Would his legacy not be exponentially greater than him himself? If this deity did create us, it's entirely possible that he isn't even, for lack of a better word, alive anymore. Further, I submit to you that we in no way shape or form comprehend any of these mysteries. Sure, we know of them, but saying we understand them is simply preposterous, which is why Socrates said what he said, and it is why Sophie Amundsen found the letters addressed to her so hard to answer.

 

[Deleted member]

I just realized I didn't quote a section you wrote. My bad, I'll do that now.

 

[RDK]

To expand on that previous thought, I bring up the Strong Anthropic Principle (hereby referred to as the SAP) - or the idea that both magisterium (science and religion) can indeed overlap. Has this not occurred to you? Is it not obvious that if we were in fact "created" that we could not exist with nothing? If we were created, the human race would not be the only thing that was on purpose. That would frankly be highly unlikely, in my opinion. If we were created, then it only makes sense that the creator would also set the natural laws of life as well, which we can basically sum up as science, which again has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

As soon as you start assuming that we were created, a whole new can of worms is opened up.

Who, exactly, are these creators? Where did they come from? Did someone create them, or did they come about naturally? In fact, I stress the exact opposite--metaphysics requires science in order to properly address these questions (or at least the possibilities.

The only problem is that none of this is testable, so, oustide of pure philosophical speculation, it is not germane to nor founded in real life. Which brings us back to my original question--why believe it if there's absolutely no evidence to support it, or even imply it? Just because we exist doesn't mean something had to put us here.

Science is not an enemy of metaphysics - in fact, as our studies become more and more thorough, and the human race becomes more and more knowledgeable about the world around us, we begin to see how complex our world really is, which some can take as evidence of a creator, which is entirely plausible.

Yes, but it's equally plausible (and in my opinion, more rational) to believe otherwise. Quantum physics would have that the particles needed for the material of the universe had probably always existed, at least in the sense of the life of our universe as we think of it.

I also take offense at the other end of your idea that science and religion can't get along in the sandbox. Why do you bring up religion? Forgive me as that rhetorical question may sound obvious in a debate about God - but I ask again. Why do you bring up religion? I believe firmly that the concept of a creator is not exclusive to the binding of a religion.

The concept of a creator is most definetely about religion. God doesn't dangle himself in front of your face; believing in something that is not apparent or objective requires faith, which is the crowning achievement of religiousness.

You either collect, hate, or shrug at stamps. Whoever brought up the idea that we can't lick a certain type of stamp or that all stamp-lickers must kneel while doing so doesn't understand this concept. Religions make me sick at their most orthodox, while making me slightly amused at their lesser forms, but this, again, is irrelevant.

But what, exactly, makes you believe in the possibility of a creator? The idea that creation implies a creator is subjective at best, and I don't see why any rational thinking human being would resort to actively believing in things that don't present themselves.

Think about it like this. Before we knew about Dark Matter, it was perfectly plausible to not believe in Dark Matter because we had no idea it existed. Perhaps there was one man who went around telling people that there might be the possibility of Dark Matter, or something like it, existing, and let's say for the sake of argument that he was laughed out of town and called a heretic. Besides being laughed out of town, is this really that bad a situation?

The idea of the existence of Dark Matter didn't line up with the scientific thinking of the time. While I certainly don't condone the idea of laughing people out of town for outlandish ideas, I think there should be a limit to how much we entertain said outlandish ideas. Forming a whole worldview around something we know (at this point in scientific advancement) is probably false just seems like an enormous waste of time and resources that could be better used for something else.

Further, I propose that instead of referring to the creator we are debating about as God, we discuss that idea as an unknown. For example, saying "a God" is completely different than saying "God".

Agreed.

And yet the SAP disagrees. If a creator set natural laws, then clearly our world would arise naturally, would it not? I don't see the logic behind calling this method unnatural - because under the logic in the main God thread, everything that occurs in life is "natural". There apparently is no supernatural, for nothing exists exclusively under that definition. Semantics yes, but do I care?

But the fact that we can observe everything we consider natural at this point and that we have absolutely no evidence for the being that allegedly created it should be cause for some concern. It's just an extraneous waste of time.

How wonderful! We just happen to be having a philosophical discussion right now. It's time for a celebration, no? I propose that there is plenty of potential evidence around us, especially if you escape the city. Those trees and rocks had to get there somewhere - not to mention the fauna! We can both agree on this fact. How it got there is what we're discussing. I'm proposing the plausible and entirely possible idea that it was placed there purposefully.

The only problem is that, again, why do you believe this when the overwhelming majority of the evidence said it came about naturally? Your argument basically boils down to "I know that our universe progressed via natural means, but I think that the catalyst that started it was a divine being that we have no evidence for besides creation itself". It's an enormous hypothetical.

Atheism, whether strong or weak, is still a fallacious position, and in a philosophical debate the soundness of your argument falls through. If they consider objectively the evidence and land upon atheism, they are forgetting the fact that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Combine this fact with some of life's greatest wonders, and you have a compelling view of potential creators.

But an absence of evidence gives nobody any reason to believe anything contrary to the evidence. It's okay to entertain such ideas in philosophical discussion, but to say "I believe ____ because I said so" is equally fallacious, if not even more.

I believe that we can observe life's wonders without attributing them to some imaginary man in the sky. The universe is a wonderful place--why does it have to be the product of one individual's greatness?

And is an all-powerful God really that great if he's all he has to compare himself to at the beginning of creation? No duh that we're not going to be as powerful or mighty as him. He's God. That's not so great if you think about what he's supposedly capable of.

If I were a theist and God was successfully disproved, my world would not crumble. A man of religion might have their comfort blanket stricken from their beds, but you and I both could care less of these men. You are mistaken if you believe atheists cannot be fanatical. There is no point in bringing evidence of their fanaticism because it will surely be anecdotal, and we both don't want that.

It's very true that atheists can be fanatical, but you're sorely mistaken if you think the number of fanatical atheists is even comparable to the number of fanatical theists.

I suggest we both drop this line of argument, seeing as how it doesn't include either of us.

I will however agree with you that atheism is in no way a religion, I was merely pointing out the silliness of this fanaticism that Mr. Hedges so brilliantly shows. It is in this point that I also wish to remind you that theism is not a religion either. They do not necessarily pray to anything specific. Therefore if it is ever shown how the universe came to be, the theist's world would not necessarily crumble.

But my problem with theism (and, consequently, religion) is that they actively ascribe things to concepts that have no basis in objective reality. Let the evidence talk, not your imagination.

What you are submitting to me is entirely fair. However, if there was a creator and his destiny was to create the universe, his legacy would be seen for eons and eons, would it not? Would his legacy not be exponentially greater than him himself? If this deity did create us, it's entirely possible that he isn't even, for lack of a better word, alive anymore. Further, I submit to you that we in no way shape or form comprehend any of these mysteries. Sure, we know of them, but saying we understand them is simply preposterous, which is why Socrates said what he said, and it is why Sophie Amundsen found the letters addressed to her so hard to answer.

All I'm saying is that once you jump into that pool of thought, the ideas and possibilities become even more ludicrous and subjective to imagination than the original hypothesis. Perhaps someone created that creator, etc. It's a vicious circle.

 

[Deleted member]

As soon as you start assuming that we were created, a whole new can of worms is opened up.

Causality, if you think about it, doesn’t make a lick of sense to me, and I’m hoping (I’m too afraid to Google) that most are with me. The idea of a first cause is mind-boggling to me, for obvious reasons. What caused the first cause?

Who, exactly, are these creators? Where did they come from? Did someone create them, or did they come about naturally? In fact, I stress the exact opposite--metaphysics requires science in order to properly address these questions (or at least the possibilities.

The only problem is that none of this is testable, so, oustide of pure philosophical speculation, it is not germane to nor founded in real life. Which brings us back to my original question--why believe it if there's absolutely no evidence to support it, or even imply it?

Who are the creators? I don’t know. But let’s suspend the notion of a creator for a second and go with the current theory of the Big Bang. If you think about it, we can ask the exact same questions that you asked referring to the creator(s). What caused the Big Bang? Did someone or something create that explosion? What was the Big Bang?

Funnily enough, depending on who you ask, the Big Bang could be seen as the higher power that non-religious believers like myself tentatively believe in. And that’s not a bad thing.

Anyway, if the universe was created, then studying and researching the creator would require science, obviously. However, unless we find Jesus flying across the nebulae with the Hubble telescope, I doubt that science will ever be required. This is strictly and simply a philosophical matter and therefore metaphysics demands logic, and only logic.

Just because we exist doesn't mean something had to put us here.

You are begging the question, sir – are you quite sure we exist?

Yes, but it's equally plausible (and in my opinion, more rational) to believe otherwise. Quantum physics would have that the particles needed for the material of the universe had probably always existed, at least in the sense of the life of our universe as we think of it.

Your opinion on it being more rational is biased and arbitrary, so you needn’t bring that up. Besides, until it’s proven that the particles of the universe have always existed, quantum physics can blow me. Even if it was proven, that doesn’t strictly eliminate the possibility of those particles being the proposed creator’s seminal fluid.

The concept of a creator is most definetely about religion. God doesn't dangle himself in front of your face; believing in something that is not apparent or objective requires faith, which is the crowning achievement of religiousness.

No, it’s not. Most definitions of religion you will get will involve adhering to certain doctrines and codes and other religious dogma, which is not what I am about at all. I’ve said this countless times before, and I’ll say it again. One can entertain the idea of a God, - hell, even fully believe in an extremely general higher power altogether - and still not be religious. And this is made possible by my following chunk of text, or rather, because people see life as too complex and amazing to simply be a mathematical improbability.

But what, exactly, makes you believe in the possibility of a creator? The idea that creation implies a creator is subjective at best, and I don't see why any rational thinking human being would resort to actively believing in things that don't present themselves.

I think you look at this matter much too monochromatically. For example, do you remember when I posted the picture of the Eagle Nebula? When I first saw that image, I was really blown away. Now, I’m a rationally thinking individual. Is it really so hard for you to even entertain the idea of something that beautiful being created? I’m not married to the idea, that’s why I consider myself agnostic in most senses. You bring up subjectivity – well, yeah. That’s what it is. You see the Eagle Nebula as a nursery for young stars – well, so do I. But I also see it as something incredibly hard for my brain to comprehend because of its innate beauty. I not only see it in an objective sense but I also can see it under a metaphysical light. I think that’s the difference between you and me. I can understand things under their literal meaning, but when I analyze them more closely and see the inherent complexity of our world, it really gets to the philosophical nature of me, which to answer your question, is how I can see it as plausible.

But the fact that we can observe everything we consider natural at this point and that we have absolutely no evidence for the being that allegedly created it should be cause for some concern. It's just an extraneous waste of time.

You’re missing the entire point. The fact that we can observe everything around us we consider natural and its complexity IS evidence to millions. This is philosophy. This is our debate. Is this debate going to help us get jobs? Will it make us money? Get us laid? Do anything tangible? No, but it’s enjoyable to us – and for what reason? Something about it feels good, right? The same feeling can be ascribed to the epiphany people experience, like my ever-so-trivial-to-you Eagle Nebula thingy.

The only problem is that, again, why do you believe this when the overwhelming majority of the evidence said it came about naturally? Your argument basically boils down to "I know that our universe progressed via natural means, but I think that the catalyst that started it was a divine being that we have no evidence for besides creation itself". It's an enormous hypothetical.

Eh, nice straw man. It’s more like:

“If our universe progressed through natural means, there’s nothing that states a creator wasn’t a factor through that progression. Through sheer insight alone, one can see the plausibility of life being created.”

It’s an enormous hypothetical, sure, but so is the Big Bang, and every other theory that will pop up.

But an absence of evidence gives nobody any reason to believe anything contrary to the evidence. It's okay to entertain such ideas in philosophical discussion, but to say "I believe ____ because I said so" is equally fallacious, if not even more.

I believe that we can observe life's wonders without attributing them to some imaginary man in the sky. The universe is a wonderful place--why does it have to be the product of one individual's greatness?

And is an all-powerful God really that great if he's all he has to compare himself to at the beginning of creation? No duh that we're not going to be as powerful or mighty as him. He's God. That's not so great if you think about what he's supposedly capable of.

This is a philosophical discussion. Thinking otherwise will get you nowhere. Ever wonder why the main God thread hasn’t evolved one bit? It’s just cyclical. This is your chance to really let out those “crazy” ideas loose and toss ‘em around for a while yet still you wave around your textbook. Anyway, yes – the universe is a wonderful place. To attribute it to one entity is probably more a matter suited to religion, aka worshipping that God for granting us such an amazing world. But that’s not my main focus. My main focus is in trying to present a possible explanation to how the world came to be. It’s not about kissing God’s ***, it’s about figuring out if the *** crapped us out, to be rather blunt.

God’s supposed capabilities are religious assumptions. Omniscience and omnipotence are not traits I throw around willy-nilly, so I’m not sure why you yet again bring up religion.

But my problem with theism (and, consequently, religion) is that they actively ascribe things to concepts that have no basis in objective reality. Let the evidence talk, not your imagination.

If you accept the main theory I’ve presented the last couple paragraphs, then it certainly has a basis in objective reality. But sure, let the evidence talk.

In fact, let’s both present evidence at the same time.

Ready? 3..2..1..go! *crickets*

Neither of us have substantial evidence. Pretending you do because “science points to atheism” is ridiculous because of Carl Sagan’s ironic quote. Our philosophical imagination is all we have.

All I'm saying is that once you jump into that pool of thought, the ideas and possibilities become even more ludicrous and subjective to imagination than the original hypothesis. Perhaps someone created that creator, etc. It's a vicious circle.

Well I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees it as such. It’s ludicrous, yes, but you chose the subject, not me

To the judges: this has been long! Apologies in advance.

 

[RDK]

Some more good points were presented, so I'll save this post and see if I can respond a little bit later...