Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
How Do You Choose What To Believe?
75 Answers
Theland, how do you choose? If it's the voice of God, then you don't have a choice. But if you have a mind, then you can choose. How do you choose?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Atheist. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Don't be silly Nailit.
Everybody has some inkling of what maybe began the universe, life, and us//
Ive already said, I make no claim. I don't know and am not scientifically minded anyway. The onus is on YOU. You are the one making a claim that we are derived from a dirt man and a rib woman who were deceived by a talking snake and henceforth kicked out of an enchanted garden that was henceforth garded by magical angels with flaming sword until the arrival of a God Man who sacrificed himself to himself to save us from a punishment that he made himself.
Everybody has some inkling of what maybe began the universe, life, and us//
Ive already said, I make no claim. I don't know and am not scientifically minded anyway. The onus is on YOU. You are the one making a claim that we are derived from a dirt man and a rib woman who were deceived by a talking snake and henceforth kicked out of an enchanted garden that was henceforth garded by magical angels with flaming sword until the arrival of a God Man who sacrificed himself to himself to save us from a punishment that he made himself.
Theland //The Bible is complex. It interprets itself.
It is unlike any other so called sacred book.
Approach it judgementally, and you will be disappointed.
Approach it with humility, with a willingness to learn, and the lights will go on for you.//
In other words, you need to assume that it true before you start and uncritically just take in everything it says with a sense of wonder, no matter how disgusting it is in reality.
It is unlike any other so called sacred book.
Approach it judgementally, and you will be disappointed.
Approach it with humility, with a willingness to learn, and the lights will go on for you.//
In other words, you need to assume that it true before you start and uncritically just take in everything it says with a sense of wonder, no matter how disgusting it is in reality.
I'm no religious expert but relying on Sola Scriptura, now I've looked it up, seems a shaky foundation for belief to me. Everything written was written by fallible humans, and so unless it is demonstrated to be true by testing and logic it can only be taking someone's untested notions as your truth.
Something from nothing is unlikely to seem sense to anyone who has only experience of our marco world, but that experience is limited and leads us to think it is the whole of reality. The theories of relativity and quantum mechanics show that there is much more to reality than that. And the maths support it, and do experiments that explain anomalies that puzzled us when we only had the classical Newtonian view of the world. 'Something from nothing' seems to be the normal state of affairs; as is 'nothing from something'. (It's a bit like splitting a zero into a +1 and a -1 for a while, and later putting a +1 and a -1 together to get zero.)
As for abiogenesis, what is the problem ? In a random environment things get produced; and eventually something happens to come together which has the ability to replicate itself. Soon after there's a lot of them. Random copying failures mean that on occassion one copy picks up an advantage and outdoes the original, so evolution occurs. Eventually life emerges because the result finally ticks the boxes for our definition of life. Thought processes are an emergent feature of the complexity that evolves. In a similar manner as a single molecule of water can't be said to be wet, but a lot together has the characteristic of wetness, so a single nerve doesn't think, but a mass of brain neurons does.
All seems very plausible to me, and doesn't rely on blind faith, merely on hypothesises that can be studied.
Something from nothing is unlikely to seem sense to anyone who has only experience of our marco world, but that experience is limited and leads us to think it is the whole of reality. The theories of relativity and quantum mechanics show that there is much more to reality than that. And the maths support it, and do experiments that explain anomalies that puzzled us when we only had the classical Newtonian view of the world. 'Something from nothing' seems to be the normal state of affairs; as is 'nothing from something'. (It's a bit like splitting a zero into a +1 and a -1 for a while, and later putting a +1 and a -1 together to get zero.)
As for abiogenesis, what is the problem ? In a random environment things get produced; and eventually something happens to come together which has the ability to replicate itself. Soon after there's a lot of them. Random copying failures mean that on occassion one copy picks up an advantage and outdoes the original, so evolution occurs. Eventually life emerges because the result finally ticks the boxes for our definition of life. Thought processes are an emergent feature of the complexity that evolves. In a similar manner as a single molecule of water can't be said to be wet, but a lot together has the characteristic of wetness, so a single nerve doesn't think, but a mass of brain neurons does.
All seems very plausible to me, and doesn't rely on blind faith, merely on hypothesises that can be studied.
Why shouldn't evolution exist? Things replicate, they get errors, the environment sorts out better from worse. Evolution needs no explaining, as it's obviously inevitable from that which I've just pointed out.
Why should anything exist, why should 'nothing' or 'something' be the default situation, these are good questions: but the point is that some state must be the default, and as we are here considering it, 'something' is clearly the default. Proposing a creator will explain nothing. One simply gets into the old discussion about how the creator came about. And saying that the creator was always there also explains nothing since one can ask & say exactly the same about a creatorless reality.
Why should anything exist, why should 'nothing' or 'something' be the default situation, these are good questions: but the point is that some state must be the default, and as we are here considering it, 'something' is clearly the default. Proposing a creator will explain nothing. One simply gets into the old discussion about how the creator came about. And saying that the creator was always there also explains nothing since one can ask & say exactly the same about a creatorless reality.
OG; This BBC website seems to entirely evade its own question, giving lots of possible 'hows' instead. It seems to me to be an act of supreme hubris on the part of man to think that the universe is in some way 'solvable'.
http://
http://
Seems a decent webpage to me, although I'd like clarity on why they think only flat universes are likely to survive. I find that difficult to visualise as it implies that all universes have an edge, and that doesn't sit well with me. (The idea that a universe is infinite sits even less well as it implies either one is talking about a part of an already existing infinite universe, or that a finite space can expand into an infinite one within a finite time period.)
I think we need to be careful about terms also. Like 'universe' and 'nothing'. I've seen some articles that imply once past the point where you could theoretically reach (going at light speed) then that's a different 'universe'. I don't agree, it's a different neighbourhood in the same 'universe'. And the vacuum of space is often referred to as 'nothing', but that's a very different 'nothing' to what is not in an existing universe where there's not even space nor time.
I think we need to be careful about terms also. Like 'universe' and 'nothing'. I've seen some articles that imply once past the point where you could theoretically reach (going at light speed) then that's a different 'universe'. I don't agree, it's a different neighbourhood in the same 'universe'. And the vacuum of space is often referred to as 'nothing', but that's a very different 'nothing' to what is not in an existing universe where there's not even space nor time.
