I'm Really Worried I Have Upset My...
Family & Relationships1 min ago
The Return Of The God Hypothesis.
181 Answers
If science puts up barriers and refuses to follow truth wherever it leads, then it is left floundering for answers to the big questions, on the creation of the universe, the creation of life from inert chemicals, and the impossibility of Darwin's theory of a sing!e cell ancestor.
Do you consider yourself open minded about such matters and not constricted by a naturalistic worldview?
https:/
Do you consider yourself open minded about such matters and not constricted by a naturalistic worldview?
https:/
Answers
Theland - // Andy, for somebody who has no interest and nothing to say, you say an awful lot. // I never said I had no interest, I said I didn't care in looking for 'answers' which is not the same thing. Nothing to say? Are you serious?????
20:16 Fri 12th Jun 2020
Theland - // But for me to raise my questions means being countered by what appears to be uninformed opinions. //
The Answerbank is a Q & A site - the idea is to ask a question and hopefully get a correct answer from someone who knows what the answer is.
Of course, over time it has expanded to include plentiful exchanges of views and opinions, and amen to that.
But the fundamental raison d'etre remains to ask a Question, and get an Answer.
Personally speaking, if I asked a question and it was abundantly clear that an answer simply was not to be found, then I would accept that, and leave it there.
The enormity of the implication of your basic question - who created the universe and everything in it - does not alter the simple fact that there is no answer to be had.
That means that the only response you are ever going to get, because it is the only response available, is opinion.
That opinion ranges from the top-level academic to the AB'er in the street - but opinions they are, and as such, none is necessarily more valid or believable than any other.
So how many opinions do you really want or need? Are they getting you anywhere, apart from potentially frustrated and disillusioned?
I am even more assured that my absence of faith and blissful ignorance means I lead a more happy and relaxed life, but our choices are our own, it's not for me to say what makes you happy.
But your constant vexed questioning pondering seeking presence on here makes me wonder if you would be happier doing something else.
The Answerbank is a Q & A site - the idea is to ask a question and hopefully get a correct answer from someone who knows what the answer is.
Of course, over time it has expanded to include plentiful exchanges of views and opinions, and amen to that.
But the fundamental raison d'etre remains to ask a Question, and get an Answer.
Personally speaking, if I asked a question and it was abundantly clear that an answer simply was not to be found, then I would accept that, and leave it there.
The enormity of the implication of your basic question - who created the universe and everything in it - does not alter the simple fact that there is no answer to be had.
That means that the only response you are ever going to get, because it is the only response available, is opinion.
That opinion ranges from the top-level academic to the AB'er in the street - but opinions they are, and as such, none is necessarily more valid or believable than any other.
So how many opinions do you really want or need? Are they getting you anywhere, apart from potentially frustrated and disillusioned?
I am even more assured that my absence of faith and blissful ignorance means I lead a more happy and relaxed life, but our choices are our own, it's not for me to say what makes you happy.
But your constant vexed questioning pondering seeking presence on here makes me wonder if you would be happier doing something else.
Andy, I think you misunderstand me, I am certainly not vexed.
I am neither upset or annoyed by any of the responses I get, unless of course I am described as brain dead and idiotic.
Only Mrs T is allowed to say that, (which she often does), but although I have on occasion forgotten my manners, (I apologise for that), I do try to be respectful, but never vexed.
I am neither upset or annoyed by any of the responses I get, unless of course I am described as brain dead and idiotic.
Only Mrs T is allowed to say that, (which she often does), but although I have on occasion forgotten my manners, (I apologise for that), I do try to be respectful, but never vexed.
None that you'd accept.....
If bigger and brighter brains than mine can't convince you to open your mind to all of the scientific possibilities available then I am not going to waste my time.
It's a shame that your religion doesn't provide you with the peace of mind and comfort one could reasonably expect from an omnipotent and benevolent diety.
If bigger and brighter brains than mine can't convince you to open your mind to all of the scientific possibilities available then I am not going to waste my time.
It's a shame that your religion doesn't provide you with the peace of mind and comfort one could reasonably expect from an omnipotent and benevolent diety.
I have explained many times in this forum (in my own words) why asserting a creator of the universe and everything in it holds no water, has no explanatory power and defies basic reason. You can disagree all you want but that does not in anyway refute any of my explanations for why the notion of a creator of the universe and everything in it falls under its own weight.
Some are satisfied with belief. I prefer to know how and in that pursuit realise that believing has made you none the wiser. I don't defer my judgement to scientists, philosophers or Youtube . What you fail to understand in your own mind will only lead you astray and far from being helpful renders reality for you all the more incomprehensible.
I seek understanding from those able to deliver it. Believing (especially in what I've come to realise could never be) would mark the end of that journey. I wound not attempt to travel with those who have already made that their destination.
Some are satisfied with belief. I prefer to know how and in that pursuit realise that believing has made you none the wiser. I don't defer my judgement to scientists, philosophers or Youtube . What you fail to understand in your own mind will only lead you astray and far from being helpful renders reality for you all the more incomprehensible.
I seek understanding from those able to deliver it. Believing (especially in what I've come to realise could never be) would mark the end of that journey. I wound not attempt to travel with those who have already made that their destination.
Mibs, you are at odds with leading scientists, themselves atheists, who accept the universe came from nothing, then squirm defining nothing, except, as far as I know, Krausse.
Also, where has your reasoning got you? What has it taught you?
You appear to be gifted with the powers to reason, and nothing to reason with.
Your level of knowledge is a mystery, shrouded in high ferlootin word games, and known only to yourself.
Is any of your knowledge actually transferable?
Also, where has your reasoning got you? What has it taught you?
You appear to be gifted with the powers to reason, and nothing to reason with.
Your level of knowledge is a mystery, shrouded in high ferlootin word games, and known only to yourself.
Is any of your knowledge actually transferable?
Astronaut Edgar Mitchell founded this after his transformative experience in space.
Quite a collection of PhD's, and in the UK they are based in Exeter University.
What do fellow ABers make of the subject, and the talent is attracts?
https:/
Quite a collection of PhD's, and in the UK they are based in Exeter University.
What do fellow ABers make of the subject, and the talent is attracts?
https:/
//Mibs, you are at odds with leading scientists, themselves atheists, who accept the universe came from nothing, then squirm defining nothing, except, as far as I know, Krausse.//
If you choose to propose that the universe came from 'nothing' and go on to propose that 'nothing' is 'God' then I tend to agree with you, at least on your second proposition. As for the your first proposition, I doubt that scientists that are less prone to play fast and loose with the English language are not in agreement with that proposition. I'll leave the others to explain what they mean by 'nothing'.
https:/
//Also, where has your reasoning got you? What has it taught you?
You appear to be gifted with the powers to reason, and nothing to reason with.//
Reason is the application of logic to enable productive thought. This is the means by which we determine what we know and differentiate that from what we don't. Reason provides us with an understanding of the alternatives available to us and the means to decide which of those alternatives are in our best interest. This ability, which to our knowledge, we as humans possess exclusively, defines us as a species in as much as it is our means of survival and making progress. Reason made us what we are and we would not be here without it. Nor would reason exist without us. A universe without reason would have no reason for existing. It would simply run its course without us, meaningless and purposeless, none the wiser of its own existence. This is what I mean by - "Reason is the reason and without it there would be no reason for anything at all."
//Is any of your knowledge actually transferable?//
Not if you don't understand it thereby making it your own.
If you choose to propose that the universe came from 'nothing' and go on to propose that 'nothing' is 'God' then I tend to agree with you, at least on your second proposition. As for the your first proposition, I doubt that scientists that are less prone to play fast and loose with the English language are not in agreement with that proposition. I'll leave the others to explain what they mean by 'nothing'.
https:/
//Also, where has your reasoning got you? What has it taught you?
You appear to be gifted with the powers to reason, and nothing to reason with.//
Reason is the application of logic to enable productive thought. This is the means by which we determine what we know and differentiate that from what we don't. Reason provides us with an understanding of the alternatives available to us and the means to decide which of those alternatives are in our best interest. This ability, which to our knowledge, we as humans possess exclusively, defines us as a species in as much as it is our means of survival and making progress. Reason made us what we are and we would not be here without it. Nor would reason exist without us. A universe without reason would have no reason for existing. It would simply run its course without us, meaningless and purposeless, none the wiser of its own existence. This is what I mean by - "Reason is the reason and without it there would be no reason for anything at all."
//Is any of your knowledge actually transferable?//
Not if you don't understand it thereby making it your own.
Mibs - I have listened to the scientists regarding their definition of nothing.
Forbes is not an exclusive list.
So back to your reason.
Is it reasonable to believe in laws without a lawgiver?
Only if you have your kind of faith I guess.
By your reasoning, I should be able to look at the world around me, in fact the whole universe, and conclude that for every effect there is a cause.
Using your reason, this process cannot be infinitely regressive, but must have a first cause.
Using your reason, this first cause was uncaused, and from that I can extrapolate an eternal uncaused being, that I call God.
For me, that is only the first step to belief, not my sole reason, but that can wait.
Forbes is not an exclusive list.
So back to your reason.
Is it reasonable to believe in laws without a lawgiver?
Only if you have your kind of faith I guess.
By your reasoning, I should be able to look at the world around me, in fact the whole universe, and conclude that for every effect there is a cause.
Using your reason, this process cannot be infinitely regressive, but must have a first cause.
Using your reason, this first cause was uncaused, and from that I can extrapolate an eternal uncaused being, that I call God.
For me, that is only the first step to belief, not my sole reason, but that can wait.
There are two basic kinds of laws, natural (physical) and man made. Man made laws are best when they correspond to natural laws. Beyond that I see no reason to conflate natural laws with man made laws. I observe in nature no conscious intervention beyond the act and consequence of observation by conscious beings.
You postulate a 'first cause' for which there was no cause and then turn completely around and propose the first cause must have had a cause and go so far as to give it a name. That lies outside the realm of reason and I have no desire to go there.
You postulate a 'first cause' for which there was no cause and then turn completely around and propose the first cause must have had a cause and go so far as to give it a name. That lies outside the realm of reason and I have no desire to go there.
Mibs you misunderstand me.
The first cause is uncaused.
Its (Gods') reason for being is within itself, (Himself).
However, we have both made the effort to explain to each other our views on this massive subject, and I will thank you for your input and leave it there.
(Until next time of course).
Thanks again.
The first cause is uncaused.
Its (Gods') reason for being is within itself, (Himself).
However, we have both made the effort to explain to each other our views on this massive subject, and I will thank you for your input and leave it there.
(Until next time of course).
Thanks again.
Latest Posts
Starmer's Approval Rating Plummets,
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
